The Gospel of John

In all discussion, gospel of John strangely neglected.  19th century scholarship relegated to late date in history, alleged that none of it is historical.  (F.C. Bauer 200 A.D.).  But in 20th century, fragment from first half of 2nd century discovered at oxyrynchus in Egypt!!!  Still, textbooks dating gospel 150 A.D.--being a scholar means never having to admit you're wrong.  But it also means ever learning and never able to come to knowledge of the truth.  Two examples (Crossan and Meier) lifetime of work.  Completely incompatible!  Somebody has wasted a lifetime.  Maybe two somebodies!

 Today's scholars cannot come to agreement on Jesus--not even close.  Is this invevitable?  No our sources give us a remarkably consistent picture, and when one's sources agree, one does well to accept there evidence.   But do the sources agree?  What about John?

 The Gospel of John is in some ways very different from the synoptic gospels, so different that many have maintained that the events and teachings described in it have little relationship to the historical Christ or the synoptics.  However, a close examination of this gospel shows that picture of Jesus and his teachings given in this gospel does not conflict with that of the synoptics but complements and supplements it--sometimes in surprising ways.

 John begins to supplement the synoptic message write from the beginning of his gospel.

 1.  Why does John begin his gospel where he does?  What does this add to the synoptic account.

 --echo of Genesis (like Matthew in using OT imagery)
 --logos (necessary in explaining how Jesus can be good)
 --light (cf. Luke 1:79/2:32)
 --makes explicit what is implied in other gospel's, Jesus divinity
 --rejection of Jesus by his own (At beginning!  Notice emphasis on becoming sons of God from beginning: cf. "Our father"

 Another area in which John supplements synoptic account, info. on John the Baptist.

 1.  How is John's treatment of John the Baptist different from that of the synoptic gospels?  Why these differences?

 --explains John's conflict with Pharisees (generation of vipers apropos of nothing?  No--"who are you"
 --fills in Marks jump from baptism of Jesus to imprisonment of John
 --describes background to calling of disciples (doesn't describe actual baptism of Jesus--might be thought a conflict?  No!!!)

 Note also Pharisees questions of John Baptist (who are you)/  explains the beginning of Mark's gospel.

 John also supplements synoptics by giving us info. on figures not described much in synoptics and additional info. on some that are described.

 3.  Why does the Gospel of John include the calling of Philip and Nathaniel--but not the calling of John?  Why does this gospel seemingly make so little reference to John?  (But cf. 1:40)

 --note role of Philip in book of Acts
 --note way in which John gives you info. about himself (boanerges in synoptics)

 John's attempt to supplement synoptics leads to some alleged contradications, e.g.

 4.  John places the "cleansing of the temple" early in Jesus ministry.  The synoptics place it late.  Is this a contradiction?  Why the seeming conflict?

 --Conflict?  Possibly--but more like a repeated pattern.  And, in view of fact that John fits Mark like a jigsaw puzzle, it seems more likely just an additional piece of the puzzle--

 But is this "jigsaw puzzle" a good enough explanation?  John almost never includes what synoptics give you already, and includes much that they don't, e.g. the conversation with Nicodemus, the story of the woman at the well, the turning of water into wine, the healing of the lame man at Bethesda, the healing of the man born blind, and the raising of Lazarus.

 --woman at the well/another Samaritan incident/consistent with Luke
 --Jesus "my meat is to do will of him that sent me" consistent with temptation account. and with synoptic acct of Jesus working without food.
 --notice also John 6:53 and cf. to Luke's communion acct./John leaves out this element of last supper.

 Problem here, of course, is that, if these things really happened, they seem to important for synoptics to have missed.  How could Luke have missed the Samaritan woman story?   How could any of the synoptic writers leave out Lazarus raised from the dead?

 --John's miracles almost all in Jerusalem/teaching here almost all in Jerusalem.  This an important way John suplements synoptics.  Synoptics deal mostly with Galilee (Cf. my California vacations.)  John alone really gives you the background to conflicts with Jerusalem authorities (progressively greater miracles--and conflicts in particular around temple.  Cf. ch. 9 acct. of feast of dedication).

