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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • Maluflen@aol.com
    In a message dated 1/7/2000 9:59:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, ejdanna@trapdoor.arvotek.net writes:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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.