Mark Jennings, «The Fourth Gospel’s Reversal of Mark in John 13,31‒14,3», Vol. 94 (2013) 210-236
I argue that the author/s of the Fourth Gospel knew Mark, based on the reversal of certain Markan themes found in John. No attempt is made here to suggest the kind of literary dependence which is the basis of the Synoptic problem. Rather, my thesis is that the author/s of John may have used Mark from memory, writing deliberately to reverse the apocalyptic tendencies found in the Second Gospel. Isolated incidents of this possible reversal demonstrate little, but this paper proposes that the cumulative force of many such reversals supports the thesis of John's possible knowledge of Mark.
235
THE FOURTH GOSPEL’S REVERSAL OF MARK IN JOHN 13,31‒14,3
what for him was the crucial point — Jesus coming back means
that where he is, his followers may be also.
This would account for the absence of apocalyptic language, as
John would be trying to refocus the pericope on this reunion rather
than on the Parousia in itself. This may also explain the apparent
reversal in structure here. John’s Jesus commences in 14,1-3 dis-
cussing his return, moves into talking about the interim period, and
then mentions the return again in verse 27-28 by way of inclusio.
Mark’s does the reverse, relating the sayings regarding the interim
period in 13,1-23, leading up to the climactic description of the
Parousia in 13,24-27.
We turn now to the motif of temple and “My Father’s Houseâ€. If
we assume that John knows Mark here, he has reinterpreted Jesus’
saying from a reference to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE to a more
generic comfort in troubled times. This makes sense if it is assumed
that John writes at a time considerably after 70 CE. The unmistakable
implication of Mark is that the Parousia will soon follow the distruc-
tion of Jerusalem. By removing any reference to the temple and spir-
itualising the motif, John is perhaps attempting to sever the connection
in the Markan tradition between the destruction of Jerusalem and the
Parousia. John’s vision is different: the promise of reunion in “My
Father’s house†does not signal the end of history in the way described
by Mark 92. John 14,2 refers to life and union with God and Jesus after
death in the resurrection which is the hope of the suffering Johannine
community.
The fact that both John and Mark expound the motif of the
Parousia in the context of the final discourse, coupled with signif-
icant common elements, suggests the possibility of a connection
between the accounts. Examination of the differences can be ex-
plained by the different thought of John, who may have modified
the common elements in the Markan account accordingly. Taken
with the apparent reversal in order between the two passages, these
constitute a significant argument in favour of John’s possible
knowledge of and dependence on Mark.
A possible connection between the motifs of the temple’s destruc-
tion in Mark and John’s “Father’s house†is more difficult to estab-
lish. It is possible that John has picked up the Markan reference to
KELLY – MOLONEY, Experiencing God, 289.
92
© Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati