Since when did the Johannine contribution to historical Jesus studies become a hot topic?
On the one hand, I know JohnDave Medina has written on several occassions regarding Johannine studies reentering the conversation regarding the “historical” Jesus (e.g. here). One of his professors at George Fox University, Paul N. Anderson, is the co-chair of SBL‘s John, Jesus, and History Group. The Fourth Gospel is his coup de coeur.
On the other hand, I have very little familiarity with this subject other than reading some of Richard Bauckham’s works. Therefore, I was a bit surprised to listen to both Richard B. Hays and Marianne Meye Thompson take N.T. Wright to task for ignoring the Fourth Gospel in works such as Jesus and the Victory of God. While I am not very impressed with the “rules” of historical Jesus scholarship it seemed inevitable that the Synoptics would be given precident to John. It seems that Wright has decided to play by the rules. Nevertheless, this appears to be unsatisfactory to many.
So what I am wondering now is whether or not we should expect the Fourth Gospel to enter into dialog with historical Jesus studies or if this was a plea that will fall upon the deaf ears of scholars.
[For a more indepth look at Hayes' and Thompson's lectures read J.R.D. Kirk's assessment here, here and here; Nijay K. Gupta' reflections here; Michael J. Gormon's here.]
April 20, 2010 at 8:38 pm
N.T. Wright says, “I feel about John like I feel about my wife; I love her very much, but I wouldn’t claim to understand her.” (Following Jesus, p. 33) Being a Wright disciple myself, I think I know what he means. The picture of Jesus that the synoptics provide us looks very Jewish, in ways that scholars were blind to a few generations ago. This, of course, was the kind of thing Wright was tackling in Jesus and the Victory of God, and the unifying factor of “the third quest for the historical Jesus.” John, on the other hand, feels more like it was written by the Church Fathers, fully worked out Trinitarian doctrine and all.
April 20, 2010 at 8:50 pm
If people are smart they’ll start paying more attention to John. Of course the Church always has so I take comfort in that.
April 20, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Thanks, Brian, for the update on the Wheaton conference; it sounds like an excellent set of presentations and dialogues! As a founding co-chair of the John, Jesus, and History Project (now in its 9th year at the national SBL meetings), the near-two-century omission of the Gospel of John from Jesus studies is a feature we’ve sought to address critically and analytically.
Our endeavor has been to draw in top NT scholars around the world, inviting them to address critically aspects of the two primary platforms among critical biblical scholars: the dehistoricization of John and the de-Johannification of Jesus. Our papers and analyses can be found in our two volumes (John, Jesus, and History; Vol. 1, Critical Appraisals of Critical Views, 2007; Vol. 2, Aspects of Historicity in the Fourth Gospel, 2009–both published by SBL Press), and the third volume (Glimpses of Jesus through the Johannine Lens) is scheduled for late next year. I have outlined the history and progress of our discussions in the following essay published in Europe’s Zeitschrift fuer Neues Testament last year and Bible and Interpretation earlier this year:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/john1357917.shtml
My own treatment of the matter began with The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (1996, 1997, third printing with new introduction and outlines–Cascade Books 2010), where I had to conclude that while the Fourth Gospel is highly theological, theology cannot be considered the sole origin of its distinctive material. I tested all of Bultmann’s evidence for alien sources, using John 6 as a case study, and the evidence came up far short–critically. Likewise, theories of John’s dependence on Mark or the Synoptics for the bulk of its distinctive material (and even its parallel material–Barrett, Neirynck, etc.) falls far short of being compelling, critically. Therefore, the Johannine tradition seems to be a self-standing tradition with its own claims to “Jesus remembered” (to use Dunn’s language), while also being theologically engaged and developed.
In 2006 I wrote a full-length treatment of the issue as The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus; Modern Foundations Reconsidered (T&T Clark, paperback 2007) arguing also a new theory of John’s composition and relations to other traditions (Part III, see also “A Bi-Optic Hypothesis” on this website). I also present an outline of what a “nuanced” approach to Jesus research, including John in the mix, might look like–that is Part IV of the book.
By the time our project is completed we will have had over 100 scholars from around the world presenting in our sessions and published in our various publications. Marianne Meye Thompson contributed an excellent essay in Vol. 1, and we’d love to have Tom Wright and Richard Hays contribute in the future! This November at the national meetings in Atlanta we’ll be holding a joint session with the Historical Jesus Section; it should be a lively discussion!
Sincerely,
Paul N. Anderson
Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
George Fox University
Newberg, OR 97132
April 21, 2010 at 6:57 am
disciple Jones: if memory serves, that same quote from Following Jesus was used by the MC in introducing Dr. Thompson’s paper last Friday. And Wright responded (during the panel I think) by saying something like “over the years greater love has led to greater understanding.” I don’t think he was simply trying to make his wife happy there.
