I appreciate Peter Hofrichter's sharing his overall approach to John's composition, and this is why I requested that he make his work available to English speaking audiences. It was a privilege to present for him 20 years ago at the Salzburg Symposium on John and the Synoptics. Here is my paper presented then--arguing for the first time my overall theory of a Bi-Optic Hypothesis.
While I see the Johannine Logos Hymn as a confessional response to the earlier-delivered Johannine narrative (like 1 John 1:1-3), I appreciate Professor Hofrichter's insight that Mark also shows signs of familiarity with some of John's tradition--in particular, the citing of John 2:19--in Mark 14:58 and 15:29. While I see John's first edition as an augmentation (and modest correction) of Mark, a larger theory of interfluentiality is required to account for the fact that details narrated only in John are cited more than once in Mark. This is a literary fact requiring critical consideration.
I appreciate Peter Hofrichter's sharing his overall approach to John's composition, and this is why I requested that he make his work available to English speaking audiences. It was a privilege to present for him 20 years ago at the Salzburg Symposium on John and the Synoptics. Here is my paper presented then--arguing for the first time my overall theory of a Bi-Optic Hypothesis.
https://www.academia.edu/11634655/_Interfluential_Formative_and_Dialect…
While I see the Johannine Logos Hymn as a confessional response to the earlier-delivered Johannine narrative (like 1 John 1:1-3), I appreciate Professor Hofrichter's insight that Mark also shows signs of familiarity with some of John's tradition--in particular, the citing of John 2:19--in Mark 14:58 and 15:29. While I see John's first edition as an augmentation (and modest correction) of Mark, a larger theory of interfluentiality is required to account for the fact that details narrated only in John are cited more than once in Mark. This is a literary fact requiring critical consideration.