Gospel Of John Setting Analysis

Setting

Based on the text, the Gospel of John was mainly set in Judea and Galilee. The setting of the text is stated throughout John, and it gives context to the type of people that Jesus was preaching to at any particular point in the text. This can also show a purpose as to why the author of John wrote their gospel the way they did. D. A. Carson states in part that traditionally, the purpose of the fourth gospel “revolved around the location of the Johannine community” and had to do with the “trajectories of developing Christianity” (Carson 1987). This would make sense given the fact that the Johannine community was focused on the teachings of Jesus, and thus the Gospel of John would fit nicely into that mold. However, Carson goes on to

say that the historical significance of John is starting to be set aside in the light of narrative theology.
Another scholar questions whether or not the purpose of the Gospel of John was related to the synoptic gospels. Wind attempts to determine whether John was supposed to replace or supplement the synoptic gospels, and determines that many authors agreed that John did aim to replace the synoptic gospels. Initially, they did not think that John was meant to replace the synoptics due to the high Christology, which was a Hellenistic feature that was not noted in the areas where Jesus was preaching in John’s gospel. Robert Kyser, in his analysis of the Christology within the prologue of John, also addresses how the use of high Christology was a Hellenistic attribute, but in contrast states it is “ingenious” (Kyser 1978). Kyser goes on to discuss that the use of logos had significant meaning in both Jewish and Hellenistic cultures, which supports Wind’s assessment of newly reported Hellenistic presence after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Wind 1972). Wind determined that after the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, there was a better appreciation for the Gnostic ideas that were apparently prominent in the Palestinian region during the time that the Gospel of John was written. George Allen Turner also reports similar ideas to Wind. Turner (1963) discusses the fact that critics are abandoning the idea that the author of John utilized Synoptic materials, which would support the idea that the purpose of John was to replace the synoptic gospels.
In summary, it seems that the more that is discovered about the history of regions in which Jesus was teaching, the easier it is to establish that maybe John was trying to do more than just reach out to anyone who wanted to read his gospel. It could be reasoned that John was reaching out to Greeks specifically based on the idea that high levels of Christology appealed to Hellenistic cultures.
Contrastively, the Gospel of Mark seems to have more tones of political and radial ideas. Like previously stated, Mark was written earlier than the other gospels, and more likely had the influence of Roman power and Jewish criticism, which in part explains why Jesus is so secretive about who he is. Joseph Fantin (2012) confirms this idea by stating that the main purpose of Mark’s gospel was to “respond to Flavian imperial propaganda that caused Christological problems in the church at Rome.” Fantin also reports that other supporting purposes may have included means of encouragement for the people wanting to follow Jesus (2012). This would be a great purpose for the Gospel of Mark, because following Jesus, who had almost no precedence in the eyes of the Roman and Jewish leaders, would likely lead to persecution.
In regards to the setting of Mark, Jesus did quite a bit more traveling.

There are several different theories and even to this day, there has yet to be one that is prevailing, Zeba Crook reports on the controversial debate, stating that “there is no airtight proof that Mark was composed in Syria or the Galilee” and “that there is no airtight proof against the Roman provenance” (2005). However, Crook does appreciate the fact that even though the setting in which the Gospel of Mark was written, that the purpose was to reach out to those who were under Roman rule who could potentially face persecution if they decided to follow Jesus. This follows the idea that the reason for the Messianic Secret was to protect Jesus and his followers. Nevertheless, every hypothesis is subject to criticism, which is what Ralph P. Martin discusses in his paper over the theology of Mark. Martin challenges the Messianic Secret by deeming it “unhistorical” (Martin 1978). Martin’s reasoning for deeming the Messianic Secret unhistorical centralizes around the fact that Jesus was oppressed. This can easily be accepted because in context and with consideration of the historic events that were actually happening during Jesus’ ministry, oppression is a highly viable

possibility.
Another interesting perspective comes from Glasswell’s study on the relationships between Mark and John (1985). Glasswell claims that Mark presents a “dogmatically orientated juxtaposition of history” (1985). Though this is a striking claim, it holds some truth. Even with background knowledge of the gospels and of Roman and Jewish history, reading Mark can become frustrating even for a seasoned reader. With Jesus constantly demanded secrecy, but at the same time demanding understanding of sometimes complex parables, it is easy to find incongruence between the Jesus that we currently understand him to be, and the Jesus that was described in the Gospel of Mark.
Conclusively, it can be settled upon that the true purpose of Mark, John and the other gospels can be highly disputed, and the true purpose or meaning of any gospel stems mainly from a person’s personal preferences in which ideas they would like defend and support. Having said that, there are many resources that support all different points of view. It is this that makes the study of the gospels so intriguing.