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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • Paul Anderson
    Good questions, Brian. I still find Gardner-Smith s work and conclusion convincing, but I think the evidence qualifies what is meant by independence. John s
    Message 1 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Good questions, Brian.

      I still find Gardner-Smith's work and conclusion convincing, but I think
      the evidence qualifies what is meant by "independence." John's tradition
      is not derived from the Synoptics; it has its own independent origins
      going back at least to the pre-Marcan stages of tradition, and probably
      earlier. Here's why:

      -- Of the 45 contacts I found between John 6 (feeding, sea-crossing,
      discourses, Peter's confession) and Mark 6 and 8 (25 and 21 respectively,
      see Tables 7 and 8) there are 0 identical connections. This is highly
      significant! It does suggest contact, but not borrowing from a written
      source. Did the Marcan tradition(s) borrow from the Johannine oral
      rendering of the stories? Further, when Mark 6 and 8 are considered side
      by side, these seem to be two independent-yet-related traditional
      developments on roughly similar events, and John's is a third traditional
      development of the same. Look at Dodd's Historical Tradition for an
      extensive develpment of these issues.

      -- Then again, John appears to be familiar with at least some of written
      Mark, and some of Mark's crafting of the narrative, and some corrective
      counterbalancing in John suggest a dialogical response to Mark. So John
      is independent, but also interactive with the Marcan tradition both before
      and after its finalization. A question I do not have an answer to is the
      degree to which the early and later Marcan tradition may have been
      interactive with the Johannine.

      On Matthew, other sorts of parallels exist, but again, not in a derivative
      way in either direction. Rather, two sectors of Christianity appear to
      have been engaging at least parallel sorts of issues, and they work
      together, and to some degree dialectically, in addressing them. And yet,
      John appears somewhat corrective here as well. Is Peter portrayed, for
      instance, as RETURNING the keys to Jesus in John 6? (YOU -- not I, or
      those who follow in my wake -- have the words of eternal life!) I found
      at least seven parallels to Matthew 16:17-19 in John (see Table 20), and
      all of them are different! Does this imply a set of corrective
      differences in the name of an independent Jesus tradition posing Jesus'
      original intentionality for the church? Maybe so. Then again, I do not
      think the fourth evangelist has written Matthew in front of him, but is
      addressing problematic uses of structure legitimation by the likes of
      Diotrephes and his kin as represented in III John.

      So John is indeed independent from the Synoptics, but there were different
      sorts of interactivity with each of the traditions. Q, for instance, may
      also have borrowed from the Johannine tradition.

      PA


      Paul N. Anderson
      Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
      George Fox University
      Newberg, OR 97132
      503-554-2651
    • Fred Guyette
      Usually I like to lurk on the John list, but I will leap from the shadows now to suggest an article that might help survey the state of the question. I write
      Message 2 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
      • 0 Attachment
        Usually I like to lurk on the John list, but I will leap from the
        shadows now to suggest an article that might help survey the
        state of the question. I write abstracts for "Religious and
        Theological Abstracts" and here is one that I just sent off:

        Neirynck, F. "John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries."
        Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanesium  1998, 74 (4): 386-397.

        For many years it has been a fairly common assumption in Biblical scholarship that
        John’s gospel is independent of the Synoptics. John has been judged different enough in
        literary structure, theological vocabulary, and chronology of Jesus’ ministry to support
        this estimation. Recently, however, a number of studies have questioned this assessment,
        among them Denaux, Boismard, and Wilckens. Many similarities between John and the
        Synoptics are noted, including their recourse to the gospel genre, their account of Jesus’
        trial, and their treatment of the resurrection.    FWG
         

        So a visit to your friendly interlibrary loan person may be in order...

        Fred Guyette
        Due West, SC

      • Antonio Jerez
        ... I am a bit intrigued by this assertion. What exactly do you mean by saying that there are 0 identical connections between John 6 and Mark 6 and 8? Do you
        Message 3 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
        • 0 Attachment
          Paul Anderson wrote:

          > Good questions, Brian.
          >
          > I still find Gardner-Smith's work and conclusion convincing, but I think
          > the evidence qualifies what is meant by "independence." John's tradition
          > is not derived from the Synoptics; it has its own independent origins
          > going back at least to the pre-Marcan stages of tradition, and probably
          > earlier. Here's why:
          >
          > -- Of the 45 contacts I found between John 6 (feeding, sea-crossing,
          > discourses, Peter's confession) and Mark 6 and 8 (25 and 21 respectively,
          > see Tables 7 and 8) there are 0 identical connections. This is highly
          > significant! It does suggest contact, but not borrowing from a written
          > source.

          I am a bit intrigued by this assertion. What exactly do you mean by saying that
          there are "0 identical connections" between John 6 and Mark 6 and 8? Do you
          mean that John and Mark don't share enough common words in single sentences
          to warrant the guess that one may have borrowed from the other?

          If this is the position you take I respectfully disagree. Why should we expect
          every gospel writer to work in the same way? In my opinion it should be obvious
          that the author of GJohn is not a copycat in the same way as Matthew or Luke.
          I would claim that he is a much freer artist and would feel it beneath his dignity
          to copy verse after verse from another work without heavy, and I mean really
          heavy revision. That this is not only pure guesswork on my part can also be shown
          by the way John handles the OT - while Matthew and the other synoptic writers
          just pick up quotations wholesale from the OT the author of John alludes to it in a
          much more subtle way.


          > Did the Marcan tradition(s) borrow from the Johannine oral
          > rendering of the stories? Further, when Mark 6 and 8 are considered side
          > by side, these seem to be two independent-yet-related traditional
          > developments on roughly similar events, and John's is a third traditional
          > development of the same. Look at Dodd's Historical Tradition for an
          > extensive develpment of these issues.
          >
          > -- Then again, John appears to be familiar with at least some of written
          > Mark, and some of Mark's crafting of the narrative, and some corrective
          > counterbalancing in John suggest a dialogical response to Mark. So John
          > is independent, but also interactive with the Marcan tradition both before
          > and after its finalization. A question I do not have an answer to is the
          > degree to which the early and later Marcan tradition may have been
          > interactive with the Johannine.

          May I ask another question. Around what date do you think the first edition
          of GJohn was written. When was it revised?

          > So John is indeed independent from the Synoptics, but there were different
          > sorts of interactivity with each of the traditions. Q, for instance, may
          > also have borrowed from the Johannine tradition.

          I don't think there is any need at all to complicate things further by positing that
          Q has borrowed from the Johannines. What indications do you have for that?
          Personally I'm far from convinced that Q has even existed.

          Best wishes

          Antonio Jerez
          Goteborg University
          antonio.jerez@...
        • Maluflen@aol.com
          In a message dated 1/7/2000 9:59:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, ejdanna@trapdoor.arvotek.net writes:
          Message 4 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 1/7/2000 9:59:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
            ejdanna@... writes:

            << I for one would be interested in hearing more about the relationship
            between the Gospel of John and the Gospel of Matthew. Let's hear more
            from whoever raised the issue in a recent posting.
            Elizabeth Danna >>

            Dear Elizabeth,

            I am afraid this means me, and am sorry to report that I simply do not feel
            up to the task at the moment. I haven't taught John in about five years, and
            am otherwise occupied these days. I do recall noticing however, when I was
            teaching John, with the Synoptics very much in mind, that there are profound
            contacts, at the level of symbolic background and theological ideas, between
            John and Matthew (not merely verbal borrowing, as one sometimes finds between
            Mark and John) that have gone almost entirely undetected by scholars. I think
            it is a great field for further study, and should be carried through without
            the assumption of Markan priority for best results. Sorry I cannot come up
            with more specifics at the moment. But part of the thrill of this type of
            exercise is doing it yourself. I can't wait to have the time to do it again
            myself! You will find that you will be forced to read both Gospels much more
            deeply than ever before. John the Baptist, the words of Jesus, Jesus as
            shepherd of Israel, the blind guides that are the established leaders of
            Israel, various dimensions of Jesus' divine sonship, Jesus as the light of
            Israel and the world, discipleship and the cross -- these are just some of
            the subjects that could generate fruitful comparison between the two Gospels.

            Leonard Maluf
          • Maluflen@aol.com
            In a message dated 1/7/2000 12:04:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
            Message 5 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 1/7/2000 12:04:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
              panderso@... writes:

              << On Matthew, other sorts of parallels exist [with John], but again, not in
              a derivative way in either direction. >>


              I think this statement goes beyond the evidence. If by "derivative", you mean
              simply that John did not copy Matthew verbatim, then the case can be made.
              But if this was simply not at all John's way of using earlier sources (and
              some support for this view can be gleaned from the way in which many passages
              in John can be said to "derive" from OT texts, without much verbal
              borrowing), which is entirely possible, then John can make good sense as a
              text derived (among other things) from reflection on Matthew.

              Leonard Maluf
            • Maluflen@aol.com
              In a message dated 1/7/2000 3:17:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, antonio.jerez@privat.utfors.se writes:
              Message 6 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 1/7/2000 3:17:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                antonio.jerez@... writes:

                << That this is not only pure guesswork on my part can also be shown
                by the way John handles the OT - while Matthew and the other synoptic writers
                just pick up quotations wholesale from the OT the author of John alludes to
                it in a
                much more subtle way. >>

                Dear Antonio,

                While I agree with the substance of your remarks from which the above is
                excerpted, your statement here is misleading (though my comments should
                probably be directed to the Synoptic-L list). It is misleading to say at
                least of Matthew and Luke that they "just" pick up quotations wholesale from
                the OT. They do this on occasion (and Matthew notably more often than Luke),
                but they both also (and I mean Matthew too!) very frequently employ the OT in
                much the same way as John, by subtle allusion. It is also a fact that John
                occasionally cites the OT. This means that the difference between John,
                Matthew and Luke is not as dramatic as portrayed above, and as one frequently
                finds stated in the literature.

                Leonard Maluf
              • Paul Anderson
                Dear Antonio, thank you for your questions and good points. They are well taken, and I agree that John s artistry is different from the Synoptics, so
                Message 7 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Antonio, thank you for your questions and good points. They are well
                  taken, and I agree that John's artistry is different from the Synoptics,
                  so "dependence" and "influence" must certainly be considered different
                  from relationships between the Synoptics, if indeed it was such.

