My church started a new Bible study last night. We're going through John's Gospel: Wisdom from Ephesus, with Michael Card.
What
impressed me most last night was the openness of people in the group,
and Michael Card on the DVD, to scholarly ideas about the composition of
the Bible. The pastor was saying that he learned from the History
Channel's miniseries on the Bible that the John who wrote the Gospel of
John was not the same person as the John who wrote the Book of
Revelation. Someone else in the group, who is rather conservative and
evangelical yet is part of the more liberal Evangelical Lutheran Church
of America (ELCA), said that he was in a Bible study group about the
Book of Revelation, and it was discussing the question of whether the
same person wrote the Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation.
I had something to contribute to this discussion, for I got back into reading Lee Harmon's Revelation: The Way It Happened (and my blog posts on that book will appear starting June 25). I
happened to read the night before my Bible study Lee's discussion of
the authorship of Revelation, so the issue was fresh in my mind. I told
the group about reasons that many scholars believe that John's Gospel
and Revelation are by different people (different Greek styles), while
also explaining the arguments of conservative scholars who maintain that
the same guy wrote both books (i.e., literary reasons for the stylistic
differences, and patristic ascription of Revelation to the apostle
John). I'm happy when I can come across as smart, as rarely as that
happens!
On the DVD, Michael Card was
saying that Matthew and Luke base the outline of their story on the
Gospel of Mark, so he was essentially agreeing with Markan priority.
While Card believes that John, the author of John's Gospel, was an
eyewitness to Jesus, he seems to think that there's more to what John is
doing than simply writing down what happened. According to
Card, John's Gospel was written much later than the synoptics, and so
John had more time to reflect about the significance of Jesus. The
implication of this is that we see in John things that happened, mixed
with John's retrospective and theological reflections about Jesus'
significance.
I enjoyed hearing Michael Card talk about
some of the differences between John's Gospel and the synoptics. John
leaves out some of the things that other Gospels have, while going in a
different direction. John, unlike Matthew and Luke, does not have a
birth story about Jesus, but John does discuss the incarnation. John
does not have a Last Supper scene, but he does describe what happened
after the Last Supper. John, unlike the synoptics, does not have
parables, but Jesus in John's Gospels is himself a parable----Jesus is
the light of the world who goes on to open the eyes of the blind, and
Jesus is the bread of life who feeds the multitudes.
I'm
appreciative whenever an evangelical acknowledges some human element in
the Bible, because that is a good counterweight to the ideas about the
Bible that a number of conservative Christians hold: that all of the
Bible's words were spoken or dictated by God. I know that there are
many conservative Christians who would distance themselves from this
model of revelation, but there are still a number who hold fast to it.
I'm
doubtful that some of the people in my group would be open to other
conclusions that biblical scholarship has made: the view that Moses did
not write the Pentateuch but that it contains contradictory sources or
layers, or the idea there there are multiple hands in the Book of
Isaiah. It doesn't really tax one's faith to say that different Johns
wrote John's Gospel and the Book of Revelation. After all, even
according to traditionalists, the Bible contains the work of more than
one author! But to say that Moses did not write the Pentateuch does not
sound right to a number of conservative Christians, one reason being
that Jesus seems to attribute parts of the Pentateuch to Moses. The
same would go for the question of how many Isaiahs there are. And, for
some reason, there are a number of conservative Christians who wouldn't
be open to the idea that Paul did not write all of the letters
attributed to him. I think that the reason for their discomfort here is
that such a view would make the letters less authentic----they'd like
for a letter that is attributed to Paul to be from Paul, not from some
unknown who was pretending to be Paul.
Moreover, I'm not sure if
people in the group would acknowledge that the Bible contradicts
himself. Some in the group are more open to that than others. When
John's Gospel is different from the synoptics, that's not a
contradiction, in the eyes of many conservative Christians. Rather,
John's Gospel and the synoptics are highlighting different aspects of
the truth.