 John does occasionally deal with Galilean events: water into wine at cana, healing of man's son.  But for a reason: first and second miracles, "and his disciplies believed on him."  Explanation for their later following him more closely.  Other event: feeding five thousand--almost identical with Mark in detail: but John adds important discourse.

 The events John includes supplement nicely then those included in synoptics.  But what about characters portrayed?  John the Baptist, Thomas, John himself--and most importantly Jesus.

 Notice the questions put to Jesus in the Gospel of John and the answers he gives.  Is this consistent with the synoptic picture of Jesus' technique in dealing with questions?  (Typical Jesus question and answer, i.e. Caeasar/woman in adultery: answers not at first immediately addressed to question)

7.  What about the miracles Jesus performs?  Are the miracles described in the Gospel of John consistent with the miracles of the synoptics? (cf. John 7:21-23 and Matthew 12:9-14: sabbath healings).

8.  Is the christology of the Gospel of John consistent with the christology of the other gospels, i.e. does John seem to have the same view of who and what Jesus is as the synoptic writers?

9.  In ch. 13-17 John includes many words of Jesus not found in the other gospels.  Are the teaching here consistent with the rest of Jesus' teaching?  How do you explain the fact that the other gospels do not include any direct reference to these ideas?  Cf. gospels "why do you speak to them in parables?"  Here, Jesus is speaking more directly, yet still using parable type of imagery.  Public teaching/private conversation. Typical of ancient teachers: Aristotle: esoteric/exoteric.  We have only esoteric!  Jesus, we may have both types of teaching.

 Especially important in these chapters way John treats the last supper.  Last supper, passover meal.  Long meal==lots of singing, telling exodus story, dif. ceremonial things to eat.  Unleavened bread, wine, lamb.  The actual supper held before some of the ceremonial elements.  Only a very small part of this passover service is included in synoptics (last bit of unleavened bread/last cup of wine reserved for messiah (well, they say Elijah today).  Jesus gives these elements new meaning.  Becomes the central sacrament of the church=mass/communion.  But do you notice something odd?  John does not include this part of the feast!  No "this is my body", etc.  Not important to John?  No, very important (cf John 6:53-58).  How do you expalin his leaving these things out?

 John only goes over synoptic events if he has something important to add.  And he does have something to add to the story of the events of the last supper, e.g. footwashing.  Important!  What were disciples arguing about at last supper, according to Luke?  Who would be greatest!  John doesn't include argument--but he does show part of Jesus answer.  Also, the command "love one another as I have loved you--by this shall all know that ye are my disciples."  Goes to the heart of this argument.

10.  How does John's treatment of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus differ from that of the synoptics?  How do you explain these differences?

 --note 18:10-11 servant's name, Malchus: some important additional infl. on what happens with Peter: Malchus' relative one of those questioning him/also addition of fact that it was cold and Peter wanted warmth of fire.
 
 --cup of 18:11 refers to cup mentioned in Gethsemane.

 --Pilate's conduct more fully explained/why he is brought to condemn an innocent man. (Caear's friend, etc.)

 --details added: Mary and John's relationship/blood and water

 Appearance of resurrected Jesus clarified: his words: meet me in Galillee: but actual appearance: Jerusalem.  John notes Jerusalem appearances, then return to Galillee and more appearances.

 But most important than this is John's portrayal of meaning of resurrection.  All gospels important, start of something new.  But John more upbeat than any.  Matthew: Jews still covering up.  Mark and Luke: failure of even disciples to stand with Jesus and slowness to understand.  John--well, they still betray him and there still slow to understand, but...

(Last scene)

 And, I suppose, if anything needed to be added to the Gospel message, this would be it.  But, as John said, this is still only the beginning  (cf. Mark--"the beginning" John--also, this in only the beginning.  And it turned out--