                  But why do we assume John "borrowed" from any of the Synoptics, especially
                  when the contacts are far less precise than clearer borrowings from Hebrew
                  Scripture? Why not assume they borrowed from John? Luke obviously did
                  (see my Appendix 8 and Mark Matson's recent and massive Duke dissertation
                  -- see also Lamar Cribbs' under-noted work). An extremely shaky set of
                  moves taken by Brodie, and Neirynck and company is to assume that all
                  similarities imply Johannine dependence on other gospels. How can such a
                  view be confirmed or disconfirmed?

                  Your point on the indirect use of Scripture is an excellent one.
                  Certainly, direct uses of Scripture in John suggest working from a text --
                  with varying degrees of closeness. But how do you know scriptural imagery
                  and motifs were text based? Maybe they emerged from oral traditions or
                  homilies where the evangelist may never have seen a text on those passages
                  at all? So, if the evangelist is engaging material represented in Matthew
                  and Mark, for instance, how do we know a text was even perused, especially
                  when there indeed are no exact, word-for-word phrases (exmp. green grass
                  vs. much grass) that are identical.

                  This is why the evidence seems to confirm John's basic autonomy and
                  non-derivative independence from the Synoptics, and yet there is some
                  interactivity with some of the material -- but probably with oral
                  developments of it.
                  >
                  >May I ask another question. Around what date do you think the first
                  >edition
                  >of GJohn was written. When was it revised?

                  My guess would be around 80, and Lindars' theory seems most convincing to
                  me; Ashton thinks so too. I also think John was finalized around 100, but
                  such implies nothing of its origins.
                  >
                  >
                  >I don't think there is any need at all to complicate things further by
                  >positing that
                  >Q has borrowed from the Johannines. What indications do you have for
                  >that?
                  >Personally I'm far from convinced that Q has even existed.

                  Right. Was "Q" one source, or many? And, maybe Q was a "Whom" instead of
                  a "What" -- or several. But look at Matt.11:27 and Luke 10:22:

                  "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the
                  Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any
                  one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

                  All four of these themes are rife within the Johannine tradition, but
                  scant (at least together, in this sort of terse way) in the Synoptics.
                  So, this is not a characteristic Q theme, but a Johannine theme, somehow
                  employed here. Therefore, the Q tradition (contra Mack et al) was not the
                  earliest tradition, but the Johannine tradition preceded Q. Or if you
                  take a Matthean priority (which I do not), Matthew must have borrowed from
                  John.
                  >

                  Then again, maybe Q or Matthew did not get it from John's oral and fluent
                  tradition, but from Jesus (problematic, but not impossible). If so, John
                  has an adequate presentation of Jesus which is largely missed by the other
                  gospels (I'm not claiming this is so, just that it is a not-impossible
                  consideration if one rejects the Johannine tradition as a possible source
                  for a bit of Q).
                  >

                  These are but a few of the considered reasons for my judgments.

                  Thanks,

                  PA
                  Paul N. Anderson
                  Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                  George Fox University
                  Newberg, OR 97132
                  503-554-2651
                • Maluflen@aol.com
                  In a message dated 1/6/2000 11:52:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbtucker@driveninc.com writes:
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 1/6/2000 11:52:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                    jbtucker@... writes:

                    << For a long time it seemed that it was accepted that John knew the
                    synoptics, and he didn't feel the need to repeat what they wrote. I
                    have read some recently that assumed he didn't know the synoptics and
                    was independent of them.

                    If he didn't know them, would it account for his different choices of
                    material and different perspective on Jesus?
                    >>

                    Yes, of course it would, but "his different choices of material and different
                    perspective on Jesus" are also fully possible if John did know the Synoptics,
                    and there is much evidence to suggest that he did.

                    Leonard Maluf
                  • Maluflen@aol.com
                    In a message dated 1/7/2000 11:59:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
                    Message 9 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 1/7/2000 11:59:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                      panderso@... writes:

                      << But look at Matt.11:27 and Luke 10:22:

                      "All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the
                      Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any
                      one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

                      All four of these themes are rife within the Johannine tradition, but
                      scant (at least together, in this sort of terse way) in the Synoptics.
                      So, this is not a characteristic Q theme, but a Johannine theme, somehow
                      employed here. Therefore, the Q tradition (contra Mack et al) was not the
                      earliest tradition, but the Johannine tradition preceded Q. Or if you
                      take a Matthean priority (which I do not), Matthew must have borrowed from
                      John. >>

                      Before one speaks of borrowing from John here, one should note in detail how
                      "Matthean" every element of this citation really is: "all things have been
                      delivered to me.." (cf. Matt 28:18; 4:9); "my father" (quite frequent in
                      Matt); "being given to know..what is revealed (or mysteries)" (Matt 13:11);
                      the Father's will being secret and hidden (Matt 24:36); the "royal"
                      implications for the Son in the emphasis on his effective "choosing" (Matt:
                      passim). If one does not assume Markan priority, Matt 11:27 does not in any
                      way surprise the informed reader of Matt, or inspire her to look elsewhere
                      for a source of its formulation or ideas.

                      Leonard Maluf
                    • Antonio Jerez
                      Paul Anderson wrote: Dear Paul, ... Your answer does indicate that you have taken my position to be that John has borrowed from all the synoptics. That is not
                      Message 10 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Paul Anderson wrote:

                        Dear Paul,

                        thanks for answering some of my questions. You wrote:

                        > But why do we assume John "borrowed" from any of the Synoptics, especially
                        > when the contacts are far less precise than clearer borrowings from Hebrew
                        > Scripture? Why not assume they borrowed from John? Luke obviously did
                        > (see my Appendix 8 and Mark Matson's recent and massive Duke dissertation
                        > -- see also Lamar Cribbs' under-noted work). An extremely shaky set of
                        > moves taken by Brodie, and Neirynck and company is to assume that all
                        > similarities imply Johannine dependence on other gospels. How can such a
                        > view be confirmed or disconfirmed?

                        Your answer does indicate that you have taken my position to be that John has
                        borrowed from all the synoptics. That is not my claim. Based on the evidence I
                        would only say that it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that John has read GMark
                        and used it as a framework for his own gospel. The linguistic, thematic and structural
                        points of contacts between GMark and GJohn are just too many for me to think that
                        they are independent or that the dependence is only indirect. I also believe that there
                        is some direct litterary contact between GLuke and GJohn - although I'm not really sure
                        yet in what direction the influence goes. Maybe you, Matson and Cribbs are right. About
                        the relation between GMatthew and GJohn I think the evidence is too slim to come to
                        any conclusion.

                        > Your point on the indirect use of Scripture is an excellent one.
                        > Certainly, direct uses of Scripture in John suggest working from a text --
                        > with varying degrees of closeness. But how do you know scriptural imagery
                        > and motifs were text based? Maybe they emerged from oral traditions or
                        > homilies where the evangelist may never have seen a text on those passages
                        > at all? So, if the evangelist is engaging material represented in Matthew
                        > and Mark, for instance, how do we know a text was even perused, especially
                        > when there indeed are no exact, word-for-word phrases (exmp. green grass
                        > vs. much grass) that are identical.

                        You ask how I know John's scriptural imagery and motifs were text based. Because
                        as far as I know the most of the OT had already been in "print" for centuries when
                        John made his creative 'Midrash' on those texts. I very much doubt that the author/authors
                        of GJohn had never read from a Torah scroll. Besides, even if he had just heard Torah
                        orally I would not call that an oral tradition since in my opinion what he heard was just
                        written tradition that is transmitted orally on certain occasions.
                        But you are right that it is a difficulty that John doesn't take over word-for-word phrases
                        the same way that Matthew and Luke do from Mark. That is probably the main reason why
                        so many scholars don't think there is a direct dependence between John and the synoptics.
                        So why don't I go along with them? Because it is the overall combination of factors - lingustic,
                        thematic and structural - that tilts the balance in favour of Johannine dependence on at least
                        GMark. There is also another important factor that I will tell you about later.

                        > This is why the evidence seems to confirm John's basic autonomy and
                        > non-derivative independence from the Synoptics, and yet there is some
                        > interactivity with some of the material -- but probably with oral
                        > developments of it.

                        I am deeply sceptical about using the "oral factor" when it comes to solving
                        difficulties in gospel relationships. The "oral factor" is a very elastic thing
                        that can be used to prop up just about any hole in the ship. I'm not convinced
                        at all that stories like the feeding of the 4000 and 5000 in the gospels ever
                        floated around among the early Christian churches in an everchanging sea of
                        oral traditons. I think those stories, like many others, started out as written
                        'midrash' by Christian scribes like Mark and were transmitted in written
                        form and embellished in written form by other Christian scribes like Matthew,
                        Luke and John. I don't see any need to posit oral tradition at all in cases like
                        this.

                        > >May I ask another question. Around what date do you think the first
                        > >edition
                        > >of GJohn was written. When was it revised?
                        >
                        > My guess would be around 80, and Lindars' theory seems most convincing to
                        > me; Ashton thinks so too. I also think John was finalized around 100, but
                        > such implies nothing of its origins.

                        I had a hunch that this would be your answer. And I have to tell you what I have
                        told other scholars earlier. What constantly suprises me is the kind of view that
                        this entails for the kind of contacts that were prevalent among the Chistian Churches
                        in the first century. Personally I cannot fathom that a Christian preacher-scribe in
                        let´s say Ephesus or Alexandria in the early 80ies would not have seen a copy of
                        a 'revolutionary' litterary innovation like GMark that had already been in circulation
                        for about a decade. I find it even more incredible - given what Paul's letters, the
                        Johannine letters and Revelation tell us about the close contacts between the early
                        Christian Churches - that a redactor of GJohn hadn't even seen a copy of GMark
                        around the year 100. No, I simply don't buy this.


                        Best wishes

                        Antonio Jerez
                        Goteborg University, Sweden
                        antonio.jerez@...
                      • Paul Anderson
                        Dear Antonio, Thank you for clarifying your views; these sorts of dialogues help me also clarify mine. I do think John was aware of written Mark, and with
                        Message 11 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Dear Antonio,

                          Thank you for clarifying your views; these sorts of dialogues help me also
                          clarify mine. I do think John was aware of written Mark, and with you, I
                          believe familiarity with Mark influenced the formation of John in a
                          variety of ways. This is different, however, from traditional derivation;
                          John's tradition has its own origins. I read the excellent thesis of one
                          of William Loader's students, David Mackay, entitled, 'Are traces of
                          dependence on Mark 6-8 and related passages to be found in John 6? A
                          contribution to the debate on John's relationship with Mark.' It is an
                          excellent piece, and I have also recommended it for publication. It
                          develops the points you are making, Antonio, and I think you'd like it.

