Difference bet. John & synoptic Gospels

[slave_of_god]

I have read that statement :
The Gospel of John differ so radically from the 3 synoptic Gospels.
Why it is different ?
Why others are called synoptic ?

 

[rcjones]

Synoptic means ‘seen together’. The three contain similar accounts.

John differs in many ways, but also shares in ways that are not apparent.

In the three, Jesus ministry appears to take place in one year, where in John it appears to take place in three. John has a more esoteric nature to it beginning with “In the beginning was the Word…”

There are many other observations. Some critics try to demean the three books by saying that the authors must have collaborated or shared records with each other, and other critics demean them because they aren’t identical. This says more about the critics than the books. They will not dance or mourn.

Although in a casual look at John 1 it appears that John is the mystic. However, Luke shares the same information but hidden in riddle:

v.5 Zacharias – “remembered of Jehovah”
course – daily In sensus plenior ‘day’ is a picture of Christ.
Abia – “My father is God” therefore “Son of God”
wife – one of the words in Hebrew means burning ember and in sensus plenior ‘total devotion’
daughter – a son who does not see clearly, Christ in the incarnation emptied himself and therefore was not omniscient.
Aaron – lightbringer
Elizabeth – oath of God An oath is a sure word, so we may say that Elizabeth means Word of God,

Paraphrasing the riddle solution:

God remembered a picture of Christ, the Son of God totally devoted in incarnation, the Light and Word of God.

What John reveals plainly; that Jesus is the Word and the Light, and God incarnate, Luke reveals in riddle.

 

[Bookcat]

I have read that statement :
The Gospel of John differ so radically from the 3 synoptic Gospels.
Why it is different ?
Why others are called synoptic ?

Read Jesus of Nazareth …by Pope Benedict XVI…

I am sure others will comment more…I got to run…just wanted to mention that

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Synoptics tend to focus more on healings, particularly Mark, whereas scholars have noticed John places a very high emphasis on baptism imagery/ministry, particularly in the beginning. The miracles in John are fewer in number, and are referred to as “signs” recorded for a very specific, cumulative theological point.

The structure of the entire first part of John is patterned after Genesis (which is even alluded to in the first chapter); and points to a theme of a “new creation,” with Mary and Jesus fulfilling their roles as the New Adam and New Eve.

John is structured to complement the synoptics. You will notice that John has details that the others leave out, and does not contain many of the miracles, parables, and events. Example: Foot washing is in John, but the Eucharist is not. That being said, John focuses on the Bread of Life Discourse, perhaps because he feels that it is very important for a proper understanding of the significance of the Eucharist described in the synoptics.

The synoptics focus on parables, with the main focus being the kingdom of heaven. John has lengthier theological/philosophical discourses focusing mainly on Jesus himself.

Some would argue that John has a much more highly developed Christology, since Jesus makes more blatantly obvious statements. His allusions in the synoptics are far more subtle to our eyes, because many of them are OT and Biblical allusion understood to be about the Father that he subtly applies to himself. This is to be expected, since John wrote the gospel later than the others, and had more time to reflect on the true significance of certain acts of Jesus.

Both focus on the fulfillment of prophecy. However, as the synoptics tend to focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of actual proper OT messianic prophecies, a careful study of John shows that John seems to be more concerned about (and indeed structures the signs and the gospel itself) around Jesus’ fulfillment of the major Jewish feasts. John’s attention to the feast calendar is also why we know Jesus’ ministry was about 3 years.

These are some of the major differences I can think of off the top of my head, hope this helps. God Bless You.

 

[diggerdomer]

I have read that statement :
The Gospel of John differ so radically from the 3 synoptic Gospels.
Why it is different ?
Why others are called synoptic ?

Read the Gospels. See for yourself.

 

[Timothy17]

This is a personal observation from personal experience, but Scripture has a habit of producing awesome statements, seemingly glaring contradictions, etc., that demand our attention and either belief / disbelief. Scripture resists being reduced to simple story or fable by such mechanisms that demand so much from the reader.

Whenever Scripture tests us, don’t forefit or assume fault in the author : see it as an invitation to explore and dig deeper. The Magisterium and Church Fathers are an excellent source for understanding Scripture and instruction on how to properly read Scripture.

Pax,
Tim

 

[rcjones]

John’s attention to the feast calendar is also why we know Jesus’ ministry was about 3 years.

