www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Gospel Of John

Hello everyone, SLava Isusu Christu!

I would like to ask about the differences between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John. What is/are the reason/s for the differences according to tradition and history? Are these differences important or do they only serve to deepen the understaning of the Christian mystery?

p.s. is it me, or are atheists really snobbish when it comes to religion?

Hey, Justin!

First of all, in a lot of cases, it's not just you; they are snobbish..."We're above that peasant nonsense."

As far as the difference between John and the rest of the Guys, I wrote a paper about this once. Can't find it now, but here's the basic jist of the idea.

While the Synoptics (the Guys) wrote more or less histories of Jesus (aimed at particular audiences, probably), John wrote a theology. He doesn't cite every thing that the Synoptics do...then again, the latter don't cite some of the things John does.

John has something like seven main sections, or some number like that. Each one starts out with an event/miracle, and then what follows is Jesus' teaching, which enlightens one as to the event/miracle that just happened. Hence, you'll have the feeding of the five thousand (I think) in chapter six of John, followed by the "Bread of Life discourse". Jesus' baptism is followed by his talks with Nicodemus and the woman at the well. It goes on like that. Each teaching of Jesus sheds light on the miracle or event that just happened; it's a theology of what just happened.

Outside of these seven sections, there's the account of the Passion and the Resurrection. Even here, you can see not just a historical narration, but the theology of what is happening as it is happening.

John is more theological than the Synoptics; these Guys mainly wrote biographies in comparison. I think, for this reason, Saint John is given the title of "Theologian" (isn't he?) in the Eastern Churches. I think the Western Church calls him Saint John the Divine (a divine was a theologian...at least that's what I read).

Hope this ramble has helped a bit...

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Indeed, Mor Ephrem, your comments are most appreciated and they illuminate quite nicely. Do you think that John was writing a Theological gospel with certain events not recorded otherwise because he wanted to stress their importance, or because the writers of the synoptics thought that these events were not biographically important.

Well, I think the reason John includes stuff the Synoptics don't is because the Synoptics were written earlier. If you go by the current scriptural scholarship, Mark was first, then Matthew and Luke later, and finally John. If you go by the preface to my Challoner NT, the gospels were written in the order in which they are found in the NT; in either case, John was written last. He probably knew the contents of the other gospels, and so included stuff that they didn't.

It would be a vast undertaking to re-write all of what the Synoptics had already written, and to "theologise" about it all. But by taking events that the others left out, and including Jesus' words which shed light on them, he was able to fill out the picture, so to speak.

Did the Synoptics feel that the events in John weren't important? I'm not sure. Some events, like the feeding of the five thousand and Jesus' baptism, are in the Synoptics. But others aren't. I think a lot of the gospel was preached by word of mouth, and so the written texts were written just to preserve the important stuff, with the hope that all the rest would also be passed on. Certainly, if we are to believe Saint John, the whole world couldn't contain all the books that would have to be written about all of Jesus' words and deeds. Hence, one couldn't set down a lot of things, and had to pick and choose. The Synoptics probably chose what they thought was necessary (each contains things the others don't, even though they share much of the same contents) and left stuff out. John probably knew what was and what wasn't included, and made his choices based on that.

“While the Synoptics (the Guys) wrote more or less histories of Jesus (aimed at particular audiences, probably), John wrote a theology. He doesn't cite every thing that the Synoptics do...then again, the latter don't cite some of the things John does.”

Wouldn't Mark, Matthew, and Luke be considered theologies too? Is the genre of a gospel merely biographical - a Life and Times of Jesus? The Synoptics include a Resurrection narrative, hardly a bio-graphical account since bios refers to earthly life and not a resurrection. Matthew and Luke include an Infancy narrative and Genealogy, which in themselves, actually try to make a theological point: Jesus was the One they were waiting for. If they were concerned about a "history' (something I think us contemporaries have an infatuation with) then Mt and Lk would have agreed on the details of Jesus' birth. They don't agree in the details; their nativity stories disagree greatly. But were they really interested in documenting historical data? Biographies aren't proclaimed, but homilies, sermons, and preachings are, hence the word given to all four: gospel or good news. John is very different from the Synoptics (Mt, Mk, Lk), but his literary structure or order is heavily based on the Elijah (Elias)-Elisha (Eleseus) cycles. Matthew seems to reflect a five-fold division of Jesus' teachings and a lot of Mosaic elements. Is this a Jewish scribe's attempt to convey a New Torah? If so, then Matthew was suggesting a theological revolution on par or greater than the Mosaic religion. Most of Jesus' life story (from his toddler years to the beginning of his ministry when he met John the Baptizer) is also missing. If a biography was the Evangelists' main concern, they did a poor job for they didn't care to document it. Mark doesn't even care about anything that happened in Jesus' life before his baptism in the River Jordan.


