John use of Synoptics and Intertextuality

So I know that the writers of the New Testament text used other writings to make a case for their documentation and analysis. I am wondering if my list of the way they used the other parts of the Bible is correct. I say they did the following: direct quotes, indirect quotes and echoes of other texts. As an aside, D. M. Smith said, " The relationship of John to the synoptic gospels has been a recurring problem, not only for two centuries of modern critical scholarship, but for Christian theology and exegesis over a much longer period. (1) D. M. Smith, “John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem,” NTS 26 (1980) 425. I remember Dave Hooten telling me about the intertext label. That does not seem to work for John's use of Luke but for only John's use of the OT. Am I not understanding that conceptual basis? Furthermore, my question is how can this be assessed from an inner gospel textured analysis of John chapters 19-21 and the Gospel of Luke? I hope I am making sense here in my line of analysis.

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

DMB

I am wondering if my list of the way they used the other parts of the Bible is correct. I say they did the following: direct quotes, indirect quotes and echoes of other texts.

That's a modern way of looking at it. But I'm sure you've listened to your pastor, as he weaves 'Bible-talk' in with short-quotes, and periodic hard-hitting quotes. He's 'manipulating' your thinking, appealing to what you already know, with additional points he wants you to see. The apostle Paul did this predictably, if you watch. You can hear the cymbals crash, as the hard quote appears.

So, you could also classify as to how the intertext is being used by the author.

The other issue (which for your paper should be disregarded; keep on-track), is exactly what was the passover feast week. One of my authors pointed out that John's differences might not be vs the synoptics but rather the validity of the post-resurrection re-appearances.

MJ. Smith

I say they did the following: direct quotes, indirect quotes and echoes of other texts.

They also used other parts of the Bible for presuppositions, for connotations, for historical context ... Don't confuse intertextual use as the only use of "other scripture" in John. What the "correct" classifications are depends upon what data you have captured and how you are going to use it

Christian Alexander

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1280716#Comment_1280716

One of my authors pointed out that John's differences might not be vs the synoptics but rather the validity of the post-resurrection re-appearances.

What author was it that made this point?

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1280944#Comment_1280944

I hate to admit, I don't remember ... I've been bouncing along on cosmic powers (Paul vs Enoch Parables), NT translation patterns, synoptic > John shifts over presumed time, and the issue of John the Baptist. Hard to keep track!

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1280958#Comment_1280958

LOL...it's funny that I can reliably predict who the OP is on so many threads. I'm currently batting 1000 on at least two-dozen at bats.

Dave Hooton

I remember Dave Hooten telling me about the intertext label. That does not seem to work for John's use of Luke but for only John's use of the OT. Am I not understanding that conceptual basis? Furthermore, my question is how can this be assessed from an inner gospel textured analysis of John chapters 19-21 and the Gospel of Luke? I hope I am making sense here in my line of analysis.

I've learned a lot about intertextuality and figure that I know as much as any of the authors quoted, or likely to be quoted (or alluded...).

As Luke seems to owe an awful amount to Matthew and Mark, why should it be assumed that John used Luke? It just keeps the journal articles busy with content[:)]