On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Paul Schmehl wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>
> To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] water jugs
> >
> > Hello, Paul,
> >
> > The standard Greek text of course says METRHTHS DUO HE TREIS, as Jack
> > Kilmon has already helpfully noted. So the question then becomes, What did
> > the translator of MG have in his/her source text? Was it METRHTHS, or
> > perhaps some other word?
> >
> > But of course if one accepts your suggestion that our MG translator was
> > aware of a tradition that was different from the standard canonical text,
> > then it's also possible that this tradition was pre-canonical. Which is
> > what my argument is all about.
>
> This is the part of your argument that bothers me the most.  It is
> equally possible that this tradition is post-canonical.  ISTM that
> your tendency is to assume early provenance if no evidence supports
> late provenance. Essentially it's an argument from silence, which is
> by far the weakest argument one can make.

Paul,

I don't agree that it's equally possible that this tradition is
post-canonical. I think that, for a number of reasons, the chances are
greater that it's pre-canonical.

> > As to Jack's suggestion that this variant reading was merely a
> > mistranslation by the medieval translator, this is undermined somewhat by
> > the fact that some further details in MG story are inconsistent with this.
> > Namely, the same Chapter 10 includes the following,
> >
> > "9 And Jesus told them to take them up,
> > and to carry them to him who was the chief
> > of the feast. 10 And they took them up,
> > and carried them over."
> >
> > So this looks like the servants are carrying the jugs, themselves, over to
> > "the chief of the feast", rather than just a sample of the wine, like in
> > the canonical version of the story. But this is only possible if the jugs
> > are quite small.
>
> Why is it only possible if they were quite small?  1) You're assuming
> the servants couldn't carry large jugs full of wine and 2) you're
> assuming that each servant carried one jug.  What if they had devised
> a carrier that could hold multiple jugs, with extensions so that
> several servants could carry them?  I'm not saying it's true, mind
> you, merely that it's possible.  Again I think this points out the
> weakness of arguments from silence.  If we don't *know* how it was
> done, there is no warrant to *assume* certain parameters. ISTM there
> is so much speculation in your arguments that I remain thoroughly
> unconvinced.

Well, my only point here is that the smaller size of jugs in MG is
consistent with the rest of the story, as we find it in MG. So this
decreases the chances that this was some sort of a mistranslation by a
medieval translator.

Of course they could have had a whole army of servants carrying such huge
jugs around, but this is not what our texts are really indicating.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> From: "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@...>:

> > And now, the Magdalene Gospel version of this story. Here, I put MG
> > Special Material in capitals letters.
> >
> > THE MAGDALENE GOSPEL
> > 10 # How Jesus Made Wine Out Of Water.
> >
> > 1 On the third day Jesus CAME TO Galilee, and was LED to a FEAST, with his
> > disciples. And his mother was there. 2 And IT CAME TO PASS that THERE
> > failed wine. 3 And his mother said to him that they had no wine. 4 And
> > Jesus said that the hour (ms?) has not yet come THAT [he] SHOULD SHOW HIS
> > POWER. 5 And then his mother said to the servants that they should do all
> > that he tells them to do. 6 Now, there were six jars that the GOOD MAN AND
> > ALL THE MEN WASHED FROM, each holding THREE gallons. 7 And Jesus told them
> > that they should fill them full of water. 8 And they filled them full
> > RIGHT AWAY. 9 And Jesus told them to take THEM UP, AND TO CARRY THEM TO
> > HIM WHO WAS THE CHIEF OF THE FEAST. 10 And they took THEM UP, AND CARRIED
> > THEM OVER. 11 And as soon as THE GOOD MAN had drank thereof, he called the
> > BUTLER, and said to him, "Every wise man serves the BEST wine first, and
> > when men are [already] drunk, then HE SERVES the one that is NOT AS GOOD.
> > 12 And you have kept the BEST wine even until now." 13 This WAS the first
> > MIRACLE that Jesus did. 14 And BECAUSE OF THAT his disciples believed in
> > him. (215 words)
> >
> > As we can see, the Magdalene version is very similar in length to the
> > canonical version (221 words vs. 215 words). There's a lot of shared
> > material there, as well as some seeming expansions, although these
> > expansions tend to be quite different in the two versions.
> >
> > The biggest and the most striking difference in MG is that, in this text,
> > this is not a wedding, and it's not taking place at Cana. So this is just
> > a feast that Jesus has been invited to.
>
> I really hate to interject, because it seems that I'm nitpicking, but
> again, there is nothing in this material that says it is *not* a
> wedding feast, nor is there anything that says it's *not* in Cana.
> Just because those details are *missing* from the record does not
> provide proof that they were not there.

Paul,

As far as the "wedding feast" goes, it should be noted that the story in
the Magdalene Gospel completely lacks the word "groom". Thus, not only is
there no explicit identification of this feast as a wedding, but also
other details indicate that, as found in MG, the story was not meant to be
about a wedding.

Now, in regard to Cana, the situation is a little more complicated in MG.
Because, in fact, Cana _is_ mentioned in MG, in Chapter 14 (as a preamble
to the healing of a high official's son at Capernaum), and there's even a
reference to Jesus turning water into wine in Cana.

MG 14:1 Afterwards, Jesus came down to Cana in
Galilee, where he had made the water wine.

So this does raise the possibility that an earlier mention of Cana may
have been omitted by a later MG editor. But why? It's not so clear at
all...

> Reading the parallel records, they certainly appear to be discussing
> the same event.
>
> 1) Both stories begin "on the third day"
> 2) In both cases there is a feast.  We know that weddings were one of
> a few reasons for a feast.
> 3) In both cases Mary is there and Jesus arrives afterwards.
> 4) In both cases they run out of wine.
> 5) In both cases Mary points out to Jesus that the wine has run out.
> 6) In both cases Jesus responds that his hour has not yet come.
> 7) In both cases Mary tells the servants to do whatever Jesus tells them
>
> Many more details are so similar as to make it difficult to believe
> that these accounts are *not* about the same event.

You're right that there are lots of similar details there, and that these
accounts are most likely about the same event. So the only question is
which version of this event is likely to be more original.

> Now, is there significance in the differences in detail?  Yes, but
> what that significance is remains to be seen.  I agree with you
> regarding the textual parallels between MG and the Liege, and these
> may well point to common origin in some more ancient source.

I'm glad that we agree on this. Indeed, the likelihood is that at least
the material that we find in common in both MG and the Liege does go back
to ancient times. But the timing needs to be narrowed down further.

> I just think you find too much significance in the differences between
> the canonical version and the MG.

Well, these differences are rather significant, however they are to be
interpreted...

> In my mind, variants between texts can be explained by many different
> causes whereas parallels between texts are highly significant,
> pointing to a common origin.  Variants are much harder to pin down.

Of course, the rest of the Magdalene Gospel also needs to be brought into
consideration. There are great many features there indicating that this
text preserves a lot of primitive material.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

What are the things of long ago? Tell us, that we may
reflect on them, and know their outcome; or declare
to us the things to come -=O=-  Isaiah 41:22

On Sat, 9 Mar 2002, Jack Kilmon wrote:

> There are two variants in the Greek texts that may shed some light on
> this. Luke 14:8 OTAN KLHQHS (UPO TINOS EIS GAMOUS where the parallel
> in Codex Bezae (Western Text) is DEIPNHSAI.  GAMOUS for "wedding" and
> DEIPNON for "feast" distill to ONE word in Aramaic. mishtutha.

This is quite interesting. Myself, of course, I believe that Western Text
is the most original (although this still leaves open the question of
which of the Western Texts might be more original, as there's so much
variability there). So could it be possible that the same word DEIPNON
also stood originally in Jn 2:1-11? After all, there are quite a few other
parallels between Jn and Lk.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, michael Hardin wrote:

	 ...

> 4) Regarding the MG text:  The MG text (as far as I
> have been able to read on this board) cannot represent
> a pre-canonical tradition for several reaons:
>
> a) It's ties to the Diatessaron already indicate a
> synchronization process which did not begin until the
> mid second century.

Michael,

This is not quite correct. We have some evidence that a "synchronization
process" already began before the mid second century. Some refs can be
provided, if you're interested.

And in any case, this particular passage of Jn 2:1-11 has nothing to do
with harmonisation between different gospels. This is a Johannine text,
although not the same as the canonical version.

Also, in so far as one admits that this MG passage does go back to the mid
second century, of course this would also open the possibility that this
text contains some pre-canonical elements. After all, our canonical
version of Jn 2:1-11 dates much after the mid second century...

> There is no other evidence to support a pre-Ephesian tradition that
> highly regarded either the holy family or the Jews in general.

What do you mean by "a pre-Ephesian tradition"?

	 ...

> c) If one identifies the hand of the author of the
> prologue throughout the MG, then it is not difficult
> to suppose that this is a textual tradition that would
> have developed post Tatian.  I have before mentioned
> the 'sacralizing' that takes place in the MG.  The
> 'differences' between the MG and the Gos John can be
> accounted for as a third or more possibly fourth
> century harmonization.

It would be nice to see how you would argue this. And, again, as I say,
harmonization is not a factor in Jn 2:1-11.

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

On Sun, 10 Mar 2002, Jeffrey B. Gibson wrote:

> Is anyone else as taken aback as I am not only that there is no
> comparison with the Vulgate or Latin Harmonies being undertaken here,
> but that claims about similarities and differences between and among a
> Middle English, a Dutch, and a Greek version of a Johannine text are
> being based on English **translations** of these texts?

Well, I'm always happy to learn new things. So perhaps we can now see some
specific suggestions as to how comparison with the Vulgate or Latin
Harmonies can be relevant to any of the arguments that I've been making.

Of course, some of these textual comparisons can be clarified still
further if the Greek, the Middle Dutch, and Middle English texts are also
brought into consideration. And, myself, I've certainly done this already.
Again, some specific suggestions are welcome.

> One howler here among many -- which obviously arises directly from
> Yuri's working from **translations** of texts instead of the texts
> themselves -- is his claim that there is a not only a difference, but
> a meaningful difference, between the Dutch and the Greek text of Jn
> 2:6 regarding how much water the jars held!!

I have never made any such claim in this discussion, so this must be some
sort of a misunderstanding.

On the other hand, in a Loisy-L discussion, I did say that the Middle
Dutch doesn't agree exactly with the Greek text about the size of the
jugs.

The Greek text has METRHTHS DUO HE TREIS.
The Middle Dutch text has "two or three measures" (tween mensuren ochte te
drien).

As can be seen here, these two texts do not exactly agree, and Dr. Plooij
did comment about this in his notes.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Myself, of course, I believe that Western Text is the most original

What Western readings in John do you think are original and why?

Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
---------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie

"Griesbach also consulted the manuscript, but is said to have taken from it
only one reading, and that false."  --- Scrivener, Bezae Codex

Re Water, wine, fish



Dear Horace,



Your question occurred to me in times past but I shelved it as insoluble. Your
resurrection of it has stirred me to take it up again and once more I'm working
on it. But the answer may outlive us both. After all, it seems to have taken
almost 2,000 years for the 153 = three METRHTHS connection to arise even as a
possibility so what are the chances of two METRHTHS = 102 hin being solved? In
the meantime I suggest that the themes of Qumran, Cana, the 153 hin connection
with John 21 and the proselitizing theme behind it all is enough tough meat to
masticate without worrying overmuch about what I deem as an incidental (see
below). However, your question leads me to query the sitz im leben of one aspect
of the Cana scene. Imagine you and I were guests at the wedding. Would you not
think that we could physically determine the capacity of the stone jars from
previous experience? I would! The reporter of the Cana miracle was a Jew (the
B.D.; evidence supplied if wanted) and in his own purificatory facilities in his
own home would be aware of the difference, even physically. Two thirds full and
three thirds full is an appreciable difference. So, what is he up to then? Why
is he so indecisive? Perhaps the answer could be that two METRHTHS = 102 hin and
that is part of his gematria exercise connected with Qumran. If so,  it is a
brilliant piece of cryptographic identification. But the odds against this
'coincidence' as the answer are enormous. Perhaps he was content in getting his
main message over, namely the 153 theme where the two METRHTHS were irrelevant
to him. I am definitely inclined to choose this option as far more likely, but
as I said above, "I'm working on it!



Cheers,



Kevin O'Brien



symeon@...





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kevin O'Brien wrote:

> Re Water, wine, fish

> Dear Horace,

I'd prefer "Jeffery."

> Your question [as to why "two or three" measures if
> the "three" is significant] occurred to me in times
> past but I shelved it as insoluble. Your
resurrection
> of it has stirred me to take it up again and once
> more I'm working on it. But the answer may outlive
us
> both.

If you find a solution let us on the list know.

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Wieland Willker wrote:
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> > Myself, of course, I believe that Western Text is the most original
>
> What Western readings in John do you think are original and why?

	 ...

> "Griesbach also consulted the manuscript, but is said to have taken
> from it only one reading, and that false."  --- Scrivener, Bezae Codex

Dear Wieland,

As I wrote before, just saying that Western text is the most original will
still leave open the question of which Western text we are talking about,
and how exactly do we define Western text. Because, as it's well known,
there's a lot of variability there among various Western mss.

So I suggest that the Syro-Latin tradition should be the key here. Indeed,
there are many respected scholars who have argued that textual agreements
between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin indicate the earliest texts that
we now possess.

The role of Codex Bezae in all this is a separate matter. Bezae has great
many Western readings, but it also often disagrees with other Western
texts. It's a unique ms in many respects. So the problems of interpreting
Bezae is not the same as interpreting and understanding the whole Western
textual tradition.

So, to answer your question, I would say that any agreement between Old
Syriac and Old Latin in Jn -- and there are great many such Syro-Latin
agreements -- has a good claim to being earlier than all other competing
readings. Thus, it shouldn't really matter so much whether or not any
particular Syro-Latin reading is attested in Greek, or whether or not it
exists in Codex Bezae.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> Indeed,
> there are many respected scholars who have argued that textual agreements
> between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin indicate the earliest texts that
> we now possess.

Earliest does not mean original.


> So, to answer your question, I would say that any agreement between Old
> Syriac and Old Latin in Jn -- and there are great many such Syro-Latin
> agreements -- has a good claim to being earlier than all other competing
> readings.

Would you name some of these readings please, because I don't know what you
actually mean?
That was my initial question.


Best wishes
     Wieland
       <><
------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/

Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

> So I suggest that the Syro-Latin tradition should be the key here. Indeed,
> there are many respected scholars who have argued that textual agreements
> between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin indicate the earliest texts that
> we now possess.

Assuming that the claim makes any sense -- is "text" the equivalent of MSS or
whole work? If we possess these "earliest texts", why do we need the
agreements between the OS and the OL (presumably against our oldest extant
Greek MS) to "indicate them"?  -- may we have the names of the respected
scholars who you see as constituting "the many" who "have argued that textual
agreements between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin indicate the earliest
texts that we now possess"?

Yours,

JG
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

List Members will want to know that (according to the message below,
found at
http://groups.yahoo.com/local/service.html), all of YahooGroups will be
down for
maintenance this coming weekend.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

***********

            Dear Yahoo! Groups Members,

            The Yahoo! Groups service will be down Friday March 15
      9:00
            PM  PST (GMT-8) as we move our servers to a new
      facility. We
            expect the service to be back up the morning of Sunday
      March 17.

            During this time the web site will be unavailable and
      email will not
            be delivered. (Some users may experience email
      non-delivery
            notices, but all email should be delivered once service
      has
            resumed.) Please note: once the service is back up,
      there will be
            email delays due to backlog. We expect these delays to
      last no
            longer than 1 day. Please do not re-send email to your
      group as it
            will only add to delays.

            We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.


            The Yahoo! Groups Team






--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Many of you are on the Documents of Vatican II list (VaticanII-Doc) -- so you
know
this -- but for those of you who are not Vat-Docs, you might be interested.

VaticanII-Doc (a yahoogroups list) will be starting the study of Lumen
Gentium on Tuesday the 19th (provided Yahoo is functional).  This
promises to be a very interesting discussion.

Anyone who is not on the list and who is interested in studying Lumen Gentium
is welcome to join.  (Blank email to VaticanII-Doc-subscribe@yahoogroups.com)

Jn 13:35 -- Roberta Meehan

Jeffery Hodges wrote:



"If you find a solution (to the two METRHTHS) let us on the list know".

I repeat to you Jeffery what I have already said in general to all the members
on the List that there is enough meaty material to masticate with the 153 = Cana
= Scriptorium, En-Eglaim = Qumran, River of Life theme, proselytizing  of the
Qumranites interconnections without raking up incidentals. I would welcome
your's and the List members' thoughts on these positive interconnections. The
two METRHTHS I regard as incidental and therefore irrelevant and will continue
to do so until further discoveries to the contrary are made. Perhaps with your
expertise and interest in this matter Jeffery, you might be instrumental in
demonstrating that I'm on the wrong track. Its early days yet, but at this
juncture I have seen no arguments contributing to that end!



For anyone to say that the two METRHTHS (capacity 102 hin) is just as much an
exercise in gematria as connected thematically to Qumran as is the three
METRHTHS is historically well-nigh impossible if it is intimately interrelated
in their gematria. For instance, it would just have to happen that the two
capacities of the urns somehow related to Qumran. This is all far too convenient
for the reporter of the Cana passage and Ch. 21 of 'John'. He just as well could
have omitted to mention the two "measures" altogether -- the three "measures"
serving his proselitizing purpose quite well. Again, he could have omitted the
three "measures"  while retaining the two "measures" if it alone was related
closely in gematria to Qumran. Because he was dealing with a Qumran connection
we have the well-nigh literary marvel of  two events both revealing the numeral
153 as serving his purpose. If it is held that there is no gematria connection
at all between Ch. 2 and Ch. 21, then we are left with all the other
innterconnections as listed above to explain, the number of hin, the Johannine
vocabulary with the Qumran themes, the striking midrash of Ezk. 47 with John 21
etc. etc. etc.



In concert with my thesis of the Gospel having been directed as an apologetic to
the Qumran Covenantors, is it at all possible that in the 153 theme we have
portrayed for us a "literary inclusion??? Of course, this is another question to
be decided by the correct employment of the tools of source and literary
criticism!! By the definition of "literary inclusion" it would mean that the
initial verse and remote verse give the over-riding meaning of all the verses
and chapters inbetween. However IMHO this might be claiming too much by far. I
mention it as it were in passing. I am concerned more with the purpose of the
Gospel's existence than its literary structure. What sayest thou, Listers?



Cordially,

Kevin O'Brien



symeon@...







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I previously posted for Kevin O'Brian:

> "If you find a solution (to the two METRHTHS) let us
> on the list know".

Kevin O'Brien responded to my remark:

> I repeat to you Jeffery what I have already said in
> general to all the members on the List that there is
> enough meaty material to masticate with the 153 =
> Cana = Scriptorium, En-Eglaim = Qumran, River of
> Life theme, proselytizing  of the Qumranites
> interconnections without raking up incidentals. I
> would welcome your's and the List members' thoughts
> on these positive interconnections. The two METRHTHS
> I regard as incidental and therefore irrelevant and
> will continue to do so until further discoveries to
> the contrary are made. Perhaps with your expertise
> and interest in this matter Jeffery, you might be
> instrumental in demonstrating that I'm on the wrong
> track. Its early days yet, but at this juncture I
> have seen no arguments contributing to that end!

I, too, am interested in the number of fish and its
meaning, and my interest in food and drink motivates
me to know more about that as well as more about the
quantity of wine at Cana.

That being said, I am not convinced that the reference
to "two measures" is "incidental" in the evangelist's
story. On the surface, the reference seems no more
incidental than the reference to "three measure." This
is an objection that I suspect everyone will raise to
your interpretation, so you'll have to persuade others
(along with persuading me) that "two measures" is
incidental but that "three measures" is crucial.

Now, as to the rest of your post, I'm not quite sure
that I understand the following passage. The initial
sentence is hard for me to follow. Could you clarify?

> For anyone to say that the two METRHTHS (capacity
> 102 hin) is just as much an exercise in gematria as
> connected thematically to Qumran as is the three
> METRHTHS is historically well-nigh impossible if it
> is intimately interrelated in their gematria.

The following is also somewhat opaque to me:

> For instance, it would just have to happen that the
> two capacities of the urns somehow related to
Qumran.
> This is all far too convenient for the reporter of
> the Cana passage and Ch. 21 of 'John'. He just as
> well could have omitted to mention the two
> "measures" altogether -- the three "measures"
> serving his proselitizing purpose quite well. Again,
> he could have omitted the three "measures"  while
> retaining the two "measures" if it alone was related
> closely in gematria to Qumran. Because he was
> dealing with a Qumran connection we have the
> well-nigh literary marvel of two events both
> revealing the numeral 153 as serving his purpose. If
> it is held that there is no gematria connection at
> all between Ch. 2 and Ch. 21, then we are left with
> all the other innterconnections as listed above to
> explain, the number of hin, the Johannine vocabulary
> with the Qumran themes, the striking midrash of Ezk.
> 47 with John 21 etc. etc. etc.

Do you mean that "two measures" is or is not connected
to Qumran? Or that it doesn't matter?

Jeffery Hodges

=====
Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
Yangsandong 411
South Korea

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - live college hoops coverage
http://sports.yahoo.com/

On Wed, 13 Mar 2002, Wieland Willker wrote:

> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> > Indeed,
> > there are many respected scholars who have argued that textual agreements
> > between the Old Syriac and the Old Latin indicate the earliest texts that
> > we now possess.
>
> Earliest does not mean original.

Of course not, Wieland. But there's also no real need to lump together
these two separate issues. Because determining the earliest texts that we
now possess can be seen as a worthy goal in itself. And once we have done
this, the way will be open toward a better understanding of what the
originals may have looked like.

> > So, to answer your question, I would say that any agreement between Old
> > Syriac and Old Latin in Jn -- and there are great many such Syro-Latin
> > agreements -- has a good claim to being earlier than all other competing
> > readings.
>
> Would you name some of these readings please, because I don't know
> what you actually mean? That was my initial question.

Well, my general point was really to stress the importance of the
Syro-Latin textual tradition, that's extremely neglected in recent
scholarship. AFAIK, the seminal work on this still remains F. H. Chase,
THE SYRO-LATIN TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, London, 1895. And this was published
way back in 1895, and is sort of hard to get a hold of... Chase lists
there great many such Syro-Latin agreements.

Also, I believe H. J. Vogels has done quite a bit of this work in his
various writings.

So if you're interested in some specific cases for the Fourth Gospel, some
can be produced, no doubt. Perhaps some other listmembers have access to
these older works?

Best wishes,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky  -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku

Winston Churchill's Commentary on Man:
"Man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most
of the time he will pick himself up and continue on."

