historicity matters in John and synoptics
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Bullin <bill.bullin@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Burial story at close
> I think we should not under estimate the dominance of drama and
> in the Greek reader's hearer's mind.
> If Gospel scenes are presented as one-man shows it is not because the
> is necessarily either ignorant of the historical facts or dishonest. The
> Gospels originally acted along with oral testimony and question and answer
> dialogue. Only after the performance does the discussion really begin as
> with Jesus' parables. Historiography has had a long evolution; forensic
> detail and analysis is a relatively recent phenomenon and preoccupation.
> Plot, passion, tradgedy and heroism were central concepts through which
> information could be meaningfully communicated.
You are right to a certain degree, I think. For me, Mark as one of the first
to tell the Good Story about Jesus has done well. As I have been convinced
by Robinson in his Priority of John, that usually the synoptics are confused
rendering historical aspects as compared to Johns rendering, I confess I
have an increasing tendency to expose these obvious historical
(to use a gentle term) in the synoptics. So, I may seem to do some injustice
Mark there, as he was of course not primarily interested in bringing out
just historical matters on Jesus.
I think it was John (apostle and evangelist himself) who must have been
to mention that he (Mark) had written 'akriboos' (accurately), but that his
(historical order) was lacking in merit.
Like Robinson (and other pioneers), I take Gospel of John to be another
try. When John is seen as making some historical corrections when compared
I do not bring them back to his (supposed) knowledge of Marks gospel, but to
his own supreme source for Jesus' words and actions, as closest disciple and
eyewitness. Of course, a rather traditional position, but for me the
critical facts point
in that direction.
I believe that in Gospel of John, we will have NO mix of historically
with correct info (like in Mk,Mt and Lk). Gospel of John does not seem to be
on that level.
E.g. every archeological dig brings more out of John's correctness in
topographical details. Paul Anderson has an essay coming out in a book by
which sums up several of these recent findings.
Its of course quite another thing, that also John does not write (correct)
history for histories
sake alone. He has a most spiritual message to convey, his rendering
the deepest of all his synoptic friends.
When John in esotheric pictures is often likened to an eagle, one should not
although the eagle can fly high above the earth (symbolising his
this is also a bird that possesses unfailing sharp eyes that perceive very
movement on the earth.
> > Frides: Lets move on to the empty tomb, remove the stone and enter!
Who will remove the guard?
Good question! I know there exists an article with a title such as 'Who
roled away the stone?'
Now, we may write one: 'Who removed the guard'??
All that hold to historicity matters may now have a difficult time (or
Any one daring to suggest a 'spiritual' solution? Anybody on this list in
for the possibility
of a paranormal phenomenon?
Bill, you want or like to take a (first) shot yourself?
Best wishes, in appreciation of your contributions to the list