From: David Moore (dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us)
Date: Tue Dec 19 1995 - 09:07:23 EST
On Mon, 18 Dec 1995, Carl W. Conrad wrote:
> At 8:00 PM 12/18/95, David Moore wrote:
> > Eusebius's cites Papius to the effect that Mark's Gospel renders
> >the Gospel information faithfully but does not preserve a careful ordering
> >of the events of the Lord's life (Eusebius III:39). If this testimony be
> >credible, and if Luke and Matthew (at least in the form we have the
> >latter) were influenced by Mark's ordering of the material, John may
> >represent the best testimony we have regarding the chronology of the life
> >of Christ.
> >
> > Raymond Brown, in his commentary on John, notes the possibility of
> >the historicity of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel but mainly discounts
> >it on theoretical redactional grounds (R. Brown, _The Gospel According to
> >John_ [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1966], pp. xlvi-li).
> >
> > Nevertheless, I find these references in John intriguing -
> >especially from the standpoint that they can be fit into a plausible
> >chronology. Also, the reference to 46 years for the building of the
> >temple provides a plausible figure for the number of years the temple
> >would have been under construction from Herod's initiating its building in
> >19 BC (Josephus, Antiq. XV 380), if the words recorded in Jn. 2:20 had
> >been spoken in 28 AD. This, of course, would be taking the aorist
> >OIKODOMHQH as referring to the building as an event accomplished in so
> >many years. The imperfect would probably not be required here, although
> >the temple was not yet complete, for Jesus had referred to TO NAON TOUTON
> >(v. 19) indicating what was then standing.
>
> This is all fascinating. At the very least it would have to be said that
> John is building his chronology deliberately, and perhaps, even, with
> historical probability.
Well said, Carl. To observe that John seems to be building his
chronology deliberately certainly adds a dimension to simply saying - as
yours truly did - that his chronology is plausible.
>The one question that comes to my mind in
> particular, however, is, I believe, an old one. The Synoptic gospels all
> place the "Cleansing of the Temple" at the beginning of Passion Week,
> whereas John puts it in Chapter 2. I think the usual harmonization is to
> say that John has deliberately placed the events in chapter 2 of the
> beginning (wedding at Cana) and of the end (Cleansing of Temple) of Jesus'
> ministry. Your reading would appear to take the positioning of the
> Cleansing of the Temple as indeed taking place historically three (or at
> least two) years PRIOR to that last week in Jerusalem. I won't say this is
> impossible--I obviously can't prove it is--but is it plausible that this
> sort of challenge to the authority of the High Priesthood would have been
> allowed to go unsanctioned for two successive years?
The standard answer to that apparent discrepancy is that Jesus
did this sort of cleansing of the temple on more than one occasion, and
that the Synoptics and John report different occasions. In the early
part of Jesus' ministry, the High Priesthood was unable to sanction him
for any of His challenges to their authority because of His popularity.
David L. Moore Southeastern Spanish District
Miami, Florida of the Assemblies of God
dvdmoore@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us Department of Education
http://members.aol.com/dvdmoore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:37:34 EDT