From: Ben Crick (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Jun 21 1997 - 01:26:28 EDT
On 20 Jun 97 (08:39:45), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> [snippage] ... ... Anyway, I am still unsure about
> this idea that John followed or received inspiration from Mark's
> writings. I like to think it is all his own. Maybe that is
> biased on my part, but perhaps he did read Mark's "quick story"
> (I agree with you on this point as well) and subsequently
> wanted to fill in the details. ...
Carlton is probably right in his corrective to my post; I don't think
Barrett made out a good case for dependence on Mark by John. John Wenham
in his /Redating Matthew Mark and Luke/, Hodder, London, 1991, makes an
excellent case for early dating of the Synoptics, and by the same token
an earlier date for John is possible than many allow. For example, JAT
Robinson in his often ignored /Redating the New Testament/, SCM, London,
1976, points out that the Pool of Bethesda (John 5) was still in situ at
the time of writing, therefore /John/ was written before 70 AD. But he did
not want to unnecessarily reduplicate what the Synoptists had written, so
he was more selective in his choice of material (John 20:30-31; 21:25).
There is of course Streeter's suggestion, that John 21 could be the lost
ending of Mark's Gospel (interesting; but not convincing).
I was never happy with CH Dodd. I seem to remember in his preface to his
commentary on Romans saying something like "Sometimes I think St Paul is
wrong; and where he is wrong, I say so" (p xv???). (I no longer have the
book, so I can't track down the citation). IMHO we should sit UNDER the
Scripture in obedience, not OVER it in judgment. Just let's try to understand
it "as is".
EN CRISTWi IHSOU,
-- Ben Crick, BA Bristol, 1963 (hons in Theology) <email@example.com> 232 Canterbury Road, Birchington, Kent, CT7 9TD (UK)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:19 EDT