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

RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

Expand Messages
  • Paul Anderson
    Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective: a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In
    Message 1 of 12 , Dec 9, 2006
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

      a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

      b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence" between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

      c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material as well as earlier material.

      d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.

      e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

      f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at stake.

      Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

      Paul Anderson

      ***
      While John’s tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as Mark’s. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding John’s dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a “bi-optic” alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

      a)John’s Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

      b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence may have crossed in both directions, making “interfluence” a plausible inference.

      c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John’s departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as “the Bi-Optic Gospels.”

      d)John’s Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke’s tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John’s features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

      e)John’s Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the “bolt out of the Johannine blue” points to such a possibility.

      f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE), and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

      g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus’ agency as the Jewish Messiah.

      h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

      i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, “whose testimony is true.”

      j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


      -----Original Message-----
      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
      Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

      What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so? I am
      trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
      up to date.

      --
      Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
      Student, CSU Fullerton



      SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
      MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
      Yahoo! Groups Links







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
      ________________________________ From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM To:
      Message 2 of 12 , Dec 11, 2006
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        ________________________________

        From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
        Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



        Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

        a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

        b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence" between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

        c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material as well as earlier material.

        d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.

        e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

        f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at stake.

        Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

        Paul Anderson

        ***
        While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

        a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

        b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible inference.

        c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

        d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

        e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.

        f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE), and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

        g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

        h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

        i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."

        j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


        -----Original Message-----
        From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
        Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

        What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so? I am
        trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
        up to date.

        --
        Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
        Student, CSU Fullerton



        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
        Yahoo! Groups Links







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
        Yahoo! Groups Links







        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
        Peter and paul: Thank you Paul for this helpful summary of recent work, and a quick description of some of your points. I do think that the issue comes down to
        Message 3 of 12 , Dec 11, 2006
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Peter and paul:

          Thank you Paul for this helpful summary of recent work, and a quick description of some of your points.

          I do think that the issue comes down to a few key issues:

          1. Is the Johannine story sufficiently similar to Mark's outline to suggest that he was influenced by it in his writing? Or, alternatively, is the story a narrative because ultimately the Jesus tradition simply demands it. For me, I simply don't see that many similarities in the story structure to see an influence.

          2. I remain influenced by the way Windisch put the issue: If John was using Mark, then it would appear that he was trying to totally replace that gospel with a different story. I am not convinced that that would be the case. It is easier to see independence.

          3. The key issue for some relationship is in close series of contacts. That is the burden of my work on connections between Luke and John in the passion narrative. As you point out, I and Barbara Shellard (and you in a more limited way) end up arguing that the direction points from John to Luke, not the other way around.

          4. Of course the issue of traditions and oral influences is a bit different. It is hard to argue with the idea that some Markan ideas (or others) had somehow been caught up in the oral tradition. I actually find that fairly plausible. My hunch is that there were quite a few oral traditions swirling around in the churches. The difficulty is in detecting which way such influence works. Were Mark and John both influenced by these traditions, with some variations perhaps involved depending on time and locations? Or did Mark's tradition (or feasibly John's) get caught back up in the ongoing traditions? Again, the difficulty here is to gain some critical control over these influences and dependencies.

          5. Which is why I find Lincoln's work, so dependent on Barrett's, so unconvincing. It smacks of a nice "safe" approach, but doesn't show (in my opinion) much hard work exploring how and why such dependencies might exist.

          6. Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found his article on mark/john relationship the weakest of that volume and ultimately unconvincing.

          Paul, at the final analysis, the problem I have with your theory is that it is ultimately too complex (and hypothetical). As Moody Smith pointed out with respect to Boismard's rather complex chart of relationships (which admittedly were literary, and hence even more difficult to sustain), one can create a scenario that explains everything if one expands the variables and interrelationship enough. At some point some argument for simplicity as a theoretical boundary (a form of Ockham's razor) should give us caution about trying to explain too much. On the other hand, I can't say that your approach is wrong. It just makes me nervous by explaining too much.

          mark matson

          ________________________________

          From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
          Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



          Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

          a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

          b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence" between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

          c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material as well as earlier material.

          d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.

          e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

          f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at stake.

          Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

          Paul Anderson

          ***
          While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

          a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

          b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible inference.

          c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

          d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

          e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.

          f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE), and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

          g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

          h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

          i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."

          j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


          -----Original Message-----
          From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
          Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

          What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so? I am
          trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
          up to date.

          --
          Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
          Student, CSU Fullerton



          SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
          MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
          Yahoo! Groups Links







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



          SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
          MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
          Yahoo! Groups Links







          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Paul Anderson
          Dear Mark, Your message didn t come through, so you might send it again. I m interested in your treatment of the issue, as well. Paul ... From:
          Message 4 of 12 , Dec 11, 2006
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Mark,

            Your message didn't come through, so you might send it again. I'm interested in your treatment of the issue, as well.

            Paul


            -----Original Message-----
            From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Matson, Mark (Academic)
            Sent: Mon 12/11/2006 5:26 PM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



            ________________________________

            From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
            Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



            Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

            a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

            b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence" between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

            c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material as well as earlier material.

            d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.

            e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

            f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at stake.

            Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

            Paul Anderson

            ***
            While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

            a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

            b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible inference.

            c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

            d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

            e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.

            f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE), and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

            g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

            h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

            i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."

            j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
            Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
            To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

            What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so? I am
            trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
            up to date.

            --
            Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
            Student, CSU Fullerton



            SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
            MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
            Yahoo! Groups Links







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
            MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
            Yahoo! Groups Links







            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
            MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
            Yahoo! Groups Links






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Paul Anderson
            Thanks, Mark, that s better. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and while a brief engagement here cannot take the place of considering the fuller published
            Message 5 of 12 , Dec 11, 2006
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks, Mark, that's better. I appreciate your thoughtfulness, and while a brief engagement here cannot take the place of considering the fuller published arguments, in my works and yours, let me add a few comments after your good points (introduced by asterisks *). I also want to call for scholars to read the published texts involved (Matson's book, and mine, plus Moody Smith's work, and others) instead of allowing impressions to be formed too narrowly by even meaningful listserve dialogue. Nonetheless, these general discussions are really helpful in what they clarify as to why scholars believe what they do. I hope that even several clarifications below are helpful in laying out what is being said, as well as what is not.


              Mark Matson says,

              I do think that the issue comes down to a few key issues:

              1. Is the Johannine story sufficiently similar to Mark's outline to suggest that he was influenced by it in his writing? Or, alternatively, is the story a narrative because ultimately the Jesus tradition simply demands it. For me, I simply don't see that many similarities in the story structure to see an influence.

              * Good point; I mean "influence" as a provocation to produce an alternative narrative, not as a factor of dependence. John does not follow Mark in detail in any closely structural sort of way, but I do think an alternative Jesus tradition is what the Johannine evangelist seeks to provide. See MacKay's analysis on this; while I don't go as far as he does, some interesting narratological features suggest a general familiarity with Mark (might it have been "heard" as a narrative read in a meeting for worship, for instance?). Assuming with Lindars that John 6 and 21 are likely candidates for later additions to John (along with some other material), the first edition of John possesses the five signs that are not in Mark or any of the other gospels. Therefore, the "first sign" and the "second sign" in Galilee might be seen to be an augmentation of Mark 1 chronologically, and the other three signs (in Bethany and Jerusalem) might be seen as an augmentation of Mark georgraphically. Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, but John appears to have built around Mark.


              2. I remain influenced by the way Windisch put the issue: If John was using Mark, then it would appear that he was trying to totally replace that gospel with a different story. I am not convinced that that would be the case. It is easier to see independence.

              * No, Windisch is wrong, here. That overstates the alternatives as a forced dichotomy: "If John knew Mark, and still did something independent, John's story was so different that it must be construed as a total supplanting of Mark rather than a complementing of Mark." That's too strong. John does render a similar (and independent--even Bultmann acknowledges that) Passion narrative, with some similar features in the beginning and middle, and I agree that the best answer is to infer an independent Jesus tradition which is Johannine. However, independence does not imply total isolation from familiarity with written Mark. Here Gardner-Smith's correct inferences of John's essential autonomy gets over-stated as a necessarily isolationist stance. Could it not be that John poses an alternative view precisely because he is familiar with other renderings of "signs that Jesus had done in the prsence of his disciples not written in THIS book," implying known familiarity with and contradistinction against Mark? I find that to be a more plausible rendering of John and Mark as representing two "bi-optic" perspectives--from day one until their finalization.


              3. The key issue for some relationship is in close series of contacts. That is the burden of my work on connections between Luke and John in the passion narrative. As you point out, I and Barbara Shellard (and you in a more limited way) end up arguing that the direction points from John to Luke, not the other way around.

              * Yes, I think your work is very important here, and with you, I believe the work of Lamar Cribbs has been overlooked to the detriment of Lukan-Johannine analyses. I might not go as far as Cribbs in some of his inferences of Lukan familiarity with a written John, but his and your analyses are really intriguing. Here's where I pause on that: If Luke were familiar with written John, the great catch of fish, the Temple cleansing, the I-Am sayings, and the raising of Lazarus (as well as a few other things) would have been included by Luke in ways commensurate with the Johannine ordering and presentation. This would especially have been the case if Luke held the Johannine tradition to be authoritative. Arguably, Luke 1:2 includes a direct tribute to the Johannine tradition as one of his sources (gratitude to "eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos"), and I believe Luke connects the disciple John with a Johannine motif (unwittingly) in interesting ways. The implication is that Luke sides with John against Mark at least three dozen times (in my outlines), where the Johannine tradition is known. My inference is that where Luke follows Mark's outline and general presentation instead of John's, this reflects not an authoritative privileging of written Mark over written John; rather it reflects access to written Mark but only a partial access to the Johannine narrative--plausibly because it is not available in its written form. Then again, I could be wrong on that, but these are some of the reasons I go in an oral-aural connection between Luke and the Johannine tradition rather than a written-read one.


              4. Of course the issue of traditions and oral influences is a bit different. It is hard to argue with the idea that some Markan ideas (or others) had somehow been caught up in the oral tradition. I actually find that fairly plausible. My hunch is that there were quite a few oral traditions swirling around in the churches. The difficulty is in detecting which way such influence works. Were Mark and John both influenced by these traditions, with some variations perhaps involved depending on time and locations? Or did Mark's tradition (or feasibly John's) get caught back up in the ongoing traditions? Again, the difficulty here is to gain some critical control over these influences and dependencies.

              * Good points, Mark! That's why I agree that holding open possibilites for informal contacts, and secondary orality makes sense--in both directions. That's why a general theory of interfluentuality makes sense. So, as I say in my work, the sketching of particular inferences do not displace other informal possibilities, so in that sense, claiming to "settle it all" goes beyond what I actually believe and claim.


              5. Which is why I find Lincoln's work, so dependent on Barrett's, so unconvincing. It smacks of a nice "safe" approach, but doesn't show (in my opinion) much hard work exploring how and why such dependencies might exist.

              * Right! Of ALL the Johannine-Markan contacts, NONE of them are identical, which is why even Barrett had to admit that the relationship, if there were a relationship, had to have been different from Luke's and Matthew's dependence on Mark.


              6. Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found his article on mark/john relationship the weakest of that volume and ultimately unconvincing.

              * I might want you to say more here; the features I do find convincing included a plausible inference of Markan familiarity for John's audience, which would explain (at least) the clarifications of "before" John's imprisonment (as narrated in Mark) and "as Jesus had testified regarding the rejection of the home-town prophet (as narrated in Mark). I see the contrastive features in John as evidence of familiarity--setting the record straight over and against Mark. So, the Baptist and Jesus ministered simultaneously for some time, and despite the rejection in Nazareth, the Smaritans and the royal official did indeed receive him. Likewise, the Temple cleansing was early, Jesus traveled to and from Jerusalem several times before the final Passover events, and Jesus' ministry was a bit less formalized than emerging traditions might be representing (to name a few).


