Mark Goodacre has just posted a new episode of his always-delightful “NT Pod”. This episode features a bit of discussion on the relationship between the Gospel of John and the historical Jesus, and whether or not the Fourth Gospel can shed any light on historical Jesus studies. Goodacre mentions John’s more realistic three-year timeline as well as John’s account that Jesus was executed on the Day of Preparation rather than on Passover itself (as the Synoptics depict) as possible evidence that John may have been utilizing more historically reliable sources. I remain largely unconvinced, but old habits do die hard. I do find Helen Bond’s argument about dating Jesus’ death convincing, though. I also appreciate Goodacre’s skepticism regarding the ability to separate history and theology in the Gospel literature.
On a side note, a new friend of mine recently pointed out to me that there is a small but growing number of scholars who accept Lukan dependence upon John. I’m embarrassed to say that I had never heard that theory, though I’m certainly no expert in the Synoptic Problem. I’d be interested in doing a bit more reading on the question, if anyone has any suggestions for good pro/con studies floating around out there in the ether…
the archives near Emmaus 
Listened to it this morning. As usually with the NT Pod episodes it was informative, succinct, and balanced.
I agree, Brian. I love Goodacre’s podcast episodes for several reasons aside from their almost unfailingly interesting content—they are brief, so I don’t have to dedicate hours of my time to listening, and Goodacre’s accent is just the sort of voice that makes the NT Pod so gripping.
It’s true: having an English accent does give a scholar an unfair advantage. It simply sounds smarter than my nasally (I think by way of my Michigander roots) Californian English.
Tell me about it—I’m from the Ozarks.
Hm, I’ve always thought of Goodacre’s accent as being nasally.
I’m no scholar but intuitively it’s long seemed to me that Luke had access to John’s gospel. In fact one of the reasons I’ve been hanging around this blog is that I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to ask this question without it being off-topic. I can’t just ask Google because it tells me things whatever’s the flavor of the week amongst literalists. But my opportunity is here so:
Why is the normal view that John was the last of the canonical gospels? Can you point me to any texts which argue the point that are neither as weak as water, nor take too much for granted?
@Felix: Off the top of my head I can’t think of a particular book that is going to give an extensive argument in favor or why John is the last Gospel. I think it is assumed mostly because it is so different from the Synoptics, and the Synoptic development from Mk to Mt/Lk seems to reflect the evolution of earlier to later material whereas GJohn seems to present a further evolved, developed Christology, theology proper, Pneumatology. Not everyone agrees with this though. J.A.T. Robertson argued that it was the earliest Gospel (I think, or quite early). Also, you may want to browse through the writings of Paul Anderson from George Fox University. I think he has argued in favor of the idea GLuke shows awareness of GJohn, if not the finalized version of GJohn perhaps earlier compositions or communal traditions/language.
On the ‘GLuke shows awareness of GJohn’ note, it does seem textually interesting that they share p75 and that some manuscripts have the ‘pericope de adultera’ in Luke.
@Nick: That is an interesting observation as well. My co-blogger JohnDave Medina was a student of Anderson’s. I wonder if he knows if Anderson comments on this.
Thanks, all, I’ve been arguing such since The Christology of the Fourth Gospel came out in 1996 (Glasgow thesis–1989), having been convinced that Lamar Cribbs’ analysis was superior to John Bailey’s. I was in the process of convincing Raymond Brown along those lines before his untimely death in 1998. While the Fourth Gospel was finalized after Luke-Acts (I believe), Luke departs from Mark at least six dozen times, siding with John. Conversely, John does not include the most characteristically Lukan themes. See appendix 8 at the end of Christology, Part III in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, and these two articles on Bible and Interpretation. In my view, the strongest critical inference to account for these facts is to infer that Luke had access to the formative Johannine tradition, probably in its oral stages of composition, which he also seems to acknowledge in Luke 1:2. Given Acts 4:19-20 (a completely overlooked first-century clue to Johannine authorship), this view is the most critically robust among other options. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/acts357920.shtml;
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
Excellent, Dr. Anderson, thank you for commenting and sharing!
Mark Matson has also argued Luke’s dependence on John in his In Dialogue with Another Gospel. Matson believes the similarities are close enough to infer Lukan access to a written Johannine Passion Narrative, while I still hold that Luke’s following Mark’s order on the temple cleansing (not John’s) and moving the great catch of fish in John 21 to the first calling narrative (Luke 5), as well as a few other traits, suggest oral-tradition contact.
Dr. Anderson, do you give much credence to the suggestion that Luke-Acts could have been composed later that John giving the author access to Mark, Matthew, and John?