Joe

Dear Joe,

Your correction/clarification forces me to admit the secular nature of the paper I referred to in my first post. It was for an English professor, and was a literary analysis, with little/no religious consideration. Contradiction in terms, I guess, but I discussed the Gospels as literature, and not as Scripture, for purposes of the paper. So what I state above is more or less from that perspective. Your perspective is more complete, covering all bases, literary and theological. I, of course, defer to your greater knowledge of the Scriptures.

With my explanation given, I would really appreciate it if you could expand on what I quoted from your post above. I've heard a little bit about the "new Torah" stuff with regard to Matthew, but not enough to be able to know what it is; could you explain that? What are these five divisions you speak of? And what's with the "Elijah-Elisha cycles" with regard to John? I've never heard of that...thanks!

To the Catholic_Servant86:

Perhaps I can "shed some light" on your question:

As stated accurately in an earlier post, the Synoptics were written primarily to a certain audience. For example: Matthew is obviously Jewish flavored. One example supporting and showing this is when Jesus' ancestry is traced to Abraham, who was the first patriarch (FATHER) of Israel; in Luke's gospel, written to Gentiles, shows the ancestry of Jesus being traced entirely back to Adam. Which is correct? They both are since they are addressing the needs for different cultures. Mark's gospel does not mention Jesus' ancestry. The reason is simple: Mark's gospel was written to Roman citizens, which at that time was the melting pot of the world; so Mark had to write his Good News for all cultures and backgrounds to understand..he had no need to focus on a particular one as Matthew and Luke did.

John's gospel was written to give more of a personal and philosophical insight to our Lord. Knowing what the other 3 gospels contained, since his was the last one written, John did not have to concentrate on the events and stories that convinced the readers that Jesus was the Messiah. It is in this gospel ONLY where the true Lord's Prayer is given: John Chapter 17.

I hope this was of help. God Bless.

Walter Metrick
waltermetrick@aol.com

Dear Walter,

But with John's focus on the Logos et alia did he not then try to address the educated Hellenic crowd?

Did he not try to show that the faith of Christ is just as much the domain of the intelligent as well as the simple, reaching out to the "movers and shakers" of his time?

Just wondering.

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]Dear Walter,

>>>But with John's focus on the Logos et alia did he not then try to address the educated Hellenic crowd?<<<

It was once thought that John's Gospel was heavily hellenized, particularly because of its reliance on Logos theology and its light/dark dichotomies. However, in the last thirty years, with the publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other first century documents, we now recognize that John was firmly in the mainstream of first century Palestinian Judaism, and that in many ways, his Gospel is the most "Jewish" of the four. And while the redacted final edition may date to the last decade of the first century, there are definitely elements within it that are from the earliest strata of Tradition, so that the beginning of John may date to the 40s, making it the oldest of all.

Dear Stuart,

Yes, I always thought that the emphases in John reflected more classicaly Judaic theological perspectives than Hellenic.

Some recent research seems to suggest that the influence of Judaic thought and theology in early Christianity had a far greater role to play than Hellenic.

In fact, there seemed to be something of a concerted effort by some European biblical scholars to try and underscore Hellenism and underline for it a role in early Christianity that it simply did not have.

It seems to me that Jewish philosophy, the healthiest and most comprehensive from the holistic point of view, needs to be given a more central focus here and in our spiritual lives.

For me, when in the Brothers Karamazov mention is made of "loving life with your whole stomach," that is a good example of the passion and zest for life that comes from the Jewish heritage of Christianity.

Alex

"... his Gospel is the most "Jewish" of the four."

In our Synoptic Gospel class at my professor's home last night, we discussed this as well as how John's account of the Last Supper might be the best version. John's Gospel is also a series of chiastic structures.

For your studies:
http://homepages.picknowl.com.au/sherpub/book/threeb.html

[ 07-30-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

There is an important point that needs to be made:

It can become quite fruitless at times to get into these "intellectual" pursuits concerning Scriptures.

They were given to us to read and obey. If we intellectualize and theologize too much, we end up treating a Bible study as a critical reading and evaluation course at the local community college.

So let us learn it.....obey it......and proclaim it. The Protestants are already kicking our tails in knowledge, memorization, and evangelization.

Peace,
Walter Metrick

Dear Walter,

Amen to that!

Joe Thur's references to "chiastic" whatever had me going there for a bit . . .

I think it is great that we have such luminaries as Joe Thur and Stuart, but not every one is called to be a theological heavyweight.

I think we can leave the organization of our liturgical life to them.

I'll leave the preaching to people like you, if I may, unless either of the above promise to speak to our people more with Grade 12 type terminology.

Alex

Walter,

Take this simple test:

Using the Principle of Sola Scriptura, tell me how it was decided which books were to be considered scripture and included in the New Testament? Where in the NT text is a list of NT books? (The Table of Contents came centuries later and this is not the list I am talking about)

Don't intellectualize or theologize. Just use the Bible to get your answer. Let's discuss.

[ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: J Thur ]

Dear Walter,

To answer Joe's question, just use your basic hermeneutic paradigms within a contextual perspective predicated on interpretive notions whose norms are grounded in historicity.

See, simple!

Alex