              Paul, at the final analysis, the problem I have with your theory is that it is ultimately too complex (and hypothetical). As Moody Smith pointed out with respect to Boismard's rather complex chart of relationships (which admittedly were literary, and hence even more difficult to sustain), one can create a scenario that explains everything if one expands the variables and interrelationship enough. At some point some argument for simplicity as a theoretical boundary (a form of Ockham's razor) should give us caution about trying to explain too much. On the other hand, I can't say that your approach is wrong. It just makes me nervous by explaining too much.

              * Yes, I appreciate the difficulties of considering possible contacts with other traditions, but this is not Boismard; it needs to be read and weighed in its own right, on the particulars before a fitting judgment can be made. Also, "John's dialogical autonomy" is far simpler a theory than Bultmann's, and the evidence is much stronger because we have real texts to deal with instead of imaginary ones. Here's where Ockham's razor (the Principle of Parsimony) has played us false, though: narrowing the options wrongly and forcing a choice between only two options, when others might be considered. After all, a 70-year tradition with many formative features would not have been constrained by the hypothetical limiting of options (for instance, John's relation to "the Synoptics" had to have been either X or Y; or, John's relation to the Markan tradition cannot have been both B and C). So, here's how I apply Ockham's Razor on particular aspects of the larger set of issues:

              Question 1: Did John depend on other traditions? No. All the contacts are also different, and I think we agree on the basic autonomy of John.

              Question 2: Was John isolated from other traditions in its independence? I infer some dialogical contact between John's and other traditions, and that most of this involved engaging oral traditions, sometimes in both directions. I think we agree in general, but you reject familiarity with written Mark. Would you say that the Johannine evangelist did not know that any other gospels, including Mark, were extant? Might even a general familiarity have called forth an alternative narration?

              Question 3: Was the Johannine tradition's relation with other traditions monolithic--the same, or might it have been different in relation to different traditions and forms? Here I go with a phenomenological analysis of the evidence--considering "all" (at least most of them) the similarities and differences between John and the other traditions, and developing particular inferences on the basis of what the evidence suggests most plausibly. I think we agree here, but you're reluctant on the particulars, which is fine, to begin with. However, being reluctant to consider the particulars is different from disagreeing with particular inferences. I'm happy to reconsider any of the dozens of contacts and inferences, but they have to be sorted out text-by-text. So, on particular contacts, I'm happy to consider a preferable solution if there is one, including "no inference possible." However, that's different from saying John had only one relationship with one gospel tradition--Luke's and all others are "too complex" to be inferred.

              Question 4: Is John's origin and development, including its similarities and differences with other canonical traditions, explicable by means of a single, monofaceted theory, based upon an Ockham's theory of privileging simplicity over complexity? I'd be happy to say "yes" to this one, but the facts demand its rejection. Again, physics works better with Parsimony than historical-critical and literary-critical considerations, so a "single" explanation for the Civil War or the collapse of the Berlin Wall might be attractive, but they are likely to be wrong. This is precisely where Johannine studies have foundered, often unnecessarily. Instead of arguing for "only one" socio-religious dialogue in the Johannine situation, there may have been several. So, unless one is going to argue "isolation," one must be ready to explain the particular contacts in ways that are least speculative and most plausible. Here we may disagree; I might concur that to define the origin and devleopment of John simplistically is attractive; I just think it hides from the facts.

              So, we do agree upon the generalities of John's influence upon Luke, but do you think that the Johannine tradition had a dialogical relationsihp with only one tradition--Lukes? If so, why? On Johannine-Markan contacts, what do you do with MacKay's work or my "Answerability" essay (see L-Lit website)? And, whence the tension between Peter and the Beloved Disciple and the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" in Q (if there was a Q)? Is the most plausible thesis one of "No relationship," or "oral-traditional contact only," or should we look at all the similarities and differences between John and the other traditions and try to make modest inferences about what seems most plausible? That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm happy to stand corrected on any of the particulars, and any of the generalities. I'm not convinced, though, by allegations of "too complex" or the privileging of Ockham over the complexities of the facts, themselves.

              Thanks for the good engagement, Mark; it's a privilege to clarify some of our questions and to gain a clearer focus on how to approach these important issues.

              Take care,

              Paul

              ***

              mark matson

              ________________________________

              From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
              Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



              Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:

              a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines. None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though, so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.

              b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject, however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence" between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition "interfluential" contacts.

              c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material as well as earlier material.

              d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.

              e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence. What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their traditions.

              f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that may have been at stake.

              Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics" as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate. Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality between John and the other traditions which will be published soon in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (2006).

              Paul Anderson

              ***
              While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact, however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It may have even been different between different phases and forms of a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:

              a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways. First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.

              b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes, explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts. Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a plausible inference.

              c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30), as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the Bi-Optic Gospels."

              d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.

              e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.

              f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE), and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a timely emphasis.

              g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.

              h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles, calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written before and after the Johannine Gospel.

              i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."

              j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically, however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical Jesus in bi-optic perspective.


              -----Original Message-----
              From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
              Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
              To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

              What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so? I am
              trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
              up to date.

              --
              Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
              Student, CSU Fullerton



              SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
              MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
              Yahoo! Groups Links







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
              MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
              Yahoo! Groups Links







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



              SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
              MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
              Yahoo! Groups Links






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Matson, Mark (Academic)
              ... poses an alternative view ... Granted, Windisch stakes out extreme either/or s (he is German of an era, after all). But they are provocative. But does
              Message 6 of 12 , Dec 12, 2006
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                > * No, Windisch is wrong, here. <<snip>> Could it not be that John
                poses an alternative view
                > precisely because he is familiar with other renderings of
                > "signs that Jesus had done in the prsence of his disciples
                > not written in THIS book," implying known familiarity with
                > and contradistinction against Mark?

                Granted, Windisch stakes out extreme either/or's (he is German of an
                era, after all). But they are provocative.
                But does John seem to be writing in contradistinction against Mark?
                That would comport with one of Windisch's alternatives. Help me see a
                bit more how he stakes out a contradisctinction, and if it is friendly
                (correction) or hostile (replacement).

                > Here's where I pause on that: If Luke
                > were familiar with written John, the great catch of fish, the
                > Temple cleansing, the I-Am sayings, and the raising of
                > Lazarus (as well as a few other things) would have been
                > included by Luke in ways commensurate with the Johannine
                > ordering and presentation. This would especially have been
                > the case if Luke held the Johannine tradition to be
                > authoritative. Arguably, Luke 1:2 includes a direct tribute
                > to the Johannine tradition as one of his sources (gratitude
                > to "eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos"), and I believe
                > Luke connects the disciple John with a Johannine motif
                > (unwittingly) in interesting ways.

                As you know, my focus was on the passion narrative. Interestingly, I did
                do some work comparing overall points of contact (ala Cribbs) and found
                that most of these are closely related to some version of Fortna's signs
                source. SO.... We may have a case where Luke did not know the whole
                completed John. Certainly the material in the dialogue sections (hence
                the I-am statements) seem to have to real presence in Luke. Luke 5 /
                John 21 presents an interesting case. There is of course a similarity
                here on details, but the point is completely different. But that is so
                difficulty because we don't know what to do with John 21. If it was
                written later, did it receive some influence (orally probably) from the
                story in Luke 5?

                But order issues don't concern me. Luke has a pattern of re-ordering
                material, especially from Matthew. He is clearly an active
                editor/composer. And he does evaluate materials, and choose how to use
                them in support of his overall plan and gospel, which is quite different
                that Matthew and John, and even Mark. (see below)

                > The implication is that
                > Luke sides with John against Mark at least three dozen times
                > (in my outlines), where the Johannine tradition is known. My
                > inference is that where Luke follows Mark's outline and
                > general presentation instead of John's, this reflects not an
                > authoritative privileging of written Mark over written John;
                > rather it reflects access to written Mark but only a partial
                > access to the Johannine narrative--plausibly because it is
                > not available in its written form. Then again, I could be
                > wrong on that, but these are some of the reasons I go in an
                > oral-aural connection between Luke and the Johannine
                > tradition rather than a written-read one.

                You are right, of course, that Luke often sides with Mark (vs. John, and
                vs. Matt.). Is it because Luke only had written Mark and oral John? I
                suppose that is possible, though I think in the passion narrative it is
                stronger than that. But why wouldn't Luke, if he had and used various
                sources, evaluate them differently? This is what I think he did. He may
                well have heard (and read) Mark first, and it became his operative
                gospel. But then he heard/read other gospels (Matt & John), and learned
                other traditions, and then had to evaluate each and fit them into a
                narrative. Hence there is the great interpolation, the scattering of the
                Sermon on the Mount into more functional focused issues, some
                reordering, etc. That sounds like Luke's editorial method. For him to
                be somewhat suspicious of the radically different John, and yet
                intrigued and even convinced on a number of issues contained in John,
                does not surprise me.


                > 6. Much as I like Bauckham's interesting collection, I found
                > his article on mark/john relationship the weakest of that
                > volume and ultimately unconvincing.
                >
                > * I might want you to say more here; the features I do find
                > convincing included a plausible inference of Markan
                > familiarity for John's audience, which would explain (at
                > least) the clarifications of "before" John's imprisonment (as
                > narrated in Mark) and "as Jesus had testified regarding the
                > rejection of the home-town prophet (as narrated in Mark).

                Let me re-read Bauckham's argument before I venture more here.


                > Question 1: Did John depend on other traditions? No. All the
                > contacts are also different, and I think we agree on the
                > basic autonomy of John.

                Agreed.

                > Question 2: Was John isolated from other traditions in its
                > independence? I infer some dialogical contact between John's
                > and other traditions, and that most of this involved engaging
                > oral traditions, sometimes in both directions. I think we
                > agree in general, but you reject familiarity with written
                > Mark. Would you say that the Johannine evangelist did not
                > know that any other gospels, including Mark, were extant?
                > Might even a general familiarity have called forth an
                > alternative narration?

                I don't see evidence of John's knowledge of any written gospels. I
                think you sense me correctly here. Or, to be more precise, I don't see
                any evidence that he does. Was he aware of various traditions? Probably
                (or at least possibly). He certainly relied on traditions in the
                composition. But he frames the gospel in such a unique way -- the
                signs, long dialogues, the central plot issue of the early and sustained
                (and growing) objection by "the Jews", etc. -- that it is hard to see
                the strong similarities. And even the passion week, with the calendar
                differences, the lack of a cultic Lord's Supper, the long extended
                farewell speeches, no Gethsemane, no apocalyptic speeches, very
                different trial scene, etc., all are so distinctively different it is
                hard for me to imagine a written gospel that he is reacting against. I
                don't see the asides, the reframing of specific quotes or scenes, that
                would suggest a rhetorical engagement or alternative narration. If he
                did know a written gospel, he simply ignores it.

                >
                > Question 3: Was the Johannine tradition's relation with other
                > traditions monolithic--the same, or might it have been
                > different in relation to different traditions and forms? Here
                > I go with a phenomenological analysis of the
                > evidence--considering "all" (at least most of them) the
                > similarities and differences between John and the other
                > traditions, and developing particular inferences on the basis
                > of what the evidence suggests most plausibly. I think we
                > agree here, but you're reluctant on the particulars, which is
                > fine, to begin with. However, being reluctant to consider the
                > particulars is different from disagreeing with particular
                > inferences. I'm happy to reconsider any of the dozens of
                > contacts and inferences, but they have to be sorted out
                > text-by-text. So, on particular contacts, I'm happy to
                > consider a preferable solution if there is one, including "no
                > inference possible." However, that's different from saying
                > John had only one relationship with one gospel
                > tradition--Luke's and all others are "too complex" to be inferred.

                I think I agree with you. I certainly wouldn't rule out variable use of
                traditions. Some he accepted, some he rejected. By no means would I
                assert a knee-jerk monolithic "NEIN" to this. It's just that I don't
                see a lot of evidence. Perhaps we would be best served revisiting
                these. And indeed I think we could begin with John 6, the basis of your
                first book, and look a bit more closely. I am game if you are.