Is this an official position?

Revelation tells the same story over and over. Where some people think it is sequential, others think it is parallel. Since John wrote both, perhaps the book of John is parallel as well, and should be read as three tellings from different perspectives.

I will have to re-read it that way and see what pops.

 

[NHInsider]

Partly I’m sure the “more developed Christology” of John’s Gospel is a result of more years of the proclamation, but also it was almost certainly written with the assumption that those hearing it (most people didn’t read, they heard) would already have at least one of the other narratives available. Thus, for example, he doesn’t include the Words of Institution from the Last Supper, but gives us both the Bread of Life discourse and the washing of the Apostle’s feet.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Is this an official position?

Revelation tells the same story over and over. Where some people think it is sequential, others think it is parallel. Since John wrote both, perhaps the book of John is parallel as well, and should be read as three tellings from different perspectives.

I will have to re-read it that way and see what pops.

As far as dogmatically defined, no I do not believe so, although it is traditionally accepted. That being said, I admit that your idea initially intrigued me. The thing is, although Revelation does tell the same story more than once (the pouring of the cups) in greater detail, it is not merely preoccupied with the destruction of Jerusalem (my viewpoint is amillenial), since it changes tack at chapter 20. Indeed, an individual’s interpretation of chapter 20 seems to be the major determining factor of how that person will interpret the rest of the Apocalypse. I believe John is using the Hebrew literary style of telling the same story in greater depth to a point, but then he seems to move beyond that to a grander scale.

The gospel of John, however, does not seem to have any such structure. The sequential mentioning of three Passovers, and the largely linear structuring of the Gospel designed to complement the Synoptics seems to argue against it. All the signs are unique, specific in nature, and are not elaborated upon further down the road, arguing against his literary structure of further elaborating on the specific nature of each of the cups of wrath in the Apocalypse. Also, there does not appear to be any change in viewpoint whatsoever, so I’m not sure that the parallel argument would be justified. Just my initial thoughts on the matter. God Bless.

 

[NotWorthy]

Is this an official position?

Revelation tells the same story over and over. Where some people think it is sequential, others think it is parallel. Since John wrote both, perhaps the book of John is parallel as well, and should be read as three tellings from different perspectives.

I will have to re-read it that way and see what pops.

This is where we get the tradition that Jesus’ ministry lasted about 3 years. There are three occurrences in John’s Gospel that are done “around the time of the Passover”. I think its the Wedding in Cana, the Feeding of the Multitudes/Bread of Life discourse and the Passion.

 

[rcjones]

The gospel of John, however, does not seem to have any such structure. The sequential mentioning of three Passovers, and the largely linear structuring of the Gospel designed to complement the Synoptics seems to argue against it. All the signs are unique, specific in nature, and are not elaborated upon further down the road, arguing against his literary structure of further elaborating on the specific nature of each of the cups of wrath in the Apocalypse. Also, there does not appear to be any change in viewpoint whatsoever, so I’m not sure that the parallel argument would be justified. Just my initial thoughts on the matter. God Bless.

You may be right. Several years ago when I looked at it in detail I noticed a pattern of Word, Works, Life that was repeated in John, I will have to see if it dovetails with the passovers.

From the nature of such patterns I would expect the stuff associated with the first pattern to fit int the Word motif, and John 1 certainly starts that way. Works would be associated with healing and signs, and Life would be associated with the cross. The general outline is insufficient to be determinant, but if the language used in each block tie to with each other, such as the parallelisms between what Jesus said and did in the book of Matthew, then it would be worth reconsidering.

Then even if the pattern is there, it is not conclusive that it was one year over three, since the way shadows work is that they are written on actual history. So it could still be that the synoptics covered three years but compressed it by their silence on passovers. For them it is a determined progress to the cross.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Interesting…Catholic scholars I have noticed tend to subdivide John according to the initial Creation-flavored prologue, the book of signs (1:19 - 12:50) the book of glory (13:1 - 20:31), and the resurrection epilogue.

The Synoptics focus mainly on Jesus’ Galilean ministry and only mention one trip to Jerusalem, whereas John mentions numerous trips into Jerusalem and only briefly mentions excursions into Galilee and Samaria. He also fills in details prior to Jesus’ baptism vs. the Synoptics starting His ministry directly after. Combined with some of the examples above as well as the later written date, it seems that John is filling in the blanks. The Synoptics leaving out the multiple trips to Jerusalem that Jesus would have had to make (as an observant Jew taking part in the liturgical feast calendar) makes me think that the timeline given by John, besides being complementary, is most probably correct.