                          On the other hand, I believe there is ample evidence to suggest contact
                          between the pre-Marcan and Johannine traditions before Mark was finalized.
                          The reason this material suggests orality, if gospel redaction analysis
                          tells us anything, is that the material common to Mark and John (omitted
                          by Matthew's and Luke's redactions of Mark) indicates two sorts of
                          contrasts between Marcan and Johannine traditions and choices made by
                          written traditions using a written tradition. These include nonsymbolic
                          illustrative detail, and theological asides (see Tables 10-15). Common
                          patterns also extend to the Passion narratives and the Temple cleansing.
                          These are some of the reasons I call the pre-Marcan and early Johannine
                          traditional relationships interfluential. The Johannine may have
                          contributed to some of the pre-Marcan material as well.

                          PA


                          Paul N. Anderson
                          Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                          George Fox University
                          Newberg, OR 97132
                          503-554-2651
                        • Antonio Jerez
                          Dear Paul, thanks for your further clarifications. I must admit that I am still a bit confused about your position. Maybe the problem stems from what I read in
                          Message 12 of 24 , Jan 9, 2000
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Paul,

                            thanks for your further clarifications. I must admit that I am still a bit confused
                            about your position. Maybe the problem stems from what I read in one of your
                            earlier messages. On 27 December 1999 you wrote:

                            "b) Gardner-Smith was correct regarding John's nondependence on the
                            Synoptics, but this does not imply non-engagement with the traditions.
                            Further, just because John is finalized latest (ca. 100), this does not
                            imply the Johannine tradition does not go back to the ministry of Jesus in
                            some independent way. Against the view Barrett and others in the last
                            decade or more, I found 45 contacts between John 6 and Mark, but 0
                            identical contacts (see respective tables), making John's dependence on
                            written Mark an impossible view to hold. Nor are there any entirely
                            identical references between Mark and John suggestive of documentary
                            dependence. "

                            I took this to mean that you believed that there were no direct points of
                            contacts between GMark and GJohn, i e the author of GJohn had not
                            read GMark and did not use parts of it to develop his own "midrash" on
                            scenes that he found in GMark. This is what I would call the true non-dependence
                            position. Now in your latest message you tell me that you "do think John was
                            aware of written Mark". The crucial question is what you mean by the word "aware".
                            Had the author of GJohn only heard by word of mouth about the existence of
                            GMark? Had the author of GJohn only by word of mouth a scetchy idea about the
                            rough outline and content of GMark? Or had the author of GJohn read a copy of
                            GMark and was influenced by it. The last alternative is what I define as the dependence
                            position. Maybe we are using different definitions of what counts as non-dependence
                            and dependence.

                            Best wishes

                            Antonio Jerez
                            Goteborg University, Sweden
                            antonio.jerez@...
                          • Paul Anderson
                            Dear Antonio, I can see why you mistook part of what I was saying. Let me clarify even further, as a great source of misundersanding and error among scholars
                            Message 13 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Antonio,

                              I can see why you mistook part of what I was saying. Let me clarify even
                              further, as a great source of misundersanding and error among scholars on
                              this matter is to assume a single aspect of contact between traditions may
                              have been the only one. Then again, the more complex one's reconstruction
                              is, the more extended it becomes. Nevertheless, here's an attempt to
                              address the multivalence of what evidence seems to suggest about
                              Johannine/Marcan contacts:

                              a) Pre-contact, bi-optic origins of John and Mark. The Johannine
                              tradition does not begin with Mark, nor does the Marcan with John.
                              Significant parts of both traditions originate from contacts with, and
                              distinctive reflections upon the ministry of Jesus (see chapter 7 and
                              Appendix 8 in my book). There never was a time where there was only one
                              primitive gospel tradition, and Jesus was perceived with considerable
                              ambiguity and difference (even by his followers) from the first. This is
                              not to say everything in these two bi-optic traditions goes back to Jesus;
                              it is to say they have independent sources of derivation (with
                              Gardner-Smith, not that he would put it in this way). The Johannine
                              tradition develops in its own paraphrastic way; but, but so does the
                              Marcan.

                              b) Interfluential contact. Apparently, the pre-Marcan and early Johannine
                              traditions came into contact before Mark was finalized, as evidenced by
                              much of the material common uniquely to John and Mark. For whatever
                              reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
                              redactions of Mark, including non-symbolic detail (names of persons,
                              descriptions of settings, 200 and 300 denarii, etc.) and theological
                              asides (he had compassion upon them for they were like sheep without a
                              shepherd, etc.). On the other hand, does the presence of this sort of
                              material in Mark and John refeflect traces of orality? Possibly, although
                              proof either way is impossible. Whatever the case, Matthew and Luke
                              normally do not add names and detail to Marcan units (ie. they do not
                              "historicize" the drama); they do, however, add units of their own.
                              Contacts between Mark's and John's traditions are many, but they do not
                              reflect copying from a manuscript, as none of them is identical. Perhaps
                              two preachers, hearing the ways each other told stories explains best the
                              ways these contacts emerged. Q has apparently picked up on a Johannine
                              theme which the Marcan tradition has not during this stage of transmission.

