Mark Jennings, «The Fourth Gospel’s Reversal of Mark in John 13,31‒14,3», Vol. 94 (2013) 210-236
I argue that the author/s of the Fourth Gospel knew Mark, based on the reversal of certain Markan themes found in John. No attempt is made here to suggest the kind of literary dependence which is the basis of the Synoptic problem. Rather, my thesis is that the author/s of John may have used Mark from memory, writing deliberately to reverse the apocalyptic tendencies found in the Second Gospel. Isolated incidents of this possible reversal demonstrate little, but this paper proposes that the cumulative force of many such reversals supports the thesis of John's possible knowledge of Mark.
226 MARK JENNINGS
phasis 62? There are two major points against this proposition. Firstly,
there are only two references to “going before†in Mark in relation
to Jesus’ resurrection. The phrase does not form part of a major theme
in the Markan narrative, as do “glory†or “the Son of Man†in Mark
13,24.27. It is difficult to see why John would reverse the emphasis
of what he could hardly have regarded as a major thrust of Markan
Christology or eschatology. Secondly, “following Jesus†is a major
— if not the major — motif in the first Final Discourse. The lan-
guage, emphasis and thought are so obviously Johannine that it is
difficult to imagine another source being used.
Conversely, we can hypothesise that John picked up the phrase
from Mark and reversed the emphasis, moving away from the ac-
tion of Jesus “leading†his disciples and putting the focus on the
disciples’ action of “following†Jesus, in order to expound the
theme of discipleship. A stronger case for this proposition could be
made if it can be shown that John may have known and used the
prediction of Peter’s denial in Mark, as the following motif recurs
in the Johannine prediction. If John has reworked the Markan pre-
diction to include this motif, it is possible that he borrowed the orig-
inal idea from Mark and reworked it.
Having said this, we now turn to the prediction of Peter’s denial.
As we have already seen, if significant evidence of similar content
exists, differences can be attributed to different purposes 63. The pre-
diction functions in Mark to illustrate the shortcomings of the disci-
ples, but also to offer hope to the post-resurrection community,
struggling with the issue of denial in the midst of persecution. In con-
trast, John has borrowed the story from Mark or at least a common
tradition in order to illustrate the disciples’ inability to follow Jesus
now, but that they will follow and be reunited with their Lord later.
Adapted in this way, the story worked to comfort the Johannine com-
munity, who understood themselves as those following Jesus in the
aftermath of the resurrection. Thus both narratives are comforting in
similar ways, but are composed for different communities.
Brown suggests this parallel, but does not regard it as evidence of de-
62
pendence (BROWN, Death of the Messiah, 143).
“The structure of the pericope depends in each Gospel on a somewhat
63
different conception of the situation, and no one of them could readily be de-
rived from another†(DODD, Historical Tradition, 56). Against this we might
suggest the possibility that it is the difference in agenda and perception which
accounts for the differences in content and context.
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati