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

[John_Lit] Re: Did John know the synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.