                > Question 4: Is John's origin and development, including its
                > similarities and differences with other canonical traditions,
                > explicable by means of a single, monofaceted theory, based
                > upon an Ockham's theory of privileging simplicity over
                > complexity?

                No, as above. And I assume some of your response was rhetorical begging
                the question. I invoked Ockham (offhandedly), so I will take the heat.
                Still, one has to allow that the more complex the scenario is, the
                harder it is to swallow all of that. My point is simply that when we
                are dealing with reconstruction, one has to wonder if complexities
                aren't an attempt to "solve" all the problems that we see. Or that it
                might not be our imposing our theories on the text.
                >
                > So, we do agree upon the generalities of John's influence
                > upon Luke, but do you think that the Johannine tradition had
                > a dialogical relationsihp with only one tradition--Lukes? If
                > so, why? On Johannine-Markan contacts, what do you do with
                > MacKay's work or my "Answerability" essay (see L-Lit
                > website)? And, whence the tension between Peter and the
                > Beloved Disciple and the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" in
                > Q (if there was a Q)?

                Well, again I simply don't see evidence. But I am happy to be persuaded.
                I have not read MacKay's work, and so will have to read it (it is
                clearly important). Could you send me a copy of your "Answerability"
                essay? I will get up to speed with those. Maybe this will bring us
                more into conversation range.

                And I don't really find much evidence for Q (as I have published already
                some arguments that Luke used Matthew, rather than Q).


                Paul, these are wonderful exchanges. I certainly hope you take my frank
                exchanges as friendly. As you know I value your work as some of the
                very best work in John's gospel in the last 2-3 decades or so. I hope
                that others on the list see this as collegial and friendly wrestling for
                the truth. I for one would be happy to continue and focus on some
                particulars (as you note, it is the particulars that drive the final
                conclusions, not vice versa). I would hope others might join into this
                discussion and not leave it simply up to us.

                mark
              • Paul Anderson
                Dear Mark, Thanks for the profitable engagements, and also for the kind words. Yes, I think these discussions are very valuable, especially when they help us
                Message 7 of 12 , Dec 13, 2006
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Mark,

                  Thanks for the profitable engagements, and also for the kind words. Yes, I think these discussions are very valuable, especially when they help us clarify what in particular we are claiming to know, as well as why an inference might be a valid one. So, thanks for not being offended by my pointed questions; I’m certainly happy to receive yours. By the way, the web address of the Answerability essay is: http://catholic-resources.org/John/SBL2001-Anderson.html in case anyone would like to see some of the more detailed argument on a sketch of what the longitudinal contacts might have been between the Johannine and Markan traditions.

                  Let me come back to the Johannine-Lukan relationships later; that will give me time to look more closely at your book, as well. On John and Mark, though, here are two of the six features (#s 2 and 4) of plausible Johannine-Markan familiarity, lifted from the Answerability essay, which relate directly to our conversation (developed differently in Part III of The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus and elsewhere). Here are some of the examples of associative similarities, which might suggest multidimentional features of intertextual engagement (others include: 1) Bi-Optic Developments of Pre-Markan and Early Johannine Traditions; 3) The Compiling and Circulation of Mark: The Preservation of Apostolic Ministry; 5) Continued Preaching of the Beloved Disciple and the Finalization of John; and 6) Mark’s Second Ending and Intertextual Echoes of Johannine Material).

                  Of course, all of this hinges upon the critical insufficiency of evidence regarding theories of John’s derivative character (as laid out in my two books, 1996 and 2006). If the Johannine tradition is an autonomous Jesus tradition, which develops in its own individuated way, relations between other traditions merit a fresh reconsideration. That being the case, here are two sets of inferences regarding Johannine-Markan engagement. I don’t know that all of the examples are equally compelling, but the similar-yet-different character of the possible contacts suggests something like the following.

                  ***

                  2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan and Early Johannine Traditions. During the oral developments of these two traditions, there indeed may have been some contact between them. C. K. Barrett and other scholars have noticed the contacts between John and Mark on the level of many linguistic similarities, and yet none of them are entirely identical. The most feasible conjecture from these similarities is to infer contact during the oral stages of their respective traditions, and this being the case, influence could have traveled in both directions; hence "interfluence" as a critical consideration. At the very least, we probably have two preachers who are familiar with how the other tells stories of Jesus’ ministry. Buzz words, memorable phrases, and graphic details characterize these contacts, and these are precisely the sorts of features that Matthew and Luke leave out of their redactions of Mark. Of course, it is also possible that these contacts simply reflect parallel renderings of recollected events and details in the ministry of Jesus, but some of them reflect later impressions or reflections. For instance, the introduction of Isaiah 40:3 and 6:9-10 serve interpretive functions, and sometimes they allude to later events in the life of the church, such as Jesus’ baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Another possibility is the fact that details may have been passed on from, and received by, a multiplicity of oral sources, but these possibilities would still locate the contacts within the developing oral pre-Markan and early Johannine traditions. This being the case, several examples of likely interfluential contacts are as follows:

                   Scripture references – Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of John the Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:23); Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn. 12:39-40).

                   John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus – he is not worthy to untie the sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as a dove (Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as the Son of God (a voice from heaven, Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn. 1:34); the bridegroom deserves special attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

                   Graphic, illustrative detail – 200 denarii is the value of the bread (Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn. 6:9); the grass is described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn. 6:10); the loaves are blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12 baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:); there were 5,000 men present (Mk. 6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a blind man’s eyes (Mk. 8:23; Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 1:28; 10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3; Jn. 12:3); Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13; 11:55); money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk. 11:15; Jn. 2:14-16); the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii (Mk. 14:5; Jn. 11:5); Peter warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn. 18:18); Jesus is dressed with a crown of thorns and a purple robe (Mk. 15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is crucified with two others (Mk. 15:27; Jn. 19:18); the place of the crucifixion is Golgatha – place of the skull (Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for Jesus’ garments (Mk. 15:24; Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn. 19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mk. 15:43; Jn. 19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and others) found that the stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1); post-resurrection female witnesses report to Peter and the disciples (Mk.16:7; Jn. 20:2, 18).

                   Memorable sayings – (some of the following are slightly paraphrased) rise, take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is not without honor except in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is called "the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn. 6:20; 8:58); Jesus invites disciples to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus refers to a dead person as being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus is to receive the one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus entry to Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus will restore in three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you have with you always, but not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the threefold denial of Jesus is predicted before the crowing of the cock (Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who Jesus dips in the dish is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says, "Rise, let us depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that he has taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33); and after his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a sign on the cross declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).

                  Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain the particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John and Mark, but it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential contact between these traditions during the formative stages of their development accounts for the contacts. Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the similarities, and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of their respective traditions seems the most plausible inference. Interestingly, this particular sort of detail is often omitted in Matthew’s and Luke’s redactions of Mark, and given the fact that John and Mark share another striking distinctive between them – they translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek – they betray not only traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings of the ministry of Jesus which are translated and explained for later, Greek-speaking audiences. Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between traditions, and hearsay impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct contacts between preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life speaks to art and art speaks to life, and they have their integration within the life of the person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or her own story to tell, being confronted with other renderings of similar events evokes a dialectical process that is internal as well as external: how does one incorporate or reject alternative renderings within one’s own reality? In the above examples, contact may be inferred, and interfluence of detail may be inferred to have accompanied the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work within these early Gospel traditions.

                  ***

                  (Here, then, is section 4 of the Answerability essay, which suggests five features of Johannine familiarity with written Mark, evoking a similar project, while augmenting, correcting, and complementing Mark in providing an alternative narrative. Again, if the first edition of John was the Second Gospel, there would have been no problem with a three-against-one perception of Synoptic majority. Those impressions are based on later reflections and would not have hindered a complementing-while-at-the-same-time-setting-the-record-straight augmentation of Mark. This is what I believe is understood to be alluded to in Jn. 20:30 — especially if Mark were circulated by the time the first issue of John was rendered. So, I’m agreeing with the essential observations by Windisch, and also by Gardner-Smith — that if John knew Mark John’s differences ought to cause us to ask why the differences — but there is much in John that can be seen as complementary, not simply deconstructive. Then again, Papias mentions Mark’s getting Peter’s preaching down adequately, but in the wrong order, citing the Johannine Elder (who I believe was the redactor and author of the Epistles) as the source of this opinion. That would explain Johannine distinctives as a direct factor of familiarity with at least some of Mark. Now, back to the Answerability argument.)

                  ***

                  4) The First Edition of John: A Bi-Optic Alternative to Mark. Not only does the Johannine tradition reflect an autonomous perspective on the ministry of Jesus, but the preparation of the first edition of John (probably around 80-85 CE) appears to have been crafted – at least to some degree – with Mark in mind. This is not a new view, but its development deserves attention in the light of the larger set of intertextual interests. Coming to his views independently from my own, Richard Bauckham recently wrote an essay on the Johannine/Markan relationship that is rife with implications. In raising the question of John’s being rendered for readers of Mark, he thrust onto the platform for discussion the likelihood that inter-Gospel dialogism was built into the very fabric of John’s design and circulation. In that sense, it is argued that John was crafted as public document rather than an intramural one. While other texts bear similar potential for exploration, Bauckham worked primarily with two parenthetical explanations suggestive of John’s intentional complementarity to Mark. John 3:24 ("For John had not yet been thrown in to prison.") is thought to correct Mark 1:14, where Jesus’ ministry is presented as beginning only after John had been imprisoned; and John 11:2 (Mary is identified as the person who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair) makes the connection with the anointing of Jesus by an unnamed woman who did similar anointing in Mark 14:3-9. Certainly, this approach to an intertextual complementarity fits the facts of the texts better than strict dependence or source-critical approaches. And yet, this relationship deserves to be developed further.

                  At least five features can be observed in the apparent relation of the first edition of John when considered with Mark in mind: following several patterns in Mark, augmenting Mark’s narrative with additional material, considered omissions, correctives in terms of order and sequence, and dialectical presentations in terms of theology and emphasis. Of course, every similarity and dissimilarity need not imply traditional contact, and given the earlier history of the Johannine tradition, the relationship could have moved from John to Mark at places, but the following outline seeks to make sense of the textual facts in the most plausible way possible. Hence the extensive background developed above and the following similarities and differences suggest several ways that John builds around Mark.

                  A) Following Markan Patterns – respecting the larger features of Markan priority. While it cannot be assumed with certainty that John followed particulars of Mark’s Gospel narrative, John does follow within the genre that Mark created. While considerable differences exist, the following similarities make one suspect that the first edition of John respects Markan patterns and that these may have provided something of a pattern for the Fourth Evangelist. Consider these similarities between Mark and John:

                   Similar beginnings – "the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (Mk. 1:1; Jn. 1:1, 14, 17-18).
                   Similar endings and Passion narratives – many features of John’s Passion narrative are similar to Mark’s including ending with post-resurrection appearances.
                   Similar beginnings with the ministry of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus (Mk. 1:2-11; Jn. 1:19-34).
                   Similar callings of Peter and Andrew and two other disciples (Mk. 1:16-20; Jn. 1:35-42).
                   Similar presentations of Jesus as a teacher and a healer within the Jewish prophetic traditions.
                   Similar presentations of Jesus as Son of Man (his self-designated reference) and Son of God (his ascribed reference).
                   Similar intensifications of conflict over Sabbath laws and Jewish concerns regarding blasphemy.
                   The initial movement from Judah into Galilee and the final movement back to Jerusalem.
                   The way of the cross is emphasized as normative for followers of Jesus.

