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, 2011
    • 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
      <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
      stronger
      > to infer that Luke's additions to Mark that have Johannine echoes
      imply
      > 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]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.