Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5544Re: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hofrichter
    Jan 12, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mark,
      sorry, I read Paul’s text and scrolled to the end of the discussion
      and found your suscription. So my intervention was not to you, but to
      Paul. As you know I think that also the Gospel of Mark is dependent
      from early “John”. So I am in this respect somehow with Paul, seeing
      a relationship between the two, but the other way round. Sorry for my
      superficial reading of your discussion. May be, I should organize
      once a symposion on the Prologue?
      To both of you in friedship all good wishes
      Peter from Salzburg



      Am 12.01.2007 um 02:05 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

      > Peter:
      >
      > Glad you joined into Paul's and my discussion (and Peter Kirby).
      > And to Paul, I apologize for dropping the ball on our discussion.
      > I took a week off for Mexico, and then the semester has begun
      > again, and I have simply been unable to find the time to take up
      > our discussion of relationships.
      >
      > But I couldn't help jump in here, Peter, since I think something
      > has been lost in translation. Perhaps you were responding to Paul
      > Anderson (all the quoted sections below are Paul's).
      >
      > I haven't ever proposed that John's prologue is a very late and
      > final addition to John. If you read my response to Paul, I have
      > been primarily arguing that John is early and independent. And,
      > furthermore, I have always assumed that the prologue is deeply
      > connected to the John we have. While I do wonder sometimes about
      > some early signs material, I am not even sure about that anymore (i
      > used to be more of a proponent of a signs gospel in some form)-- in
      > part because there is such a unity of thought and language. john
      > works for me as such a rhetorically unified document. And in fact
      > this is part of the discussion that Paul and I are having, and you
      > may have put your finger on part of difference:
      >
      > I tend to think of John as early and independent, and somewhat
      > nervous about saying too much about internal layers or segments.
      > So when I approach relations with the Synoptics I tend to simply
      > assert John is independent of Mark, although I have argued that
      > Luke shows signs of knowledge of John (as you know, a reversal of
      > the normal relationship).
      >
      > Paul, on the other hand, sees the relationship in material as more
      > indicative of some earlier relationship between John and the
      > synoptic material, and I think (Paul, help me here) sees some
      > indication of this more complex relationship in some editing and
      > modification of John's gospel.
      >
      > Now, having said all that -- I am less sure that we can go so far
      > as to argue that John's prologue represents the earliest
      > formulation, and that we can somehow connect all that to various
      > variations of Christology in the first 2 centuries.
      >
      >
      > Mark Matson
      >
      >
      > ________________________________
      >
      > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter
      > Hofrichter
      > Sent: Thu 1/11/2007 11:00 AM
      > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
      > Synoptics?
      >
      >
      >
      > Dear Mark,
      > the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very
      > much is the wide spread error that the "Prologue of John" is a very
      > late and final addition to the Gospel of John. No, the prologue is
      > not at all a summary of the Gospel. Its appoach was already outdated
      > when the Gospels started to be written. It was the a very early if
      > not the earliest Christian text at all, still totally in the line of
      > Philo and still thinking in a way of proto-Arianism and
      > subordination. It is not by chance that Arius almost three centuries
      > later has derived his heresy of subordination from the Logos-concept
      > of Prologue of John (and OT-texts). Contrary to this the Nicean
      > theologians argued with the trunk of Gospel of John: "Me and the
      > Fater are one" or "Who sees me sees the Father". Alredy in the first
      > century the text of the so-called Prologue - althogh highly esteemed
      > - must almost immediately have become obsolete and should therefore
      > be reinterpreted in the sense that Jesus shoud be understood as God
      > himself and the Logos as his spoken word of revelation. Exaxtly this
      > was the purpose of the Gospel of John, and this line was then
      > absolutely followed and maintained by the whole New Testament
      > (Compare not only John, but also Mark in his parable of the sower).
