Philipp F. Bartholomä, «John 5,31-47 and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics. A Comparative Approach.»
Within Johannine scholarship, the assumed differences between Jesus’ teaching in John and in the Synoptics have frequently led to a negative judgment about Johannine authenticity. This article proposes a comparative approach that distinguishes between different levels of similarity in wording and content and applies it to John 5,31-47. What we find in this discourse section corresponds conceptually to a significant degree with the picture offered in the Synoptics, though couched in a very different idiom. Thus, the comparative evidence does not preclude us from accepting this particular part of Johannine speech material as an authentic representation of the actual content of Jesus’words.
Biblica_1:Layout 1 21-11-2011 12:59 Pagina 371
371
JOHN 5,31-47 AND THE TEACHING OF JESUS IN THE SYNOPTICS
that the argument developed here remains unaffected by any given
theory of literary relationship between John and the Synoptics and
therefore does not necessarily presuppose the now increasingly com-
mon assumption of John being to some degree literarily dependent
on its synoptic counterparts 9.
II. A Comparative Approach: Methodology Defined
The Fourth Gospel claims a historical intent (John 19,35; 21,24).
Thus, the authenticity of the Johannine discourses should be evalu-
ated in light of the standards that existed in ancient historiography 10.
An investigation of the authenticity of direct speech in Greco-Roman
and Hebrew historiography shows that when presenting direct
speech, both Greco-Roman as well as ancient Jewish historians made
a clear distinction between form and content. From their perspective,
changing the wording of any given statement was legitimate as long
as the content was faithfully preserved 11. Therefore, according to con-
9
The literary dependence of John on the Synoptics has been strongly ar-
gued for by the so-called “Leuven school†especially represented by F.
NEIRYNCK; cf., e.g., F. NEIRYNCK, “John and the Synoptics 1975-1990â€, John
and the Synoptics (ed. A. DENAUX) (BETL 101; Leuven 1991) 3-62, as well as
ID., “John and the Synopticsâ€, L’Évangile de Jean (ed. M. DE JONGE) (BETL
44; Leuven 1977) 73-106. For an overview of the recent discussion with ex-
tensive bibliography, see now S. SCHREIBER, “Kannte Johannes die Synoptiker?
Zur aktuellen Diskussionâ€, VF 51 (2006) 7-24.
10
One of the very few Johannine commentators to take appropriate account
of ancient historiographical practice in dealing with the historical substance
of the Fourth Gospel is C.S. KEENER, The Gospel of John. A Commentary
(Peabody, MA 2003) I, 1-80.
11
As the ancient historian’s potential to give a literal report of what had been
spoken was rather limited, the representation of the original speech would have
included selection, abbreviation, omission, interpretation, as well as paraphrase
“and almost necessarily a degree of recasting in the historian’s own style†– R.
BAUCKHAM, “Historiographical Characteristics of the Gospel of Johnâ€, NTS 53
(2007) 30. Cf. also KEENER, John, I, 75: “A modern demand for verbatim accuracy
in ancient speech reports would be historically naïve; ancient readers never ex-
pected itâ€. For a discussion of the methodological considerations of Thucydides
and Polybius, see BARTHOLOMÄ, The Johannine Discourses, 48-53. On speeches
in Hebrew historiography, see ibid., 53-56, as well as A.D. BAUM, “Zu Funktion
und Authentizitätsanspruch der oratio recta: Hebräische und griechische
Geschichtsschreibung im Vergleichâ€, ZNW 115 (2003) 586-607, esp. 599-605.
FOLLOW US