What do you think of the theory that John had his Revelation of Jesus first and then wrote his gospel a decade or two after this (assuming that the John of Revelation is the writer of the gospel)? This could be a possible explanation for the difference in the Greek grammar between the two.
Thank you for your continued scholarship and work on this subject. The question bobbing around in my head relates somewhat to the Johannine contribution to the four gospels, but is more oriented toward the ideas in your book The Gospel of the Lord, and in particular a position you took in the interview with Eerdmans regarding your book. You made a statement to the effect that Paul is your guy and you like him, but that the Christocentric nature of the Christian faith necessitates that we experience the four gospels prior to encountering Paul. The issue I see with this is that this was not the experience of the early churches. They encountered an oral tradition of the gospel narrative, but if Acts is accurate (3:11-26, 7:1-53, 13:13-41), this narrative often began with the promises to Abraham, telling the highlights of the story of God's promise-plan (Kaiser), which emphasized the significance of who Jesus was and what He had accomplished... and how surprising his appearance was smack in the middle of history (like Beyonce dropping a surprise album), as well as the surprise that He was introducing something entirely new and building a global family from all nations of the earth (Jew+Gentile community - Wright). It was only after Paul and the apostles had established an empire-wide network of Jew+Gentile churches, who had both embraced the gospel and ordered their entire lives around a body of teaching (which Paul had delivered to them), that the written gospels emerged. My contention is that those gospels are written after much theological reflection on what Jesus' Spirit accomplished through the apostles, in the church, and therefore are not merely accurate records of what Jesus did while physically present on earth, but how His Spirit continued to "teach them everything else" (John 14:26) after He ascended to the Father. In other words the written gospels make sense of the things Jesus said and did, in light of the authors' reflections and matured understanding of what He continued to do via His Spirit and the apostles in the church. It finally made sense and they could recount the narrative of Jesus and talk about the things He said in a way that reflected His Spirit's ongoing work. I've written a short essay about this here, but perhaps just this comment is enough for you to see where I'm coming from and respond. Would love to hear your thoughts.
Glad you shared this, found it very interesting. What do you think about the originality of the story of the woman caught in adultery? I've encountered some people who are 100% convinced that was added in later.
In his commentary on John (obviously pre Dead Sea scrolls etc) Bishop Westcott indicated that not only was John the last gospel written but that John was the latest-dated book in the entire New Testament, functioning (in part) as a kind of calm and patient commentary on the imagery and concepts from the book of Revelation.
Michael Gorman just presented on this at Lanier Library last week. Sounds like he is persuaded, or at least willing to keep digging, on John’s priority.
What do you think of the theory that John had his Revelation of Jesus first and then wrote his gospel a decade or two after this (assuming that the John of Revelation is the writer of the gospel)? This could be a possible explanation for the difference in the Greek grammar between the two.
Thank you for your continued scholarship and work on this subject. The question bobbing around in my head relates somewhat to the Johannine contribution to the four gospels, but is more oriented toward the ideas in your book The Gospel of the Lord, and in particular a position you took in the interview with Eerdmans regarding your book. You made a statement to the effect that Paul is your guy and you like him, but that the Christocentric nature of the Christian faith necessitates that we experience the four gospels prior to encountering Paul. The issue I see with this is that this was not the experience of the early churches. They encountered an oral tradition of the gospel narrative, but if Acts is accurate (3:11-26, 7:1-53, 13:13-41), this narrative often began with the promises to Abraham, telling the highlights of the story of God's promise-plan (Kaiser), which emphasized the significance of who Jesus was and what He had accomplished... and how surprising his appearance was smack in the middle of history (like Beyonce dropping a surprise album), as well as the surprise that He was introducing something entirely new and building a global family from all nations of the earth (Jew+Gentile community - Wright). It was only after Paul and the apostles had established an empire-wide network of Jew+Gentile churches, who had both embraced the gospel and ordered their entire lives around a body of teaching (which Paul had delivered to them), that the written gospels emerged. My contention is that those gospels are written after much theological reflection on what Jesus' Spirit accomplished through the apostles, in the church, and therefore are not merely accurate records of what Jesus did while physically present on earth, but how His Spirit continued to "teach them everything else" (John 14:26) after He ascended to the Father. In other words the written gospels make sense of the things Jesus said and did, in light of the authors' reflections and matured understanding of what He continued to do via His Spirit and the apostles in the church. It finally made sense and they could recount the narrative of Jesus and talk about the things He said in a way that reflected His Spirit's ongoing work. I've written a short essay about this here, but perhaps just this comment is enough for you to see where I'm coming from and respond. Would love to hear your thoughts.
https://open.substack.com/pub/scottcanion/p/choosing-our-own-red-letters?r=2umspq&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Glad you shared this, found it very interesting. What do you think about the originality of the story of the woman caught in adultery? I've encountered some people who are 100% convinced that was added in later.
In his commentary on John (obviously pre Dead Sea scrolls etc) Bishop Westcott indicated that not only was John the last gospel written but that John was the latest-dated book in the entire New Testament, functioning (in part) as a kind of calm and patient commentary on the imagery and concepts from the book of Revelation.
Michael Gorman just presented on this at Lanier Library last week. Sounds like he is persuaded, or at least willing to keep digging, on John’s priority.
Thank you for this! I look forward to digging into the source materials in the bibliography.