Nick: Good comment; I agree that ‘the church always has’ paid attention (and long before Nicea). Any devout layman can see and feel the truth of John’s gospel without needing the doctrine of inerrancy to bolster the adventure.
April 21, 2010 at 6:57 am
RT,
There may be something to the fact that the fourth evangelist is depicted as being a “beloved disciple” with a special relationship to Jesus. If this is so I can see why this gospel was written. He knew some things about Jesus, and he had an angle of Jesus, that the other evangelist did not have.
Nick,
Me too. It is good to be part of the church.
April 21, 2010 at 7:21 am
Paul,
I hope that Wright, Hays, and others join this discussion. While I admit to not being very fond of the historical Jesus enterprise it appears to me that one glaring weakness is that it has been Synoptics-only for way too long. Thanks for the comment!
April 21, 2010 at 9:13 am
Professor Anderson! I am reading Volume 1 of the JJ&H books when I can, and will say that it has inspired me to be a little more bold in my advocacy of the authenticity of John.
I will be looking for an upload of any material from your current lectures at Reedwood also, and your symposium with Dr. Borg.
I know you’re busy, but you could save me a bunch of time by pointing me in the direction of someone who has written recently about the contribution which the Fourth Gospel makes to the rather confused synoptic versions of the arrest and trials of Jesus. I have several older Johannine studies home from the library, and the humble beginnings of an attempt to ‘push the envelope’ in that area posted in part on my blog. But I am still working for a living outside of academia, and time is precious. Thank you for any help, and for your post above.
April 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm
John, thanks for the tip about Wright. That doesn’t come as much of a surprise, given other comments I’ve heard from Wright in the past about wanting to pursue studies of John in the future. Because I have learned so much from Wright, I tend to resonate with the quote more than I would like. I have been helped immensely this year by some of Richard Bauckham’s stuff on John, but I still have farther to go.
Brian, I have a hard time with just saying the beloved disciple was an eyewitness and that’s why it’s so different. I would strongly disagree with those who say that John is myth historicized, but I have to admit that it’s not hard to see why someone would think that.
April 22, 2010 at 6:39 am
RT,
It is a possible explanation but I think Bauckham and others come closer to saying something truthful about John than Raymond Brown, et al., who have this many layered Johannine Community paradigm.
April 22, 2010 at 7:22 am
I agree with Brian (in fact, I find I tossed my copy of Brown’s ‘Community of the Beloved Apostle’ into my ‘return’ pile of library books after looking for light in its pages last night). I’ll take a look at Bauckham.
Dr. A., I found the abstracts listed for the JJ&H sessions at the SBL pages. It looks like Mark Matson and Helen K. Bond wrote on my current subject of interest, but I can’t tell from the abstracts if their work would be of use to me.
Unfortunately my seminary library only has the first volume (a shortfall which I will try to rectify with the staff today (I’m taking a day off work to sit in the BS2615 (Gospel of John) area of the library stacks in celebration of Earth Day).
In culling my pile of older Johannine studies for returns I have begun to find answers to the question I put to you (above) – please don’t feel obligated to indulge my question, it’s great to have your input without putting you to work! Thanks again for the informative comment.
April 24, 2010 at 12:12 am
Yes, on the Passion narrative, Helen Bond’s essay in JJH Vol. 2 is an excellent one! She shows how much in the Johannine rendering is more plausible historically than those in the Synoptics, including the presentation of Caiaphas and aspects of the trials. Mark Matson’s essay shows how the Johannine chronology of the Passion narrative is not only superior to that of the Synoptics plausibly, but probably. In addition, Jaime Clark-Soles employs a compelling analysis of the foot washing scene in John 13 and shows how such a presentation seems more likely to be a Palestinian event than a concoction in a diaspora setting. Back to Volume 1, Paula Fredriksen shows, on the basis that the Roman soldiers in Jerusalem did not arrest Jesus immediately upon his triumphal entry to Jerusalem, that they likely had a reason for their inaction–namely, the probability that he had been there before (confirming the multiple visits to Jerusalem in John, versus the singular visit in the Synoptics) as presented alone in John.
These are just a few of the over forty essays in the first two JJH volumes that call scholars to rethink the dehistoricization of John and the resulting de-Johannification of Jesus. Of course, there are dangers inherent to bringing the Fourth Gospel into the quest for the historical Jesus, such as being unduly swayed by John’s highly theological perspective, but the Synoptics are also highly theological. So, learning how to work with theology and history in all of one’s investigations, including the negation of an ancient text’s historical status, is central to the enterprise. We need more critical theory on history in the field of biblical studies, if nothing else!
Thanks so much!
Paul Anderson
Pingback: Continued Quest for the Historical Jesus? The Same Old, or Going Forward? | Near Emmaus