The latest issue of the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (78.2 [2016]) arrived yesterday and it included my article, "The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25" (pp.321-337). Unfortunately, there's no link to it yet, so it seems that if anyone wants to read it, he or she will have to go to one of those old-fashioned "library" things with books and chairs and people who tell you to be quiet. Here's the abstract:
Abstract: In this essay I argue that the Johannine “colophons” of John 20:30-31 and
21:24-25 support the argument that the author of John’s Gospel was aware of one or
more of the Synoptic Gospels. Although these passages do not prove that theory, they
demonstrate that John’s Gospel participates in a competitive textualization of the Jesus
tradition, emphasizing its superiority to prior textualized Jesus books. This observation
raises the question of what prior textualized Jesus traditions the author could have
known. Although they are not the only options, it is here argued that the Synoptics are
by far the most likely candidates.
Key Words: Gospel of John • competitive textualization • Johannine transmission
• John 20:30-31 • John 21:24-25
Look forward to reading it. Can you say anything about your methodology in interpreting these texts in John as reference to other texts?
ReplyDeleteDo you buy the Bauckham line on John and Mark?
I do think that the Gospel of John is aware of some of the Synoptics, at least Mark.
DeleteIn terms of method, in this article, I am asking what happens *if* a scholar limits the possible referents in these texts to certain and known books about Jesus that antedated GJohn. Some scholars prefer creating hypothetical sources; I'm here going against that trend.
From Dr. G:
ReplyDeleteIf one limits the candidates for influences on John, to a certain group of texts, then of course one finds that only this group could be the influence on John. The prior methodological constraints very strongly tend to produce that result.
"Dr. G,"
DeleteI continue to stand in amazement at your ability to assess entire arguments based only on an abstract. Were you to do what scholars do and actually read the argument, you'll see that I don't think the Synoptics are the *only* possibilities. And, yes, as a methodological commitment, I tend to prefer real texts over imaginary texts.
From Dr. G:
DeleteMy policy regarding excerpts, is that given an extensive passage, and particularly an abstract written by the author himself, I feel the author is responsible for that as an adequately representative sample or summary. Particularly in a forum like a blog, where it is normally understood that many commentators do not have access to the full work.
As you implied, many of us would prefer full free texts online. Or often: authors make their own drafts available immediately.
From Dr. G
DeleteIn the present case, the rejection of all influences on John, other than the synoptic gospels, as "imaginary"(Q?), or nonexistent, may be interesting. But neglects the influence of many likely non-imaginary influences. Like 1) the Old Testament. 2) Greeks, especially Platonists. 3) Marcionists or Gnostics. And 4) apocryphal writings
Dear "Dr. G,"
DeletePlease continue with this parade of observations entirely unrelated to the actual argument that I make in the article. It's entertaining.
Your article makes perfect sense in light of the way Gospel writers each appear to be striving not merely to supplement earlier Gospels but supersede them.
ReplyDeleteThere was a journal article not long ago that Kok mentioned about Mt not merely seeking to supplement but superseded Mk. And Lk of course states outright that he is succeeding at what others have attempted. While the fourth Gospel writer seems to be suggesting that his Gospel should be first in priority to all Gospels, by modeling the opening of his Gospel on the first book of the Pentateuch, Genesis, i.e., "In the beginning."
Right. It's this trend out of trying to outdo predecessors that I refer to as "competitive textualization." It's part of a larger project that I'm working on.
Delete