                              c) Responses to written Mark. Did "familiarity" with written Mark come
                              from hearing or reading, or even hearing about Mark? Impossible to know.
                              Whatever the case, larger features in the stories do suggest something
                              more in depth than simply hearing about the existence of Mark. MacKay
                              (Professor Loader's student) believes John may have "heard" Mark being
                              read in a meeting for worship; not a bad hypothesis. Whatever the case,
                              John's project was probably inspired by Mark, but John also has in mind
                              setting the record straight on several matters. Material already included
                              is not felt to be essential, although some of it is included. The first
                              edition of John thus emerges as an augmentation of Mark in complementary
                              and corrective sorts of ways.

                              d) Luke departs from Mark at least three dozen times and sides with the
                              Johannine tradition. Why? Luke apparently believes the Johannine
                              traditon to be credible; therefore, Luke adds such details as the "right"
                              ear cut off and Satan "entering" Judas, conflates such material as the
                              catch of fish (into his calling narrative) and Peter's confession (John's
                              "of God" with Mark's "the Christ") into his narrative, leaves out such
                              material as a second feeding and second sea-crossing, alters Mark's
                              tradition by making the anointing a foot anointing instead of a head
                              anointing (an unlikely move otherwise) and placing Peter's confession
                              after the other feeding (with John, a radical move, here!), adds
                              traditional units such as the Mary and Martha story and the Emmaus
                              appearance, and adds theological content such as Holy Spirit emphases and
                              Jesus' concern for Samaritans and women. Is this traditional borrowing
                              alluded to in Luke 1:2, where he says he draws material from eye witnesses
                              and servants of the LOGOS? Quite possibly (see Appendix 8 for more). Did
                              John know written Luke? A less certain probability than John's knowing
                              written Mark, but certainly possible.

                              e) Johannine and Matthean contacts. These may have been as early as the
                              pre-Marcan (depending on how early one places the formation of particular
                              parts of the Matthean tradition), but they certainly appear to represent
                              contacts from the 70's on. Several issues appear to have been engaged in
                              parallel ways, including the defense of Jesus as being sent from God in
                              the Deuteronomy 18 Mosaic typology as an appeal to local Jewish members of
                              their respective audiences (part of the first edition of John, and the
                              rhetorical use of the signs). A second set of issues (esp. in the later
                              Johannine material -- chs. 6, 15-17, 21, etc.) related to Christocracy,
                              the means by which the risen Lord continues to lead the church, emerge. I
                              doubt that Matthean Christianity read parts of John, or that Johannine
                              Christians had read Matthew (although either is certainly possible), but
                              they do appear to be engaging one another's approaches as well as common
                              sets of issues. A part of the interest in the finalization of John
                              relates to setting out a presentation of Jesus' original intentinality for
                              his church, and some of this also appears corrective. Emphases upon the
                              suffering of Jesus and incarnational motifs combat docetising tendencies,
                              and the juxtaposition of Peter and the Beloved Disciple pose a corrective
                              to rising institutionalisation in the late first-century church. Some of
                              these correctives are also present within Matthew, which is why I say they
                              address issues in parallel sorts of ways.

                              I didn't have time to add appendices 9 and 10 to the book; I suppose I'd
                              better get these things into an essay or two.

                              Thanks!

                              PA


                              Paul N. Anderson
                              Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                              George Fox University
                              Newberg, OR 97132
                              503-554-2651
                            • Maluflen@aol.com
                              In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
                              Message 14 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                              • 0 Attachment
                                In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                panderso@... writes:

                                << For whatever
                                reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
                                redactions of Mark >>

                                "For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this ought
                                to make one suspect that Matt and Lk were written before Mark, and that
                                Mark's gospel is literarily closer to John's, because its redaction was
                                temporally closer to John than were the other synoptics. Mark does show
                                specific traits of late development within the Synoptic tradition which are
                                analogous, even when not identical, to traits that characterize John with
                                respect to the Synoptic tradition as a whole.

                                Leonard Maluf
                              • Maluflen@aol.com
                                In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
                                Message 15 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                  panderso@... writes:

                                  << Luke departs from Mark at least three dozen times and sides with the
                                  Johannine tradition. Why? Luke apparently believes the Johannine
                                  traditon to be credible; therefore, Luke adds such details as the "right"
                                  ear cut off and Satan "entering" Judas, conflates such material as the
                                  catch of fish (into his calling narrative) and Peter's confession (John's
                                  "of God" with Mark's "the Christ") into his narrative, leaves out such
                                  material as a second feeding and second sea-crossing, alters Mark's
                                  tradition by making the anointing a foot anointing instead of a head
                                  anointing (an unlikely move otherwise) and placing Peter's confession
                                  after the other feeding (with John, a radical move, here!), adds
                                  traditional units such as the Mary and Martha story and the Emmaus
                                  appearance, and adds theological content such as Holy Spirit emphases and
                                  Jesus' concern for Samaritans and women. Is this traditional borrowing
                                  alluded to in Luke 1:2, where he says he draws material from eye witnesses
                                  and servants of the LOGOS? >>

