- Jul 13, 2014To: Synoptic (GPG)
On: Synoptic John
Does the list leadership have a position on the von Wahlde reconstruction of
gJn? I ask because that reconstruction seems to pose the question of how
relevant that text is to Synoptic discussions.
If John is simply later than all the Synoptics, as well as different in many
ways, it can properly be dismissed from a strictly Synoptic discussion, as
(I believe) has so far been the case.
But on 1/55 of von Wahlde's 3v 2010 work, we have his timetable for what he
calls the three editions of John. The first he puts in the late 50's. The
second coincides with the death of Peter, c64. The Johannine Epistles
follow, with 1 John coming shortly after 70, and 2 and 3 John at 80, which
is also the year of "the Death of the Elder." The 3rd edition comes sometime
in the 90's, at which time "[The] Community bestows title of Beloved
Disciple upon Elder."
That is, von Wahlde is proposing for John a pattern like that of Streeter
and Taylor for proto-Luke, namely, with the unique material coming first,
and some Synoptic additions coming later. I find the Streeter-Taylor
proto-Luke to be almost self-refuting, but that's a personal opinion. If
someone wanted to argue for it on this list, I cannot imagine their being
ruled out of order.
What about von Wahlde's proto-John theory? It makes the original John
precede the usual dates of the Synoptics by 20 to 30 years, and immediately
makes it the primary document for the life of Jesus and his early followers.
I should think a question might arise: If John 1ed really *is* earlier than
Mark, is it possible that Mark is indebted at any point to John 1ed? Or
Luke? Or Matthew?
The Synoptics remain distinctive, as of old, but are they *unaffected* by
If that question did arise, would it be in order for it to arise on this
Just a question of protocol.
E Bruce Brooks
University of Massachusetts at Amherst