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

Re: [John_Lit] Another Luke-John Connection

Expand Messages
  • keith_yoder
    And thank you, Paul, for your kind words. My reason for presuming a Luke John flow of influence here is because that is what I found in the case of Luke and
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 24 6:06 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      And thank you, Paul, for your kind words.

      My reason for presuming a Luke > John flow of influence here is because
      that is what I found in the case of Luke and John's Lazarus and
      Mary-Martha texts in the short paper I referenced in my post. If you
      would care to read it, here is a link:
      <http://www.umass.edu/wsp/project/senior/FromLukeToJohn.pdf> .

      There I present the case for Luke > John directionality in the Lazarus
      texts on analysis of literary features alone. It seemed to me that
      John's "five brothers" and his redundant "brother/sister" themes posed a
      much higher probability of development from Luke to John than
      vice-versa - see pages 7-9. My first impression is that the Luke-John
      connection here in their respective 2nd chapters is very similar to that
      Lazarus connection, both based on common characters and both somewhat
      covert, and because John's raising of Lazarus replaces somewhat the role
      of the Synoptic cleansing of the temple, which in turn John moves to
      this position here in chapter 2.

      I'm painfully aware however that assertions of directionality can't rest
      on an isolated text or two, but must be based on systematic analysis. I
      agree there is a special relationship between Luke and John. I do not
      agree with Cribbs that Luke was influenced by John, but I'm not prepared
      to refute his well-argued position. Yet.

      Thanks again for the discussion.

      Keith Yoder

      --- In johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
      <mailto:johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com> , Paul Anderson
      <panderso@...> wrote:
      > Thanks, Keith, for this thoughtful analysis of the Johannine-Lukan
      > relationship.
      > Do you have any strong reason to argue that the contacts imply John's
      > familiarity with Luke instead of Luke's familiarity with John?
      > If Luke used Mark (as we would most likely agree), and given that so
      many of
      > Luke's most characteristic themes are missing from John, it seems
      > to infer that Luke's additions to Mark that have Johannine echoes
      > Luke's familiarity with the Johannine tradition.
      > So, why could not the same evidence bolster a view that the contact
      went the
      > other direction?
      > Much appreciated!
      > Paul Anderson
      > George Fox University

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Matson, Mark (Academic)
      Dear Paul and Keith: Wow, great response Paul. I m out of my office right now at a conference, and so did not have all my material handy to study it as Paul
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 25 2:46 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Paul and Keith:

        Wow, great response Paul. I'm out of my office right now at a conference, and so did not have all my material handy to study it as Paul did -- I am grateful for his response.

        Let me just add a little word here. The issue of directionality is very difficult. In many cases one can argue either way -- and have. (for instance Bailey's work on the anointing).

        For my part I thought a careful exegetical analysis of material in Luke and John would be most helpful. So in my "In Dialogue with Another Gospel" I deal with the series of similarities between Lk and Jn in the passion narrative testing John to Luke directionality. And I find it reasonable for this direction. (notice I did not "prove" that directionality, which is probably beyond our ability). [and, as a sidenote, I have a chapter the pulls together in chart form all the similarities I could find, and list which scholars have addressed them].

        My main point here is that directionality requires some careful work. For instance, is there a linguistic basis (i.e., does Luke use Johannine words, or does John use Lukan words)?

        One thing that impressed me is that Luke often has Johannine sounding material precisely where it varies from a Markan master narrative. That suggests that Luke has made room for some Johannine material in his revision of the Markan story. Of course that does not help with Lazarus, since that is in the interpolation material where Mark's story is not dominant. And it is why I stuck to the passion narrative. It seems to me that one needs some explanation for Luke's variation on the passion narrative, given that in much of the story he does follow Mark. A plausible explanation, it seems to me, is the Johannine version has influenced Luke in his writing.

        Could it be John used Luke? well, sure, it could. And since John is more or less unique it is hard to test that. Except that John shows few clear signs of uniquely Lukan features intruding into his style.

        Just some more thoughts on this issue.

