Critics of the fourth gospel often fault it for its differences from the Synoptics. But there's a long history of Christians arguing that John wrote with a knowledge of and agreement with the Synoptics and an intention to supplement them.
For example, though John has much less material on the theme of the kingdom of God than the Synoptics do, he does mention it occasionally. It's not as though he was unaware of the concept, denied that Jesus spoke about it, or anything like that. Most likely, he agreed with what the Synoptics reported on the subject, but thought the earlier gospels had covered the topic adequately and decided to give it less attention than the other gospels had.
A few years ago, I put together a collection of posts on the overlap between John and the Synoptics, and I've updated the post occasionally since then. John has much more in common with the other gospels than people typically suggest. And my post earlier this year on the Jesus of the book of Revelation provides some examples of overlap between Revelation and the Synoptics.
Notice that the presence of Synoptic themes in Revelation provides further evidence for the Synoptics' portrayal of Jesus and for the apostle John's agreement with the Synoptics. And the presence of Synoptic material in Revelation that wasn't included in the fourth gospel adds credibility to the idea that John was intentionally avoiding some Synoptic material in his gospel, even though he agreed with that material. To cite a couple of examples, my post on Revelation linked above mentions how Jesus uses the language and themes associated with knocking and the language and themes associated with keys in the Synoptics and in Revelation in ways in which they're not found in the fourth gospel. When John wrote his gospel, he was free to leave out Jesus' comments in the Synoptics on themes like knocking and keys. Maybe it was material John wanted to leave out because the other gospels had already covered it (multiple times and in multiple contexts), which would allow him to give more space to other material. Or he may have left it out without noticing or for some reason not having to do with the knocking or keys material in particular. But when he wrote Revelation, he was under constraint to record what Jesus and others (e.g., angels) said in that context, and Jesus and the others involved repeated Synoptic themes like the ones I referred to above (knocking, keys). So, the parallels between the Synoptics and Revelation add weight to the notion that in his gospel, John was supplementing the Synoptics while agreeing with them rather than leaving out Synoptic material he was unaware of or disagreed with.
Casting doubt on the authorship attributions of the documents involved isn't an adequate response. Even if you think Revelation was written by somebody other than John the son of Zebedee, the author presumably is still somebody other than any of the Synoptics' authors. So, we'd still have a source other than the Synoptics' authors corroborating what the Synoptics report. And even if you think the author of Revelation is different than the author of the fourth gospel, it would still be likely that Revelation is an early document produced by and/or for individuals who thought highly of the apostle John and the fourth gospel. For an argument that the Beloved Disciple of the fourth gospel is most likely John the son of Zebedee and an argument against the view that there was a second prominent John, often referred to as John the Elder, see here. The fourth gospel and Revelation are both Johannine documents: both are attributed to a prominent John who's likely the son of Zebedee, and they use similar concepts and language (Jesus as the Word, Jesus as the Lamb, Jesus as the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10, etc.). A difference of authorship between the fourth gospel and Revelation would diminish the significance of Revelation's agreements with the Synoptics, but the agreements would still have some evidential value, since they would reflect the views of some early sources who held a high view of John and the fourth gospel. Revelation provides evidence that early sources, most likely first-century ones, with views like those of the fourth gospel thought highly of Synoptic material not included in the fourth gospel. That increases the plausibility of the acceptance of such Synoptic material on the part of the fourth gospel's author.
And notice the significance of Revelation's audience. It was directed to seven churches, including a couple of the most prominent ones in early Christianity (Ephesus and Smyrna, whose prominence is reflected in what sources like the rest of the New Testament, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus say about those cities and those churches). So, the acceptance we see in Revelation of both Synoptic and Johannine views of Jesus is something the author expected such a wide and significant audience to accept.
No comments:
Post a Comment