Christology of the Gospel of John | Dr. Paul N. Anderson

This important work not only contributes to understanding the origins and character of John's christological tensions, but it also outlines a new set of theories regarding several innovative dialogical approaches to the Johannine text. In his new introduction to this edition, Anderson engages constructively the responses of his reviewers and outlines his own theories regarding John's dialogical autonomy. Posing a comprehensive new synthesis regarding John's composition, situation history, relations to Synoptic traditions, agency Christology, historicity, and theological tensions, Anderson here summarizes his most significant theories published since it first appeared. In so doing, advances suggested by this pivotal text are laid out in a new set of paradigms addressing the Johannine riddles in fuller detail.

📌Thumbnail by James G. Riley, TELENIKON on YouTube.

👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on Did Matthew, Mark, Luke and John Actually Write Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!

👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on The Genius of the Gospel Of Matthew - What Scholars Say About the First Gospel!

👉Sign up and join Dr. Jodi Magness on an enthralling archaeological journey through Jesus' world!

👉Sign up for Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's course on the scribal corruption of scripture!

👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls!

👉Sign up for Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh's course on Paul The Apostle!

👉Sign up for Dr. Kipp Davis's course on the Real Israelite Religions!

👉Sign up for Dr. James D. Tabors course on the Gospel of Mark!

👉Sign up for Dr. Dennis MacDonald's course on the Gospels and Greek Poetry!

👉Sign up for Dr. M. David Litwa's course on Mystery Cults!

Join this channel to get access to perks:

Twitter: @Jacob56723278

Would you like a sophisticated yet simple apparatus to be able to easily Stream from your Desktop, Laptop or iPhone? Look no further, Streamyard is easy to use and you can stream to several platforms all at once!

[taylor]

This channel is so much better than mythvision

[joelsyvrud]

Straight substantive material. Thanks, Jacob. You provide the most profound stuff in the biblical studies sphere.

[geraldmeehan]

Thank you Dr Anderson, thank you as always Jacob

[GeorgeCostanzais.]

As always, great interviews with top notch scholars. Thank you, Jacob!

[craigfairweather]

I agree with Dr Anderson that John augments Mark, does not have other Christian texts as sources, and presents itself as by an eyewitness. There is no good reason to think that he did not have a text of Mark. We can use Papias’ reference to two eyewitnesses who were alive when he was young who were talking about their experiences of Jesus, and the apostles like Philip: these were Aristion the Elder and John the Elder. Papias states that Aristion had written a narrative of the sayings of the Lord. This could well be what became known to later generations as ‘Mark’. Papias’ description of what Mark wrote fits better with the gospel that became known to later generations as ‘John’: we must consider that our ‘John’ was originally believed to be written by the part-eyewitness and Jerusalem-based ‘John Mark’. Later John Mark has been erased and the tradition of John the Apostle has been promoted by mid 2nd century CE so that the status of the gospel as apostolic can be promoted so that it would be more widely accepted as authoritative. LUKE-ACTS is likely much later than the other three gospels and the author is a changer and mover of material around. I agree Luke is influenced by ‘John’. The guiding agenda behind Luke-Acts is possibly Polycarp of Smyrna’s agenda. Polycarp promoted ‘John’ on his visit to Rome around 150 CE.

[craigfairweather]

Dr Anderson is good at acknowledging other theories. However, when he mentions the 24 differences between Mark and John in one section alone (!!) he dismisses that the author of ‘John’ knew ‘Mark’ as a text because he thinks ‘John’ would have to be identical somewhere. These are likely deliberate differences. He does not appear give enough weight to the author being deliberately creative and different because the author regards his own status in the congregations as greater and his thematic purpose as greater than that the author of Mark. The reputation of the author of ‘John ‘ is that he ( not the author of ‘Mark’) is the eyewitness (Jhn Ch21, 1Jhn 1). He can freely riff off Mark, ‘correct’ some ideas such as Jesus in Gethsemane, the date of the crucifixion, and use Mark phrases phrases in new ways, and he can sidestep most of Mark’s Galilee incidents, all his parables and ignore exorcisms. The most basic structure of Mark is the same: Intro, John the Baptist, Baptism., Disciples, Galilee, Pharisees, Judea, conflict and plot, upper room, High Priest hearing, Pilate trial, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, meeting in Galilee. This structure is an influence from a known, well known ‘Mark’.

[onika]

Luke 8:
2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

[kengemmer]

Interesting theory of the historical relations between the gospels. Not much Christology.

[scripturaltruth]

Strange the oldest manuscripts we have are of the Gospel of John yet they date it the latest seems like an agenda to me. Also Paul can not be before Luke writing Acts just read chapter 19 in Greek they were not burning books they were coauthoring books by fire light

[onika]

I think Matthew is taking from Luke because Matthew is the only Gospel with the word "church", so Matthew is the latest.