        Mark A. Matson
        Academic Dean
        Milligan College
        Milligan College, TN
        From: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com [johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul Anderson [panderso@...]
        Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 1:44 AM
        To: johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Another Luke-John Connection

        Thanks, Keith,

        After looking at your paper, here are my impressions.

        First, I do think there are Lukan-Johannine contacts worth considering, but
        I really see very few marks of compelling connections between Luke 2 and
        John 2. None of the details are similar enough to suggest much influence in
        either direction.

        Second, I'm not convinced that any of the larger set of parallels in your
        essay confirm a Luke>John directionality of influence. That Luke (or his
        tradition) would create a moralizing story from the memory of Lazarus in the
        afterlife, the inferred roles of Mary and Martha, and the motivation of the
        woman anointing Jesus more plausibly suggests Luke's didactic expansion upon
        less paraenetic Johannine narratives. So, do show me why Luke>John is
        compelling as opposed to John>Luke. I do not find Bacon's conjectures
        regarding John's dependence on the Synoptics convincing, though he worked
        very hard at establishing an alternative paradigm.

        Meantime, here are bases for considering the John>Luke direction of
        influence, although I do not believe Luke had access to the completed
        written Johannine narrative. These and several other features are laid out
        in this essay: http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/acts357920.shtml and in *The
        Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus *(Part III).

        First, the most characteristic of Lukan features are largely missing from
        John: the shepherds and angels around the birth narrative, hymns of
        Zechariah, Mary and Simeon, a genealogy, the infant and young Jesus in
        Jerusalem, the threefold temptation, the Nazareth inaugural address, the
        Lord's Prayer and beatitudes, beatitudes (with an emphasis on the poor); the
        parables of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son; the story of Zachaeus;
        Jesus’ agony in the garden and his appearance before Herod; and
        postresurrection encounters on the road to Emmaus. *None* of these
        distinctive Lukan features, however, appear in John.

        Put another way, the twelve chapters in Luke that are most distinctively
        Lukan (Lk. 1-2 and 10-19) show very few contacts with the Gospel of John.
        So, if the Johannine evangelist knew and used the Lukan tradition, he drew
        only from incidental details and not from the most characteristic of Luke’s
        features or sections. Such an inference is thus highly unlikely from a
        literary analysis standpoint.

        Second, the strongest inferences must take note of Luke’s multiple
        departures from Mark and sidings with John:

        1) Johannine detail is included in Luke-Acts:

        - The beholding of Jesus’ glory (*doxa*) is added to the Transfiguration
        scene (Jn. 1:14 Lk. 9:32)

        Bethlehem is described as the city of David only in John and Luke (Jn.
        7:42 Lk. 2:4)

        Jesus is described as the son of Joseph only in Luke and John (Jn. 1:45;
        6:42 Lk. 3:23; 4:22)

        Stoning and fear of stoning by Jewish leaders or the crowd (especially in
        Jerusalem) is mentioned only in John and Luke-Acts (Jn.8:59; 10:31-33; 11:8
        Lk. 13:34; 20:6; Ac. 5:26; 7:58; 14:5, 19)

        The *Ioudaioi* seek to kill Jesus and his followers (Jn. 5:18; 7:1 Ac.
        9:23; 26:21)

        The crowd acclaims Jesus as “king” at the triumphal entry (Jn. 12:13 Lk.

        The place Jesus went to on the Mount of Olives was known and frequented
        (Jn. 18:2 Lk. 21:37, 22:39)

        The “right” ear of the servant was severed by Peter (Jn. 18:10 Lk. 22:50)

        The court/house of the high priest was entered by Jesus (Jn. 18:15 Lk.

        Annas is uniquely mentioned in John and Luke-Acts, as is his association
        with Caiaphas (Jn. 18:13, 24 Lk. 3:2; Ac. 4:6)

        Pilate’s instructing the words to be written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin
        is a detail common only to John and Luke (Jn. 19:20 Lk. 23:38—in some mss.)

        The tomb is one in which no one had ever been laid (Jn. 19:41 Lk. 23:53)

        Two angels in white or two men in dazzling clothes are mentioned at the
        empty tomb (Jn. 20:12 Lk. 24:4)

        2) The Johannine presentation of John the Baptist is replicated in Luke and


        People question outwardly or in their hearts about John the Baptist,
        regarding whether he was the Christ (Jn. 1:20 Lk. 3:15)

        John declares himself *not *to be the Messiah in John and Acts (Jn. 1:20;
        3:28 Ac. 13:25)

        John has a more extensive itinerant ministry (Jn. 1:19-42; 3:22-4:3;
        10:40-42 Lk. 3:1-22; 7:18-35; 11:1) than portrayed in Mark

        In both John and Acts, spiritual birth involves not just water but the
        Spirit (Jn. 3:5 Ac. 8:12-17; 18:24-19:7)

        3) Luke adds Johannine narrative and content:


        The age of Jesus is alluded to (albeit differently) in John and Luke (Jn.
        8:57 Lk. 3:23)

        The “law of Moses” is referred to distinctively in John and Luke-Acts
        (Jn. 1:17; 7:23 Lk. 2:22; 24:44; Ac. 13:39; 15:5; 28:23)

        Mary and Martha are mentioned as sisters and are presented as having
        similar roles (Jn. 11:1-45; 12:1-11 Lk. 10:38-42)

        A man named Lazarus is presented in both John and Luke and in both cases
        is associated with death and the testimony of after-death experiences—Luke
        expands a narrative into a parable (Jn. 11:1-12:17 Lk. 16:19-31)

        A distinctive story about a dead man being raised by Jesus is included in
        John and Luke (Jn. 11:1-45 Lk. 7:11-17)

        Pilate declares Jesus’ innocence three times (Jn. 18:38; 19:4, 6 Lk.
        23:4, 14, 22)

        The crowd desires to give tribute to Caesar in their double demand for
        his crucifixion (Jn. 19:1-16 Lk. 23:2-33)

        The day was the day of Preparation for the Sabbath, explaining the haste
        of the burial (Jn. 19:42 Lk. 23:54)

        The great catch of fish is climactically mentioned as something of a
        calling narrative (Jn. 21:1-14 Lk. 5:1-11)

        Concern is expressed at whether the nets might break (Jn. 21:11 Lk.

        Jesus eats fish and bread with the disciples after the resurrec?tion (Jn.
        21:9-13 Lk. 24:28-43)

        4) Presentations of Jesus’ teachings and ministry in John are replicated in


        The “word of God” is an embellished Lukan theme (Jn. 1:1-2; 10:35 Lk.
        3:2; 5:1; 8:11, 21; 11:28; Ac. 4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 46;
        17:13; 18:11)

        Only in John and Luke-Acts is Jesus referred to as “savior” (Jn. 4:42 Lk.
        1:69; 2:11; Ac. 5:31; 13:23)

        Double questions are asked regarding Jesus’ Messiahship and Sonship (Jn.
        10:24, 33-36 Lk. 22:67, 70)

        The ascension is alluded to or mentioned (Jn. 20:17 Lk. 24:51; Ac.

        Jesus suddenly appears to his disciples after the resurrection, standing
        among them (Jn. 20:19 Lk. 24:36)

        Jesus invites his followers to see and touch his hands (Jn. 20:20, 27 Lk.

        Jesus bestows peace upon his followers after the resurrection (Jn. 20:19,
        21 Lk. 24:36)

        Luke uniquely connects the beginning of feeding of the multitude with
        Bethsaida, the home of Philip, whom Jesus in John asked to find the crowds
        something to eat (Jn. 1:44; 6:5; 12:21 Lk. 9:10)

        The citation of Isaiah 6:9-10 is distinctively associated with the
        reaching of the Gentiles in John and Acts (Jn. 12:20-41 Ac. 28:25-28)