                  B) Augmentations of Mark – John apparently seeks to add to the Markan witness in ways that lead the reader to faith (Jn. 20:30-31). When the first edition of John is considered on its own, it becomes apparent that the five miracles therein presented are all non-duplicative additions to the miracles in Mark. Likewise, the major I-AM sayings of John’s Jesus are notably missing from Mark, and other material seems to have filled out the Markan presentation of the Gospel. Especially at John’s first two miracles do we see an explicit mention of the attempt to include earlier material than what was used to introduce Jesus’ ministry in Mark, and John fills out Judean aspects of Jesus’ ministry in ways that suggest an augmentive complementarity:

                   The first two signs done by Jesus in Cana of Galilee are mentioned so as to fill out the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Jn. 2:11; 4:54).
                   Three Judean signs are added to the rest of the collection, emphasizing the broader ministry of Jesus, including a more realistic presentation of his going to and from Jerusalem (Jn. 5, 9, 11), with a ministry that spanned more than one Passover.
                   Material about John the Baptist is added to fill out that connection, especially emphasizing that John was not the Messiah.
                   I-AM sayings are added as means of clarifying Jesus role as the Revealer, sent from the Father.
                   Debates with Jewish leaders, accompanied by Jesus authentification as the agent of the divine sender, function to evoke belief in Jesus as the Messiah, especially for Jewish audiences.

                  C) Considered Omissions – These are the sorts of things left out if one has one’s own story to tell. Deducing anything from silence is always a risky business. The Johannine Evangelist, however, must have left out some important material if he knew Mark. Certainly, he makes the point at times that something did not happen (despite the apparent emergence of teachings to the contrary), as it is emphasized in John 4:2 that Jesus himself did not baptize; only his followers did. Likewise, he clarifies that it is not Judas Iscariot he was speaking about, but the other Judas (Jn. 14:22). An awareness of the likely critique that he has left out some of the material familiar to readers/hearers of Mark is suggested by the proleptic gloss in John 20:30: "Jesus did many other signs…which are not recorded in this book…." Put otherwise, "Yes, I know Mark wrote about those things in his Gospel, but my intention was not to duplicate Mark; rather, I have written these things that you might believe that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ…." While the Passion events are covered fully in the Johannine rendering, the Johannine evangelist apparently built around Mark, omitting much of Mark’s middle section, a likely factor of intentional, non-duplicative complementarity. Consider the following apparent omissions:

                   The Kingdom Parables and other teachings of Jesus are missing from John, and this is may appear to be a problematic fact unless an adequate motive – probably a non-duplicative one – can be inferred.
                   The calling of the twelve and other disciple-oriented material is missing, including narratives highlighting the roles of Peter, James, and John (such as the Transfiguration and details from the Gethsemene scene), and here, non-duplication seems to have been an interest.
                   The Markan Apocalypse (Mk. 13) is totally missing from the Gospel of John.
                   Exorcisms are completely missing from John (note that the particular disciple who objects to another person performing exorcisms in Mark 9:38 was John).
                   The institution of the Eucharist is completely missing from the Johannine last-supper narrative, and likewise the narration of Jesus’ baptism is not found in John.
                   Markan miracles are completely missing from this first edition of John, and the evangelist’s proleptic gloss in John 20:30 clarifies for those familiar with Mark what his intention clearly was – and was not. His collection was selective, and at least somewhat non-duplicative in its intentionality.

                  D) Corrected Orderings and Presentations of Events – The Johannine evangelist seeks to restore proper order to Mark’s compilation of Jesus material. Such an opinion is attributed to the Johannine Elder by Eusebius, and the following correctives may reflect what he had in mind. Indeed, the presentation of some of these features in John is more realistic than the Synoptic renderings, and such considerations should give us pause before ascribing John to "theology" and the Synoptics to "history" categorically. Mark and John are historical, theological, and literary compositions, and in the light of intertextual considerations, John’s striking differences with Mark on matters of order and presentation deserve special attention:

                   The ministry of Jesus develops alongside that of John the Baptist rather than being initiated only after his imprisonment (Mk. 1:14; Jn. 3:24).
                   The first two miracles were neither an exorcism nor the healing of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law, but a celebrative miracle at a wedding feast and the healing of an official’s son from afar (Mk. 1:21-31; Jn. 2:1-11; 4:46-54).
                   The Temple-cleansing was placed at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry rather than at the end (Mk. 11:12-19; Jn. 2:13-22).
                   The anointing of Jesus is presented as a foot anointing rather than a head anointing (Mk. 14:1-10; Jn. 12:1-8).
                   The date of the last supper is presented differently in John – a day earlier than in Mark.

                  E) Dialectical Presentations of Content and Theology – John poses an alternative view to some of Mark’s theological points. Interpretations of Jesus’ provocative words and deeds continued to progress dialectically from the moment of an event’s occurrence to the time and setting of the discussants. At times these dual presentations of theological perspective are quite insignificant and easy to overlook, but otherwise, some of them are far more striking. Consider these dialogical presentations:

                   The roles of Elijah and Moses are fulfilled by Jesus rather than John the Baptist (John denies being either, contrary to his presentation in Mark), and contrary to the appearance of these figures on the Mount of Transfiguration, their typologies are fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus.
                   Parables of the Kingdom are replaced with two teachings on what the Kingdom of God is and is not like (Jn. 3:3-8; 18.36-37).
                   The Messianic Secret is reversed in John, as Jesus’ otherwise hidden identity is disclosed by a Jesus who reveals his identity openly.
                   The miracles of Jesus are revelatory signs, not acts of thaumaturgic wonder; therefore, they lead people to belief, expose blindness, and lead people to everlasting life. Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe (Jn. 20:29).
                   Apostolicity is broadened to include a plurality of leaders, including women, Samaritans, and those who are not members of the twelve (Jn. 1:43-51; 4:4-42; 11:27; 12:1-8; 13:6-17; 20:21-23).

                  While any number of the above inferences may be debated, the overall effort to assess the particular character of Markan-Johannine contacts yields considerable fruit. What simple source analyses and dependence theories cannot produce, an intertextual analysis of a multiplicity of conversations between these two traditions – on several composition levels – offers a much fuller range of possibilities regarding their cross-traditional engagement. It also is not the case that John’s engagement with Mark was itself monological: either corrective or imitative only. The Johannine response to the Markan written project was more polyvalent than that, reflecting both dialogue and ambivalence (to use Bakhtin’s polarities), and while wanting to further the good work Mark had done, the Johannine Evangelist sought also to set the record straight on several matters. Some of the Johannine additions were intended to augment and bolster the Markan narrative – filling it out and including alternative material – and some of the Johannine contribution appears to have intended to rectify particular aspects of the Markan compilation. This is what Papias’ citation of the Johannine Elder’s opinion suggests, and it is borne out when regarding John’s first edition as having been in dialogue with Mark: Peter’s witness was preserved accurately by Mark, but the ordering was somewhat flawed. Whereas Luke, Matthew, and the later Markan interpolator all felt the need to add to Mark by building upon it, John does so by building around it, thus offering a bi-optic alternative.

                  ***

                  Okay, here’s some of the basis for such views, let me know what you think. Two disclaimers: first, many of MacKay’s connections are not listed here; these are just some of the ones that seemed to me to be most compelling. Second, a general familiarity (if there was such) does not imply specific familiarity with all of Mark—or even memory of it, so things left out or things that are different may not imply intentionality. For the purposes of considering the larger implications, these examples are listed. Note also that selectivity is declared at the end of chs. 20 and 21, so both the evangelist and the editor claim to be contributing a partial witness, not a final one. That's a modified Windisch approach.

                  Thanks!

                  Paul Anderson
                • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                  Paul: Let me begin by breaking down your last post to a bit more manageable response. And gives me time to digest your paper while I am trying to do my final
                  Message 8 of 12 , Dec 14, 2006
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Paul:
                    Let me begin by breaking down your last post to a bit more manageable response. And gives me time to digest your paper while I am trying to do my final end of semester grading. But in order to keep the conversation alive, let me respond a bit below, here are some comments/reactions on your first post:

                    2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan and Early Johannine Traditions. <snip>

                    ? Scripture references - Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of John the Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk. 1:1-2; Jn. 1:23); Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn. 12:39-40).

                    ? John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus - he is not worthy to untie the sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as a dove (Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as the Son of God (a voice from heaven, Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn. 1:34); the bridegroom deserves special attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

                    Granted that these are all very specific issues which might be explained by some textual relationship. But the wording in John is significantly different than in Mark. So the question is (as you discuss below) what is the relationship? I guess I see these kinds of "tags" between the early JB material, and the early baptism material, are what might get caught up in early oral tradition. For this to be reliant on Mark (or vice-versa), we would need to imagine that these items were the invention of the evangelist, not part of the developing oral tradition.

                    Is, for instance, the use of Isaiah 40 Markan? or is it Jesus? If the use is not obviously literary, then is it derivative. Mark's quotation, given as the narrator's external comment in a third person observation: phonh bowntos en thi erhmwi, `etoimasate thn `odon kuriou eutheias poiete tas tribous autou. John, on the other hand, has JB saying with reference to himself: egw phwnh bowntos en thi erhmwi, euthunate thn `odon kuriou. Quite a different quote, cast in a very different context. So did John know of this from Mark? Or was this passage somehow part of the oral tradition (perhaps in Aramaic, rather than Greek, hence the variation in quotation)?

                    ? Graphic, illustrative detail - 200 denarii is the value of the bread (Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn. 6:9); the grass is described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn. 6:10); the loaves are blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12 baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:); there were 5,000 men present (Mk. 6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a blind man's eyes (Mk. 8:23; Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 1:28; 10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3; Jn. 12:3); Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13; 11:55); money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk. 11:15; Jn. 2:14-16); the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii (Mk. 14:5; Jn. 11:5); Peter warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn. 18:18); Jesus is dressed with a crown of thorns and a purple robe (Mk. 15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is crucified with two others (Mk. 15:27; Jn. 19:18); the place of the crucifixion is Golgatha - place of the skull (Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for Jesus' garments (Mk. 15:24; Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn. 19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mk. 15:43; Jn. 19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and others) found that the stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1); post-resurrection female witnesses report to Peter and the disciples (Mk.16:7; Jn. 20:2, 18).


                    Well, there is a variety of material here. Many, (such as the 200 denarii, or the five loaves and two fishes, or 5,000 present) are precisely the kind of specific details that I would imagine being remembered in oral tradition. Some are simply natural (wasn't' Jerusalem usually considered "up"?). But let's take an interesting example: The anointing in Bethany. In most ways, the two anointing is very different. What similarities do we have? It is in Bethany, and the ointment is worth 300 denarii. But the context and story is totally different: Mark has in Simon the leper's house, John in Lazarus' house; a woman anoints in Mark, Mary anoints in John; the questioning about value is by "some" in Mark, by Judas in John; the anointing is of the head in Mark, the anointing is the feet in John. So how do we explain these vastly different stories with a couple of "tag" points? I would suggest in the developing oral tradition some specifics became attached to anointing stories. But he anointing stories themselves developed very radically different. But need we see such minor points as being influenced by Mark? To think that, again we would need to see Mark as the creative agent behind such details, as opposed to them being connected to oral stories that were circulating.


                    ? Memorable sayings - (some of the following are slightly paraphrased) rise, take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is not without honor except in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is called "the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn. 6:20; 8:58); Jesus invites disciples to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus refers to a dead person as being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus is to receive the one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus entry to Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus will restore in three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you have with you always, but not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the threefold denial of Jesus is predicted before the crowing of the cock (Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who Jesus dips in the dish is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says, "Rise, let us depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that he has taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33); and after his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a sign on the cross declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).


                    Again, we may need to deal with each one. I think there is substantial variation in this list. Let me focus on one: the ego eimi saying. In general i don't find much similarity in most of these sayings. Ego eimi occurs in many forms in John. In Mark it is rare, and two of the occasions cited above are almost expected (12:26 - a quote about God; 14:62 - an affirmative response by Jesus to a sharp question). But the issue with the walking on water is different (Mk 6:50; Jn 6:20). Here the term "ego eimi; mh phobeisthe" in response to the disciples is striking. There is obviously some strong relationship. But does stem from some use by John of Mark, even if mediated through some "intertextual" form? Again, that would presume that this would not be a part of the circulating stories rather than a term coined by Mark that has made its way back into the oral material.


                    Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain the particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John and Mark, but it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential contact between these traditions during the formative stages of their development accounts for the contacts.

                    I am ok with this, depending on how we define "interfluential." If we are talking about "traditions" in their formative stages, I think that is probable. But do we need to see Mark influencing John, or John influencing Mark? Why not simply two sets of slightly variant traditions that have been somewhere in contact, hence the little points of contact.?

                    Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the similarities, and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of their respective traditions seems the most plausible inference. Interestingly, this particular sort of detail is often omitted in Matthew's and Luke's redactions of Mark, and given the fact that John and Mark share another striking distinctive between them - they translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek - they betray not only traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings of the ministry of Jesus which are translated and explained for later, Greek-speaking audiences.

                    Agreed. (emphasis above mine) And of course that mostly shows that Mt and Lk made editorial corrections.

                    Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between traditions, and hearsay impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct contacts between preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life speaks to art and art speaks to life, and they have their integration within the life of the person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or her own story to tell, being confronted with other renderings of similar events evokes a dialectical process that is internal as well as external: how does one incorporate or reject alternative renderings within one's own reality? In the above examples, contact may be inferred, and interfluence of detail may be inferred to have accompanied the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work within these early Gospel traditions.

                    Well, contact may be inferred. And "interfluence of detail" may be inferred (again depending the defintion of interfluence). But is there answerability? Perhaps, but I am not convinced that there is a lot of evidence here for answerability. That would require evidence of more direct contact, and some sense of directionality (after all, who answered whom?) These seem to be absent or unknowable in the instances cited above.... I just think we have pushed up against some common material, but I don't see evidence of reliance or influence or exposure to a text called Mark.

                    Mark A. Matson
                    Academic Dean
                    Milligan College



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Paul Anderson
                    Thanks, Mark! I ll introduce my comments after yours with PA, marking yours with MM (# denotes material from my earlier posting, to clarify the voice).
                    Message 9 of 12 , Dec 15, 2006
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Thanks, Mark! I'll introduce my comments after yours with "PA," marking
                      yours with "MM" (# denotes material from my earlier posting, to clarify
                      the voice). Yes, I'll need to get back to grading papers soon...,
                      meantime, some comments.

                      Before I go on, though, it strikes me that you have completely missed
                      the point that I am making in this section: I am NOT arguing in section
                      2 for Johannine dependence upon, or even familiarity with, written Mark,
                      or any other text. The evidence (and here you and I concur entirely, I
                      think) goes against that. I wonder if you might have skipped over the
                      introductory paragraph (which I hope is clear enough...maybe not,
                      though), which I'm attaching here again. I believe you might concur with
                      it, so let me know if that alters your response any. Note the emphasis
                      on the "Oral Stages" of the respective traditions, for instance.

                      From the Answerability essay,

                      2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan
                      and Early Johannine Traditions. During the oral developments of these
                      two traditions, there indeed may have been some contact between them. C.
                      K. Barrett and other scholars have noticed the contacts between John and
                      Mark on the level of many linguistic similarities, and yet none of them
                      are entirely identical. The most feasible conjecture from these
                      similarities is to infer contact during the oral stages of their
                      respective traditions, and this being the case, influence could have
                      traveled in both directions; hence "interfluence" as a critical
                      consideration. At the very least, we probably have two preachers who are
                      familiar with how the other tells stories of Jesus' ministry. Buzz
                      words, memorable phrases, and graphic details characterize these
                      contacts, and these are precisely the sorts of features that Matthew and
                      Luke leave out of their redactions of Mark. Of course, it is also
                      possible that these contacts simply reflect parallel renderings of
                      recollected events and details in the ministry of Jesus, but some of
                      them reflect later impressions or reflections. For instance, the
                      introduction of Isaiah 40:3 and 6:9-10 serve interpretive functions, and
                      sometimes they allude to later events in the life of the church, such as
                      Jesus' baptizing with the Holy Spirit. Another possibility is the fact
                      that details may have been passed on from, and received by, a
                      multiplicity of oral sources, but these possibilities would still locate
                      the contacts within the developing oral pre-Markan and early Johannine
                      traditions.

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Matson, Mark
                      (Academic)
                      Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:56 PM
                      To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?

                      MM Paul:
                      Let me begin by breaking down your last post to a bit more manageable
                      response. And gives me time to digest your paper while I am trying to do
                      my final end of semester grading. But in order to keep the conversation
                      alive, let me respond a bit below, here are some comments/reactions on
                      your first post:

                      # 2) Interfluential Engagement Between the Oral Stages of the Pre-Markan
                      and Early Johannine Traditions. <snip>

                      # Scripture references - Isaiah 40:3 associates the ministry of
                      John the Baptist with the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Mk.
                      1:1-2; Jn. 1:23); Isaiah 6:9-10 explains the disappointing reception of
                      Jesus (Mk. 8:17-18; Jn. 12:39-40).

                      # John the Baptist and his relation to Jesus - he is not worthy to
                      untie the sandals of Jesus (Mk. 1:7; Jn. 1:27); the Spirit descended as
                      a dove (Mk. 1:10; Jn. 1:32); John baptized with water, but Jesus will
                      baptize with the Holy Spirit (Mk. 1:8; Jn. 1:33); Jesus is described as
                      the Son of God (a voice from heaven, Mk. 1:11; by John the Baptist Jn.
                      1:34); the bridegroom deserves special attention (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29).

                      MM Granted that these are all very specific issues which might be
                      explained by some textual relationship. But the wording in John is
                      significantly different than in Mark. So the question is (as you discuss
                      below) what is the relationship? I guess I see these kinds of "tags"
                      between the early JB material, and the early baptism material, are what
                      might get caught up in early oral tradition. For this to be reliant on
                      Mark (or vice-versa), we would need to imagine that these items were the
                      invention of the evangelist, not part of the developing oral tradition.

                      PA Right. That's what I'm arguing: we here have evidence of a set
                      of contacts during the ORAL (NOT written) stages of the pre-Markan
                      tradition and the early Johannine tradition. The contact appears to be
                      not even with the Markan evangelist as a gatherer of tradition, but
                      Mark's traditional source or sources (whether they be Peter's preaching
                      or the spoken ministries of others). That's why I do not opt for the
                      term "intertextuality;" I prefer "interfluentiality" because the contact
                      is less formal than literary standardization would suggest. Then again,
                      "fluency" could include textual factors; it just is not confined to
                      them. So, I don't see why you're taking issue, other than to point out
                      that you concur. My contention with MacKay, Barrett, Lincoln, Brodie,
                      and others is that they do not allow for this sort of pre-formal,
                      oral-traditional contact between preachers within these traditions,
                      which I think accounts better for the evidentiary character of the
                      contact, if there was such. Here I am arguing against John's reliance on
                      Mark, proper (see detailed argumentation in my treatment of Mark 6 and 8
                      and John 6 in Christology).


                      MM Is, for instance, the use of Isaiah 40 Markan? or is it Jesus?
                      If the use is not obviously literary, then is it derivative. Mark's
                      quotation, given as the narrator's external comment in a third person
                      observation: phonh bowntos en thi erhmwi, `etoimasate thn `odon kuriou
                      eutheias poiete tas tribous autou. John, on the other hand, has JB
                      saying with reference to himself: egw phwnh bowntos en thi erhmwi,
                      euthunate thn `odon kuriou. Quite a different quote, cast in a very
                      different context. So did John know of this from Mark? Or was this
                      passage somehow part of the oral tradition (perhaps in Aramaic, rather
                      than Greek, hence the variation in quotation)?

                      PA Right again (on your opinion, not your question). I'm arguing
                      that the similar-though-different use of Isaiah in Mark and John might
                      reflect the use of these texts in the preaching about JB and Jesus. I
                      think Isaiah 40 might even have gone back to JB himself (not Jesus,
                      though, since it is about JB and attributed to him in John), so these
                      contacts might also reflect proximity to the actual ministries of JB and
                      Jesus, although that is a more extended inference. They AT LEAST reflect
                      contact in the emerging traditions about JB (the meaning of his mission)
                      and Jesus (an explanation of his rejection). Again, I am arguing that
                      this is NOT a factor of derivation from Mark's tradition (nor John's)
                      because of the differences; I connect the similarities with contact
                      between the preaching stages of their traditions, and that being the
                      case, the Johannine might have influenced the pre-Markan. They also
                      could reflect factors of extended (primary, secondary, tertiary?)
                      orality.


                      # Graphic, illustrative detail - 200 denarii is the value of the
                      bread (Mk. 6:37; Jn. 6:7); five loaves and two fishes (Mk. 6:38; Jn.
                      6:9); the grass is described at the feeding (green, Mk. 6:39; much, Jn.
                      6:10); the loaves are blessed, distributed, and gathered up in 12
                      baskets (Mk. 6:41-43; Jn. 11-13:); there were 5,000 men present (Mk.
                      6:44; Jn. 6:10); spittle was placed upon a blind man's eyes (Mk. 8:23;
                      Jn. 9:6); "beyond the Jordan" locates an event (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 1:28;
                      10:40); Bethany is the place of the anointing (Mk. 14:3; Jn. 12:3);
                      Jesus and his disciples go "up to" Jerusalem (Mk. 10:1; Jn. 2:13;
                      11:55); money changers and pigeons are driven from the Temple (Mk.
                      11:15; Jn. 2:14-16); the cost of the expensive ointment is 300 denarii
                      (Mk. 14:5; Jn. 11:5); Peter warmed himself by a fire (Mk. 14:54; Jn.
                      18:18); Jesus is dressed with a crown of thorns and a purple robe (Mk.
                      15:17; Jn. 19:2); Jesus is crucified with two others (Mk. 15:27; Jn.
                      19:18); the place of the crucifixion is Golgatha - place of the skull
                      (Mk. 15:22; Jn. 19:17); lots were cast for Jesus' garments (Mk. 15:24;
                      Jn. 19:24); a sponge of vinegar is offered to Jesus (Mk. 15:36; Jn.
                      19:29); Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (Mk.
                      15:43; Jn. 19:38); early on the first day of the week Mary (and others)
                      found that the stone had been moved away (Mk. 16:4; Jn. 20:1);
                      post-resurrection female witnesses report to Peter and the disciples
                      (Mk.16:7; Jn. 20:2, 18).


                      MM Well, there is a variety of material here. Many, (such as the
                      200 denarii, or the five loaves and two fishes, or 5,000 present) are
                      precisely the kind of specific details that I would imagine being
                      remembered in oral tradition. Some are simply natural (wasn't' Jerusalem
                      usually considered "up"?). But let's take an interesting example: The
                      anointing in Bethany. In most ways, the two anointing is very
                      different. What similarities do we have? It is in Bethany, and the
                      ointment is worth 300 denarii. But the context and story is totally
                      different: Mark has in Simon the leper's house, John in Lazarus' house;
                      a woman anoints in Mark, Mary anoints in John; the questioning about
                      value is by "some" in Mark, by Judas in John; the anointing is of the
                      head in Mark, the anointing is the feet in John. So how do we explain
                      these vastly different stories with a couple of "tag" points? I would
                      suggest in the developing oral tradition some specifics became attached
                      to anointing stories. But he anointing stories themselves developed very
                      radically different. But need we see such minor points as being
                      influenced by Mark? To think that, again we would need to see Mark as
                      the creative agent behind such details, as opposed to them being
                      connected to oral stories that were circulating.

                      PA Okay, Mark, you're disagreeing with precisely what I am NOT
                      saying. So, you've missed my thesis here and are arguing against the
                      position I am countering. (I have developed this comparative analysis
                      extensively in chapters 5-8 in The Christology of the Fourth Gospel, as
                      well as Parts II and III in The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus,
                      in case any would like to consider the more detailed argumentation.) My
                      thesis is that the developing oral traditions are the most likely places
                      for these similar-yet-different details to have been connected, if there
                      were such connections.