Also, I am not sure that I completely grasp your comment about the riddle in Luke, although I was a bit intrigued by it. Perhap you can explain it in greater detail…

God Bless…

 

[rcjones]

Also, I am not sure that I completely grasp your comment about the riddle in Luke, although I was a bit intrigued by it. Perhap you can explain it in greater detail…

God Bless…

I would be happy to, but fear it would hijack the thread. I practice a hermeneutic which was available in the 1st century, and which I believe explains the way that NT authors used the OT. I believe it reveals pictures of Christ in the OT which Jesus used to know who he was and what he was to do. Since we can now see them, they give us a clearer picture of Christ which does not contradict what we know from the literal.

I share it in this forum hoping that the church has some memory of the method. I believe it does in the typology of the church and the Quadriga.

We speak of different genres of writing. This is the genre of riddle. It is hidden in double entendre. To the casual observer it appears to be allegory, but it is much more than that. The meaning is firmly tied to the words used and is therefore verifiable and reproducible, which cannot be said of much allegory.

If you search these forums for my name and sensus plenior you will find many examples of its application.

I also try to teach others how to see it for themselves at sensusplenior.net/?page_id=2

I am not Catholic. But I am not anti-Catholic. You may find some doctrinal differences from time to time, but if you didn’t, I would likely be Catholic. I am hoping to find a Catholic expert on the subject, to discuss it further and attempt to reconcile any differences.

v.5 Zacharias – “remembered of Jehovah”
course – daily In sensus plenior ‘day’ is a picture of Christ.
Abia – “My father is God” therefore “Son of God”
wife – one of the words in Hebrew means burning ember and in sensus plenior ‘total devotion’
daughter – a son who does not see clearly, Christ in the incarnation emptied himself and therefore was not omniscient.
Aaron – lightbringer
Elizabeth – oath of God An oath is a sure word, so we may say that Elizabeth means Word of God,

Paraphrasing the riddle solution:

God remembered a picture of Christ, the Son of God totally devoted in incarnation, the Light and Word of God.

There are two basic methods of obtaining the riddle and solving it.

Many words have multiple meanings. This provides a mechanism for double entendre. Not all possible meanings are true meanings for a passage, and so there are a set of rules at the website which constrain them.

Then some words have a metaphoric meaning which is discerned by solving riddles. A proper solution is known when the metaphoric meaning can be used everywhere in scripture that it occurs. Garments are always works, and donkeys are always prophets. This mechanism demonstrates that the sensus plenior is not of human origin.

In the riddle of Luke:
Zacharias – “remembered of Jehovah” can be verified by a dictionary.
course – daily In sensus plenior ‘day’ is a picture of Christ. is a metaphoric meaning that would take some explaining to demonstrate.
Abia, Aaron and Elizabeth can be verified with a dictionary.
wife requires a two step process, first the dictionary then the metaphor.
daughter is riddle alone.

I am also documenting the metaphoric meanings, but it is a tedious process like drawing a picture to explain a joke. It’s much easier if someone just ‘gets it.’ It is the same with riddle.

When is the ocean friendly? If you don’t know it is a riddle you might say When it is shallow or calm. But when you hear: It is friendly when it waves at you… You get it. If you didn’t, it would take a lot of explaining to help you understand.

It is child’s play. It only becomes real complicated because we don’t speak Hebrew.

In several of the riddles Christ is portrayed as a sickly priest. So the riddle asks why was Jesus a sickly priest? The answer is that he could not act like a priest at all before the cross because he was the wrong tribe, but he became the High priest in the resurrection. Now we see Lazarus (whose name in Hebrew is the name of the high priest) who is sick. It is a picture of Christ in the flesh. When Jesus sees it, he is confronted with his own death and groans deeply as he faces a mini Gethsemane experience. To finish the picture using Lazarus, Lazarus must be resurrected. So Jesus calls him from the tomb. Now we have a completed picture of Christ which Jesus knowingly and intentionally participated in.

It was a part of his training process to face the real cross. As he was faithful in each of the little things, the mini dramas of the cross, it enabled him to be faithful in the big thing of the cross itself.