I wrote:

> Correct me if I'm wrong, Yuri, but is what you are actually saying (especially
in
> your "some can be produced, no doubt" etc.) is that, despite your previous
> assertions on this matter, you
>
> (a) are only  **guessing** that there really are specific OS/OL agreements
> against Greek MSS, since you only know Chase's and Voegtle's work, as well as
> what they claim about the nature and extent of OS/OL agreements,  at second
hand?
>

This actually should read:

you (a) are only  **guessing** that there really are specific **OS/OL agreements
vis
a vis the text of GJohn against the text of GJohn in the Greek MSS tradition**,
since
you only know Chase's and Voegtle's work, as well as what they claim about the
nature
and extent of OS/OL agreements,  at second hand?

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

In response to Weiland's second specific request for Yuri to

> > ...  name some of these readings ...

from the alleged agreements (of which Yuri claimed there were "many") between
Old
Syriac and OL MSS of GJohn against the Greek MSS tradition,

Yuri replied:

> Well, my general point was really to stress the importance of the
> Syro-Latin textual tradition, that's extremely neglected in recent
> scholarship. AFAIK, the seminal work on this still remains F. H. Chase,
> THE SYRO-LATIN TEXT OF THE GOSPELS, London, 1895. And this was published
> way back in 1895, and is sort of hard to get a hold of... Chase lists
> there great many such Syro-Latin agreements.
>
> Also, I believe H. J. Vogels has done quite a bit of this work in his
> various writings.
>
> So if you're interested in some specific cases for the Fourth Gospel, some
> can be produced, no doubt. Perhaps some other listmembers have access to
> these older works?
>

An interesting response, especially since you yourself were asked to provide the
some of the instances where OS and OL MSS agree against the Greek MSS tradition
of GJohn, direct knowledge of which you previously claimed to be in your
possession.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Yuri, but is what you are actually saying (especially
in
your "some can be produced, no doubt" etc.) is that, despite your previous
assertions on this matter, you

(a) are only  **guessing** that there really are specific OS/OL agreements
against Greek MSS, since you only know Chase's and Voegtle's work, as well as
what they claim about the nature and extent of OS/OL agreements,  at second
hand?

(b)  are not actually certain that such agreements really occur where you say
they do?; and

(c) that, even if they do exist, you yourself are actually unable to provide us
with any instances of them?

Yours,

JG
--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...

Mark,
    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and saved
the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are still
considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know if
it prompts any response from you.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
wrote:
>
> As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in John it is
> a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke Lazarus is
> contained in a parable (the only parable with a named character!)
> about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by the
> rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich man's
> household.
>
> The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would utilize
> John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's story
> and make it an actual account.
>
> A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is a crucial
> component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a turning point
> in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always connected
> with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.

Mark,
   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with you.

> So for me it is difficult to see how John could have expanded this
> parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend into many
> other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1, or plot
> against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John would have
> done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and made it such an
> essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of course,
> but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it would
> be hard to imagine.

Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more developed
in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine writer(s) who
has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke make
such a limited reference to such a significant character, if he/she/they
was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?

It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative study
would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to such
an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language used in
verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who "feasted
sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign indicating
the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies at the
rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy his hunger with
what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a sign
identifying
Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off from his
source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by the
faithful
to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the Qumran
Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
> This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is it likely
> he would have made this up from a parable that he read in Luke?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is that the
Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the Jesus
tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus is such
an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the parables
of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the issue
of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of course, it is the
reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to the
conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
>
> I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is perhaps
> a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in Mark or
> Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark and
> Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the churches so
> counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and evaluated
> various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a parable
> of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real Jesus
> parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches the
> name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable, since
> Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve as a
> warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of the
> Lazarus story and avoids it.

   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of Lazarus is a
fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that Luke's
source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name Lazarus
is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the OT
whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the priest.
Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling this
parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms about
Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest for
having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus from
their source of sustenance?

   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a literary
figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming the
love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words "house"
and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works better
in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been binding
"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following this
line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
> > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> >
> >
> > Dear Mark,
> >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though I'm
> > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
> >     From your consideration of the dialogue between the Gospel of
> > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use of the
> > name Lazarus in the two?
> >
> > Yours in Christ's service,
> > Tom Butler

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I presented a paper to the SBL Mid Atlantic regional meeting last year that
the rich man was in fact the High Priest and intended to represent Eleazar,
the older brother of Theophilus the High Priest to whom Luke addressed his
gospel. The story in Luke is one of three confrontations of Jesus with the
Sadducees. It is a further development of my articles published in 1997 and
1999 that Luke has identified the wicked tenants with the high priests and
the golden calf story told my Stephen is a subtle hint addressed to
Theophilus the High Priest that the high priests since Aaron have been
wicked tenants, a theme that runs through Luke-Acts.  My paper however did
not address the relationship between the story in Luke and the story in
John. It is a further development of my articles published in 1997 and 1999
that Luke has identified the wicked tenants with the high priests and the
golden calf story told my Stephen is a subtle hint addressed to Theophilus
the High Priest that the high priests since Aaron have been wicked tenants,
a theme that runs through Luke-Acts.

Richard H. Anderson
new email address
randerson58@...
http://www.geocities.com/gospelofluke/

Dear Tom,
I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of different
convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as interested as
they themselves in preserving all informations and that already the
Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that everything
was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic romanticisme.
They had different opinions and they fought against one another may
be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes them not
less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the "Gospel
of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects right.
Especially in the second generation scepticisme will have grown. Mark
used the general concept as a pattern for his own attempt but he
changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
motives but used them in a more credible way. That is the figure of
Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from the
appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg





>Mark,
>    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and saved
>the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are still
>considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
>John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know if
>it prompts any response from you.
>
>On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)" <MAMatson@...>
>wrote:
>>
>>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in John it is
>>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke Lazarus is
>>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named character!)
>>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by the
>>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich man's
>>  household.
>>
>>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would utilize
>>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's story
>>  and make it an actual account.
>>
>>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is a crucial
>>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a turning point
>>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always connected
>>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
>
>Mark,
>   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with you.
>
>>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have expanded this
>>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend into many
>>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1, or plot
>>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John would have
>>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and made it such an
>>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of course,
>>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it would
>>  be hard to imagine.
>
>Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more developed
>in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine writer(s) who
>has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke make
>such a limited reference to such a significant character, if he/she/they
>was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
>
>It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative study
>would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to such
>an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language used in
>verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who "feasted
>sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign indicating
>the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies at the
>rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy his hunger with
>what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a sign
>identifying
>Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off from his
>source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by the
>faithful
>to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the Qumran
>Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
>>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is it likely
>>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in Luke?
>
>Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is that the
>Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the Jesus
>tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus is such
>an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the parables
>of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the issue
>of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of course, it is the
>reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to the
>conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
>>
>>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is perhaps
>>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in Mark or
>>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark and
>>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the churches so
>>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and evaluated
>>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a parable
>>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real Jesus
>>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches the
>>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable, since
>>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve as a
>>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of the
>>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
>
>   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of Lazarus is a
>fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that Luke's
>source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
>is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name Lazarus
>is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the OT
>whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the priest.
>Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling this
>parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms about
>Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest for
>having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus from
>their source of sustenance?
>
>   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
>Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a literary
>figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
>offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming the
>love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words "house"
>and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
>name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
>Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
>responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
>because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works better
>in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
>they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
>if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
>temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
>them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
>back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
>have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
>the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
>is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
>Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
>of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
>seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
>find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
>was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
>orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been binding
>"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
>table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
>    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following this
>line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
>It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
>
>Yours in Christ's service,
>Tom Butler
>
>
>>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
>>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
>>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
>>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Dear Mark,
>>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though I'm
>>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
>>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between the Gospel of
>>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use of the
>>  > name Lazarus in the two?
>>  >
>>  > Yours in Christ's service,
>>  > Tom Butler
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--

Dear Peter,
    There are, indeed, indications of conflict both within the Johannine
community and between the Johannine community leaders and other
Christian leaders from more orthodox communities.  Raymond
Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple sets forth his theory
regarding this conflict and identifies some of those who may well
have been involved in it.
    The opinion of Mark Matson which you support is interesting to
me for two reasons.  (1) Until recently the majority of scholars have
agreed with the theory that the Fourth Gospel was the last of the
canonical gospels to be written.  I find myself in agreement with those
who suggest that the Fourth Gospel may well have been "under
construction" during the period of time when the others were
written, and therefore suspect that some or all of the synoptic
gospel writers could have been aware of the process that was
under way in the Johannine community.  (I suspect that a material
connection could even be shown between the Fourth Gospel and
some of the writings of Paul, supporting this theory.)  However,
I can see no evidence that the completed material in the FG has
been incorporated into Luke's gospel.  If anything (as in my example
of the name of Lazarus), the flow of material is in the other direction.
In addition to the Lazarus material, the role of Mary and Martha
suggests a similar flow.  Very little is said about them in Luke.  In
John they occupy center stage in chapters 11 and 12, as the
gospel reaches its denouement.  It doesn't seem likely that Luke
would borrow significant characters like Mary, Martha and
Lazarus from the Fourth Gospel and turn them into minor characters
in his own gospel.  It seems much more probable that the writers
of the Fourth Gospel chose to make a midrash-like commentary
on some of the characters and stories from Luke's gospel, thus
expanding, for the sake of theological reflection and teaching, the
meaning of those stories.
(2)  As Brown has shown, there is evidence that the motive for
producing the Fourth Gospel may well have been that the community
was breaking up, largely due to the death of its principle leader,
the Beloved Disciple.  Indeed, those who see the FG as a proto-
gnostic text can point to the historically verified resistance within
the early church to the gnostic approach to the faith.  My research
points to the extensive use, by the writer(s) of the FG of Mosaic
oracles, using the midrash method to expound upon their meaning
in the Christian context.  This method of writing (and teaching) is
consistent with the production of a gospel that could well have
given rise to gnosticism.  I see no evidence of such an influence
in the Gospel According to Luke.  It seems to me that if material
was being borrowed from the FG in the composition of Luke's
gospel (arguably long before the FG was published and before
the gnostic controversy grew), then there would be some evidence
of such material.  I don't see it.  Do you?

