Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 165-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Foster
Keyword(s):  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel

At the invitation of the editors, this article interacts with Stan Porter and Hughson Ong’s response to one of my previous articles that appeared in this journal. The original article critiqued the validity of three newer approaches now being applied to historical Jesus research. I am very grateful to Porter and Ong for their discussion and constructive response to that article. In large part, in this article I seek to more fully explain the reasons for the positions stated in the original article, or to clarify points where Porter and Ong have misunderstood my comments or attributed to me positions I do not hold. However, this article extends the earlier discussion by seeking to clarify the nature of the central concerns of historical Jesus research. I am delighted to have received such a detailed response that engages with my earlier work, and I thank Porter and Ong for engaging in this important conversation.

Are there Parables in John? It is Time to Revisit the Question

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 243-276
Author(s):  
Ruben Zimmermann
Keyword(s):  
Specific Form ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Synoptic Gospels ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Historical Document ◽  
Memory Research ◽  
Form Criticism

AbstractA point of agreement between historical-Jesus scholarship and Johannine scholarship is that there are no parables in the Fourth Gospel. The following article, however, questions this consensus on both historical and literary grounds. Drawing on the insights of memory research, the following discussion will not seek to peer 'behind' the text, but rather embraces the text itself as a historical document of the memory of Jesus. Additionally, new genre theories necessitate a shift in the application of form criticism to the parable genre. Taking these new methodological insights into account, one finds texts in John that have the same right to be called 'parables' as texts found in the Synoptic Gospels. Furthermore, these Johannine parables, in their specific form of remembering, preserve and reveal important theological aspects of Jesus' parables.

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 143-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley E. Porter ◽  
Hughson T. Ong
Keyword(s):  
Recent Article ◽  
Social Memory ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Redaction Criticism ◽  
Memory Theory ◽  
Research Areas

This article examines and responds to the arguments made by Paul Foster in a recent article in jshj regarding social-memory theory, orality, and the Fourth Gospel, where he argues that recent research in these areas are dead-ends for historical Jesus research. We do not necessarily wish to defend the research he criticizes, but we respond to Foster by pointing out some of the limitations in his analysis and provide further comments to move discussion of these research areas forward. Our comments address his assumption that form- and redaction-criticism accomplish the purposes that he envisions for historical Jesus research and a number of other problematic arguments he raises regarding each of these areas.

The Fourth Gospel and the Jesus of History

2000 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANCIS J. MOLONEY
Keyword(s):  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Passion Narrative ◽  
Jerusalem Temple

In the ‘quest for the historical Jesus’ it has become axiomatic that the Fourth Gospel, with a few notable exceptions (e.g. certain elements in the passion narrative), has little to offer attempts to trace the person and activity of the pre-Easter Jesus. A study of the Johannine presentation of the beginnings of Jesus' ministry, his relationship with the Baptist, the calling of disciples and his presence in the Jerusalem Temple, suggests otherwise. Given the Markan imposition of a ‘framework’ upon the Synoptic tradition, the Johannine tradition may more accurately recall those early events.

Recent Trends in Gospel of Thomas Research (1989–2011). Part II: Genre, Theology and Relationship to the Gospel of John

2012 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Perrin ◽  
Christopher W. Skinner
Keyword(s):  
Gospel Of John ◽  
Difficult Problem ◽  
Previous Article ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Synoptic Gospels ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Scholarly Research ◽  
Gospel Of Thomas ◽  
Recent Trends ◽  
The Relationship

This article, the second of a two-part series, examines scholarly research on the Gospel of Thomas between 1989 and 2011. The previous article ( CBR 5.2 [2007]: 183-206) reviewed research on Thomas’s place in discussions of the historical Jesus and the Synoptic Gospels between 1991 and 2006. The current study focuses on three concerns: (1) scholarly opinions of Thomas’s genre, (2) the notoriously difficult problem of identifying Thomas’s theological outlook, and (3) the relationship between the Gospel of Thomas and the Fourth Gospel.