We see this same process in many of the things Jesus did. He actively participated in a ‘dinner theater’ type play to paint a picture of the cross. Luke writes in the same hidden fashion as the OT . When we discern the hidden meaning from v5 it contains the same elements that we think are unique to John.

If someone wishes to discuss it further, please start a thread of its own and let me know where it is or PM me so we don’t hijack this one.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

I probably will start a new thread, or we can continue here, as it seems to have died off anyways. My issue with this is the same as my issue with the Bible code, albeit not on the same level: manuscript differences. While many manuscript differences are mainly typographical errors, some are differences in words, and this would seem to cause an issue with any theory that relies on certain key words for a hidden allegory.

Also, the reference to garments as always referring to works seems partially incorrect, since early fathers also drew a parallel to clothes and baptism, as in “putting on” the righteousness of Christ…

As for looking for a Catholic expert on the subject, I am curious which doctrinal subject in specific you speak of? It’s a bit difficult to be a master of all, so often it’s best to narrow it down and find one that specializes in a given area. For instance, you would never catch me in the philosophy department; I’d be in over my head. I have merely a basic command of apologetics in that regard. My thing is more patristics and Sacred Scripture as pertaining to Catholic dogma.

 

[rcjones]

I probably will start a new thread, or we can continue here, as it seems to have died off anyways. My issue with this is the same as my issue with the Bible code, albeit not on the same level: manuscript differences. While many manuscript differences are mainly typographical errors, some are differences in words, and this would seem to cause an issue with any theory that relies on certain key words for a hidden allegory.

I would be happy to look at any proposed discrepancies to see what happens. But as in a literal narrative, differences in translations do not cause majot issues in understanding. Likewise, in riddle, it is an idea that is being played with, not necessarily a particluar word. So many of the riddles persist even through translation.

Also, the reference to garments as always referring to works seems partially incorrect, since early fathers also drew a parallel to clothes and baptism, as in “putting on” the righteousness of Christ…

According to the dictionary righteousness is also a work. ‘righteous acts’, so there is no contradiction with the fathers.

06666 hqdu ts@daqah tsed-aw-kaw’

from 06663; n f; {See TWOT on 1879 @@ “1879b”}

AV-righteousness 128, justice 15, right 9, righteous acts 3, moderately 1, righteously 1; 157

As for looking for a Catholic expert on the subject, I am curious which doctrinal subject in specific you speak of? .

Specifically, typology, sensus plenior, or quadriga.

 

[rcjones]

Here is one example of a manuscript difference: some manuscripts include it and others don’t:

Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

**They shall take up serpents **They shall lift up the cross as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so that those who turn to Christ will be saved.

If they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them If they partake of any deadly doctrine it shall not hurt them. They shall resist bad doctrine.

they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. They shall do work on the
sick… the word comes from deliver or issue. This concept refers to being born in the OT.

They shall do work on those being born…
and they shall
recover this word also means beautiful or useful.

They shall do work on those being born and they shall become useful.

This talks of discipleship. See Onesimus… his name means useful. He was the slave of Philemon who became useful.

Since it is self-contained, and since these things are taught elsewhere, the meaning is more resilient than the literal. It doesn’t really matter whether it is included here or not. If you insist on interpreting it literalistically, you have to decide why Christians die of poisoning and snake bites, and why they can’t heal everyone.

 

[slave_of_god]

you are all welcome !
thank you for all your answers.
sorry for interrupting the ongoing discussion, but if i want to read about simple way to make that seemingly glaring contradictions “compatible” what do you recommend? do you know sites made efforts to clarify this points?

 

[patg]

you are all welcome !

thank you for all your answers.
sorry for interrupting the ongoing discussion, but if i want to read about simple way to make that seemingly glaring contradictions “compatible” what do you recommend? do you know sites made efforts to clarify this points?

Something that might interest you is *The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI (and Joseph Fitzmyer’s commentary on it). These are available online and provide some interesting perspective on all the gospels.

 

[slave_of_god]

Something that might interest you is *The Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels *by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Paul VI (and Joseph Fitzmyer’s commentary on it). These are available online and provide some interesting perspective on all the gospels.

can you give me its link, thanks

 

[patg]

can you give me its link, thanks

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_HistTruthFitzmyer.htm%between%