Re: [John_Lit] Jesus as the Word
- In a message dated 4/4/2002 6:13:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
<< I would be interested to hear your arguments because I see no reason for
the Johannine text to dependent on Matthews text.
Generally I advocate Johannine independence. But of cours this has to be
shown bit by bit.
I said it was hunch, not an argument. And how can either position be "shown"?
On the other hand, I think it is a very poor argument against John's
knowledge of Matthew and the Synoptics to point to the lack of evidence of
extensive copying between the two texts. There is no reason in the world why
John should be expected to have copied any more than he probably did from the
(presumably) earlier Gospels. The main reason scholars believe he should have
is because they believe (wrongly, I think) that almost exactly analogous and
fairly extensive copying of Mark and of Q was undertaken independently by
Matthew and Luke. On the Two-Gospel hypothesis, the only Evangelist who did
extensive copying was Mark. So this way of using earlier texts becomes the
exception rather than the rule.
However, it should be noted that even some staunch supporters of Markan
priority and the Two-Source source theory believe that John knew the
Synoptics. This point of view, by the way, is not absolutely contrary to the
view that John is (relatively) "independent", or that he had access to
sources of his own. I do think, however, that at least some of John's Gospel
can well be seen as a literary development of ideas and motifs found
especially in the gospels of Matt and Lk.