                      # Memorable sayings - (some of the following are slightly
                      paraphrased) rise, take up your pallet (Mk. 2:11; Jn. 5:8); a prophet is
                      not without honor except in his home town (Mk. 6:4; Jn. 2:44); Jesus is
                      called "the Holy One of God" (Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69); Jesus declares EGO
                      EIMI (Mk. 6:50; 12:26; 14:62; Jn. 6:20; 8:58); Jesus invites disciples
                      to follow him (Mk. 2:14; Jn. 20:19); Jesus refers to a dead person as
                      being asleep (Mk. 5:39; Jn. 11:11); to receive Jesus is to receive the
                      one who sent him (Mk. 9:37; Jn. 13:20); "Hosanna, blessed is he who
                      comes in the name of the Lord!" is declared by the crowd upon Jesus
                      entry to Jerusalem (Mk. 11:9; Jn. 12:13); the destroyed temple Jesus
                      will restore in three days (Mk. 13:2; 15:58; Jn. 2:19); the poor you
                      have with you always, but not so Jesus (Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8); the
                      threefold denial of Jesus is predicted before the crowing of the cock
                      (Mk. 14:18, 30; Jn. 13:21, 38); the one with who Jesus dips in the dish
                      is the betrayer (Mk. 14:29; Jn. 13:26); Jesus says, "Rise, let us
                      depart" (Mk. 14:32; Jn. 14:31); Jesus declares at his trial that he has
                      taught openly in the Temple and elsewhere (Mk. 14:49; Jn. 18:20); he is
                      asked by Pilate if he is the "king of the Jews" (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:33);
                      and after his positive response (Mk. 15:2; Jn. 18:37) Pilate posts a
                      sign on the cross declaring as much (Mk. 15:26; Jn. 19:19).

                      MM Again, we may need to deal with each one. I think there is
                      substantial variation in this list. Let me focus on one: the ego eimi
                      saying. In general i don't find much similarity in most of these
                      sayings. Ego eimi occurs in many forms in John. In Mark it is rare, and
                      two of the occasions cited above are almost expected (12:26 - a quote
                      about God; 14:62 - an affirmative response by Jesus to a sharp
                      question). But the issue with the walking on water is different (Mk
                      6:50; Jn 6:20). Here the term "ego eimi; mh phobeisthe" in response to
                      the disciples is striking. There is obviously some strong relationship.
                      But does stem from some use by John of Mark, even if mediated through
                      some "intertextual" form? Again, that would presume that this would not
                      be a part of the circulating stories rather than a term coined by Mark
                      that has made its way back into the oral material.

                      PA Now Mark, this is not a personal comment, but it is intended to
                      clarify the larger argument. I can tell that your familiarity with The
                      Christology of the Fourth Gospel is lacking here, because in my
                      extensive analysis of the Johannine and Markan sea-crossing accounts I
                      list five features of a foundationally different set of "first
                      impressions" and their independent development between the pre-Markan
                      and early Johannine traditions. There I put the point (that I think you
                      might agree with) even more strongly: there NEVER WAS a time when there
                      was only one traditional impression or memory (on this traditional
                      feature, and probably most of the others) where apostles or others had a
                      singular impression of something Jesus said or did. (This is laid out in
                      chapter 8 of Christology, and it is also developed more fully in a
                      Cognitive-Critical essay, published recently in Ellens/Rollins, eds.
                      "The Cognitive Origins of John's Unitive and Disunitive Christology"
                      vol. 3.) So, some of this could also have gone back to Jesus, although
                      the developing memories and their deliveries may also have had some
                      contact.


                      # Intertextual Implications: Obviously, it is impossible to ascertain
                      the particular origins of this similar-yet-different material in John
                      and Mark, but it is likely that at least some degree of interfluential
                      contact between these traditions during the formative stages of their
                      development accounts for the contacts.

                      MM I am ok with this, depending on how we define "interfluential."
                      If we are talking about "traditions" in their formative stages, I think
                      that is probable. But do we need to see Mark influencing John, or John
                      influencing Mark? Why not simply two sets of slightly variant
                      traditions that have been somewhere in contact, hence the little points
                      of contact.?

                      PA Yes, Mark, that's what I'm saying. Again, let me quote the first
                      sentence of my introductory paragraph above: "During the oral
                      developments of these two traditions, there indeed may have been some
                      contact between them."


                      # Again, what is significant is the degree of difference despite the
                      similarities, and for this reason, contact during the oral stages of
                      their respective traditions seems the most plausible inference.
                      Interestingly, this particular sort of detail is often omitted in
                      Matthew's and Luke's redactions of Mark, and given the fact that John
                      and Mark share another striking distinctive between them - they
                      translate Aramaic names and phrases into Greek - they betray not only
                      traces of orality, but contacts with Aramaic renderings of the ministry
                      of Jesus which are translated and explained for later, Greek-speaking
                      audiences.

                      MM Agreed. (emphasis above mine) And of course that mostly shows
                      that Mt and Lk made editorial corrections.

                      PA Right. What bolsters the oral-tradition contact theory is the
                      fact that many of these features are precisely what Matthew and/or Luke
                      leave out of their redactions of Mark. Contrary to what recent critics
                      have argued, rather than INTRODUCING details, names, places, distances,
                      times, topographical/archaeological references, and relationships, these
                      are the very things Matthew and Luke tend to omit from written Mark.
                      Therefore, to infer that "similar to contemporary practice" these
                      features are "added by the Johannine evangelist" is a flawed inference.
                      It may have been so, but the two closest narratives, in terms of genre,
                      subject, and setting, obviate against such a move. Given also the
                      complete dearth of evidence for alien sources underlying John (see chs.
                      1-7 in Christology), and given John's non-derivative relation to Mark,
                      we have in John an independent Jesus tradition, which poses an
                      alternative perspective (a bi-optic one, at that) to Mark.


                      # Of course, contact may have emerged indirectly between traditions, and
                      hearsay impressions would be engaged as readily as more direct contacts
                      between preachers. Here, matters of answerability come into play. Life
                      speaks to art and art speaks to life, and they have their integration
                      within the life of the person. Even if a preacher or writer has his or
                      her own story to tell, being confronted with other renderings of similar
                      events evokes a dialectical process that is internal as well as
                      external: how does one incorporate or reject alternative renderings
                      within one's own reality? In the above examples, contact may be
                      inferred, and interfluence of detail may be inferred to have accompanied
                      the polyphonic renderings of Jesus material at work within these early
                      Gospel traditions.

                      MM Well, contact may be inferred. And "interfluence of detail" may
                      be inferred (again depending the defintion of interfluence). But is
                      there answerability? Perhaps, but I am not convinced that there is a lot
                      of evidence here for answerability. That would require evidence of more
                      direct contact, and some sense of directionality (after all, who
                      answered whom?) These seem to be absent or unknowable in the instances
                      cited above.... I just think we have pushed up against some common
                      material, but I don't see evidence of reliance or influence or exposure
                      to a text called Mark.

                      Mark A. Matson
                      Academic Dean
                      Milligan College

                      PA That's fine, such is not the argument of section 2. I think the
                      earlier development of the Johannine tradition spanned a 50-year period
                      at least, so there's room for variation and inter-traditional engagement
                      there. The "answerability" part comes in the next attached section of
                      the essay (number 4), where some features do seem to bear echoes of the
                      Markan project as an organized narration. Here's where MacKay and
                      Bauckham caused me to consider a set of later engagements with the
                      performance of Mark as a text, or at least with Mark's influence as a
                      formative-but-not-final narrative. Where my work may be provocative--and
                      yet realistic--is that I am not afraid to suggest that Johannine
                      differences might be direct factors of familiarity. Aren't all
                      historical projects like that (and hence the answerability discussion)?
                      "Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are
                      not written in THIS book (I know Mark's out there, stop bugging me for
                      leaving things out and for adding new material and perspective); but
                      THESE are written that you might believe..." That's where I pick up in
                      The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, seeing John as an
                      intentional, alternative narration, posing a story of "Jesus in Bi-Optic
                      Perspective" (Part IV).

                      Thanks for your engagements, Mark! What should be clear by now is that I
                      am arguing two very different sorts of relationships in numbers 2 and 4
                      or my Answerability posting. Unfortunately, your impression of number 4
                      seems to have "influenced" your understanding of number 2 (and wrongly
                      so), so I hope you don't mind my repeated clarification of my present
                      thesis. In that sense, on the evidence suggested in number 2 above, I
                      think we LARGELY AGREE. Read again the introductory paragraph and see if
                      that doesn't help my argument make a bit better sense. The valued point,
                      though, is illustrative of the challenges we face in our investigations.
                      More nuanced arguments cannot be reduced to a monological utterance,
                      although we indeed try to describe our views tersely. What behooves us
                      all is to weigh the larger arguments and sets of evidence we engage.
                      Only having understood an argument well, then, can we make valid claims
                      about its soundness, complexity, and value.

                      Take care, Mark, and again, thanks for pushing toward clarification on
                      these important issues!

                      Paul Anderson
                    • Peter Hofrichter
                      Dear Mark, the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very much is the wide spread error that the „Prologue of John“ is a very late
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jan 11, 2007
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Mark,
                        the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very
                        much is the wide spread error that the „Prologue of John“ is a very
                        late and final addition to the Gospel of John. No, the prologue is
                        not at all a summary of the Gospel. Its appoach was already outdated
                        when the Gospels started to be written. It was the a very early if
                        not the earliest Christian text at all, still totally in the line of
                        Philo and still thinking in a way of proto-Arianism and
                        subordination. It is not by chance that Arius almost three centuries
                        later has derived his heresy of subordination from the Logos-concept
                        of Prologue of John (and OT-texts). Contrary to this the Nicean
                        theologians argued with the trunk of Gospel of John: “Me and the
                        Fater are one” or “Who sees me sees the Father”. Alredy in the first
                        century the text of the so-called Prologue – althogh highly esteemed
                        – must almost immediately have become obsolete and should therefore
                        be reinterpreted in the sense that Jesus shoud be understood as God
                        himself and the Logos as his spoken word of revelation. Exaxtly this
                        was the purpose of the Gospel of John, and this line was then
                        absolutely followed and maintained by the whole New Testament
                        (Compare not only John, but also Mark in his parable of the sower).
                        This line came to an heretical exaggeration and end in the heresy of
                        Noetus and his Patripassianism: If Father and Son are one the Father
                        himself has suffered. To fight such deviate Modalism of Noetus,
                        Sabellius and Callistus the Logos-Chistology was re-dicovered and
                        restored after the middle of the second cantury by Justinus Martyr
                        who spoke of the Logos as a Second God, by Irenaeus and explicitely
                        by Hippolytus of Rome. The consequence was lastly a rennaissance of
                        subordination-Christology and finally the heresy of Arius. Therefore
                        in the Creed of Arius and Euzoius Jesus is called emphatcally the God
                        Logos, whereas the Creed of Nicea (and of Nicea-Constantinople} does
                        not mention the term Logos at all (but Monogenes, God from God, Light
                        from Light ...) Exactly the same controversy must have taken place
                        the first time already in the middle of the first century, and its
                        witness in the Gospel of John.
                        Thanks and all good wishes
                        Peter Hofrichter



