Abstract
Occasionally, a book comes along that marks a watershed turning point in a field of study. John’s Transformation of Mark might be such a book for Johannine studies. The book collects seventeen essays by Johannine and (or) Markan scholars from various UK, US, and Continental institutions. Most of the essays originally aired at a 2018 conference in Athens, where conference organizers anticipated many scholars to uphold the well-worn position of Mark’s and John’s literary independence. But ‘a curious thing began to emerge. Every contributor, without exception, expressed the considered opinion that John had reworked the earlier gospel in some way or another’ (p. 2). Without planning for it, the conference papers universally rejected the view of Johannine independence that has dominated the field since Percival Gardiner-Smith proposed it in 1938. That serendipitous, shared rejection is what potentially marks this volume as a turning point in Johannine studies.
Their common affirmation that John used Mark does not suggest that the contributors represent a univocal position, however. The essays in this volume display a wide range of approaches, methods, arguments, and conclusions. Following a brief introductory chapter by the editors, Harold W. Attridge helpfully positions the discussion by outlining a history of research. From there, essays variously approach the question of connection between John and Mark. Some draw comparison with ancient literature contemporary with John, whether Jewish (Williams), philosophical (Parsenios), or historiographical (Becker). Others appeal to contemporary hermeneutical theory (Hoegen-Rohls; Zumstein), social memory theory and critical inheritance (Keith), or emphasize the importance of orality (Van Belle; Labahn). Many dig deeply into the text, demonstrating dependence through comparisons between specific passages in John and Mark (Hunt, Engberg-Pedersen, Larsen), whereas others compare wider categories such as eschatology (Frey), ethics (Wischmeyer), the use of speeches (Luther), or the Passion (Bond). Goodacre compares John also with passages in Matthew and Luke to present John as a ‘fourth synoptic Gospel’. And many contributors combine several approaches. The result is not a singular affirmation of Johannine dependence on Mark but a shared recognition that, for various reasons, John did not write independently.
John’s Transformation of Mark is a well-researched, well-edited, timely contribution to Johannine studies that showcases an important shift in the field. It is worth the read.