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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
          View Source
          • 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 5 of 24 , Jan 7, 2000
            View Source
            • 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 6 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
              View Source
              • 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 7 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                View Source
                • 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 8 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                  View Source
                  • 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 9 of 24 , Jan 8, 2000
                    View Source
                    • 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 10 of 24 , Jan 9, 2000
                      View Source
                      • 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 11 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                        View Source
                        • 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 12 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                          View Source
                          • 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 13 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                            View Source
                            • 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 14 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                              View Source
                              • 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 15 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                View Source
                                • 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 16 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                  View Source
                                  • 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 17 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                    View Source
                                    • 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 18 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                      View Source
                                      • 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 19 of 24 , Jan 10, 2000
                                        View Source
                                        • 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.