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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.