                                  This all strikes me as a circular kind of argumentation. Luke is said to
                                  borrow from John, because John contains certain features that are found in
                                  Luke and not in the other Synoptics. Logically, all that can be deduced from
                                  this is that one OR the other Evangelist may have borrowed from the other, or
                                  had access to sources available to the other. In point of fact, when one
                                  reads Luke's Gospel as a dialectical reading and re-writing of Matthew, under
                                  Pauline influence (and of course always with an eye to OT parallels and
                                  background to Matthean texts as well) the above features are most naturally
                                  explained as coming out of Luke's head (and perhaps later influencing John).
                                  No need to connect what Luke writes in his prologue to the Johannine
                                  tradition either. LOGOS is the normal Lukan technical term for the Gospel
                                  message in Acts. And cf. Lk 8:11-12, where first "word of God" and then
                                  "word" are substituted for Matt's "logos tes basileias", [message of the
                                  kingdom]. Note that both Luke's original substitution (the Word of God) and
                                  his abbreviation thereof (the Word) are common designations for the Gospel
                                  preached by the Jerusalem apostles and Paul in Acts. It is also Pauline
                                  terminology (cf. 1 Thess 1:6; 2:13, etc.).

                                  Years ago I was impressed by the view that Luke may have borrowed from the
                                  Johannine tradition (it was half a centuray ago, and perhaps still is, the
                                  view of the great Catholic scholar Andre Feuillet, and it usually reflects a
                                  concern to bolster the historicity of details in the Lukan account). But more
                                  recently I have progressively moved toward seeing this as an unlikely
                                  position. It remains possible (Luke probably spent some time at Ephesus), but
                                  it always seems more likely to me that the literary influence was primarily
                                  in the reverse direction. One thing that has to be kept in mind is the fact
                                  that Luke is extremely creative in his use of the Matthean tradition - this,
                                  whether or not his creativity therewith has parallels in the Johannine
                                  tradition. Therefore, one should not assume that a departure of Luke from
                                  Matt (or Mark, as many of you would say) requires borrowing from the
                                  Johannine tradition as an explanation. It is usually fully comprehensible as
                                  theologically-literarily motivated. Implicit in my disagreement with the
                                  above expressed position is, I think, a fundamentally different understanding
                                  of Luke's project. I do not see Luke as interested in "credibility" in the
                                  sense of "correcting" the historical accuracy of details in his narratives,
                                  with respect to older accounts. Luke's project is primarily "theological"
                                  (one might say ideological) in character, and even the details of his
                                  narratives are more in the service of his theology than likely to be
                                  historically rooted or motivated. In his Gospel, Luke is in fact, in my view,
                                  doing theology in narrative. Among other things, he is attempting to
                                  reconcile the theology of the Jerusalem apostles (Matthew, Peter, etc.) with
                                  that of Paul and a theology of the Gentile mission. The basic story of Jesus
                                  is assumed to be known to Luke's audience already from Matthew. Of course it
                                  also needs to be said that an important part of Luke's "theology" is a
                                  theological understanding of history itself. In this sense, Luke is then
                                  intensely interested in "history", but in the broad sense of understanding
                                  and formalizing its major, divinely guided articulations.

                                  Leonard Maluf
                                • Mark Goodacre
                                  ... Thanks for the bibliography. A couple more pieces of bibliog. on the question might be helpful: Adelbert Denaux (ed.), _John and the Synoptics_ (BETL 90;
                                  Message 16 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 7 Jan 00, at 13:49, Fred Guyette wrote:

                                    > Neirynck, F. "John and the Synoptics in Recent Commentaries."
                                    > Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanesium 1998, 74 (4): 386-397.

                                    Thanks for the bibliography. A couple more pieces of bibliog. on the question
                                    might be helpful:

                                    Adelbert Denaux (ed.), _John and the Synoptics_ (BETL 90; Leuven : Leuven
                                    University Press, 1992)

                                    It features articles by Neirynck & Goulder, among others, on the question of
                                    dependence.

                                    One recent book that argued for an independent John was:

                                    Lawrence M. Wills, The Quest of the Historical Gospel: Mark, John and the
                                    Origins of the Gospel Genre (London/ New York: Routledge, 1997)

                                    I recently had a review of it published in RBL:

                                    http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/0415150930.html

                                    Mark

                                    --------------------------------------
                                    Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
                                    Dept of Theology tel: +44 121 414 7512
                                    University of Birmingham fax: +44 121 414 6866
                                    Birmingham B15 2TT United Kingdom

                                    http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/goodacre
                                    The New Testament Gateway
                                    All-in-One Biblical Resources Search
                                    Mark Without Q
                                    Aseneth Home Page
                                  • ejdanna@trapdoor.arvotek.net
                                    ... But then why write Mark at all, if Matt. and Lk. were already in existence? It seems easier to see them as an expansion of Mark than to see Mark as an
                                    Message 17 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Mon, 10 Jan 2000 Maluflen@... wrote:

                                      > In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:14:02 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                      > panderso@... writes:
                                      >
                                      > << For whatever
                                      > reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
                                      > redactions of Mark >>
                                      >
                                      > "For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this ought
                                      > to make one suspect that Matt and Lk were written before Mark,