Thanks, Brian, I know that some Continental scholars push Luke-Acts quite late; could be, but I’m not convinced. I tend to go with more of a late-80s and early 90s view of Luke-Acts, partially because I see Luke connected with Mark and Acts connected with the Pauline mission. As I think about the Lukan-Johannine connection, I think that the likelihood that Luke has access to the formative Johannine tradition, but not the finalized Johannine tradition, argues for Luke’s NOT having access to the finalized Johannine narrative–thus, before 100 CE or so. I see the first edition of John being the second Gospel narrative (around 80-85 CE) as a bi-optic alternative to Mark.
And, here are some of my other essays on the Bible and Interpretation website:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/fourth357921.shtml
http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mainz357911.shtml
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/and358012.shtml
Thank you again @Dr. Anderson. I hope @Felix and @Nick have the opportunity to come back to see what you’ve shared!
Oral tradition being what it was back then, it makes good logic all these “evangelists” heard all the oral tradition “strains/variants”. They didn’t have to have the actual written forms or documents to read and compare.
I think in our era, we place so much on a physical document when those people didn’t. In fact, had the faith remained confined inside Israel, it is altogether likely we would not have had any writings about Jesus until the oral tradition era of the ANE had waned.
Since the faith left Israel and spread too far and wide too fast for mentors like the 12 to efficiently pass along the Gospel, the writings became necessary to serve the Gentiles.
You can read in the text of some of the writings it is documented oral tradition, Paul even says , “don’t you remember, I already told you this”?
James DG Dunn has a nice book out on this critical issue.
Another one! http://podacre.blogspot.com/2014/02/nt-pod-68-where-do-we-begin-historical.html
Hi Brian and Paul. I appreciate your responses. If mine seems late, I apologise; it’s because there’s many days in the week yet few hours in each day, and because the wretched heat and humidity over here has kept me constantly tired.
I’d heard of Paul Anderson’s work earlier thanks to some of the archives of this blog and I’m delighted to see him posting here. However, when I’m as unlearned as I am, I’m a little reluctant to read the works of someone who’s “heterodox” in the same way as me, particularly when they’re a respected scholar, lest I fall into an echo chamber and can’t find the exit.
So I really am looking for an argument for the normal view; and then I’ll look at everything Paul’s written I can find 😉 Yet, Paul does disagree with my assumption—I’d assumed Luke had the final edition of the fourth account of the gospel, and he’s made it so easy to click on these links, and it’s usually those who I agree with who change my mind. So I’ll probably look at them sooner 🙂
So thanks, Brian and Paul, and especially thanks for this blog.
Thanks, Felix, I’ll be interested to know what you think after you read several of my works, arguing what I hope will become “the new normal” view; I believe the facts speak for themselves on the Lukan-Johannine relationship when you consider the many ways Luke departs from Mark and coincides with John. Moody Smith of Duke, the leading authority on the Johannine-Synoptic issues in the world, favors this view, and the works of Lamar Cribbs (followed also by Mark Matson) are evidentially compelling, I believe. Check them for yourself.
I might like to caution you, though, on calling someone “heterodox” when you have not read their works–that makes you look bad. The same would apply to other labels, such as “liberal” or “conservative,” when the best of discussions seek to make sense of biblical evidence and the plausibility of views, rather than appealing to one camp or another. That’s what gives genuine scholarship its authority; arguments are supposedly compelling, regardless of one’s personal faith-stance. Nonetheless, I see myself as fairly orthodox, so as well as believing it is problematic to put people into boxes among scholarly discussions, I also think your judgment is a wrong one.
I might also point out that some scholars have questioned my research as being too orthodox or conservative because I have discovered what I believe is overlooked first-century evidence of John’s apostolic authorship (see Christology of the Fourth Gospel, Appendix 8). However, the evidence, here, approximates a fact. So, when I ask them what they think of Appendix 8, they demur…they had not read that part, or the larger sets of evidence for a new overall theory of John’s composition, and had not considered the empirical evidence for a reasoned judgment–simply dismissing a view because it conforms with a traditional view. Well, that’s not good scholarship, and neither is resorting to labels fair or serviceable from any direction.
With John 8:31-32, the truth is always liberating, and that’s what good scholars, and orthodox believers, and reasoned thinkers, seek. So, let me know what you think about the arguments themselves once you have a chance read and consider them.
Thanks!
I’m sorry for using the word “heterodox”. I meant it completely tongue-in-cheek, with nowhere near its literal sense. I certainly had no intent to use it in respect of your faith which I know nothing about (and which, to my mind, is foreign to this discussion).
I also didn’t mean it in respect of a liberal-conservative continuum (or at least, I didn’t conscious of it); I just meant: the “normal view” in introductions is that John came last. I don’t even think you necessarily disagree with *that* (if “John” means “its final form”) but your view doesn’t seem to covered in the sort of introduction to the gospels or the Gospel according to John that I’ve read. That is all I meant.
