I am not a biblical literalist (I’m Eastern Orthodox). But…
Could the dating discrepancy between synoptics and John have anything to do with the “day the sun stood still” (almost a “full” day) in Joshua 10? The Passover was already an institution by then. If that calendar year literally was thrown off a day that year, perhaps both John and synoptics are correct, depending which side of Joshua one is looking at, Moses’ generation or Caiaphas’.
obviously Pitre needs to contend with differing viewpoints, but i don’t see how missing Casey’s book on the unhistorical nature of John is a glaring argument. I mean, Casey denies the Jewishness of John - I don’t know how many reputable scholars make this argument. Casey is a good scholar, but this work specially doesn’t have much academic interaction or a huge appraisal necessarily. Your article is good, but I would be wary of making semi-fringe theses an authoritative source for analysing John.
Dear Elanor, thank you for reading! I don't quite agree with your analysis, but please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly. Here are three points of disagreement:
(1) Casey's exegesis of John 18:28 and 19:14 is not a 'semi-fringe' thesis: it is the consensus view of Johannine exegetes, and does not depend upon Casey's particular construction of the social identity of John/his community.
(2) As I read him, Casey does not deny that John is a thoroughly *Jewish* book; the fact that his work is saturated with allusions to rabbinic and Jewish literature, in an effort to understand it, attests to this. What Casey denies is that the author understood *themselves* as Jewish.
(3) I stated my surprise that Pitre fails to engage Casey because, while Casey's position is simply the mainstream view, Casey's analysis of John's language is one of the most thorough in the field. (It is surprising that one would engage the commentary tradition but not, as far as I am aware, one of the most severe rebuttals of one's position. Especially when Pitre's chapter is over a hundred pages long!
Just read this today.
I am not a biblical literalist (I’m Eastern Orthodox). But…
Could the dating discrepancy between synoptics and John have anything to do with the “day the sun stood still” (almost a “full” day) in Joshua 10? The Passover was already an institution by then. If that calendar year literally was thrown off a day that year, perhaps both John and synoptics are correct, depending which side of Joshua one is looking at, Moses’ generation or Caiaphas’.
obviously Pitre needs to contend with differing viewpoints, but i don’t see how missing Casey’s book on the unhistorical nature of John is a glaring argument. I mean, Casey denies the Jewishness of John - I don’t know how many reputable scholars make this argument. Casey is a good scholar, but this work specially doesn’t have much academic interaction or a huge appraisal necessarily. Your article is good, but I would be wary of making semi-fringe theses an authoritative source for analysing John.
Dear Elanor, thank you for reading! I don't quite agree with your analysis, but please correct me if I haven't understood you correctly. Here are three points of disagreement:
(1) Casey's exegesis of John 18:28 and 19:14 is not a 'semi-fringe' thesis: it is the consensus view of Johannine exegetes, and does not depend upon Casey's particular construction of the social identity of John/his community.
(2) As I read him, Casey does not deny that John is a thoroughly *Jewish* book; the fact that his work is saturated with allusions to rabbinic and Jewish literature, in an effort to understand it, attests to this. What Casey denies is that the author understood *themselves* as Jewish.
(3) I stated my surprise that Pitre fails to engage Casey because, while Casey's position is simply the mainstream view, Casey's analysis of John's language is one of the most thorough in the field. (It is surprising that one would engage the commentary tradition but not, as far as I am aware, one of the most severe rebuttals of one's position. Especially when Pitre's chapter is over a hundred pages long!
Are you a Christian?