Dr. Kennaria Brown: GSTR 310 (spring 2021, term B)

This commentary expands Johannine studies in two directions. First, drawing on the methods of literary criticism, it gives new force to a view which is both ancient and modern--that John's gospel, far from being a poorly-edited mixture of sometimes-conflicting traditions, is in fact a coherent unity, an account of Jesus which, however diverse its sources, is a finely-chiseled work of art. Second, it indicates that the unity of John's gospel is founded ultimately not on history or theology but on spirituality. This too corresponds to a view which is both very old--John was always known as the spiritual gospel--and very recent. The present study spells out that idea in new detail. It indicates that the account of Jesus is so written that the tensions and complexities of the text reflect the tensions and complexities of human life, providing the reader not only with an account of Jesus but also with an anthropology--a map of the development of the human spirit.

The Gospel of Luke is similar to Matthew in that it combines both Mark and Q with traditions that are unique. Two differences, however, are immediately obvious:
(1) Whereas Matthew takes most of Mark’s Gospel over into his own, Luke uses only a little more than half of Mark, omitting the rest (see figure 28). In fact, Luke omits all of the material that is found in Mark 6:45–8:26 and in Mark 9:41–10:12. Scholars refer to these lapses respectively as “the great omission” and “the little omission.” Some have theorized that perhaps Luke possessed a defective copy of Mark’s Gospel that was missing these sections, but most assume he skips over this material intentionally.
(2) Whereas the material unique to Matthew (M) represents less than a third of that Gospel, the material unique to Luke (L) accounts for a full half of his completed Gospel (see figure 29). This material, furthermore, contains many of the most-beloved stories in the Bible, such as the Christmas story of the baby in the manger and the tales of Jesus’s
encounters with Mary and Martha, Zacchaeus, and the two men on the road to Emmaus. Several of Jesus’s best-known parables are found here also, including the stories of the good Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus, and the Pharisee and the tax collector. Scholars of literature often remark that stories contained in this L material are of a superior literary quality than is usually evident in the Gospels. This evangelist, they speculate, was a gifted storyteller, and he may be at his best when he is least reliant on tradition.

Two statements of Mark have had a central role in the definition of Mark’s original historical context: the explanation of Jewish practices of washing food, hands, and cooking vessels (Mark 7:3–4) and the identification of Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21). The thesis here is that these statements were not narrative comments by the author/narrator to readers, but were storytelling asides to the audiences to whom Mark’s story was told.

The second title in a proposed five-volume work; volume two, following on from the volume on Mark's Gospel, concentrates on Matthew's Gospel. Contributors consider the function of embedded scripture texts in the context of the Gospels written and read/heard in their early Christian settings. The project is wide ranging, with essays on the function of scripture in the compositional history of the gospels and the collection is broad in scope as a result of current interest in the integration of methods (especially historical and narrative ones). Advancements over the last 20 years in the study of genre and narrative criticism have left a void in the study of the function of embedded biblical texts in the Gospels. This collection of essays will move the study of scripture within scripture forwards.