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 1/6/2000 11:52:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, jbtucker@driveninc.com writes:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.