Memory, Orality, and the Fourth Gospel: Three Dead-Ends in Historical Jesus Research

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 191-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Foster
Keyword(s):  
Memory Studies ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Significant Advance ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Historical Authenticity

Three recent approaches to historical Jesus studies are assessed in this article. First, the use of memory studies as a means of validating the historical authenticity of Gospel traditions. Secondly, claims that Gospel traditions should be understood as primarily reaching the evangelists orally, and that this process provides greater confidence in the historicity of such traditions. Thirdly, the Fourth Gospel is seen in some quarters as an important source in historical Jesus research based upon new paradigms and radical redefinitions of historicity. Contrary to such claims, here it is argued that for a series of different reasons that none of these methods offers any significant advance in accessing the ‘historical Jesus’, as that term is usually understood. This is not to say that the methods are without value. Rather, it is the over-confident application of such approaches to the ‘historical Jesus question’ that is critiqued. This is especially the case when it is claimed that they provide a key methodological break-through, enabling reclamation of more Gospel traditions as being securely founded in the ministry of the historical Jesus.

The Authenticity of John 12.24

2002 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-107
Author(s):  
Peter W. Ensor
Keyword(s):  
The Body ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Christian Literature ◽  
Sayings Of Jesus

A review of the evidence for the authenticity of Jn. 12.24 reveals that by its vocabulary, form, style and content it fits naturally into the ministry of the historical Jesus and at the same time is unlikely to have been composed by the author of the Fourth Gospel himself. The fact that the combination of motifs present in the saying is unparalleled in any extant contemporary Jewish, pagan or Christian literature lends credence to the view that he did not draw it from any other source than the body of traditional sayings of Jesus with which he was familiar. If so, then this verse gives further support to the view that Jesus’ discourses in the Fourth Gospel are not pure Johannine creations, as some have thought, but contain sayings which go back to the historical Jesus himself.

Orality is No Dead-End

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-23
Author(s):  
Eric Eve
Keyword(s):  
Media Studies ◽  
New Testament ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Dead End ◽  
Form Criticism ◽  
With Memory

Paul Foster has recently argued that ‘orality’ (along with memory and the Fourth Gospel) is one of three ‘dead-ends’ in historical Jesus scholarship, and that it is more appropriate to continue to use traditional methods such as form criticism. While some of Foster’s criticisms are valid, he does justice neither to the particular scholars he addresses nor to the wider implications of orality studies for New Testament and Historical Jesus scholarship. It is in any case inconsistent to advocate form criticism while denying the usefulness of orality studies. nt scholarship needs to embrace newer approaches to ancient media studies, not spurn them as ‘dead-ends’.

scholarly journals The Origin and Development of the Johannine Egō Eimi Sayings in Cognitive-Critical Perspective

2011 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 139-206
Author(s):  
Paul N. Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Historical Jesus ◽  
Fourth Gospel ◽  
Critical Perspective ◽  
Sayings Of Jesus

Abstract The long-held critical judgment that the I-am sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel have no connection at all with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth is based primarily on the inference that they are entirely missing from the Synoptics. As a result, John has been expunged from Jesus research, assuming its patent ahistoricity; yet critical analyses have largely overlooked Johannine- Synoptic similarities. While the Johannine presentation of Jesus’ I-am sayings is indeed distinctive and highly theological, it cannot be claimed that either the I-am convention of speech or its predicate metaphors and themes are absent from the Synoptics. Indeed, some absolute I-am sayings are present in Mark, and each of the nine terms used with the predicate nominative in John are also present in the Synoptics. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that such terms, on the basis of the Synoptics alone, were never used by the historical Jesus or present within early traditional material. As a means of discerning a plausible understanding of how the Johannine presentation of the I-am sayings of Jesus may have emerged, cognitive-critical analysis poses a way forward. Within the developing memory of the Johannine tradition, earlier words of Jesus likely became crafted into the evangelist’s apologetic presentation of Jesus’ ministry as a means of convincing later audiences that he was indeed the Messiah/Christ.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document