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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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.