                        Am 12.12.2006 um 02:26 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

                        >
                        >
                        > ________________________________
                        >
                        > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
                        > Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
                        > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
                        > Synoptics?
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:
                        >
                        > a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other
                        > traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the
                        > early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among
                        > others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines.
                        > None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though,
                        > so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.
                        >
                        > b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject,
                        > however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on
                        > Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where
                        > his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for
                        > Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of
                        > independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something
                        > like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
                        > between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the
                        > pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition
                        > "interfluential" contacts.
                        >
                        > c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view
                        > of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is
                        > different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine
                        > primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a
                        > finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material
                        > as well as earlier material.
                        >
                        > d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and
                        > myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson
                        > argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's
                        > impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.
                        >
                        > e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the
                        > matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In
                        > this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic
                        > structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence.
                        > What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard
                        > Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences
                        > familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early
                        > Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their
                        > traditions.
                        >
                        > f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential
                        > dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and
                        > organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the
                        > first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped
                        > me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement
                        > with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
                        > Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone
                        > like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that
                        > may have been at stake.
                        >
                        > Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which
                        > make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics"
                        > as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate.
                        > Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more
                        > individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a
                        > draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
                        > between John and the other traditions which will be published soon
                        > in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of
                        > the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my
                        > essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and
                        > the Quest for Jesus (2006).
                        >
                        > Paul Anderson
                        >
                        > ***
                        > While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an
                        > independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way
                        > over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to
                        > be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact,
                        > however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a
                        > singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
                        > evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely
                        > that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It
                        > may have even been different between different phases and forms of
                        > a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following
                        > components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding
                        > John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with
                        > other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-
                        > optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity
                        > and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:
                        >
                        > a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other
                        > Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early
                        > Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways.
                        > First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to
                        > meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal
                        > ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the
                        > case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.
                        >
                        > b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early
                        > Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions
                        > created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes,
                        > explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts.
                        > Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence
                        > may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a
                        > plausible inference.
                        >
                        > c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was
                        > written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine
                        > evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of
                        > the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from
                        > Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30),
                        > as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
                        > gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-
                        > one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the
                        > Bi-Optic Gospels."
                        >
                        > d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the
                        > Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's
                        > tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times
                        > Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's
                        > features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is
                        > unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects
                        > Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.
                        >
                        > e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the
                        > likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John
                        > imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially
                        > the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.
                        >
                        > f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the
                        > first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple
                        > continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The
                        > fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for
                        > Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
                        > and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a
                        > timely emphasis.
                        >
                        > g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set
                        > of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the
                        > Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a
                        > series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the
                        > church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish
                        > audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.
                        >
                        > h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this
                        > time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles,
                        > calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to
                        > suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of
                        > Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written
                        > before and after the Johannine Gospel.
                        >
                        > i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the
                        > Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder
                        > added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE
                        > as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."
                        >
                        > j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic
                        > Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around
                        > Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically,
                        > however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to
                        > Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical
                        > Jesus in bi-optic perspective.
                        >
                        >
                        > -----Original Message-----
                        > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
                        > Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
                        > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                        > Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?
                        >
                        > What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?
                        > I am
                        > trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
                        > up to date.
                        >
                        > --
                        > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
                        > Student, CSU Fullerton
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                        > messages
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                        > messages
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                        > messages
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                      • Matson, Mark (Academic)
                        Peter: Glad you joined into Paul s and my discussion (and Peter Kirby). And to Paul, I apologize for dropping the ball on our discussion. I took a week off
                        Message 11 of 12 , Jan 11, 2007
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Peter:

                          Glad you joined into Paul's and my discussion (and Peter Kirby). And to Paul, I apologize for dropping the ball on our discussion. I took a week off for Mexico, and then the semester has begun again, and I have simply been unable to find the time to take up our discussion of relationships.

                          But I couldn't help jump in here, Peter, since I think something has been lost in translation. Perhaps you were responding to Paul Anderson (all the quoted sections below are Paul's).

                          I haven't ever proposed that John's prologue is a very late and final addition to John. If you read my response to Paul, I have been primarily arguing that John is early and independent. And, furthermore, I have always assumed that the prologue is deeply connected to the John we have. While I do wonder sometimes about some early signs material, I am not even sure about that anymore (i used to be more of a proponent of a signs gospel in some form)-- in part because there is such a unity of thought and language. john works for me as such a rhetorically unified document. And in fact this is part of the discussion that Paul and I are having, and you may have put your finger on part of difference:

                          I tend to think of John as early and independent, and somewhat nervous about saying too much about internal layers or segments. So when I approach relations with the Synoptics I tend to simply assert John is independent of Mark, although I have argued that Luke shows signs of knowledge of John (as you know, a reversal of the normal relationship).

                          Paul, on the other hand, sees the relationship in material as more indicative of some earlier relationship between John and the synoptic material, and I think (Paul, help me here) sees some indication of this more complex relationship in some editing and modification of John's gospel.

                          Now, having said all that -- I am less sure that we can go so far as to argue that John's prologue represents the earliest formulation, and that we can somehow connect all that to various variations of Christology in the first 2 centuries.


                          Mark Matson


                          ________________________________

                          From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Hofrichter
                          Sent: Thu 1/11/2007 11:00 AM
                          To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?



                          Dear Mark,
                          the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very
                          much is the wide spread error that the "Prologue of John" is a very
                          late and final addition to the Gospel of John. No, the prologue is
                          not at all a summary of the Gospel. Its appoach was already outdated
                          when the Gospels started to be written. It was the a very early if
                          not the earliest Christian text at all, still totally in the line of
                          Philo and still thinking in a way of proto-Arianism and
                          subordination. It is not by chance that Arius almost three centuries
                          later has derived his heresy of subordination from the Logos-concept
                          of Prologue of John (and OT-texts). Contrary to this the Nicean
                          theologians argued with the trunk of Gospel of John: "Me and the
                          Fater are one" or "Who sees me sees the Father". Alredy in the first
                          century the text of the so-called Prologue - althogh highly esteemed
                          - must almost immediately have become obsolete and should therefore
                          be reinterpreted in the sense that Jesus shoud be understood as God
                          himself and the Logos as his spoken word of revelation. Exaxtly this
                          was the purpose of the Gospel of John, and this line was then
                          absolutely followed and maintained by the whole New Testament
                          (Compare not only John, but also Mark in his parable of the sower).
                          This line came to an heretical exaggeration and end in the heresy of
                          Noetus and his Patripassianism: If Father and Son are one the Father
                          himself has suffered. To fight such deviate Modalism of Noetus,
                          Sabellius and Callistus the Logos-Chistology was re-dicovered and
                          restored after the middle of the second cantury by Justinus Martyr
                          who spoke of the Logos as a Second God, by Irenaeus and explicitely
                          by Hippolytus of Rome. The consequence was lastly a rennaissance of
                          subordination-Christology and finally the heresy of Arius. Therefore
                          in the Creed of Arius and Euzoius Jesus is called emphatcally the God
                          Logos, whereas the Creed of Nicea (and of Nicea-Constantinople} does
                          not mention the term Logos at all (but Monogenes, God from God, Light
                          from Light ...) Exactly the same controversy must have taken place
                          the first time already in the middle of the first century, and its
                          witness in the Gospel of John.
                          Thanks and all good wishes
                          Peter Hofrichter



                          Am 12.12.2006 um 02:26 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

                          >
                          >
                          > ________________________________
                          >
                          > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
                          > Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
                          > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
                          > Synoptics?
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:
                          >
                          > a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other
                          > traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the
                          > early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among
                          > others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines.
                          > None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though,
                          > so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.
                          >
                          > b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject,
                          > however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on
                          > Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where
                          > his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for
                          > Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of
                          > independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something
                          > like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
                          > between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the
                          > pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition
                          > "interfluential" contacts.
                          >
                          > c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view
                          > of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is
                          > different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine
                          > primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a
                          > finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material
                          > as well as earlier material.
                          >
                          > d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and
                          > myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson
                          > argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's
                          > impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.
                          >
                          > e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the
                          > matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In
                          > this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic
                          > structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence.
                          > What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard
                          > Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences
                          > familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early
                          > Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their
                          > traditions.
                          >
                          > f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential
                          > dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and
                          > organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the
                          > first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped
                          > me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement
                          > with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
                          > Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone
                          > like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that
                          > may have been at stake.
                          >
                          > Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which
                          > make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics"
                          > as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate.
                          > Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more
                          > individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a
                          > draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
                          > between John and the other traditions which will be published soon
                          > in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of
                          > the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my
                          > essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and
                          > the Quest for Jesus (2006).
                          >
                          > Paul Anderson
                          >
                          > ***
                          > While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an
                          > independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way
                          > over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to
                          > be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact,
                          > however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a
                          > singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
                          > evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely
                          > that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It
                          > may have even been different between different phases and forms of
                          > a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following
                          > components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding
                          > John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with
                          > other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-
                          > optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity
                          > and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:
                          >
                          > a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other
                          > Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early
                          > Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways.
                          > First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to
                          > meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal
                          > ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the
                          > case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.
                          >
                          > b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early
                          > Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions
                          > created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes,
                          > explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts.
                          > Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence
                          > may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a
                          > plausible inference.
                          >
                          > c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was
                          > written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine
                          > evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of
                          > the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from
                          > Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30),
                          > as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
                          > gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-
                          > one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the
                          > Bi-Optic Gospels."
                          >
                          > d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the
                          > Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's
                          > tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times
                          > Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's
                          > features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is
                          > unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects
                          > Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.
                          >
                          > e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the
                          > likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John
                          > imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially
                          > the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.
                          >
                          > f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the
                          > first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple
                          > continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The
                          > fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for
                          > Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
                          > and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a
                          > timely emphasis.
                          >
                          > g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set
                          > of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the
                          > Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a
                          > series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the
                          > church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish
                          > audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.
                          >
                          > h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this
                          > time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles,
                          > calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to
                          > suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of
                          > Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written
                          > before and after the Johannine Gospel.
                          >
                          > i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the
                          > Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder
                          > added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE
                          > as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."
                          >
                          > j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic
                          > Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around
                          > Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically,
                          > however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to
                          > Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical
                          > Jesus in bi-optic perspective.
                          >
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
                          > Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
                          > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?
                          >
                          > What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?
                          > I am
                          > trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references are
                          > up to date.
                          >
                          > --
                          > Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
                          > Student, CSU Fullerton
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                          > messages
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                          > messages
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                          > messages
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >



                          SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messages
                          Yahoo! Groups Links







                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Peter Hofrichter
                          Dear Mark, sorry, I read Paul’s text and scrolled to the end of the discussion and found your suscription. So my intervention was not to you, but to Paul. As
                          Message 12 of 12 , Jan 12, 2007
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Dear Mark,
                            sorry, I read Paul’s text and scrolled to the end of the discussion
                            and found your suscription. So my intervention was not to you, but to
                            Paul. As you know I think that also the Gospel of Mark is dependent
                            from early “John”. So I am in this respect somehow with Paul, seeing
                            a relationship between the two, but the other way round. Sorry for my
                            superficial reading of your discussion. May be, I should organize
                            once a symposion on the Prologue?
                            To both of you in friedship all good wishes
                            Peter from Salzburg



                            Am 12.01.2007 um 02:05 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):