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler
On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:08 +0100 Peter Hofrichter
<Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes:
> Dear Tom,
> I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of different
>
> convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
> scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
> credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as interested as
>
> they themselves in preserving all informations and that already the
>
> Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that
> everything
> was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic romanticisme.
> They had different opinions and they fought against one another may
>
> be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes them not
>
> less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the
> "Gospel
> of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects right.
> Especially in the second generation scepticisme will have grown.
> Mark
> used the general concept as a pattern for his own attempt but he
> changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
> motives but used them in a more credible way. That is the figure of
>
> Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from the
> appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
> Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg
>
>
>
>
>
> >Mark,
> >    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and saved
> >the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are still
> >considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
> >John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know if
> >it prompts any response from you.
> >
> >On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
> <MAMatson@...>
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in John
> it is
> >>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke
> Lazarus is
> >>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named
> character!)
> >>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by
> the
> >>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich man's
> >>  household.
> >>
> >>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would utilize
> >>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's
> story
> >>  and make it an actual account.
> >>
> >>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is a
> crucial
> >>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a turning
> point
> >>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always
> connected
> >>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
> >
> >Mark,
> >   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with you.
> >
> >>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have expanded
> this
> >>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend into
> many
> >>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1, or
> plot
> >>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John would
> have
> >>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and made it such
> an
> >>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of
> course,
> >>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it
> would
> >>  be hard to imagine.
> >
> >Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more developed
> >in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine
> writer(s) who
> >has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke make
> >such a limited reference to such a significant character, if
> he/she/they
> >was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
> >
> >It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative
> study
> >would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to such
> >an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language used
> in
> >verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who
> "feasted
> >sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign
> indicating
> >the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies at
> the
> >rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy his hunger
> with
> >what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a sign
> >identifying
> >Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off from
> his
> >source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by the
> >faithful
> >to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the
> Qumran
> >Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
> >>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is it
> likely
> >>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in Luke?
> >
> >Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is that
> the
> >Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the Jesus
> >tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus is
> such
> >an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the parables
> >of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the
> issue
> >of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of course, it is
> the
> >reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to the
> >conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
> >>
> >>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is
> perhaps
> >>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in Mark
> or
> >>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark and
> >>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the churches
> so
> >>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and
> evaluated
> >>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a
> parable
> >>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real Jesus
> >>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches
> the
> >>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable, since
> >>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve as
> a
> >>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of the
> >>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
> >
> >   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of Lazarus is
> a
> >fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that
> Luke's
> >source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
> >is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name Lazarus
> >is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the OT
> >whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the priest.
> >Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling this
> >parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms about
> >Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest for
> >having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus from
> >their source of sustenance?
> >
> >   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
> >Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a literary
> >figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
> >offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming the
> >love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words "house"
> >and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
> >name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
> >Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
> >responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
> >because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works better
> >in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
> >they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
> >if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
> >temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
> >them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
> >back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
> >have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
> >the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
> >is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
> >Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
> >of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
> >seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
> >find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
> >was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
> >orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been binding
> >"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
> >table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
> >    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following this
> >line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
> >It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
> >
> >Yours in Christ's service,
> >Tom Butler
> >
> >
> >>  > -----Original Message-----
> >>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> >>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
> >>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> >>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > Dear Mark,
> >>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though I'm
> >>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
> >>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between the Gospel
> of
> >>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use of
> the
> >>  > name Lazarus in the two?
> >>  >
> >>  > Yours in Christ's service,
> >>  > Tom Butler
> >
> >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
> --
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom:

Thanks for bringing this subject back up.  First of all, I don't think the
particular issues of Lazarus or Martha and Mary are necessarily the best places
to test a theory of the relationship between Luke and John.  When I surveyed the
material in my dissertation (In Dialogue with Another Gospel? SBL, 2001), I
quickly saw that the largest hunk of material is in the passion and resurrection
narratives, and devoted my attention to that area.  As interesting as Lazarus or
Mary and Martha connections are, they remain isolated bits of material that are
really hard to test with any assurance.

I won't bore you with all the details, but a quick summary of my findings:

1.  Lots of people have noted the incredible amount of connections between Luke
and John (Pierson Parker referred to the "sheer bulk" of the connections).  This
suggests some intimate relationship, probably some kind of a literary
relationship.

2.  The study of the passion narrative shows that Luke varies from his Markan
pattern here most markedly.  Thus Luke seems to be under the influence of some
other source than Mark!!

3.  Remarkably, where Luke tends to depart from Mark, there are often close
connections with John.

4.  To test the possibility that Luke might have used John as a source, I
examined Luke's redactional tendency and found this to be plausible.

5.  There are a number of patterns in order of events in Luke, especially where
it varies from the Markan pattern, that seem to suggest John's order has had an
influence.  Hence I think it was some version of the current John gospel, not
just "johannine sources."

As a result, I think some written narrative version of John was already out
there when Luke began writing, and had an influence on him, along with Mark (and
probably Matthew), and some oral sources.

Now part of the study, and what Peter Hofrichter was also referring to, is to
reject the tendency by which scholars often assert that a source relationship
only occurs when we can find consistent similarities (e.g. -- why would he have
changed this, or ommitted that??).  But what I would suggest, as Peter did also,
is that gospel authors may well have had different estimations about the sources
that they used.  For Luke to use John does not mean he necessarily valued it as
strongly as he does Mark.  So there will be a greater tendency to modify
material he takes over from John -- since he is a bit more suspicious of it. 
But if it is already a known presence in the churches, and Luke must deal with
the various accounts he has received, he can use parts he considers valid, and
reject or modify parts he questions.

Perhaps that is the case with Lazarus and Mary and Martha.... It wouldn't
surprise me.



Mark A. Matson
Academic Dean, Milligan College
http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:09 PM
> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>    There are, indeed, indications of conflict both within the
> Johannine
> community and between the Johannine community leaders and other
> Christian leaders from more orthodox communities.  Raymond
> Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple sets forth his theory
> regarding this conflict and identifies some of those who may well
> have been involved in it.
>    The opinion of Mark Matson which you support is interesting to
> me for two reasons.  (1) Until recently the majority of scholars have
> agreed with the theory that the Fourth Gospel was the last of the
> canonical gospels to be written.  I find myself in agreement
> with those
> who suggest that the Fourth Gospel may well have been "under
> construction" during the period of time when the others were
> written, and therefore suspect that some or all of the synoptic
> gospel writers could have been aware of the process that was
> under way in the Johannine community.  (I suspect that a material
> connection could even be shown between the Fourth Gospel and
> some of the writings of Paul, supporting this theory.)  However,
> I can see no evidence that the completed material in the FG has
> been incorporated into Luke's gospel.  If anything (as in my example
> of the name of Lazarus), the flow of material is in the other
> direction.
> In addition to the Lazarus material, the role of Mary and Martha
> suggests a similar flow.  Very little is said about them in Luke.  In
> John they occupy center stage in chapters 11 and 12, as the
> gospel reaches its denouement.  It doesn't seem likely that Luke
> would borrow significant characters like Mary, Martha and
> Lazarus from the Fourth Gospel and turn them into minor characters
> in his own gospel.  It seems much more probable that the writers
> of the Fourth Gospel chose to make a midrash-like commentary
> on some of the characters and stories from Luke's gospel, thus
> expanding, for the sake of theological reflection and teaching, the
> meaning of those stories.
> (2)  As Brown has shown, there is evidence that the motive for
> producing the Fourth Gospel may well have been that the community
> was breaking up, largely due to the death of its principle leader,
> the Beloved Disciple.  Indeed, those who see the FG as a proto-
> gnostic text can point to the historically verified resistance within
> the early church to the gnostic approach to the faith.  My research
> points to the extensive use, by the writer(s) of the FG of Mosaic
> oracles, using the midrash method to expound upon their meaning
> in the Christian context.  This method of writing (and teaching) is
> consistent with the production of a gospel that could well have
> given rise to gnosticism.  I see no evidence of such an influence
> in the Gospel According to Luke.  It seems to me that if material
> was being borrowed from the FG in the composition of Luke's
> gospel (arguably long before the FG was published and before
> the gnostic controversy grew), then there would be some evidence
> of such material.  I don't see it.  Do you?
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:08 +0100 Peter Hofrichter
> <Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes:
> > Dear Tom,
> > I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of
> different
> >
> > convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
> > scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
> > credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as
> interested as
> >
> > they themselves in preserving all informations and that already the
> >
> > Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that
> > everything
> > was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic romanticisme.
> > They had different opinions and they fought against one another may
> >
> > be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes
> them not
> >
> > less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the
> > "Gospel
> > of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects right.
> > Especially in the second generation scepticisme will have grown.
> > Mark
> > used the general concept as a pattern for his own attempt but he
> > changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
> > motives but used them in a more credible way. That is the figure of
> >
> > Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from the
> > appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
> > Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Mark,
> > >    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and saved
> > >the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are still
> > >considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
> > >John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know if
> > >it prompts any response from you.
> > >
> > >On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
> > <MAMatson@...>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in John
> > it is
> > >>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke
> > Lazarus is
> > >>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named
> > character!)
> > >>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by
> > the
> > >>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich man's
> > >>  household.
> > >>
> > >>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would utilize
> > >>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's
> > story
> > >>  and make it an actual account.
> > >>
> > >>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is a
> > crucial
> > >>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a turning
> > point
> > >>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always
> > connected
> > >>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
> > >
> > >Mark,
> > >   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with you.
> > >
> > >>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have expanded
> > this
> > >>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend into
> > many
> > >>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1, or
> > plot
> > >>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John would
> > have
> > >>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and
> made it such
> > an
> > >>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of
> > course,
> > >>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it
> > would
> > >>  be hard to imagine.
> > >
> > >Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more developed
> > >in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine
> > writer(s) who
> > >has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke make
> > >such a limited reference to such a significant character, if
> > he/she/they
> > >was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
> > >
> > >It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative
> > study
> > >would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to such
> > >an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language used
> > in
> > >verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who
> > "feasted
> > >sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign
> > indicating
> > >the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies at
> > the
> > >rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy
> his hunger
> > with
> > >what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a sign
> > >identifying
> > >Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off from
> > his
> > >source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by the
> > >faithful
> > >to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the
> > Qumran
> > >Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
> > >>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is it
> > likely
> > >>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in Luke?
> > >
> > >Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is that
> > the
> > >Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the Jesus
> > >tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus is
> > such
> > >an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the parables
> > >of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the
> > issue
> > >of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of
> course, it is
> > the
> > >reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to the
> > >conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
> > >>
> > >>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is
> > perhaps
> > >>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in Mark
> > or
> > >>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark and
> > >>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the churches
> > so
> > >>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and
> > evaluated
> > >>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a
> > parable
> > >>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real Jesus
> > >>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches
> > the
> > >>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable, since
> > >>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve as
> > a
> > >>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of the
> > >>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
> > >
> > >   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of
> Lazarus is
> > a
> > >fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that
> > Luke's
> > >source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
> > >is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name Lazarus
> > >is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the OT
> > >whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the priest.
> > >Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling this
> > >parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms about
> > >Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest for
> > >having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus from
> > >their source of sustenance?
> > >
> > >   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
> > >Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a literary
> > >figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
> > >offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming the
> > >love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words "house"
> > >and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
> > >name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
> > >Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
> > >responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
> > >because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works better
> > >in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
> > >they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
> > >if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
> > >temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
> > >them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
> > >back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
> > >have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
> > >the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
> > >is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
> > >Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
> > >of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
> > >seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
> > >find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
> > >was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
> > >orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been binding
> > >"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
> > >table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
> > >    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following this
> > >line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
> > >It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
> > >
> > >Yours in Christ's service,
> > >Tom Butler
> > >
> > >
> > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > >>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > >>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
> > >>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > >>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> > >>  >
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Dear Mark,
> > >>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though I'm
> > >>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
> > >>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between
> the Gospel
> > of
> > >>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use of
> > the
> > >>  > name Lazarus in the two?
> > >>  >
> > >>  > Yours in Christ's service,
> > >>  > Tom Butler
> > >
> > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Mark:
    It seems to me that you too easily dismiss the Mary, Martha and
Lazarus connections between Luke and John.  The fact that they
are mentioned in those two gospels and not in either of the other
two canonical gospels or in any other New Testament literature is
significant.  Would you elaborate on your theory as to why the
author of Luke would have diminished those roles so radically,
rather than simply leaving them out of his (her?) gospel altogether?
(By the way, one of the reasons that I am interested in your work
is that I believe that the Fourth Gospel's source is a female -the
beloved disciple, Mary of Bethany.  Randle Helms Who Wrote
the Gospels? has suggested that the author of Luke is a female.
Could that be the connection?)

