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

(Fwd) Re: [Synoptic-L] New book

Expand Messages
  • Mark Goodacre
    From: paul.anderson@yale.edu Mon Jun 28 06:03:38 1999 Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: [Synoptic-L] New book ... Dear Leonard, These are excellent questions. Given
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 30, 1999
    • 0 Attachment
      From: paul.anderson@... Mon Jun 28 06:03:38 1999
      Subject: Re: [John_Lit] Re: [Synoptic-L] New book

      At 7:39 AM -0400 6/27/99, Maluflen@... wrote:
      >In a message dated 6/26/1999 10:17:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
      >paul.anderson@... writes:
      >
      ><< I also found between two and three dozen places where Luke
      > departs from Mark and sides with John (see Appendix VIII in my book,
      > _The Christology of the Fourth Gospel_*). Rather than a common source
      > or John's dependence on Luke, this seems clearly to reflect a Lucan
      > preference for the Johannine tradition over the Marcan >>
      >
      >I would like to ask here "why?". Though the question would seem to belong
      >on another list, I have never understood why it is more likely that Luke
      >was using a Johannine tradition than that John is simply influenced, at
      >these points of contact, by the existing Gospel of Luke. Also, what
      >distinction do you make between "a common source", and "the Johannine
      >tradition", other than that the second is more specific than the first?

      Dear Leonard,

      These are excellent questions. Given my view that John was finalized
      latest (around 100 CE) it would follow that John may have used a)
      Luke, or b) a common source, to explain the similarities. The
      problem with a) is that the specific contacts do not show evidence of
      Lucan outline, wording or content. Indeed, such may have happened,
      but if it did, the most characteristically Lucan material has gone
      missing.

      The problem with b) is that we have no such source, so such a
      theory's viability is tough to sustain. If you build on what is most
      certain, these moves emerge: a) Luke shows evidence of having used
      Mark, but b) Luke departs from Mark many times (omissions,
      additions, and changes) which interestingly coincide with John (the
      "right" ear, anointing Jesus' feet rather than his head, Satan enters
      Judas, one feeding instead of two, Peter's confession moved to follow
      the other feeding, presenting the Holy Spirit as 'wind" -- this time in
      Acts, Mary and Martha, a person named Lazarus, a great catch of
      fish, treatments of women, Samaritans, the Spirit, mentions of
      "eyewitnesses and servants of the Logos," etc.). c) Given that the
      Johannine tradition had its own history and development going back
      to the pre-Marcan tradition(s) it seems most plausible to infer that
      Luke not only has access to Johannine tradition (probably in its oral
      form) and that he prefers it over the Marcan at several places. Then
      again, he has not had contact with all of it, which partially explains the
      limits of the convergence.

      The above Appendix, however, puts forward some new first-century
      evidence
      on
      > John's authorship which kicks the identification of the Beloved Disciple
      > A FULL CENTURY EARLIER than Irenaeus, which has hitherto been (as far as
      > I know) undetected in the literature. >>
      >
      >I would be very interested in such evidence, and I don't know to what
      >source your expression "the above Appendix" refers. Could you spell this
      >out for me (on or off list)? Thanks.
      >
      >Leonard Maluf

      And thank you, Leonard. The appendix is listed above, in the first
      paragraph, at *.

      Paul Anderson
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.