                            > Peter:
                            >
                            > Glad you joined into Paul's and my discussion (and Peter Kirby).
                            > And to Paul, I apologize for dropping the ball on our discussion.
                            > I took a week off for Mexico, and then the semester has begun
                            > again, and I have simply been unable to find the time to take up
                            > our discussion of relationships.
                            >
                            > But I couldn't help jump in here, Peter, since I think something
                            > has been lost in translation. Perhaps you were responding to Paul
                            > Anderson (all the quoted sections below are Paul's).
                            >
                            > I haven't ever proposed that John's prologue is a very late and
                            > final addition to John. If you read my response to Paul, I have
                            > been primarily arguing that John is early and independent. And,
                            > furthermore, I have always assumed that the prologue is deeply
                            > connected to the John we have. While I do wonder sometimes about
                            > some early signs material, I am not even sure about that anymore (i
                            > used to be more of a proponent of a signs gospel in some form)-- in
                            > part because there is such a unity of thought and language. john
                            > works for me as such a rhetorically unified document. And in fact
                            > this is part of the discussion that Paul and I are having, and you
                            > may have put your finger on part of difference:
                            >
                            > I tend to think of John as early and independent, and somewhat
                            > nervous about saying too much about internal layers or segments.
                            > So when I approach relations with the Synoptics I tend to simply
                            > assert John is independent of Mark, although I have argued that
                            > Luke shows signs of knowledge of John (as you know, a reversal of
                            > the normal relationship).
                            >
                            > Paul, on the other hand, sees the relationship in material as more
                            > indicative of some earlier relationship between John and the
                            > synoptic material, and I think (Paul, help me here) sees some
                            > indication of this more complex relationship in some editing and
                            > modification of John's gospel.
                            >
                            > Now, having said all that -- I am less sure that we can go so far
                            > as to argue that John's prologue represents the earliest
                            > formulation, and that we can somehow connect all that to various
                            > variations of Christology in the first 2 centuries.
                            >
                            >
                            > Mark Matson
                            >
                            >
                            > ________________________________
                            >
                            > From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter
                            > Hofrichter
                            > Sent: Thu 1/11/2007 11:00 AM
                            > To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            > Subject: Re: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
                            > Synoptics?
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Dear Mark,
                            > the foundamental mistake in your theory which I else appreciate very
                            > much is the wide spread error that the "Prologue of John" is a very
                            > late and final addition to the Gospel of John. No, the prologue is
                            > not at all a summary of the Gospel. Its appoach was already outdated
                            > when the Gospels started to be written. It was the a very early if
                            > not the earliest Christian text at all, still totally in the line of
                            > Philo and still thinking in a way of proto-Arianism and
                            > subordination. It is not by chance that Arius almost three centuries
                            > later has derived his heresy of subordination from the Logos-concept
                            > of Prologue of John (and OT-texts). Contrary to this the Nicean
                            > theologians argued with the trunk of Gospel of John: "Me and the
                            > Fater are one" or "Who sees me sees the Father". Alredy in the first
                            > century the text of the so-called Prologue - althogh highly esteemed
                            > - must almost immediately have become obsolete and should therefore
                            > be reinterpreted in the sense that Jesus shoud be understood as God
                            > himself and the Logos as his spoken word of revelation. Exaxtly this
                            > was the purpose of the Gospel of John, and this line was then
                            > absolutely followed and maintained by the whole New Testament
                            > (Compare not only John, but also Mark in his parable of the sower).
                            > This line came to an heretical exaggeration and end in the heresy of
                            > Noetus and his Patripassianism: If Father and Son are one the Father
                            > himself has suffered. To fight such deviate Modalism of Noetus,
                            > Sabellius and Callistus the Logos-Chistology was re-dicovered and
                            > restored after the middle of the second cantury by Justinus Martyr
                            > who spoke of the Logos as a Second God, by Irenaeus and explicitely
                            > by Hippolytus of Rome. The consequence was lastly a rennaissance of
                            > subordination-Christology and finally the heresy of Arius. Therefore
                            > in the Creed of Arius and Euzoius Jesus is called emphatcally the God
                            > Logos, whereas the Creed of Nicea (and of Nicea-Constantinople} does
                            > not mention the term Logos at all (but Monogenes, God from God, Light
                            > from Light ...) Exactly the same controversy must have taken place
                            > the first time already in the middle of the first century, and its
                            > witness in the Gospel of John.
                            > Thanks and all good wishes
                            > Peter Hofrichter
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Am 12.12.2006 um 02:26 schrieb Matson, Mark ((Academic)):
                            >
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> ________________________________
                            >>
                            >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Paul Anderson
                            >> Sent: Sun 12/10/2006 2:07 AM
                            >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            >> Subject: RE: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more
                            >> Synoptics?
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> Thanks, Peter, here are some of the highlights from my perspective:
                            >>
                            >> a) In several works, Johannine dependence on Mark, or other
                            >> traditions is asserted. In particular, the Leuven Symposium of the
                            >> early 90's, and also Tom Brodie's works argue this case, among
                            >> others. Andrew Lincoln reasserts Barrett's view along these lines.
                            >> None of the contacts between John and Mark are identical, though,
                            >> so contact might be plausible, but dependence is less so.
                            >>
                            >> b)In Moody Smith's revised edition of his book on the subject,
                            >> however, he reasserts his conviction that John is not dependent on
                            >> Mark or the other synoptics...and yet, in his added chapter where
                            >> his own views are laid out, he holds open the possibility for
                            >> Johannine familiarity with them, so it is a non-isolated form of
                            >> independence. Raymond Brown's new introduction includes something
                            >> like this, in that he poses the possibility of "cross-influence"
                            >> between John and the other traditions. In my own theory I call the
                            >> pre-Markan contact with the early Johannine tradition
                            >> "interfluential" contacts.
                            >>
                            >> c) Several of the essays in the Hofrichter collection pose a view
                            >> of John as having been the first of the Gospels, which is why it is
                            >> different (Hofrichter, Berger). In my view, though, Johannine
                            >> primitivity--which I believe was the case--does not imply a
                            >> finalized primitivity. John appears to contain some later material
                            >> as well as earlier material.
                            >>
                            >> d) Several works have been written recently (Matson, Shellard, and
                            >> myself) arguing John's influence upon the Lukan tradition. Matson
                            >> argues for written John's influence, whereas I argue for John's
                            >> impact on Luke before it is rendered in a written form.
                            >>
                            >> e) A significant work that actually changed my thinking on the
                            >> matter was Ian Mackay's monograph on Mark 6 and 8 and John 6. In
                            >> this book, he argues for John's familiarity with the basic
                            >> structure of Mark, and yet familiarity does not imply dependence.
                            >> What I have done is to combine his view (bolstered by Richard
                            >> Bauckham's work on John's having been written for audiences
                            >> familiar with Mark) with my earlier theory of pre-Markan and early
                            >> Johannine "interfluentiality" between the oral stages of their
                            >> traditions.
                            >>
                            >> f) Johannine-Matthean contact imply a set of interfluential
                            >> dialogues, especially over matters of church governance and
                            >> organization. Emerging from my dialogue with Graham Stanton in the
                            >> first volume of the Review of Biblical Literature, Stanton helped
                            >> me see something: it might not have been a Johannine engagement
                            >> with a Matthean text directly that was here involved, but the
                            >> Johannine evangelist's (or editor's) engagement with what someone
                            >> like Diotrephes might have been doing with the Matthean text that
                            >> may have been at stake.
                            >>
                            >> Anyway, these are some of the significant works, in my view, which
                            >> make theories of lumping Johannine relations with "the Synoptics"
                            >> as though they were a monolithic traditional unit inadequate.
                            >> Contacts may have been more occasional and unsystematic, so a more
                            >> individuated analysis is required. This being the case, below is a
                            >> draft of the summary of my emerging theory of interfluentiality
                            >> between John and the other traditions which will be published soon
                            >> in a new introduction to the third printing of The Christology of
                            >> the Fourth Gospel (2007). The particulars are spelled out in my
                            >> essay in the Hofrichter volume (2002) and in The Fourth Gospel and
                            >> the Quest for Jesus (2006).
                            >>
                            >> Paul Anderson
                            >>
                            >> ***
                            >> While John's tradition appears to be autonomous, representing an
                            >> independent Jesus tradition, developing in its own individuated way
                            >> over seven decades before its finalization, it does not appear to
                            >> be isolated or out of contact with other traditions. Contact,
                            >> however, does not imply dependence, nor does influence imply a
                            >> singular direction of movement. Likewise, familiarity may have
                            >> evoked dissonance as well as consonance, and it is highly unlikely
                            >> that the relation between John and other traditions was uniform. It
                            >> may have even been different between different phases and forms of
                            >> a particular tradition, such as Mark's. Therefore, the following
                            >> components are integral elements of a new synthesis regarding
                            >> John's dialogical autonomy and interfluential relationships with
                            >> other gospel traditions. In that sense, John represents a "bi-
                            >> optic" alternative to the Markan gospels, as both complementarity
                            >> and dialogical engagement may plausibly be inferred as follows:
                            >>
                            >> a)John's Dialogical Autonomy Develops in ways Parallel to other
                            >> Traditions. Parallel to the pre-Markan tradition, the early
                            >> Johannine tradition developed in its own autonomous set of ways.
                            >> First impressions developed into Johannine paraphrases, crafted to
                            >> meet the needs of early audiences and suited to the personal
                            >> ministry of the Johannine evangelist, just as would have been the
                            >> case with the human source(s) of the pre-Markan tradition.
                            >>
                            >> b)Interfluential Contacts between the pre-Markan and early
                            >> Johannine Traditions. Early contacts between these two traditions
                            >> created a set of commonly shared buzz-words, references and themes,
                            >> explaining their non-identical similarities in the later texts.
                            >> Especially within the oral stages of their traditions, influence
                            >> may have crossed in both directions, making "interfluence" a
                            >> plausible inference.
                            >>
                            >> c)Augmentation and Correction of Written Mark. After Mark was
                            >> written, at least some of it became familiar to the Johannine
                            >> evangelist, evoking a complementary project. This explains some of
                            >> the Markan echoes in John, and also some of John's departures from
                            >> Mark. Some of them may reflect knowing intentionality (Jn. 20:30),
                            >> as the first edition of John was plausibly the second written
                            >> gospel. Therefore, differences are not factors of a three-against-
                            >> one majority; rather, John and Mark deserve consideration as "the
                            >> Bi-Optic Gospels."
                            >>
                            >> d)John's Formative Impact upon Luke. During the oral stages of the
                            >> Johannine tradition, some of its material came to influence Luke's
                            >> tradition. This explains the fact that at least three dozen times
                            >> Luke departs from Mark and sides with John. Because many of John's
                            >> features are not followed, the Johannine influence upon Luke is
                            >> unlikely to have taken pace in written form but probably reflects
                            >> Lukan familiarity with the Johannine oral tradition.
                            >>
                            >> e)John's Influence upon the Q Tradition? Not implausible is the
                            >> likelihood that the contacts between several Q passages and John
                            >> imply early Johannine influences upon the Q tradition. Especially
                            >> the "bolt out of the Johannine blue" points to such a possibility.
                            >>
                            >> f)Johannine Preaching (and some writing) Continues. Following the
                            >> first edition of the Johannine Gospel, the Beloved Disciple
                            >> continues to preach and teach, and possibly even to write. The
                            >> fleshly suffering of Jesus becomes an example to emulate for
                            >> Christians facing hardship under the reign of Domitian (81-96 CE),
                            >> and the sustaining/guiding work of the Holy Spirit receives a
                            >> timely emphasis.
                            >>
                            >> g)Matthean and Johannine Traditions Engage in an Interfluential Set
                            >> of Dialogues. Especially on matters of church governance, the
                            >> Matthean and Johannine traditions appear to have been engaged in a
                            >> series of dialogues over how the risen Lord continues to lead the
                            >> church. They also reinforced each other in their outreach to Jewish
                            >> audiences over Jesus' agency as the Jewish Messiah.
                            >>
                            >> h)The Johannine Epistles Were Written by the Elder. During this
                            >> time (85-95 CE) the Johannine Elder wrote the Johannine Epistles,
                            >> calling for loving unity, corporate solidarity, willingness to
                            >> suffer for the faith, and challenging the inhospitality of
                            >> Diotrephes and his kin. The Johannine Epistles were thus written
                            >> before and after the Johannine Gospel.
                            >>
                            >> i)The Johannine Gospel was Supplemented and Finalized by the
                            >> Johannine Elder. After the death of the Beloved Disciple, the Elder
                            >> added the Prologue and other material, circulating it around 100 CE
                            >> as the witness of the Beloved Disciple, "whose testimony is true."
                            >>
                            >> j)The Spiritual Gospel Poses a Bi-Optic Alternative to the Somatic
                            >> Gospels. While Matthew and Luke built upon Mark, John built around
                            >> Mark. As an independent Jesus tradition developed theologically,
                            >> however, the Johannine and Markan traditions all contribute to
                            >> Gospel christological studies, as well as quests for the historical
                            >> Jesus in bi-optic perspective.
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> -----Original Message-----
                            >> From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Peter Kirby
                            >> Sent: Sat 12/9/2006 6:49 AM
                            >> To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
                            >> Subject: [John_Lit] The dependence of John on one or more Synoptics?
                            >>
                            >> What has been written on this in, say, the last five years or so?
                            >> I am
                            >> trying to do some research in this area, but not all my references
                            >> are
                            >> up to date.
                            >>
                            >> --
                            >> Peter Kirby <peterkirby@...>
                            >> Student, CSU Fullerton
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                            >> messages
                            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                            >> messages
                            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >> SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            >> PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            >> MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                            >> messages
                            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >>
                            >>
                            >>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                            > messages
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            > MESSAGE ARCHIVE: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/
                            > messages
                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            >
                            >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.