    That aside, I would be grateful if you could offer some of the
supporting evidence for your conclusions.  I believe that my initial
letter to you was in response to your request for people to read
your dissertation.  I remain interested in doing so if you are still
looking for readers.  Your ideas are interesting.  I am just not able
to subscribe to them without seeing the evidence that you have
assembled to support them.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:26:12 -0500 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
<MAMatson@...> writes:
> Tom:
>
> Thanks for bringing this subject back up.  First of all, I don't
> think the particular issues of Lazarus or Martha and Mary are
> necessarily the best places to test a theory of the relationship
> between Luke and John.  When I surveyed the material in my
> dissertation (In Dialogue with Another Gospel? SBL, 2001), I quickly
> saw that the largest hunk of material is in the passion and
> resurrection narratives, and devoted my attention to that area.  As
> interesting as Lazarus or Mary and Martha connections are, they
> remain isolated bits of material that are really hard to test with
> any assurance.
>
> I won't bore you with all the details, but a quick summary of my
> findings:
>
> 1.  Lots of people have noted the incredible amount of connections
> between Luke and John (Pierson Parker referred to the "sheer bulk"
> of the connections).  This suggests some intimate relationship,
> probably some kind of a literary relationship.
>
> 2.  The study of the passion narrative shows that Luke varies from
> his Markan pattern here most markedly.  Thus Luke seems to be under
> the influence of some other source than Mark!!
>
> 3.  Remarkably, where Luke tends to depart from Mark, there are
> often close connections with John.
>
> 4.  To test the possibility that Luke might have used John as a
> source, I examined Luke's redactional tendency and found this to be
> plausible.
>
> 5.  There are a number of patterns in order of events in Luke,
> especially where it varies from the Markan pattern, that seem to
> suggest John's order has had an influence.  Hence I think it was
> some version of the current John gospel, not just "johannine
> sources."
>
> As a result, I think some written narrative version of John was
> already out there when Luke began writing, and had an influence on
> him, along with Mark (and probably Matthew), and some oral sources.
>
>
> Now part of the study, and what Peter Hofrichter was also referring
> to, is to reject the tendency by which scholars often assert that a
> source relationship only occurs when we can find consistent
> similarities (e.g. -- why would he have changed this, or ommitted
> that??).  But what I would suggest, as Peter did also, is that
> gospel authors may well have had different estimations about the
> sources that they used.  For Luke to use John does not mean he
> necessarily valued it as strongly as he does Mark.  So there will be
> a greater tendency to modify material he takes over from John --
> since he is a bit more suspicious of it.  But if it is already a
> known presence in the churches, and Luke must deal with the various
> accounts he has received, he can use parts he considers valid, and
> reject or modify parts he questions.
>
> Perhaps that is the case with Lazarus and Mary and Martha.... It
> wouldn't surprise me.
>
>
>
> Mark A. Matson
> Academic Dean, Milligan College
> http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:09 PM
> > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> >
> >
> > Dear Peter,
> >    There are, indeed, indications of conflict both within the
> > Johannine
> > community and between the Johannine community leaders and other
> > Christian leaders from more orthodox communities.  Raymond
> > Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple sets forth his theory
> > regarding this conflict and identifies some of those who may well
> > have been involved in it.
> >    The opinion of Mark Matson which you support is interesting to
> > me for two reasons.  (1) Until recently the majority of scholars
> have
> > agreed with the theory that the Fourth Gospel was the last of the
> > canonical gospels to be written.  I find myself in agreement
> > with those
> > who suggest that the Fourth Gospel may well have been "under
> > construction" during the period of time when the others were
> > written, and therefore suspect that some or all of the synoptic
> > gospel writers could have been aware of the process that was
> > under way in the Johannine community.  (I suspect that a material
> > connection could even be shown between the Fourth Gospel and
> > some of the writings of Paul, supporting this theory.)  However,
> > I can see no evidence that the completed material in the FG has
> > been incorporated into Luke's gospel.  If anything (as in my
> example
> > of the name of Lazarus), the flow of material is in the other
> > direction.
> > In addition to the Lazarus material, the role of Mary and Martha
> > suggests a similar flow.  Very little is said about them in Luke.
> In
> > John they occupy center stage in chapters 11 and 12, as the
> > gospel reaches its denouement.  It doesn't seem likely that Luke
> > would borrow significant characters like Mary, Martha and
> > Lazarus from the Fourth Gospel and turn them into minor
> characters
> > in his own gospel.  It seems much more probable that the writers
> > of the Fourth Gospel chose to make a midrash-like commentary
> > on some of the characters and stories from Luke's gospel, thus
> > expanding, for the sake of theological reflection and teaching,
> the
> > meaning of those stories.
> > (2)  As Brown has shown, there is evidence that the motive for
> > producing the Fourth Gospel may well have been that the community
> > was breaking up, largely due to the death of its principle
> leader,
> > the Beloved Disciple.  Indeed, those who see the FG as a proto-
> > gnostic text can point to the historically verified resistance
> within
> > the early church to the gnostic approach to the faith.  My
> research
> > points to the extensive use, by the writer(s) of the FG of Mosaic
> > oracles, using the midrash method to expound upon their meaning
> > in the Christian context.  This method of writing (and teaching)
> is
> > consistent with the production of a gospel that could well have
> > given rise to gnosticism.  I see no evidence of such an influence
> > in the Gospel According to Luke.  It seems to me that if material
> > was being borrowed from the FG in the composition of Luke's
> > gospel (arguably long before the FG was published and before
> > the gnostic controversy grew), then there would be some evidence
> > of such material.  I don't see it.  Do you?
> >
> > Yours in Christ's service,
> > Tom Butler
> > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:08 +0100 Peter Hofrichter
> > <Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes:
> > > Dear Tom,
> > > I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of
> > different
> > >
> > > convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
> > > scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
> > > credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as
> > interested as
> > >
> > > they themselves in preserving all informations and that already
> the
> > >
> > > Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that
> > > everything
> > > was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic
> romanticisme.
> > > They had different opinions and they fought against one another
> may
> > >
> > > be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes
> > them not
> > >
> > > less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the
> > > "Gospel
> > > of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects
> right.
> > > Especially in the second generation scepticisme will have grown.
>
> > > Mark
> > > used the general concept as a pattern for his own attempt but he
>
> > > changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
> > > motives but used them in a more credible way. That is the figure
> of
> > >
> > > Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from
> the
> > > appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
> > > Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Mark,
> > > >    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and
> saved
> > > >the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are
> still
> > > >considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
> > > >John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know
> if
> > > >it prompts any response from you.
> > > >
> > > >On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
> > > <MAMatson@...>
> > > >wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in
> John
> > > it is
> > > >>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke
> > > Lazarus is
> > > >>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named
> > > character!)
> > > >>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by
>
> > > the
> > > >>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich
> man's
> > > >>  household.
> > > >>
> > > >>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would
> utilize
> > > >>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's
>
> > > story
> > > >>  and make it an actual account.
> > > >>
> > > >>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is
> a
> > > crucial
> > > >>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a
> turning
> > > point
> > > >>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always
> > > connected
> > > >>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
> > > >
> > > >Mark,
> > > >   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with
> you.
> > > >
> > > >>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have
> expanded
> > > this
> > > >>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend
> into
> > > many
> > > >>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1,
> or
> > > plot
> > > >>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John
> would
> > > have
> > > >>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and
> > made it such
> > > an
> > > >>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of
> > > course,
> > > >>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it
>
> > > would
> > > >>  be hard to imagine.
> > > >
> > > >Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more
> developed
> > > >in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine
> > > writer(s) who
> > > >has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke
> make
> > > >such a limited reference to such a significant character, if
> > > he/she/they
> > > >was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
> > > >
> > > >It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative
> > > study
> > > >would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to
> such
> > > >an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language
> used
> > > in
> > > >verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who
>
> > > "feasted
> > > >sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign
> > > indicating
> > > >the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies
> at
> > > the
> > > >rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy
> > his hunger
> > > with
> > > >what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a
> sign
> > > >identifying
> > > >Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off
> from
> > > his
> > > >source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by
> the
> > > >faithful
> > > >to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the
>
> > > Qumran
> > > >Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
> > > >>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is
> it
> > > likely
> > > >>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in
> Luke?
> > > >
> > > >Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is
> that
> > > the
> > > >Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the
> Jesus
> > > >tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus
> is
> > > such
> > > >an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the
> parables
> > > >of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the
> > > issue
> > > >of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of
> > course, it is
> > > the
> > > >reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to
> the
> > > >conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
> > > >>
> > > >>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is
>
> > > perhaps
> > > >>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in
> Mark
> > > or
> > > >>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark
> and
> > > >>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the
> churches
> > > so
> > > >>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and
> > > evaluated
> > > >>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a
>
> > > parable
> > > >>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real
> Jesus
> > > >>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches
>
> > > the
> > > >>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable,
> since
> > > >>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve
> as
> > > a
> > > >>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of
> the
> > > >>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
> > > >
> > > >   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of
> > Lazarus is
> > > a
> > > >fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that
>
> > > Luke's
> > > >source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
> > > >is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name
> Lazarus
> > > >is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the
> OT
> > > >whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the
> priest.
> > > >Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling
> this
> > > >parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms
> about
> > > >Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest
> for
> > > >having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus
> from
> > > >their source of sustenance?
> > > >
> > > >   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
> > > >Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a
> literary
> > > >figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
> > > >offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming
> the
> > > >love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words
> "house"
> > > >and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
> > > >name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
> > > >Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
> > > >responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
> > > >because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works
> better
> > > >in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
> > > >they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
> > > >if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
> > > >temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
> > > >them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
> > > >back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
> > > >have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
> > > >the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
> > > >is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
> > > >Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
> > > >of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
> > > >seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
> > > >find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
> > > >was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
> > > >orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been
> binding
> > > >"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
> > > >table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
> > > >    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following
> this
> > > >line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
> > > >It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
> > > >
> > > >Yours in Christ's service,
> > > >Tom Butler
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > > >>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > > >>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
> > > >>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > > >>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Dear Mark,
> > > >>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though
> I'm
> > > >>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
> > > >>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between
> > the Gospel
> > > of
> > > >>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use
> of
> > > the
> > > >>  > name Lazarus in the two?
> > > >>  >
> > > >>  > Yours in Christ's service,
> > > >>  > Tom Butler
> > > >
> > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am puzzled once again!
Why is the Lazarus in Luke's parable the brother of Martha and Mary?
That Lazarus was a landowner with a house.
He was anything but a beggar, covered with sores, licked by dogs and
begging for food.
And where was this Lazarus' sisters and why weren't they tending him?
Does anyone suggest that Joseph, father of Jesus, was Joseph of
Arimathea?
Surely the key to Luke's Lazarus was the meaning of his name 'the one
God helps'?
Just curious!
Ross Saunders from DownUnder

----- Original Message -----
From: "RHS" <diadem@...>
To: <johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 5:26 PM
Subject: [John_Lit] Lazarus


> I am puzzled once again!
> Why is the Lazarus in Luke's parable the brother of Martha and Mary?

Probably because they had the same mommy and daddy?

> That Lazarus was a landowner with a house.
> He was anything but a beggar, covered with sores, licked by dogs and
> begging for food.
> And where was this Lazarus' sisters and why weren't they tending him?

The only thing the two Lazarus's...er...Lazari? <g> tell me is that both
stories originated in Galilean Aramaic.  Galileans dropped their glottal
alephs and ayins like Cockney's dropped their H's. Eleazar was one of the
most common names of the 2nd temple period, including, according to Matthew,
Jesus' great, great grandfather..... and pronounced `Lazar in the Galilee.
So these are two different Lazari...uh...if historical.

