Synoptic Gospels and John

[Mendalla]

This is kind of coming out of being part of the bible study threads that Paradox3 is running, but it's kind of a separate thing. I've also been re-reading the chapter on the Gospels from Reading the Bible Again for the First Time by Marcus Borg.

The first three gospels, the synoptic gospels, all kind of go together. Matthew and Luke built on Mark and another, lost, source known as Q. They have similar stories even if they embellish things in different ways and put different spins on some of the stories.

John is almost his own thing, quite distinct from the others in approach and message. There are a couple stories that carry over and some basic incidents like the money-changers, crucifixion, and resurrection, but they are handled and understood differently.

How do modern Christians deal with this? Do you favour one or the other? Reconcile things in some way? See them as different ways to approach the same thing and try to draw wisdom from both?

 

[paradox3]

Last summer I read John's gospel on my own, without any of these on-line discussion threads to help me out.

The style, indeed, is very different. I found it more poetic and more mystical. Compared to the synoptic gospels, there was more material completely unfamiliar to me. There are a few very well-known stories and verses, however. The time sequencing is completely different and it gives us a three year ministry for Jesus.

I have actually been toying with the idea of doing a John study thread.

Do I favor one over the other? I don't know. In church we hear passages from all four gospels which almost presents them like a patchwork quilt. It has been quite an eye-opener for me to read the gospels one by one from beginning to end.

 

[Mendalla]

I have actually been toying with the idea of doing a John study thread.

I would be down with that. We never got to John last year.

 

[Waterfall]

I always found it interesting that the synoptic gospels have Jesus' ministry lasting only a year (one passover), while Johns' is over 2 years.(three passovers)
John uses miracles to support the authenticity of Jesus' claims.
This book feels more mystical or gnostic than the synoptics to me.

 

[Mendalla]

I always found it interesting that the synoptic gospels have Jesus' ministry lasting only a year (one passover), while Johns' is over 2 years.(three passovers)
John uses miracles to support the authenticity of Jesus' claims.
This book feels more mystical or gnostic than the synoptics to me.

That's kind of Borg's take on it, too. He also makes the point about the length of Jesus' ministry, and also makes the point that the moneychangers incident takes place at the beginning rather than as part of the final week. Which is big difference in chronology to say the least.

I haven't really read much John in a while but I've always found the language more powerful and poetic, or at least that's how I remember it. "In the beginning was the Word..." echoes Genesis so strongly and powerfully.

 

[JRT]

Compared to The Synoptics GJn (the Gospel of John) shows much more Christological development. That is to say that The Synoptics tend to emphasize the Jesus of history whereas GJn talks more about the cosmological Christ. I also tend to agree with the Jesus Seminar in their conclusion that none of the words attributed to Jesus in GJn can be regarded as historical. I also agree that Marcus Borg was a fine Bible Scholar and a very compassionate Christian. I had the great pleasure of meeting him once at a seminar. The audience was mostly clerical and scholarly. At the end someone asked "What do you think of 'born again' Christianis?" He stood in silence at the lectern with his head bowed for the longest time then he looked up and said "I think that it is too bad that so many of them are born again as JERKS." The audience broke up in laughter.

 

[BetteTheRed]

I always argue with John. I'm a long time member of a long time bible study group, using a lectio divina methodology, and I just balk at John. Hate the unveiled anti-semitism.

 

[revjohn]

I'm partial to John. If I was forced to pick a favourite Gospel I would pick John.

 

[Mendalla]

I detect bias here.

 

[paradox3]

My favorite of the four gospels is Luke. I suspect John will grow on me when I spend more time with it.

 

[Luce NDs]

I detect bias here.

Always good to hold respect for the common John as Koine!

Then there is Luke or the Lucid one for those that despised clarity ... it must be catered to as playing misty ... smoke and MIR is to be questioned ... due to poor burning habits ...

But you can't say that as the truth is not well accepted in an overly emotional domain! One takes a shot at it ... yet not accepted if you question powers! The governor thus exploded ... doesn't that trump the house cards? Moderation thus takes up polarity ... lessor of deux weevils ... means!

 

[revjohn]

I detect bias here.

As much as any expression of preference reveals bias.