        “Israelites” are portrayed as people in whom there is nothing false and
        amongst whom God is at work in John and Acts (Jn. 1:47 Ac. 2:22, 29; 3:12;
        5:35; 13:16; 21:28)

        Jesus is presented explicitly as the prophet predicted by Moses (Deut.
        18:15-22) in John and Acts (Jn. 5:46; 6:14 Ac. 3:22; 7:37; 26:22-23)

        Jesus refers to “my kingdom” only in John and Luke (Jn. 18:36 Lk. 22:30)

        Jesus prays for his disciples, that they might not fail during the time
        of trial (Jn. 17:15 Lk. 22:31-32)

        5) Presentations of disciples in John are repeated in Luke-Acts:


        The disciples question who would be the betrayer (Jn. 13:22-24 Lk. 22:23)

        Satan enters Judas (Jn. 13:27 Lk. 22:3)

        Only John and Luke mention a second Judas who is *not* Iscariot (Jn.
        14:22 Lk. 6:16; Ac. 1:13)

        Mary Magdalene becomes a link between the ri?sen Lord and the Apostles
        (Jn. 20:18 Lk. 24:10)

        Peter runs to the tomb after Mary’s report (Jn. 20:4 Lk. 24:12)

        Peter arrives at the tomb and sees the linen cloths lying there (Jn. 20:5
        Lk. 24:12)

        Peter is reported as having returned to his “home” (Jn. 20:10 Lk. 24:12)
        after seeing the empty tomb

        The unbelief of Thomas in John 20:24-28 is alluded to as the unbelief of
        the apostles in Luke 24:11 following Mary’s report

        Simon Peter is the primary disciple associated with the great catch of
        fish (Jn. 21:2-11 Lk. 5:3-8)

        Philip is presented as one who evangelizes aliens, including Hellenists,
        Samaritans, and Ethiopians (Jn. 12:20-22 Ac. 8:5-40)

        6) Luke follows John’s order and presentation several times, *against*Mark:


        Luke begins Jesus' ministry in ways reminiscent of John's rendering: the
        countryside of Galilee in the area around Nazareth (Jn. 1:43-2:11 Lk.

        Only one sea-crossing is used in Luke rather than Mark’s two (Jn. 6:16-21
        Lk. 8:22-26)

        Only one feeding is mentioned in Luke, and this is the feeding of the
        5,000, as it is in John (Jn. 6:1-15 Lk. 9:10-17)

        Luke relocates the confession of Peter after the feeding of the 5,000 as
        a contrast to its following the feeding of the 4,000 as it does in Mark (Jn
        6:68-69 Lk. 9:20)

        Luke moves the servanthood discussion to the last supper, where it is in
        John (Jn. 13:1-17 Lk. 22:24-30)

        Jesus extols and exemplifies the greatness of servant leadership at the *
        table* (Jn. 13:1-17 Lk. 12:37; 22:24-30)

        Luke moves the prediction of Peter’s denial to the last supper (Jn. 13:38
        Lk. 22:34)

        Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances begin in Jerusalem (Jn. 20:19-29 Lk.

        7) At times Luke conflates John’s and Mark’s presentations together:


        Peter’s confession is “the Christ of God” conflating “the Christ” with
        “the Holy One of God” (Mk. 8:29 & Jn. 6:69 Lk. 9:20)

        Luke departs from Mark’s presentation of the anointing of Jesus’ head,
        and presents the event as the anointing of Jesus’ feet—an unlikely move to
        make without a traditional basis; John provides such a basis (Mk. 14:1-11 &
        Jn. 12:1-8 Lk. 7:36-50)

        8) Sometimes associative links (not strong contacts, but distinctive
        similarities nonetheless) appear between John and Luke-Acts:


        “Levites” are mentioned only in John and Luke-Acts (Jn. 1:19 Lk. 10:32;
        Ac. 4:36)

        The claim by Jerusalem leaders that Jesus or his disciples lack of formal
        education is mentioned in John and Acts (Jn. 7:15 Ac. 4:13)

        “Siloam” is only mentioned in John and Luke (Jn. 9:7, 11 Lk. 13:4)