> Does anyone suggest that Joseph, father of Jesus, was Joseph of
> Arimathea?

Nope

> Surely the key to Luke's Lazarus was the meaning of his name 'the one
> God helps'?

Only Luke would know since the etymology of Jesus' name is also "whose help
is YHWH."

Maybe Lazarus is a literary alter-ego in John.

Jack

Dear Ross,
    See Luke 16: 19-31 where:
         -Lazarus is a poor man, covered with sores who longed to
          satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man's table.
    See John 11: 1-44 where:
         -Lazarus is an ill man of Bethany, the village of Mary and
          Martha, who were sisters.  Lazarus was a brother of Mary.

The name Lazarus occurs only in John 11 and 12 and Luke 16.
In Luke, Lazarus is a figure in a parable.  There is no attempt to
suggest that Lazarus is a historical figure.

It is appropriate to consider, given that these are the only places
in scripture where this name occurs, whether there is any connection
between them, for example, to examine whether or not the story
of the raising of Lazarus in John 11 might be an elaboration upon
the theme of resurrection mentioned in Luke 16.

I too am puzzled.  Where do you find that Joseph is the father
of Jesus?  Who was it that suggested that he was Joseph of
Arimethea?  Did I miss something?  Just curious.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 10:26:28 +1100 RHS <diadem@...> writes:
> I am puzzled once again!
> Why is the Lazarus in Luke's parable the brother of Martha and
> Mary?
> That Lazarus was a landowner with a house.
> He was anything but a beggar, covered with sores, licked by dogs
> and
> begging for food.
> And where was this Lazarus' sisters and why weren't they tending
> him?
> Does anyone suggest that Joseph, father of Jesus, was Joseph of
> Arimathea?
> Surely the key to Luke's Lazarus was the meaning of his name 'the
> one
> God helps'?
> Just curious!
> Ross Saunders from DownUnder
>
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Tom:

I am not sure that I dismiss the connections.  They are part of a large-scale
tapestry of connections between the two gospels -- some very obvious and bespeak
a literary connection, some that are far less secure.  But having said that, I
just am careful about speaking with any assurance on one isolated connection. 
It is the wholesale set of connections that starts to be compelling, not some
isolated similarities.

Now, having said that, given my study which tends to find a high degree of
probability (notice I avoid the word "proof" which is simply out of the question
in stuff like this) that Luke was influenced by a source very similar to John,
my initial inclination is to fit the Lazarus material into that pattern.  I
haven't closely studied it, so this is really a knee-jerk reaction.

But there are some really intriquing issues at stake.  Why does Luke's parable
have a named figure?  This seems to break the normal rule for parables, even
Luke's parables.  Doesn't this suggest that Luke is under the influence of some
"source" that is causing him to modify a story in favor of that source?  Yet it
is a big difference.  I can imagine a number of possibilities for why Luke might
have been suspicious of John's story of Lazarus, and yet might have allowed it
to influence in a small way his telling of another oral tradition.  But this is
really speculation.  The big issue is the larger pattern, especially in the
passion and resurrection narratives.

I have a much bigger confusion trying to imagine how John would draw upon a
Lukan parable and "turn it into" a key story about a raising of a man dead for 4
days, and upon which the opposition by the "Jews" turns to active persecution.
This is so crucial for John's narrative, and has so many tenticles into other
parts of John's narrative, that this would mean that John's account is really a
fiction based upon other stories.  But I have been convinced that John at least
thinks his account is based on good data, and often times is based on good data.
to imagine the Fourth Evangelist (whoever the real author is) creating stories
from parables is to imagine his activity far differently that seems reasonable
to me.

Mark

Mark A. Matson
Academic Dean, Milligan College
http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 2:18 PM
> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
>
>
> Mark:
>    It seems to me that you too easily dismiss the Mary, Martha and
> Lazarus connections between Luke and John.  The fact that they
> are mentioned in those two gospels and not in either of the other
> two canonical gospels or in any other New Testament literature is
> significant.  Would you elaborate on your theory as to why the
> author of Luke would have diminished those roles so radically,
> rather than simply leaving them out of his (her?) gospel altogether?
> (By the way, one of the reasons that I am interested in your work
> is that I believe that the Fourth Gospel's source is a female -the
> beloved disciple, Mary of Bethany.  Randle Helms Who Wrote
> the Gospels? has suggested that the author of Luke is a female.
> Could that be the connection?)
>
>    That aside, I would be grateful if you could offer some of the
> supporting evidence for your conclusions.  I believe that my initial
> letter to you was in response to your request for people to read
> your dissertation.  I remain interested in doing so if you are still
> looking for readers.  Your ideas are interesting.  I am just not able
> to subscribe to them without seeing the evidence that you have
> assembled to support them.
>
> Yours in Christ's service,
> Tom Butler
>
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 13:26:12 -0500 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
> <MAMatson@...> writes:
> > Tom:
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this subject back up.  First of all, I don't
> > think the particular issues of Lazarus or Martha and Mary are
> > necessarily the best places to test a theory of the relationship
> > between Luke and John.  When I surveyed the material in my
> > dissertation (In Dialogue with Another Gospel? SBL, 2001),
> I quickly
> > saw that the largest hunk of material is in the passion and
> > resurrection narratives, and devoted my attention to that area.  As
> > interesting as Lazarus or Mary and Martha connections are, they
> > remain isolated bits of material that are really hard to test with
> > any assurance.
> >
> > I won't bore you with all the details, but a quick summary of my
> > findings:
> >
> > 1.  Lots of people have noted the incredible amount of connections
> > between Luke and John (Pierson Parker referred to the "sheer bulk"
> > of the connections).  This suggests some intimate relationship,
> > probably some kind of a literary relationship.
> >
> > 2.  The study of the passion narrative shows that Luke varies from
> > his Markan pattern here most markedly.  Thus Luke seems to be under
> > the influence of some other source than Mark!!
> >
> > 3.  Remarkably, where Luke tends to depart from Mark, there are
> > often close connections with John.
> >
> > 4.  To test the possibility that Luke might have used John as a
> > source, I examined Luke's redactional tendency and found this to be
> > plausible.
> >
> > 5.  There are a number of patterns in order of events in Luke,
> > especially where it varies from the Markan pattern, that seem to
> > suggest John's order has had an influence.  Hence I think it was
> > some version of the current John gospel, not just "johannine
> > sources."
> >
> > As a result, I think some written narrative version of John was
> > already out there when Luke began writing, and had an influence on
> > him, along with Mark (and probably Matthew), and some oral
> sources.
> >
> >
> > Now part of the study, and what Peter Hofrichter was also referring
> > to, is to reject the tendency by which scholars often assert that a
> > source relationship only occurs when we can find consistent
> > similarities (e.g. -- why would he have changed this, or ommitted
> > that??).  But what I would suggest, as Peter did also, is that
> > gospel authors may well have had different estimations about the
> > sources that they used.  For Luke to use John does not mean he
> > necessarily valued it as strongly as he does Mark.  So
> there will be
> > a greater tendency to modify material he takes over from John --
> > since he is a bit more suspicious of it.  But if it is already a
> > known presence in the churches, and Luke must deal with the various
> > accounts he has received, he can use parts he considers valid, and
> > reject or modify parts he questions.
> >
> > Perhaps that is the case with Lazarus and Mary and Martha.... It
> > wouldn't surprise me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mark A. Matson
> > Academic Dean, Milligan College
> > http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 12:09 PM
> > > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Peter,
> > >    There are, indeed, indications of conflict both within the
> > > Johannine
> > > community and between the Johannine community leaders and other
> > > Christian leaders from more orthodox communities.  Raymond
> > > Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple sets forth his theory
> > > regarding this conflict and identifies some of those who may well
> > > have been involved in it.
> > >    The opinion of Mark Matson which you support is interesting to
> > > me for two reasons.  (1) Until recently the majority of scholars
> > have
> > > agreed with the theory that the Fourth Gospel was the last of the
> > > canonical gospels to be written.  I find myself in agreement
> > > with those
> > > who suggest that the Fourth Gospel may well have been "under
> > > construction" during the period of time when the others were
> > > written, and therefore suspect that some or all of the synoptic
> > > gospel writers could have been aware of the process that was
> > > under way in the Johannine community.  (I suspect that a material
> > > connection could even be shown between the Fourth Gospel and
> > > some of the writings of Paul, supporting this theory.)  However,
> > > I can see no evidence that the completed material in the FG has
> > > been incorporated into Luke's gospel.  If anything (as in my
> > example
> > > of the name of Lazarus), the flow of material is in the other
> > > direction.
> > > In addition to the Lazarus material, the role of Mary and Martha
> > > suggests a similar flow.  Very little is said about them
> in Luke.
> > In
> > > John they occupy center stage in chapters 11 and 12, as the
> > > gospel reaches its denouement.  It doesn't seem likely that Luke
> > > would borrow significant characters like Mary, Martha and
> > > Lazarus from the Fourth Gospel and turn them into minor
> > characters
> > > in his own gospel.  It seems much more probable that the writers
> > > of the Fourth Gospel chose to make a midrash-like commentary
> > > on some of the characters and stories from Luke's gospel, thus
> > > expanding, for the sake of theological reflection and teaching,
> > the
> > > meaning of those stories.
> > > (2)  As Brown has shown, there is evidence that the motive for
> > > producing the Fourth Gospel may well have been that the community
> > > was breaking up, largely due to the death of its principle
> > leader,
> > > the Beloved Disciple.  Indeed, those who see the FG as a proto-
> > > gnostic text can point to the historically verified resistance
> > within
> > > the early church to the gnostic approach to the faith.  My
> > research
> > > points to the extensive use, by the writer(s) of the FG of Mosaic
> > > oracles, using the midrash method to expound upon their meaning
> > > in the Christian context.  This method of writing (and teaching)
> > is
> > > consistent with the production of a gospel that could well have
> > > given rise to gnosticism.  I see no evidence of such an influence
> > > in the Gospel According to Luke.  It seems to me that if material
> > > was being borrowed from the FG in the composition of Luke's
> > > gospel (arguably long before the FG was published and before
> > > the gnostic controversy grew), then there would be some evidence
> > > of such material.  I don't see it.  Do you?
> > >
> > > Yours in Christ's service,
> > > Tom Butler
> > > On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:08 +0100 Peter Hofrichter
> > > <Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes:
> > > > Dear Tom,
> > > > I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of
> > > different
> > > >
> > > > convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
> > > > scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
> > > > credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as
> > > interested as
> > > >
> > > > they themselves in preserving all informations and that already
> > the
> > > >
> > > > Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that
> > > > everything
> > > > was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic
> > romanticisme.
> > > > They had different opinions and they fought against one another
> > may
> > > >
> > > > be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes
> > > them not
> > > >
> > > > less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the
> > > > "Gospel
> > > > of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects
> > right.
> > > > Especially in the second generation scepticisme will
> have grown.
> >
> > > > Mark
> > > > used the general concept as a pattern for his own
> attempt but he
> >
> > > > changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
> > > > motives but used them in a more credible way. That is
> the figure
> > of
> > > >
> > > > Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from
> > the
> > > > appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
> > > > Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Mark,
> > > > >    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and
> > saved
> > > > >the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are
> > still
> > > > >considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
> > > > >John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know
> > if
> > > > >it prompts any response from you.
> > > > >
> > > > >On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
> > > > <MAMatson@...>
> > > > >wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in
> > John
> > > > it is
> > > > >>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke
> > > > Lazarus is
> > > > >>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named
> > > > character!)
> > > > >>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is
> asked by
> >
> > > > the
> > > > >>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich
> > man's
> > > > >>  household.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would
> > utilize
> > > > >>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to
> use Luke's
> >
> > > > story
> > > > >>  and make it an actual account.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is
> > a
> > > > crucial
> > > > >>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a
> > turning
> > > > point
> > > > >>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always
> > > > connected
> > > > >>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
> > > > >
> > > > >Mark,
> > > > >   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with
> > you.
> > > > >
> > > > >>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have
> > expanded
> > > > this
> > > > >>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend
> > into
> > > > many
> > > > >>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1,
> > or
> > > > plot
> > > > >>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John
> > would
> > > > have
> > > > >>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and
> > > made it such
> > > > an
> > > > >>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of
> > > > course,
> > > > >>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling
> technique it
> >
> > > > would
> > > > >>  be hard to imagine.
> > > > >
> > > > >Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more
> > developed
> > > > >in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine
> > > > writer(s) who
> > > > >has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke
> > make
> > > > >such a limited reference to such a significant character, if
> > > > he/she/they
> > > > >was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
> > > > >
> > > > >It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative
> > > > study
> > > > >would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to
> > such
> > > > >an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language
> > used
> > > > in
> > > > >verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who
> >
> > > > "feasted
> > > > >sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign
> > > > indicating
> > > > >the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies
> > at
> > > > the
> > > > >rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy
> > > his hunger
> > > > with
> > > > >what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a
> > sign
> > > > >identifying
> > > > >Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off
> > from
> > > > his
> > > > >source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by
> > the
> > > > >faithful
> > > > >to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is
> confirmed in the
> >
> > > > Qumran
> > > > >Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
> > > > >>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is
> > it
> > > > likely
> > > > >>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in
> > Luke?
> > > > >
> > > > >Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > >Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the
> > Jesus
> > > > >tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus
> > is
> > > > such
> > > > >an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the
> > parables
> > > > >of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the
> > > > issue
> > > > >of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of
> > > course, it is
> > > > the
> > > > >reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to
> > the
> > > > >conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is
> >
> > > > perhaps
> > > > >>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in
> > Mark
> > > > or
> > > > >>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark
> > and
> > > > >>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the
> > churches
> > > > so
> > > > >>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and
> > > > evaluated
> > > > >>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had
> knowledge of a
> >
> > > > parable
> > > > >>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real
> > Jesus
> > > > >>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He
> attaches
> >
> > > > the
> > > > >>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable,
> > since
> > > > >>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant
> to serve
> > as
> > > > a
> > > > >>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of
> > the
> > > > >>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
> > > > >
> > > > >   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of
> > > Lazarus is
> > > > a
> > > > >fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that
> >
> > > > Luke's
> > > > >source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
> > > > >is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name
> > Lazarus
> > > > >is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of
> Aaron.  In the
> > OT
> > > > >whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the
> > priest.
> > > > >Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling
> > this
> > > > >parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms
> > about
> > > > >Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest
> > for
> > > > >having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus
> > from
> > > > >their source of sustenance?
> > > > >
> > > > >   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
> > > > >Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a
> > literary
> > > > >figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
> > > > >offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming
> > the
> > > > >love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words
> > "house"
> > > > >and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
> > > > >name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
> > > > >Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
> > > > >responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
> > > > >because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works
> > better
> > > > >in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
> > > > >they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
> > > > >if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
> > > > >temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
> > > > >them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
> > > > >back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
> > > > >have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
> > > > >the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
> > > > >is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
> > > > >Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
> > > > >of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
> > > > >seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
> > > > >find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
> > > > >was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
> > > > >orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been
> > binding
> > > > >"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
> > > > >table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
> > > > >    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following
> > this
> > > > >line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
> > > > >It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
> > > > >
> > > > >Yours in Christ's service,
> > > > >Tom Butler
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>  > -----Original Message-----
> > > > >>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
> > > > >>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
> > > > >>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
> > > > >>  >
> > > > >>  >
> > > > >>  > Dear Mark,
> > > > >>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though
> > I'm
> > > > >>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
> > > > >>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between
> > > the Gospel
> > > > of
> > > > >>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >>  > name Lazarus in the two?
> > > > >>  >
> > > > >>  > Yours in Christ's service,
> > > > >>  > Tom Butler
> > > > >
> > > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > > > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > > >
> > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> > johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
> johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Dear Tom,
I agree with you that the FG was still developping during the
composition of Mk and Mt an Lk. But Lk seems to have read it already
in very mature shape. Only the beloved disciple, the fare-well
speeches ch 15-17 and some tiny additions, especially in the
prologue, may have been added afterwards.