      > This line came to an heretical exaggeration and end in the heresy of
      > Noetus and his Patripassianism: If Father and Son are one the Father
      > himself has suffered. To fight such deviate Modalism of Noetus,
      > Sabellius and Callistus the Logos-Chistology was re-dicovered and
      > restored after the middle of the second cantury by Justinus Martyr
      > who spoke of the Logos as a Second God, by Irenaeus and explicitely
      > by Hippolytus of Rome. The consequence was lastly a rennaissance of
      > subordination-Christology and finally the heresy of Arius. Therefore
      > in the Creed of Arius and Euzoius Jesus is called emphatcally the God
      > Logos, whereas the Creed of Nicea (and of Nicea-Constantinople} does
      > not mention the term Logos at all (but Monogenes, God from God, Light
      > from Light ...) Exactly the same controversy must have taken place
      > the first time already in the middle of the first century, and its
      > witness in the Gospel of John.
      > Thanks and all good wishes
      > Peter Hofrichter
      >
      >
      >
      > Am 12.12.2006 um 02:26 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):
      >
      >>
      >>
      >> ________________________________
      >>
      >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
      >> Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
      >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
      >> Synoptics?
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:
      >>
      >> a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other
      >> traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the
      >> early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among
      >> others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines.
      >> None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though,
      >> so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.
      >>
      >> b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject,
      >> however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on
      >> Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where
      >> his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for
      >> Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of
      >> independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something
      >> like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
      >> between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the
      >> pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition
      >> "interfluential" contacts.
      >>
      >> c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view
      >> of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is
      >> different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine
      >> primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a
      >> finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material
      >> as well as earlier material.
      >>
      >> d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and
      >> myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson
      >> argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's
      >> impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.
      >>
      >> e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the
      >> matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In
      >> this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic
      >> structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence.
      >> What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard
      >> Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences
      >> familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early
      >> Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their
      >> traditions.
      >>
      >> f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential
      >> dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and
      >> organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the
      >> first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped
      >> me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement
      >> with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
      >> Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone
      >> like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that
      >> may have been at stake.
      >>
      >> Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which
      >> make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics"
      >> as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate.
      >> Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more
      >> individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a
      >> draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
      >> between John and the other traditions which will be published soon
      >> in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of
      >> the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my
      >> essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and
      >> the Quest for Jesus (2006).
      >>
      >> Paul Anderson
      >>
      >> ***
      >> While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an
      >> independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way
      >> over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to
      >> be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact,
      >> however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a
      >> singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
      >> evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely
      >> that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It
      >> may have even been different between different phases and forms of
      >> a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following
      >> components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding
      >> John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with
      >> other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-
      >> optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity
      >> and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:
      >>
      >> a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other
      >> Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early
      >> Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways.
      >> First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to
      >> meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal
      >> ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the
      >> case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.
      >>
      >> b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early
      >> Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions
      >> created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes,
      >> explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts.
      >> Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence
      >> may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a
      >> plausible inference.
      >>
      >> c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was
      >> written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine
      >> evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of
      >> the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from
      >> Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30),
      >> as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
      >> gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-
      >> one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the
      >> Bi-Optic Gospels."
      >>
      >> d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the
      >> Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's
      >> tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times
      >> Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's
      >> features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is
      >> unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects
      >> Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.
      >>
      >> e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the
      >> likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John
      >> imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially
      >> the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.
      >>
      >> f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the
      >> first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple
      >> continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The
      >> fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for
      >> Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
      >> and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a
      >> timely emphasis.
      >>
      >> g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set
      >> of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the
      >> Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a
      >> series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the
      >> church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish
      >> audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.
      >>
      >> h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this
      >> time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles,
      >> calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to
      >> suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of
      >> Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written
      >> before and after the Johannine Gospel.
      >>
      >> i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the
      >> Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder
      >> added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE
      >> as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."
      >>
      >> j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic
      >> Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around
      >> Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically,
      >> however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to
      >> Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical
      >> Jesus in bi-optic perspective.
      >>
      >>
      >> -----Original Message-----
      >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
      >> Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
      >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      >> Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?
      >>
      >> What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?
      >> I am
      >> trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references
      >> are
      >> up to date.
      >>
      >> --
      >> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
      >> Student, CSU Fullerton
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      >> messages
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> [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
      >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      >> messages
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >> [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
      >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      >> messages
      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      >>
      >>
      >>
      >
      >
      >
      > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      > messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [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
      > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
      > messages
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 12 messages in this topic