                                      But then why write Mark at all, if Matt. and Lk. were already in
                                      existence? It seems easier to see them as an expansion of Mark than to
                                      see Mark as an abbreviation of traditions that had already been solidified
                                      into written form. Notice also the places where Matt. and Luke smooth out
                                      some awkward Markan phrases, either to improve awkward grammar or clarify
                                      meaning. Surely this would not have been necessary if Mark had access to
                                      Matt. or Lk.?
                                      Elizabeth Danna
                                    • Maluflen@aol.com
                                      In a message dated 1/10/2000 9:53:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, ejdanna@trapdoor.arvotek.net writes:
                                      Message 18 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        In a message dated 1/10/2000 9:53:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
                                        ejdanna@... writes:

                                        << "For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this
                                        ought
                                        > to make one suspect that Matt and Lk were written before Mark,

                                        But then why write Mark at all, if Matt. and Lk. were already in
                                        existence? It seems easier to see them as an expansion of Mark than to
                                        see Mark as an abbreviation of traditions that had already been solidified
                                        into written form. Notice also the places where Matt. and Luke smooth out
                                        some awkward Markan phrases, either to improve awkward grammar or clarify
                                        meaning. Surely this would not have been necessary if Mark had access to
                                        Matt. or Lk.? >>

                                        Dear Elizabeth,

                                        This, of course, raises the whole question of the Synoptic Problem. Though
                                        I am never adverse to reviewing the evidence for solutions to this problem
                                        with anyone, and from the ground up, I suspect that this is not the proper
                                        forum for such an exhilarating exercise. I perhaps should not have raised the
                                        question in the first place, but if you or anyone else wishes to discuss it
                                        with me off-list, I should be delighted to oblige (to the extent that this is
                                        compatible with my teaching schedule and responsibilities). It goes without
                                        saying that my remark to which you are responding should be taken to imply
                                        that, having carefully considered all the standard arguments in favor of
                                        Markan priority, I consider them to be less compelling than arguments for the
                                        contrary position.

                                        Leonard Maluf
                                      • Paul Anderson
                                        ... I don t imagine we ll fix these differences between our perspectives in this discussion group (nor would it be appropriate to attempt), but as you know,
                                        Message 19 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
                                          >It goes without
                                          >saying that my remark to which you are responding should be taken to
                                          >imply
                                          >that, having carefully considered all the standard arguments in favor of
                                          >Markan priority, I consider them to be less compelling than arguments for
                                          >the
                                          >contrary position.
                                          >
                                          >Leonard Maluf

                                          I don't imagine we'll fix these differences between our perspectives in
                                          this discussion group (nor would it be appropriate to attempt), but as you
                                          know, such is a major factor in our disagreement, Leonard.

                                          Thanks so much,

                                          PA

                                          Paul N. Anderson
                                          Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                                          George Fox University
                                          Newberg, OR 97132
                                          503-554-2651
                                        • Paul Anderson
                                          ... Not so fast, Leonard, I actually think there were good reasons, or at least explicable ones. This is an attempt to be generous beyond particular
                                          Message 20 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            johannine_literature@egroups.com writes:
                                            ><< For whatever
                                            > reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
                                            > redactions of Mark >>
                                            >
                                            >"For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this

                                            Not so fast, Leonard, I actually think there were good reasons, or at
                                            least explicable ones. This is an attempt to be generous beyond
                                            particular explanations which I outline in my book. If you get a chance
                                            to engage chapters 5-10 in my book and appendix 8, I'd appreciate your
                                            response.

                                            Thanks so much,

                                            Paul

                                            Paul N. Anderson
                                            Associate Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
                                            George Fox University
                                            Newberg, OR 97132
                                            503-554-2651
                                          • Maluflen@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:27:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, panderso@georgefox.edu writes:
                                            Message 21 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 1/10/2000 3:27:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,
                                              panderso@... writes:

                                              << ><< For whatever
                                              > reason, Matthew and Luke leave out several types of material in their
                                              > redactions of Mark >>
                                              >
                                              >"For whatever reason"...The fact that there is no GOOD reason for this

                                              Not so fast, Leonard, I actually think there were good reasons, or at
                                              least explicable ones. This is an attempt to be generous beyond
                                              particular explanations which I outline in my book. If you get a chance
                                              to engage chapters 5-10 in my book and appendix 8, I'd appreciate your
                                              response.>>

                                              I guess I would put what I am trying to say this way. What most consider to
                                              be major theological/literary influences of the synoptic tradition on John
                                              (so I am not thinking here of things like number of denarii or cost of
                                              ointment) are usually thought to be derived by John from Mark, or "Markan
                                              tradition". The ONLY reason the connection is made to Mark, in these cases,
                                              rather than to Matt, is because of the theory of Markan priority. In other
                                              words, the particular influences so identified could, I think, usually be
                                              demonstrated, from a synchronic perspective (i.e., without reference to a
                                              diachronic source theory), to be in fact more characteristic of Matthew than
                                              of Mark or Luke. To test the validity of my point, perhaps you would be so
                                              kind as to begin the process by naming one or two things you would consider
                                              to be major theological influences of the Synoptic tradition on John, and
                                              then I would have to demonstrate, if I could, that the point in question is
                                              in fact more Matthean than Markan, in terms of synchronic analysis of the two
                                              Evangelists' respective texts.

                                              Leonard Maluf
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.