You are, of course, in the best company with your opinion that the FG
has borrowed from the others and of course not the other way round.
It is very hard to change at least hypothetically ones way to look at
things. It is like the in case of Copernicus. But, why do you think
that Luke did not write midrashim, why do you think that Luke would
have respected the importance of persons within and for the FG if he
borrowed them as motives for his own purpose. Especially the stories
of the poor Lazarus and the rich man and also the story of Mary and
Martha, although it is very short, are midrashim (?) in order to
undermine the Lazarus and anointment story of the FG. Luke
relativated an generalized by this use of johannine elements the
stories he not accept. His most impressive midrash, athough of
another kind, is the birth story. It is composed as a midrash-like
paraphrase along the prologue of the FG. It would go to far to expand
here the whole method, but let me only remind you of some motives (I
beg your pardon for not being familiar with the English Bible
translation): ... He came into the world) ... and the world did not
know him: It wos in the time of the Emperor Augustus, there was
issued a commandment to registrate of the whole world  (oikoumene). -
He came to his property and his own people did not recieve him: In
the hostel there was no room for them. - And we have seen his glory:
And the glory of the Lord was shinig around them. - The onlybegotten
God/son, whos is on the side of his father, he has explained it
(ekeinos exegesato): Jesus at the age of 12 years was sitting among
the scribes and expained them the Bible and said to his parents: Did
you not kknow that I mnust be in what belongs to my father?