It was obviously silly of me to use it of a stranger, a stranger whose works I don’t really know, and particularly a stranger who is a scholar in a field where the technical meaning of the word makes sense. I shouldn’t have said it; I’m sorry.
I will read and consider your work, but I haven’t done it yet; once I saw your post I thought I should explain and apologise for offending you, which I hadn’t meant to do by any means.
Thanks, Felix, no offense taken, just good to clarify things along the way.
Do let me know what you think of “A Bi-Optic Hypothesis” if you get the chance; I’m writing an Introduction to the New Testament for Abingdon, and I’ll include John in the mix among the Gospels, with a distinctive analysis of John’s most likely relation to each of the traditions. No one’s ever tried that (that I’m aware of–at least not in the same way), and I think it could be compelling.
We’ll see; I welcome input from any others also who take note of the overall theory. I’m happy to follow the evidence wherever it most plausibly leads.
PA
You express off-handedly that John’s Gospel states that Jesus was executed on the Day of Preparation, while the Synoptics do not.
But Mark states explicitly that Jesus died ἐπεὶ … παρασκευή (“on the Preparation”) ὅ ἐστιν προσάββατον (“which is before the Sabbath”) [Mark 15:42].
And John indicates the same thing: Jesus’ death occurred ἐπεὶ παρασκευὴ (“on the Preparation”), just before τοῦ σαββάτου (“the Sabbath”) [John 19:31].
I think that early Christians had a good memory of the day Jesus died and then adequately expressed that memory in documents as diverse as Mark and John.
Thanks, Bobby. In John and Mark Jesus is crucified on the day before the Passover; the problem is that Mark presents the last supper as a Passover meal. So Mark’s chronology seems to jar with Mark as well as with John.
Any thoughts on why Mark makes such a presentation? Some scholars infer the use of two different calendars; others infer that Mark presents the last supper as a Passover meal as a means of bolstering a religious interest in a meal of remembrance, which is absent from John.
Raymond Brown thought John was ordered by chronological interests and that Mark’s presentation was a factor of religious interests; I concur with Brown, here; see also the essay by Mark Matson in John, Jesus, and History, Vol. 2 (Atlanta: SBL Press 2009).
I’m sorry. I intended my comment to be addressed to Joshua Paul Smith, responding to a statement he had made in the original post. He had written, “Goodacre mentions … John’s account that Jesus was executed on the Day of Preparation rather than on Passover itself (as the Synoptics depict) …”
My comment — that focused only on Mark, among the Synoptics — was to point out that all the Gospels give “the Day of Preparation” as the day of Jesus’ death. To complete Synoptic references, I could have added Matthew 27:62 that indicates, the day after Jesus death was “the day — after — Preparation;” and Luke 23:54, which states that Jesus’ died on “the Preparation” and adds the observation, “the Sabbath was drawing near.”
In responding to your statements, I note that neither Mark nor John suggests that the day Jesus died was the day before the evening of Passover. If that was the case, the people would have been scrambling to get home before sundown in order to participate in the meal. All the Gospels agree that the problem that made the time-consideration so urgent was — the Sabbath was approaching — not the Passover meal.
Nothing John says about the meal Jesus ate with his apostles is necessarily anything other than Passover. Much of the case that it was seems to be a matter of what John does — not — say. This is an argument from silence.
John 13:1 is a single, complete sentence, so its reference to “before the Feast of the Passover” does not qualify “the supper” that is referred to in the next verse. Instead, the sentence ties closely together the idea of the Passover Feast and “his hour” — as being something Jesus was especially conscious of as his severe time of testing drew near, a time for demonstrating his love as well (also indicated in this verse). The phrasing “before the Passover” first appears in John 11:55 and again in 12:1, leading up to the fuller phrase “before the — Feast — of the Passover” in 13:1.
“The Passover” is used in John’s Gospel as a reference to the entire week of the Feast of Unleavened bread, not just the meal. John 2:23 and 18:39, as examples, must be references — not to a single day — but to a longer period of time that encompassed Jesus performing “many signs” and a period during which Pilate might graciously release a Jewish prisoner. Certainly John’s reference to τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ πάσχα (“the — Feast — of the Passover”) is not a reference to a single meal or a single day, but instead corresponds directly with Luke’s terminology in 22:1, “the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover.” [Mark calls the Day of Passover “the First Day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover [lamb]” (Mark 14:12).]
As to why Mark or John wrote this or that, this seems a lot to try to put together from the meager amount of information we have. You have a much better chance at guessing why I am writing this comment, than you have at reading the mind of those ancient authors. But I doubt that you could figure me out much better, because there has been a long line of experiences and considerations that stand behind both my reasoning and my reasons for spending time on these things.