        Speaking against Caesar is used rhetorically against Jesus and his
        followers by surrogates of Jewish leaders (Jn. 19:12 Lk. 23:2 Ac. 17:7)

        Jesus is described as a “king” and a threat to Caesar before Pilate (Jn.
        19:14-15 Lk. 23:2)

        Solomon’s portico in the Jerusalem Temple is mentioned only in John and
        Acts (Jn. 10:23 Ac. 3:11; 5:12), and this is one of the places Jesus and his
        followers witnessed to Jewish leaders

        9) The Holy Spirit references emphasized in John are repeated in Luke-Acts:


        The Holy Spirit will teach believers what they need to know and say (Jn.
        14:26 Lk. 12:12),

        The Holy Spirit is presented distinctively as “wind” (Jn. 3:8 Ac. 2:2)

        The work of the Holy Spirit is described as “comfort” (*paraklēsis*)
        provided by the Comforter (*Paraklētos*) in John and Luke-Acts (Jn.
        14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 Lk. 2:25; Ac. 9:31)

        10) Women are presented in similar ways in John and Luke-Acts:


        Jesus enters the home of Mary and Martha and is served by Martha (Jn.
        12:1-8 Lk. 10:38-42)

        The mother of Jesus is featured prominently in John and Luke (Jn. 2:1-12;
        19:25-27 Lk. 1:26-2:51)

        Women make confessions in John and Luke (Jn. 11: 27 Lk. 11:27)

        Women are reported as having seen angels/men in radiant clothes at the
        empty tomb (Jn. 20:12 Lk. 24:23)

        11) Samaritans are presented in similar ways in John and Luke-Acts:


        “Samaria” is only mentioned in John and Luke-Acts in the New Testament
        (Jn. 4:4, 9 Lk. 17:11; Ac. 1:8; 8:1, 5, 9, 14; 9:31; 15:3)

        Jesus ministers in Samaria as well as Galilee (Jn. 4:4-42 Lk. 17:11)

        Jesus’ followers (versus Jesus’ instructions in Matthew 10:5) are
        reported as traveling through Samaria (Jn. 4:8, 27-38 Lk. 9:51-56; Ac.
        8:1-25; 15:3)

        A Samaritan person is presented as a favorable example for later
        audiences (Jn. 4:39-42 Lk. 10:25-37; 17:11-19)

        Jews having no dealings with Samaritans is declared or suggested (Jn. 4:9
        Lk. 10:33-37)

        Samaritans are reported as believing that Jesus was the Messiah or
        receiving his ministry with gratitude (Jn. 4:39-42 Lk. 17:16; Ac. 8:7-8,

        12) Events reported only in John are alluded to in Luke-Acts:


        The “idle tale” told by Mary Magdalene to the apostles in Luke 24:10-11
        appears to be a reference to the account in John 20:2, where she reported
        the empty tomb to Peter and the Beloved Disciple

        The disciples’ visit to the tomb in John 20:3-9 is alluded to in the
        disciples’ report on the road to Emmaus in Luke 24:24

        The Lord’s post-resurrection appearance to Simon Peter in John 21:2-21is
        alluded to in Luke 24:34

        So, because these features are not in Mark or Matthew but are contained in
        the Johannine tradition, it seems stronger to argue that Luke has
        incorporated these Johannine elements in producing his "orderly
        account"--even seeming to expresses appreciation to the Johannine tradents
        for what he has received from eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos (Lk.
        1:2). Therefore, I believe the strongest critical evidence supports Lukan
        dependence on the Johannine tradition, likely in its oral stages of

        However, I'm willing to be convinced to the contrary, although (with Moody
        Smith and Mark Matson), but so far I think Cribbs wins the critical case
        over Bailey, Bacon, and others.

        Thanks so much!

        Paul Anderson
        Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies
        George Fox University
        Newberg, OR 97132

        > ------------------------------ ------
        > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/johannine_literature/messagesYahoo! 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/messagesYahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.