Thank you for your reply, all belessings to you!
Peter









>Dear Peter,
>    There are, indeed, indications of conflict both within the Johannine
>community and between the Johannine community leaders and other
>Christian leaders from more orthodox communities.  Raymond
>Brown's Community of the Beloved Disciple sets forth his theory
>regarding this conflict and identifies some of those who may well
>have been involved in it.
>    The opinion of Mark Matson which you support is interesting to
>me for two reasons.  (1) Until recently the majority of scholars have
>agreed with the theory that the Fourth Gospel was the last of the
>canonical gospels to be written.  I find myself in agreement with those
>who suggest that the Fourth Gospel may well have been "under
>construction" during the period of time when the others were
>written, and therefore suspect that some or all of the synoptic
>gospel writers could have been aware of the process that was
>under way in the Johannine community.  (I suspect that a material
>connection could even be shown between the Fourth Gospel and
>some of the writings of Paul, supporting this theory.)  However,
>I can see no evidence that the completed material in the FG has
>been incorporated into Luke's gospel.  If anything (as in my example
>of the name of Lazarus), the flow of material is in the other direction.
>In addition to the Lazarus material, the role of Mary and Martha
>suggests a similar flow.  Very little is said about them in Luke.  In
>John they occupy center stage in chapters 11 and 12, as the
>gospel reaches its denouement.  It doesn't seem likely that Luke
>would borrow significant characters like Mary, Martha and
>Lazarus from the Fourth Gospel and turn them into minor characters
>in his own gospel.  It seems much more probable that the writers
>of the Fourth Gospel chose to make a midrash-like commentary
>on some of the characters and stories from Luke's gospel, thus
>expanding, for the sake of theological reflection and teaching, the
>meaning of those stories.
>(2)  As Brown has shown, there is evidence that the motive for
>producing the Fourth Gospel may well have been that the community
>was breaking up, largely due to the death of its principle leader,
>the Beloved Disciple.  Indeed, those who see the FG as a proto-
>gnostic text can point to the historically verified resistance within
>the early church to the gnostic approach to the faith.  My research
>points to the extensive use, by the writer(s) of the FG of Mosaic
>oracles, using the midrash method to expound upon their meaning
>in the Christian context.  This method of writing (and teaching) is
>consistent with the production of a gospel that could well have
>given rise to gnosticism.  I see no evidence of such an influence
>in the Gospel According to Luke.  It seems to me that if material
>was being borrowed from the FG in the composition of Luke's
>gospel (arguably long before the FG was published and before
>the gnostic controversy grew), then there would be some evidence
>of such material.  I don't see it.  Do you?
>
>Yours in Christ's service,
>Tom Butler
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2002 10:56:08 +0100 Peter Hofrichter
><Peter.Hofrichter@...> writes:
>>  Dear Tom,
>>  I share not only the opinion of Mark Matson. One reason of different
>  >
>>  convictions concernig the Gospel traditions is that different
>>  scholars have different attitudes towards the mentälity and
>>  credibility of autors. Most of them think they were as interested as
>>
>>  they themselves in preserving all informations and that already the
>>
>>  Evangelists respected their collegues as holy men and that
>>  everything
>>  was in love and harmony. But this is an unrealistic romanticisme.
>>  They had different opinions and they fought against one another may
>>
>>  be more than churchmen and theologians do today. That makes them not
>>
>>  less holy but more human. All the Synoptists thought that the
>>  "Gospel
>>  of John" was not trustworthy and they were in many respects right.
>>  Especially in the second generation scepticisme will have grown.
>>  Mark
>>  used the general concept as a pattern for his own attempt but he
>>  changed the contence. Luke took from "John" certain additional
>>  motives but used them in a more credible way. That is the figure of
>>
>>  Lazarus but also the rich catching of fish, which he put from the
>>  appearance of the risen Christ into his very life.
>>  Peter Hofrichter/Salzburg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  >Mark,
>>  >    Apparently I started a reply to you last December and saved
>>  >the draft but never finished it.  I'm wondering if you are still
>>  >considering the relationship between the Gospels of Luke and
>>  >John.  I've chosen to finish the reply I started.  Let me know if
>>  >it prompts any response from you.
>>  >
>>  >On Mon, 24 Dec 2001 "Matson, Mark (Academic)"
>>  <MAMatson@...>
>>  >wrote:
>>  >>
>>  >>  As you know, Lazarus only occurs in Luke and John.  But in John
>>  it is
>>  >>  a story of an actual raising from the dead, while in Luke
>>  Lazarus is
>>  >>  contained in a parable (the only parable with a named
>>  character!)
>>  >>  about a poor man who dies and goes to heaven and is asked by
>>  the
>>  >>  rich man to be sent back (raised?) to testify to the rich man's
>>  >>  household.
>>  >>
>>  >>  The question is which is more likely -- that Luke would utilize
>>  >>  John's story and make it a parable,or for John to use Luke's
>>  story
>>  >>  and make it an actual account.
>>  >>
>>  >>  A further difficulty, though, is that the figure Lazarus is a
>>  crucial
>>  >>  component of John's story line.  Lazarus' raising is a turning
>>  point
>>  >>  in the Jewish opposition of Jesus, and Lazarus is always
>>  connected
>>  >>  with Mary and Martha, who are key figures in the story.
>>  >
>>  >Mark,
>>  >   Up to this point in your analysis I agree entirely with you.
>>  >
>>  >>  So for me it is difficult to see how John could have expanded
>>  this
>>  >>  parable into a narrative that has "tentacles" that extend into
>>  many
>>  >>  other narratives (cf. the anointing in Lazarus' house 12:1, or
>>  plot
>>  >>  against Lazarus 12:9).  I have tried to imagine how John would
>  > have
>>  >>  done this -- taken this parable and expanded it and made it such
>>  an
>>  >>  essential part of the narrative. It is not impossible, of
>>  course,
>>  >>  but in my own conception of John's storytelling technique it
>>  would
>>  >>  be hard to imagine.
>>  >
>>  >Doesn't the fact that the Lazarus story is so much more developed
>>  >in John than it is in Luke suggest that it is the Johannine
>>  writer(s) who
>>  >has (have) elaborated it?  Why would the author(s) of Luke make
>>  >such a limited reference to such a significant character, if
>>  he/she/they
>>  >was (were) using the Gospel of John as a source?
>>  >
>>  >It seems to me that the beginning point in such a comparative
>>  study
>>  >would need to be an exegesis of Luke 16: 19-31.  The key to such
>>  >an exegesis, ISTM, is an analysis of  the symbolic language used
>>  in
>>  >verses 19-21, especially the description of the "rich man" who
>>  "feasted
>>  >sumptuously every day."  This appears to me to be a sign
>>  indicating
>>  >the High Priest, especially when we are told that Lazarus lies at
>>  the
>>  >rich man's gate (the temple gate?) and "longs to satisfy his hunger
>>  with
>>  >what fell from the rich man's table."  This appears to be a sign
>>  >identifying
>>  >Lazarus as a disenfranchised temple priest, a Levite cut off from
>>  his
>>  >source of sustenance, his portion of the offerings brought by the
>  > >faithful
>>  >to the temple.  It addresses a problem that is confirmed in the
>>  Qumran
>>  >Scrolls, identifying the High Priest as an evil man.
>>  >>  This becomes one of the key "signs" of who Jesus is.... is it
>>  likely
>>  >>  he would have made this up from a parable that he read in Luke?
>>  >
>>  >Yes, as a matter of fact, I think it is likely.  My theory is that
>>  the
>>  >Fourth Gospel is actually a midrash-like commentary on the Jesus
>>  >tradition.  The fact that the story of the raising of Lazarus is
>>  such
>>  >an extensive expansion upon a character from one of the parables
>>  >of Jesus in Luke is consistent with that theory.  In Luke the
>>  issue
>>  >of resurrection is raised, but rejected.  In John, of course, it is
>>  the
>>  >reason for the story.  It seems a significant alternative to the
>>  >conclusion drawn in the story reported by Luke.
>>  >>
>>  >>  I think it more likely that Luke has John's account, and is
>>  perhaps
>>  >>  a bit suspicious of the account since it does not occur in Mark
>>  or
>>  >>  Matthew.  Remember that John is very different than Mark and
>>  >>  Matthew, but perhaps was quite popular in some of the churches
>>  so
>>  >>  counted as a "source" for the historian who collected and
>>  evaluated
>>  >>  various witnesses to Jesus. But likely he had knowledge of a
>>  parable
>>  >>  of a rich man and a poor man, not at all unlikely a real Jesus
>>  >>  parable that was passed down in oral tradition.  He attaches
>>  the
>>  >>  name "Lazarus" from the Johannine account to the parable, since
>>  >>  Lazarus in John is raised, and the raising is meant to serve as
>>  a
>>  >>  warning to the "jews".  But beyond this, Luke is nervous of the
>>  >>  Lazarus story and avoids it.
>>  >
>>  >   It seems to me that seeking an origin for the name of Lazarus is
>>  a
>>  >fruitful direction for study, but I cannot agree with you that
>>  Luke's
>>  >source is the Fourth Gospel.  Rather, I would question to whom
>>  >is the parable directed?  Consider the fact that the name Lazarus
>>  >is an abbreviation for Eliezar, the third son of Aaron.  In the OT
>>  >whenever Eliezar's name is mentioned, so is his title: the priest.
>>  >Could Jesus not expect the Pharisees to whom he is telling this
>>  >parable to recognize that he is speaking on familiar terms about
>>  >Lazarus, the priest?  Could he be criticizing the High Priest for
>>  >having expelled some of the Levites from the temple and thus from
>>  >their source of sustenance?
>>  >
>>  >   Now carry that hidden meaning over to the Fourth Gospel.
>>  >Suppose that Lazarus is not a historical person, but a literary
>>  >figure created by a member of the Johannine community to
>>  >offer a scathing criticism of the High Priest, while affirming the
>>  >love of Jesus for the priests.  Try translating the words "house"
>  > >and "cave" in John 11: 1-44 as "temple."  Then translate the
>>  >name Lazarus as "the priesthood" and "The Jews" as "Temple
>>  >Priests."   The story that is thus told indicates that Jesus
>>  >responds to an urgent message from Mary and Martha
>>  >because the priesthood is ill (actually "stumbling" works better
>>  >in the context.)  Martha and Mary each leave the temple as
>>  >they become aware that Jesus is near, and each suggest that
>>  >if Jesus had remained (stayed, had continued to abide) in the
>>  >temple, the priesthood would not have died.  Jesus reassures
>>  >them that he is the resurrection and the life.  They lead him
>>  >back to the temple, even though some of the temple priests
>>  >have already followed Mary to him.  There Jesus destroys
>>  >the temple by commanding that the stone be removed.  (This
>>  >is the stone mentioned in Genesis 28: 1-10 - the stone that
>>  >Jacob erected and anointed as a sign pointing to the house
>>  >of God where he vowed to worship, because of what he had
>>  >seen in his dream.)  Removing the stone makes it impossible to
>>  >find the place that Jacob dreamed existed where God's house
>>  >was.  Next Jesus calls the priesthood out of the temple and
>>  >orders that the grave cloths (vestments) that have been binding
>>  >"Lazarus" be removed. Later we see "Lazarus" sitting at the
>>  >table from which Jesus arises (the Lord's supper).
>  > >    If you are interested in a detailed exegesis following this
>>  >line of thought, I have published it in my book, Let Her Keep
>>  >It.  Its available from Amazon.com or directly from me.
>>  >
>>  >Yours in Christ's service,
>>  >Tom Butler
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  >>  > From: Thomas W Butler [mailto:butlerfam5@...]
>>  >>  > Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 10:53 AM
>>  >>  > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
>>  >>  > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: Jesus as the Word
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Dear Mark,
>>  >>  >     I look forward to reading your dissertation, though I'm
>>  >>  > not sure how long it might take to get a copy of it.
>>  >>  >     From your consideration of the dialogue between the Gospel
>>  of
>>  >>  > John and the Gospel of Luke, could you comment on the use of
>>  the
>>  >>  > name Lazarus in the two?
>>  >>  >
>>  >>  > Yours in Christ's service,
>>  >>  > Tom Butler
>>  >
>>  >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  >UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail
>>  johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  >PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>>  >
>>  >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>  --
>>
>>  SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>  UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>  PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
>>  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


--

Mark:
    Let me clarify my own theory regarding how the Fourth Gospel
was written.  Following the lead of Culpepper and others, I begin
with the assumption that the Fourth Gospel is a document created
by a community or school which is under the strong influence of an
eye witness to the events described within it.  This eye witness is
the Beloved Disciple.  I have found evidence that the gospel is
constructed as a text book, to be used as an aid to theological
reflection upon the meaning of the Jesus tradition, following the
same method of instruction used to train rabbis in the first century:
the midrash method.  Simply put, that method challenges students
(really scholars) to expound upon the meaning of a particular
scripture (one selected by the teacher or an inquiring student).
The challenge is to expound upon the meaning of that passage
using the language of scripture.  The most popular source of
language and symbols (semeia, signs) is the Pentateuch.
    My book, Let Her Keep It, tests this theory by identifying
Mosaic language, especially Mosaic oracles, in the Fourth Gospel.
I have shown a consistent use of material from the Pentateuch
(specifically from the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch) taken
from passages dealing with the temple, the festivals of sacrifice
and the priesthood.
    Expanding this theory to include the synoptic gospels, and in
this case, the Gospel According to Luke, what I see is that
key words, especially words from the Jesus tradition have been
incorporated into a midrash-like commentary.  My suspicion is
that the Fourth Gospel is a document that had been "under
construction" for some time.  A community using this method
might still be adding to it.  The problem was that this community
broke apart.  What they had at the time of the disolution of the
community was a collection of the best commentaries thus far
created by the scholars within the community, including the
revered Beloved Disciple.  It was this collection that was then
given a final edit by a surviving elder from the community before
it was made available to other communities.
    Now, with that brief explanation, let us return to your theory
and consider the relationship between the Gospel of Luke and
the Gospel of John.  You said,

> I have a much bigger confusion trying to imagine how John
> would draw upon a Lukan parable and "turn it into" a key
> story about a raising of a man dead for 4 days, and upon
> which the opposition by the "Jews" turns to active persecution.
> This is so crucial for John's narrative, and has so many tenticles
> into other parts of John's narrative, that this would mean that
> John's account is really a fiction based upon other stories.
> But I have been convinced that John at least thinks his account
> is based on good data, and often times is based on good data.
> To imagine the Fourth Evangelist (whoever the real author is)
> creating stories from parables is to imagine his activity far
> differently that seems reasonable to me.

The process I have described is not exactly one that turns a
parable into a key story.  It is a commentary on the deeper
meaning of a theological issue that can be discerned within
the parable.  In the Gospel of John such a commentary must
follow the rules of midrash, namely, that it must make the
meaning of the passage being studied more clear, and it must
use language from a scriptural source to do it.  This is a highly
developed discipline and one which I imagine was very difficult.
The results, however, are extraordinary, brilliant and profound.
Not only is there evidence of elaboration on the meaning of
material found in other sources like Luke's gospel, but there is
evidence of an insider's perspective, the viewpoint of someone
whose relationship with Jesus was intimately close, to the point
of being able to reflect upon what was going on in the mind of
Jesus as the story is being told.

Ultimately, the objective of this text and the method by which it
was used was to cause the readers to see that Christ abides
within them, to understand that they are able to think as Christ
thinks, to know what those closest to Christ knew, to encourage
them to reflect theologically and expound upon the meaning of
the Jesus tradition as leaders of the emerging Christian community.

There is much more to all of this, but this is enough to introduce
my theory.  Perhaps it will explain how differently I am approaching
the subject than you are.  Yet I suspect there are a number of
points upon which we can dialog.

One example is in response to what you said:

> But there are some really intriquing issues at stake.  Why does
> Luke's parable have a named figure?  This seems to break the normal
> rule for parables, even Luke's parables.  Doesn't this suggest that
> Luke is under the influence of some "source" that is causing him to
> modify a story in favor of that source?  Yet it is a big difference.
>  I can imagine a number of possibilities for why Luke might have
> been suspicious of John's story of Lazarus, and yet might have
> allowed it to influence in a small way his telling of another oral
> tradition.  But this is really speculation.  The big issue is the
> larger pattern, especially in the passion and resurrection
> narratives.

I submit that the scholars of the Johannine community recognized
the fact that the name used in this parable in Luke was a clue to
the parabe's deeper meaning.  The parable is an indictment of the
High Priest.  It suggests that those priests expelled from the temple
are dying, literally starving.  The commentary in the Gospel of
John suggests that there is more to the story, namely that Jesus
offered new life to the dying priesthood.  I would be glad to expound
further on this if you are interested.

Yours in Christ's service,
Tom Butler

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]