Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5542Re: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    Jan 11, 2007
      Dear Mark,
      the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very
      much is the wide spread error that the „Prologue of John“ is a very
      late and final addition to the Gospel of John. No, the prologue is
      not at all a summary of the Gospel. Its appoach was already outdated
      when the Gospels started to be written. It was the a very early if
      not the earliest Christian text at all, still totally in the line of
      Philo and still thinking in a way of proto-Arianism and
      subordination. It is not by chance that Arius almost three centuries
      later has derived his heresy of subordination from the Logos-concept
      of Prologue of John (and OT-texts). Contrary to this the Nicean
      theologians argued with the trunk of Gospel of John: “Me and the
      Fater are one” or “Who sees me sees the Father”. Alredy in the first
      century the text of the so-called Prologue – althogh highly esteemed
      – must almost immediately have become obsolete and should therefore
      be reinterpreted in the sense that Jesus shoud be understood as God
      himself and the Logos as his spoken word of revelation. Exaxtly this
      was the purpose of the Gospel of John, and this line was then
      absolutely followed and maintained by the whole New Testament
      (Compare not only John, but also Mark in his parable of the sower).
      This line came to an heretical exaggeration and end in the heresy of
      Noetus and his Patripassianism: If Father and Son are one the Father
      himself has suffered. To fight such deviate Modalism of Noetus,
      Sabellius and Callistus the Logos-Chistology was re-dicovered and
      restored after the middle of the second cantury by Justinus Martyr
      who spoke of the Logos as a Second God, by Irenaeus and explicitely
      by Hippolytus of Rome. The consequence was lastly a rennaissance of
      subordination-Christology and finally the heresy of Arius. Therefore
      in the Creed of Arius and Euzoius Jesus is called emphatcally the God
      Logos, whereas the Creed of Nicea (and of Nicea-Constantinople} does
      not mention the term Logos at all (but Monogenes, God from God, Light
      from Light ...) Exactly the same controversy must have taken place
      the first time already in the middle of the first century, and its
      witness in the Gospel of John.
      Thanks and all good wishes
      Peter Hofrichter

      Am 12.12.2006 um 02:26 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

      > ________________________________
      > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
      > Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
      > Synoptics?
      > Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:
      > a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other
      > traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the
      > early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among
      > others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines.
      > None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though,
      > so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.
      > b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject,
      > however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on
      > Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where
      > his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for
      > Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of
      > independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something
      > like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
      > between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the
      > pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition
      > "interfluential" contacts.
      > c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view
      > of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is
      > different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine
      > primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a
      > finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material
      > as well as earlier material.
      > d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and
      > myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson
      > argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's
      > impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.
      > e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the
      > matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In
      > this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic
      > structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence.
      > What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard
      > Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences
      > familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early
      > Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their
      > traditions.
      > f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential
      > dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and
      > organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the
      > first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped
      > me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement
      > with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
      > Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone
      > like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that
      > may have been at stake.
      > Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which
      > make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics"
      > as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate.
      > Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more
      > individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a
      > draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
      > between John and the other traditions which will be published soon
      > in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of
      > the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my
      > essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and
      > the Quest for Jesus (2006).
      > Paul Anderson
      > ***
      > While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an
      > independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way
      > over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to
      > be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact,
      > however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a
      > singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
      > evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely
      > that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It
      > may have even been different between different phases and forms of
      > a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following
      > components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding
      > John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with
      > other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-
      > optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity
      > and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:
      > a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other
      > Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early
      > Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways.
      > First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to
      > meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal
      > ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the
      > case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.
      > b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early
      > Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions
      > created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes,
      > explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts.
      > Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence
      > may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a
      > plausible inference.
      > c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was
      > written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine
      > evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of
      > the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from
      > Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30),
      > as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
      > gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-
      > one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the
      > Bi-Optic Gospels."
      > d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the
      > Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's
      > tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times
      > Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's
      > features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is
      > unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects
      > Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.
      > e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the
      > likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John
      > imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially
      > the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.
      > f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the
      > first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple
      > continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The
      > fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for
      > Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
      > and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a
      > timely emphasis.
      > g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set
      > of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the
      > Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a
      > series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the
      > church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish
      > audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.
      > h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this
      > time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles,
      > calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to
      > suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of
      > Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written
      > before and after the Johannine Gospel.
      > i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the
      > Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder
      > added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE
      > as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."
      > j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic
      > Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around
      > Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically,
      > however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to
      > Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical
      > Jesus in bi-optic perspective.
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
      > Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?
      > What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?
      > I am
      > trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
      > up to date.
      > --
      > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
      > Student, CSU Fullerton
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      > messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      > messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      > messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic