ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF … · Synoptic Gospels. While three out of the...

!ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY

!!!!

JOHN, THE GOSPEL AROUND MARK AND IN LUKE

!!!

A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. JAMES W. THOMPSON

FOR PARTIAL COMPLETION OFBIBL 620: ADVANCED INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT !

!!!!!!!

BY

DEREK WILSON

APRIL 23, 2013

At the end of his gospel John writes, “Now Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the 1

presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book” (John 20:30). Scholarship has ever

since struggled with this exact fact: the Jesus in John looks remarkably different from the

Synoptic Gospels. While three out of the four canonical gospels seem to exhibit a remarkable

similarity, why does the fourth look so different? The Jesus of the Synoptics exorcises demons,

tells parables, attempts to hide His identity, and talks about the Kingdom of God. The Jesus of

the Gospel of John however contains no demons, tells no parables, talks about His identity

regularly, and rarely mentions the Kingdom of God. In an attempt to reconcile these 2

differences, there has been much debate of John’s awareness (or lack) of the Synoptics, with

scholarship primarily centered on the relationship of John to Mark and Luke.

The goal of this paper is to offer an interpretive lens for this relationship. I will briefly

lay out an interpretation of how John uses Mark and will then propose that John’s use of Mark

may be representative of how John uses his sources. I then propose that John does not use Luke

in the same way, and in fact it seems much more likely that Luke uses John. I will then use the

anointing stories found in all the Gospels as a case study of how these relationships might work.

Framing the Conversation

It is helpful to begin by framing the conversation on the nature of John’s relationship to

the Synoptics from the past century. To speak of a consensus among scholars is difficult. "The

twentieth-century more than once witnessed the dissolution of a consensus on the relationship of

�2

! There is much debate over the identity of the author(s), however for sake of simplicity and clarity the author(s) of 1the Fourth Gospel will be referred to as John.

! Jesus mentions the Kingdom of God 3 times in all of John compared to over a 100 within the Synoptics.2

John to the Synoptic Gospels.” Scholarship in the past century has moved between dependence 3

and independence and every shade between. The scope of this paper does not permit me to delve

into all of the major scholars of the past centuries, but in this section I hope to provide an

overview of the major movements.

Burnett Streeter summed up scholarship for the first half of the century and concluded,

“Luke [was] dependent on Mark, and John on both the others.” For much of the first half of the 4

century, John was considered to be dependent upon the Synoptics for his material. Percival

Gardner-Smith however shifted the tide towards John’s independence from the Synoptics. In

summary, he asked, is it easier “to account for the similarities between St. John and the

Synoptists without a theory of literary dependence, or to explain the discrepancies if such a

theory has been accepted?” Gardner-Smith concludes that the similarities of John’s Gospel are 5

through common oral tradition and not through literary dependence. 6

For the second half of the century C.H. Dodd’s cemented the shift in scholarship

concerning John’s independence. After an exhaustive study covering the Passion, and ministry

of Jesus, Dodd concludes “behind the Fourth Gospel lies an ancient tradition independent of the

other gospels...” Dodd supports this by looking textually at the overlaps of the Fourth Gospel 7

with the Synoptics. In his comparison of the feeding stories (Mark 6, 8 & John 6), he notes

several differences between the texts. While the general story is similar, the text varies. When

�3

! D.M. Smith, John Among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 10.3

! B. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan & Co., 1953), 424.4

! Smith, John Among the Gospels, 39.5

! Ibid., 40.6

! C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1963), 423.7

discussing the fish, John uses the word ὀψάριον while Mark uses the more common word ἰχθύς. 8

Of ὀψάριον there are only 5 occurrences with the New Testament all found within John while 9

ἰχθύς appears over 20 times throughout the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. The question 10

remains why would John choose to abandon a more common word in favor of a relatively

obscure one? In the words of Gardner-Smith, these changes are “really pointless,” and do not

necessarily fit the thrust of the Fourth Gospel. 11

These “pointless” changes occur throughout John. At times John seems to use Mark

directly, however there are also instances where Mark’s text would promote John’s theological

motive, and yet John glosses over those sections. For example, in the feeding accounts both

John and Mark mention the green grass (Mark 6.39 & John 6.10), however John does not place

the feeding in the wilderness and instead places it on the other side of the sea of Galilee. In

Mark’s wilderness setting, the passage carries a veiled reference to manna, however John skips

the wilderness setting and makes the reference explicit in the discourse after the narrative. Dodd

then asks if John is using Mark directly, why would he skip over this setting? Raymond Brown 12

ponders the same question and comes to the same conclusion as Dodd, “There is one logical

explanation for all of these features, omissions, additions, and parallels, namely, that the

evangelist did not copy from the Synoptics but had an independent tradition...” However the 13

fact that John does not mention the wilderness does not necessarily imply John was not aware of

�4

! Ibid., 203.8

! “ὀψάριον,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2, 554.9

! S. Pederson, “ἰχθύς,” Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2, 209.10


! Dodd, Historical Tradition, 206.12

! Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB, New York: Doubleday, 1966), 239.13

Markan tradition. Perhaps John glosses over the setting so as not to lose the message of the

following discourse. John might not want to draw the connection too tightly between the bread

and manna because he believes Jesus himself is the true manna of the wilderness and not the

bread. The above is simply a small portion of Dodd’s work within which he seeks to establish a

John independent of the Synoptic Tradition. Approaching the latter quarter of the 21st century,

scholarship had reached a different conclusion: John was written independent of the Synoptics.

Frans Neirynck along with other notable scholars have begun the process of returning

scholarship to where it began the 21st century and promotes a Johannine dependence not only on

oral traditions but on the Synoptic Gospels as well. 14

John & Mark

In recent studies, scholars are looking at the problem afresh and attempting to reframe

John’s dependence. In many ways, reading John feels like reading Mark through the mirror with

so many similarities and yet so many differences. Many of the familiar stories are there, but they

are subtly different, and at the same time many stories of Mark are non-existent in John and vice

versa. The places where the two gospels overlap shed light into their relationship. This

relationship can be characterized through literary allusions, geographic corrections, and

augmentation. John is aware of Mark and writes in such a way.

Literary Allusions

John contains parenthetical asides which would be impossible to understand or confusing

at least to a reader without a knowledge of Mark. In 4.44, John writes, “Now Jesus himself had

pointed out that a prophet has no honor in his own country,” however to find Jesus actually

�5

! Frans Neirynck, “John and Synoptics 1975-1990,” in John and the Synoptics (ed. A. Denaux; Leuven: Leuven 14University Press, 1992), 3.

making this statement we must look to Mark 6.4. John’s statement does not make sense, unless 15

both he and his primary readers had a knowledge of Mark. John makes another allusion to the

Baptist’s imprisonment in 3.24. Again this allusion is confusing unless the reader already has 16

knowledge of the imprisonment of John the Baptist. John 3:24 then becomes a clue to the reader

to place the stories in the Fourth Gospel within a much larger story (i.e. Mark). Gardner-Smith’s

argument runs counter to this. He writes, “John was writing for Christians and every Christian in

the first century must have heard of the Baptist," implying that John does not need to explicitly 17

mention his imprisonment. While John’s audience may have already been aware of the Baptist’s

imprisonment, it does not explain why John does not include his imprisonment. His audience

must have heard many of the events John chooses to write about (the Feeding, the Baptism of

Jesus, Crucifixion, etc...). However these asides seem to allude to some other work.

At the end of Mark, the priests accuse Jesus of claiming they heard Jesus say he will

destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (Mark 14:57) while within Mark Jesus does not

make this claim. However very early on in John, Jesus makes this exact claim (John 2:19).

Perhaps here John sees the discrepancy in Mark and includes a reason for these accusations to be

made. We find other stories which are presupposed through John’s language: Jesus’ choice of the

12 (Mk. 3:14-19 & Jn. 6:70), and references to the Eucharist (Jn 6:51-56). These appear to 18

imply an author aware of the First Gospel.

!

�6

! Paul Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2006), 133.15

! Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, 75.16


! Richard Bauckham, “The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem,” in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. 18P. Foster, A. Gregory, J.S. Kloppenborg, and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2011), 672.

Geographic Correction If one were to read only Mark, one would assume that Jesus’ ministry was entirely within

Galilee and other northern areas until the time of the Passion. John however makes an

intentional effort to include Judea and Samaria as well. Mark’s gospel does seem 19

geographically and chronologically challenged with all of Jesus’ ministry taking place within one

year and only in Galilee until the final moments of his life which occur in Jerusalem. John’s

Jesus makes multiple trips to Jerusalem and ministers throughout Galilee, Judea, and Samaria

providing a much more probable picture of Jesus’ life. Paul Anderson argues that the three 20

Judean signs within John serve to round out Jesus’ ministry geographically. Luke seems to find 21

the same problem with Mark’s Jesus as John does, and places portions of Jesus’ ministry outside

of the region of Galilee. 22

An Augmentative Approach

In his work The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus, Anderson argues that while

“Matthew and Luke built upon Mark; John built around Mark.” As stated above the Fourth 23

Gospel seems to imply a knowledge about Mark. This fits within tradition as Eusebius writes

that John sought to fill out the earlier ministry of Jesus Christ. Even if the factuality of 24

Eusebius’ statement is to be debated, it does demonstrate that there was an early tradition in

which John had knowledge of Mark and sought to write around him, to use Anderson’s words.

�7

! Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1982), 168.19


! Ibid., 166.21

! Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 168.22


! Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (The Fathers of the Church; trans. Roy J. Deferrari; Washington DC: Catholic 24University of America Press, 2005), 175.

Anderson prefers the word autonomous to independence from Mark when describing the

Johannine-Markan relationship. He argues that John was written to provide a corrective 25

perspective on the Jesus of Mark. Papias (via Eusebius) asserts that Mark preserved Peter’s 26

preaching accurately, but in the wrong order. If this is true, this would explain why John places 27

Jesus clearing the temple in the beginning of his Gospel, and the other differences of geography

and chronology. What is even more interesting is Eusebius later labels Papias a “hearer of

John.” If Papias is of a Johannine tradition, then we might have a clue about an ancient 28

Johannine tradition that assumes Mark needs to be corrected. Furthermore, if John is indeed

attempting to correct and augment Mark, this might explain the competition found between the

beloved disciple and Peter. J. Louis Martyn argues that the Gospel of John is written by a

community with a dual horizon in mind written into a “two-level drama.”: the time of the

historical Jesus and their present community. The Fourth Gospel overplays the beloved 29

disciple’s superiority over Peter (he ran faster; he made it to the tomb first; etc...) Is it possible

that the Johannine community was in competition with a Petrine community and sought to write

their own gospel in a corrective manner? This would fit well within Papias’ statements as well as

what we find in the relationship between the Beloved Disciple and Peter. Richard Bauckham

writes that by following Mark’s Gospel to some extent John acknowledge’s the value of Peter’s

�8

! Anderson, The Fourth Gospel 38.25

! Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, XX.26

! Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 206.27

! Ibid., 203. Whether this is John the Elder, John the Apostle or some other John seems inconsequential, but 28demonstrates an association of Papias with the Johannine community.

! J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (London: Westminister John Knox Press, 2003), 23.29

testimony but then complements it with is own. When viewing John as a “two-level drama,” I 30

see this as one of many probable impetuses to the beginning of the writing of John.

Furthermore Martyn asks, "Are we to consider the possibility that the Gospel form

emerged independently at two junctures in early Christian history?" It does seem unlikely that 31

the gospel form emerged independently in two separate communities. It seems quite probable

that the Johannine Community saw the gospel of Mark and decided to write their own gospel in

response. To include in their gospel their competition with a Petrine community and write in a

“two-level drama” does not seem out of the realm of possibility. The competition which is seen

between Peter and the beloved disciple may then be reflected in the corrective nature of the

Gospel of John. Bauckham proposes that while gospels were written for a specific community,

they were not solely for that community and were meant to be circulated. This might provide 32

the impetus for John to write a competing gospel built around Mark’s. The Gospels seem to have

circulated far quicker than previously imagined, and it is quite possible the Johannine community

received Mark early on in its development. 33

Interestingly, John does not contain the establishment of the Eucharist but instead

includes Jesus washing his disciples feet. Perhaps here again, John is attempting to augment the

Eucharist given in Mark with a demonstration of what the Eucharist looks like embodied. Jesus’

words, “For I have given you an example so that just as I have done to you, you also should

�9

! Bauckham, “The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem,” 685.30

! Martyn, History and Theology, 150.31

! Richard Bauckham, “For Whom Were the Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for all Christians (ed. Richard 32Bauckham; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1998), 30.

! Michael Thompson, “The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the First Christian Generation,” in 33The Gospels for all Christians (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1998), 68-69.

do,” (John 13:15) carries a ritualistic implementation which might augment Mark’s Eucharist. In

light of Mark, John is further fleshing out what the Eucharist looks like lived out. He is showing

that the true Eucharist is to lower and give oneself on behalf of others.

Again, it is interesting how John introduces (or does not introduce) characters within his

narrative. Neither Nicodemus or Nathanael occur in Mark and yet John explains who

Nicodemus is and not Nathanael. John seems aware that Nicodemus needs an introduction, and 34

one can account for the lack of introduction for Nathanael by proposing that John’s community is

already aware of who this person is through oral tradition. This would further support the idea

that John is writing out of an independent tradition. However the other various literary overlaps

with Mark lead us to conclude that John, while autonomous, is not completely independent and

pulls from the same narrative world of Mark. There is too much evidence of literary connection

between the two gospels to assume that John was written without knowledge of Mark. As

Neirynck writes, for one to think that two authors by chance paired the feeding of the 5,000 and

Jesus walking on water need not seriously be entertained. If John is augmenting and building 35

around the Gospel of Mark, then he is also slowly working through Mark in a methodical way,

and it would make sense for these two stories to stay in the same order. Also literary connections

such as the use of the rare phrase “νάρδου πιστικῆς” and reference to 300 denarii in John and

Mark’s anointing stories imply a literary connection of some sort. John restructures the story 36

(i.e. putting the cleansing of the temple at the beginning) when he feels corrective, but for the

�10

! Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, 160.34

! Neirynck, “John and Synoptics,” 50.35

! Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context (Ebook: Sheffield Academic 36Press, 2002), 243.

most part uses Mark as an outline for his own Gospel, and intersperses stories from his tradition

which Mark does not include. Like Neirynck, I find the connections too tight to be simply

attributed to oral traditions. As stated above, Gospels could have circulated fairly quickly and

widely, and it appears John has a literary relationship with Mark. As Bauckham contends, John

was familiar with Mark and expected his readers to have a cursory knowledge of it as well. 37

Although, to state a dependence upon Mark is too strong. Mark seems to more or less lay out a

blueprint which John builds around.

John & Luke in Light of John & Mark

To summarize, John appears to build his Gospel around Mark and thus overlaps at

parallel stories which are essential to tell the story of Jesus. I would like to propose that John’s 38

use of Mark can be seen as an example of how John uses his sources. We should then see

similarities in his treatment of Luke. It is the contention of this paper that the Johannine-Lukan

parallels are not similar to Johannine-Markan parallels and thus John’s use of Luke as a possible

source should be doubted. This paper will then contend that Luke’s use of the Fourth Gospel is

much more probable to explain the literary connections found between Luke and John.

As demonstrated above, John builds his gospel around Mark. While there are similarities

between the two gospels most often these similarities can be seen in the light of John correcting

Mark’s account. However the same cannot be said of the relationships found between John and

Luke. The parallels found in Luke and John are not only at the so called essential points of the

Jesus story, but in fact contain more similarities in the details of the pericopes. In pericopes

�11


! These include the pericopes of John the Baptist & Jesus’ Baptism, Peter’s Confession, Feeding of 5,000, the 38Anointing, a Last Supper Ritual, the Passion Narrative, and the Resurrection.

common only to the Matthean/Markan accounts, Luke agrees at times almost verbatim. For

example out of 71 of the Synoptic parallels, Luke follows Mark’s order in 64. In the 45 39

pericopes Luke shares with only the other Synoptic authors but not with John, Luke’s account is

“quite close to both the Matthean and Markan.” 40

However out of the twenty pericopes common between all four gospels, when John 41

disagrees with Mark/Matthew, Luke’s are either completely distinct or in close agreement with

John against Mark and Matthew (with the exception of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple). For 42

example, Jesus begins his ministry near Nazareth (Luke/John) instead of Galilee (Mark/

Matthew). In Luke/John there are three assertions by Pilate of Jesus’ innocence as well as the

demand, “Crucify him, crucify him” in contrast to Matthew/Mark. There are two angels at the

tomb (Luke/John) instead of one (Mark/Matthew). The sheer scope of the agreements suggest 43

a relationship between Luke and John which is different than John and Mark. While John seems

to take a corrective and augmentative approach towards his source of Mark, John seems to agree

with Luke with little signs of correction. If John is using Luke, it is strange that he appears to

write about precisely the passages where Luke disagrees with Mark and Matthew. 44

Luke: A Synthesizing Gospel

�12

! Shellard, New Light on Luke, 207.39

! F. Lamar Cribbs, “St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition,” JBL 90 (4, 1971): 427.40

! Luke 3:1-6, 15-17, 21-22; 7:36-39; 9:10-17, 18-20; 19:35-40, 45-46; 22:14-23, 31-34, 47-53, 54-62, 63-71; 4123:1-5, 13-25, 26-32, 33-38, 46-49, 50-56; 24:1-11

! Cribbs, “St. Luke,” 428.42

! Ibid., 423. ; These are to name but a few.43


Luke’s prologue (Luke 1.1-4) opens up stating “many” have attempted to write down an

account which was handed down from “eyewitness and servants of the word (λόγος),” and Luke

is attempting to write “an orderly (καθεξῆς) account.” The prologue itself implies that Luke “is

not fully satisfied with the many others’ narrative accounts.” Luke’s agreements with John 45

against Mark and Matthew make sense if Luke is attempting to give assurance to his audience.

Luke is attempting to synthesize various sources in hopes of providing an “orderly

account” (Luke 1.3). As Anderson writes, “Luke also appears to conflate material between

Markan and Johannine presentations, suggesting he saw his work to some degree as bridging

these two traditions.” For example in their resurrection accounts, Mark states the sun had risen 46

(16.2) while John says it was still dark (20:1). Luke synthesizes the two and says it was “very

early in the morning” (24.1). This bent towards bridging and synthesizing will be 47

demonstrated below in the Anointing narrative. Due to size restrictions we will limit our

discussion at present to the anointing pericope. This pericope shows Luke’s characteristic use of

John, while at the same time demonstrates John’s correction of the Markan account.

The Anointing

The anointing is one of the only stories preserved in all four gospel accounts. Within the

Lukan/Johannine stories, the woman anoints Jesus’ feet instead of his head as in Matthew/Mark’s

account. Both Mark and John agree the anointing took place at Bethany, and both contain an 48

�13

! D.P. Moessner, “The Meaning of καθεξῆς,” in n vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift F. Neirynck (ed. F. 45Van Segbroeck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1527.



! Matthew and Mark’s account are so similar (at times verbatim), and for simplicity will be treated as one tradition 48stemming from Mark.

objection to the waste of such costly “pure nard.” The similarities, especially verbal agreements,

among the stories indicate that these accounts are indeed somehow literarily related. 49

The accounts begin to differ from there. John places the anointing six days before the

Passover (12.1) while Mark places it two days before (14.1). In the Markan account, the owner

of the house is Simon the Leper (14.3). While in John 12, it may be assumed Lazarus is the host,

though this is not explicitly stated. If John and the readers of John are aware of Mark, then

perhaps John feels no need to name the host. Although the anointing does not occur till chapter

12, John makes an aside in chapter 11 identifying Mary as the one who “anointed the Lord with

ointment and wiped his feet with her hair” (John 11.2). This again implies a knowledge of the

story of Jesus’ anointing whether from Mark or oral tradition.

If John takes a corrective approach towards Mark, much of the story would remain the

same except for details which John wishes to correct, which is what we find. John changes the

story to reflect what he feels is the original event, even if it is odd. The fact John mentions the

feet three times and at least once (11.2) outside of the actual narrative show a corrective

perspective for what he views as the correct account. "Similarities and in particular, verbal

agreements in the Johannine anointing story with one another of the Synoptic parallels indicate

that these diverse accounts were somehow literally related." The question then remains did 50

John or Luke originally write the story of the anointing of Jesus’ feet? Who influenced who?

If Luke uses John and Mark as sources, these differences become problematic for him as

he attempts to recreate the anointing. It is notable that Luke contains no reference to time or

�14

! M. Sabbe, “The Anointing of Jesus in Jn 12, 1-8 and Its Synoptic Parallels,” in n vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 491992: Festschrift F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 2051.

! M. Sabbe, “The Anointing of Jesus,” 2051.50

place, and through this omission takes a middle position which does not disqualify either

account. Some see a discrepancy between the Markan and Johannine accounts with the hosts

being named different, however this does not need to be so. John makes no explicit claim to 51

who the host is, and perhaps in light of no explicitly named host in John, Luke declares Simon

the host. Some have also argued the names present in the Johannine account reflect a later

version of the story implying a priority to the Lukan account over John’s. If this is so, it is 52

curious that in all of John’s Gospel Jesus’ mother is never named. Surely if names were an 53

indication of lateness the name of the mother of Jesus would have reached John. According to

Barnabas Lindars, John has borrowed these three names from Luke and incorporated them into

his anointing narrative. Supposedly, John pulls the names from the Lukan story of Martha 54

serving and Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet (Luke 10:38-42), and from the parable of the Rich Man

and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) and seeks to incorporate them into his narrative. This is extremely

problematic. For this to have happened, John chose a very small story of two women serving

and allowed those women and a man from one parable to take center stage at the heart of his

gospel.

John’s anointing of feet is also problematic. Brown writes that the anointing of feet is

unparalleled within Palestine. However JF Coakley offers a long list of instances, ranging from 55

Homer to Pliny to Jewish sources, where feet are in fact anointed with oil or perfume. This does

�15


! Robert Holst, "One Anointing of Jesus: An Application of the Form-Critical Method," JBL 95 (1976): 437-38. 52

! Mark Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel? (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2001), 153.53

! Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1972), 414.54

! Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, 451.55

not prove that the practice was common in Palestine, yet it does show that while unparalleled, it

is not unthinkable. Since it would be such an odd event, it is strange that John would write 56

about the anointing of Jesus’ feet, unless it was true and the original story. Both John and Luke

include the problematic anointing of feet. The anointing of the feet fits better within Lukan

motifs. Mark’s royal anointing of the head stands in contrast to Luke’s purposes, and sitting at a

teacher’s feet is a common Lukan motif. It may be assumed that if Luke had two differing 57

accounts he would pick the one which was most appealing to his agenda.

Concerning John’s account, Brown notes that one does not wipe off perfume. However 58

Coakley explains Mary’s action was necessary because of the large amount of perfume which

was poured over Jesus’ feet. John notes that it was a λίτρα (about twelve ounces) of perfume 59

which explains Judas’ remark about the waste. Twelve ounces is excessive, and surely she would

have needed to wipe his feet. In contrast, Luke’s explanation of the wiping of the feet seems

more problematic. Covering Jesus’ feet with so many tears that one would need to wipe them

dry, seems illogical even if it does fit with Luke’s theme of repentance. The wiping of Jesus’ 60

feet with her hair also does not fit the structure within the Lukan account. There is a balance to

the way Luke structures his story. Ever action has a counter: Jesus receives no kiss, and the

woman kisses his feet; He receives no water, and her tears wet His feet; Jesus receives no oil and

�16

! J.F. Coakley, “The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John,” JBL 107 (2, 1988): 247-48.56

! M. Sabbe, “The Anointing of Jesus,” 2071. (See Acts 22.3, Luke 8.35, 10.39)57

! Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, 452.58

! Coakley, “The Anointing at Bethany,” 251.59

! Ibid., 250.60

she anoints His feet. However we find no counter to her hair. Perhaps Luke has included the 61 62

hair because of its use in his source.

The woman’s act of letting her hair down in public would have been “on par with

appearing topless.” Robert Fortna notes that perhaps in the original event the woman anointed 63

Jesus’ head and wiped his feet with her hair, but Mark, in desiring to avoid the awkward sexual

connotations of the act, omits the feet and hair because acknowledging it would be “too

intimate.” If Luke is aware of John, perhaps he finds it so improbable that a disciple of Jesus, 64

especially one so prominent, would do something so scandalous that he changes the name from

Mary to a local “sinner.” Only Luke and John include the detail of the woman letting her hair

down, and within Luke’s pericope it seems a much more likely scenario that a woman of ill

repute would do such a shocking act. It is even more shocking that John would then attribute

that act to a main character within his Gospel. Luke’s identity of the woman seems much more

logical, and ironically I believe this shows its dependency. For John to have access to a much

more probable identity and then to write such a scandalous tale seems highly unlikely unless it

was the original event. If John does have knowledge of Luke, he then deliberately sets out to

turn two probable scenarios (Luke & Mark’s versions) into something quite scandalous. I

believe John writes a version which is almost identical to Mark with small exceptions in order to

correct him and include Mary’s extreme act of love towards Christ.

�17

! Compare the lists in Luke 7.38 & 7.44-4661


! Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2010), 310.63

! Robert Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (London: T&T Clark, 1988), 144.64

It seems much more likely that Luke took an integral story (to John) and sought to

include it in a synthesizing manner. It is likely Luke omits the price of the perfume found in all

three other accounts as it does not fit his theology of the poor. Reading the Markan and 65

Johannine accounts, Luke finds neither acceptable and so attempts to rework the story into one of

repentance. The vague location and time are indicative of Luke’s tendency to become vague

when his sources disagree. Luke synthesizes the stories as Barbara Shellard writes:

"Almost every phrase in Lk. 7.37-38 has a parallel somewhere in Mark/Matthew or John. Luke seems to be attempting to reconcile two differing views, using Mark but also reflecting

Johannine material, and this accords with his practice elsewhere when they conflict. Reconciliation of differing accounts is not, however characteristic of John, who usually prefers

to go his own way.” 66 The opposite could also be said that John is weaving together the Markan and Lukan

traditions, however this is not in line with John’s corrective perspective towards sources. Luke

has written that he is using multiple sources and attempting to create and “orderly account” out

of those sources. Bauckham notes the ancient difficulty of using multiple sources at once, and 67

I can envision a situation where Luke has the scroll of Mark in front of him and is trying to

combine with his own personal notes on John.

Other Implications of Luke’s use of John 11-13

The Rich Man and Lazarus and Lazarus

As we close I would like to briefly explore three other areas where there seem to be a

connection between Luke and the characters of the anointing in John 12. There are unique

similarities between Luke’s parable known as “The Rich Man and Lazarus” (Luke 16.19-31) and

�18


! Ibid., 246.66


John 11. The unique parallel stands out more because of the uniqueness of Luke’s parable. This

uniquely Lukan parable has the only named character in a parable. The parable becomes even

more unique when compared with similarities found in John 11 & 12. Within the Gospel of

John, the death of Lazarus is the precipitating event which ultimately leads to Jesus’

crucifixion. Luke 16:31, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be 68

convinced even if someone rises from the dead” may well even be taken as commentary upon the

events of John 11. Furthermore in addition to the theme of resurrection, a feast in which much is

made about the waste of money in contrast to the poor (John 12) fits the theme of Luke’s

parable. Fortna notes there are lexical parallels between Lazarus’ resurrection and the Raising 69

of Tabitha in Acts 9 which possibly indicates a Lukan awareness of John 11. This along with 70

the similarities in names and general events seem to indicate some sort of literary/oral connection

between the stories. I agree with Coakley when he writes, “The parable of the rich man and

Lazarus (16:19-31), whether authentic or not, seems to depend on the story of Lazarus's

resurrection and not vice versa.” It seems far more probable for a real person to become a 71

character in a parable than the reverse. Perhaps Luke who is using Mark as his outline, does not 72

know where to place the Lazarus story but desires to use it in someway because of its importance

in John. This is not to say that the origins of the parable are found in John 11. Bauckham has

�19

! John 11.45-53; namely John 11.5368

! Donald Bretherton, “Lazarus of Bethany: Resurrection or Resuscitation?” Expository Times 104 (6,1993): 172.69

! Robert Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel 70(London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 84.


! R. Dunkerley, "Lazarus," NTS 5 (1958-59), 323.72

proposed many possible sources for the parable, and this parable may be a primitive 73

anonymous story to which names have been added later. Perhaps Luke reviewing his sources 74

sees the similarities in the two stories and decides to connect them through naming Lazarus.

The Master Who Girds Himself

I would like to point out two more parallels from John 11-13 which find their way into

the Lukan account. While I do not have the space to adequately address these parallels, I would

like to propose these as possible areas for further investigation. First is the relationship between

John 13 and the parable in Luke 12:35-41. In the parable, Jesus describes a “master” (κύριος)

who “dresses himself to serve” (περιζώσεται). While his servants recline at a table, the master

then serves them. At the Foot Washing, Jesus points out that he is the disciples’ κύριος. Jesus 75

then girds (διεζωσατο) himself and serves his disciples while they are reclining at a table. The

verbs here διεζωσατο in John, and περιζώσεται in Luke both have their root in the verb ζώννυµι.

This verb is of enough relative obscurity to indicate a possible literary tradition. If there is a 76

literary dependence, the question must be asked, is it more likely that John chose to make a

relatively obscure parable in Luke the centerpiece of his Gospel, or is it more likely that Luke

chose to make a significant story in John into a teaching?

Mary & Martha

In John 12 while Mary anoints Jesus’ feet, Martha serves, and Lazarus reclines at the

table (John 12.2). This has parallels to Luke 10:38-42 where again we have Martha serving and

�20

! Richard Bauckham, “The Rich man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels,” NTS 37 (2, 1991).73

! Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Boston, MA: Brill Academic, 2005), 148.74

! Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?, 134.75

! διεζωσατο, περιζώσεται and the root ζώννυµι are only used 12 times in the New Testament. Nine of which are 76found within Luke-Acts and John.

Mary at Jesus’ feet. It could be said that John 12.2 contains an interpolation added by a later

author, however the addition of Lazarus reclining finds no parallel to Luke 10:38-42 and would

seem odd that the interpolator feels the need to include him. Luke’s removal of Lazarus from the

scene makes more logical sense, since he has included him in Luke 16. John 12.2 is not an

interpolation but simply the author attempting to to satisfy the reader’s curiosity as to the

location of these prominent characters in the narrative. 77

The parallels between the Johannine accounts of the foot washing, and the anointing and

the Lukan parables of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the master girding himself, and Mary &

Martha are too similar to be a mere coincidence. Furthermore if John is incorporating parts of

Luke into his gospel then he has a strange way of doing it. He chooses a strange parable about a

man named Lazarus, one sentence about Martha serving and Mary sitting, and then an even

smaller parable about a master, and then incorporates them into narrative. If John were to

incorporate parts of Luke, it seems much more likely he would pick major stories from Luke. It

seems much more likely that Luke has taken these three significant stories and turned them into

teachings. All three of these Johannine accounts follow a similar pattern: moving from a

narrative sequence in John into a teaching in Luke. 78

Johannine Features within Luke

While discussing the anointing narrative, Mauritis Sabbe notes that dependence upon a

common source, a written document or oral tradition, could explain the similarities to a certain

extent, unless we discover in John typical Markan, Matthean or Lukan features. However the 79

�21


! That is with the exception of Luke 10:38-41, although the thrust of that whole section is a teaching.78

! M. Sabbe, “The Anointing of Jesus,” 2050.79

question can also be reversed, what if we find Johannine features within Luke? Much of what I

have written to this point does not conclusively show a direction of dependence. In many of the

above cases, dependence may flow in either direction, however I would like to propose several

examples where the influence must flow from John to Luke. If there is a literary dependence,

these make a strong case for John influencing Luke and not vice versa.

In Acts 4.19-20, Luke accords Peter and John as saying two statements. The first has

parallels elsewhere for Peter, however the second is the only time John ever speaks in Acts. He

says, “We cannot help but speak about what we have seen and heard.” The only other time

seeing and hearing is paired together in the first person plural is in Acts 4.20 & 1 John 1.3. 80

One cannot help but hear echoes of Johannine influence upon the statement. Perhaps here we

see Johannine influence within Luke’s sources.

In the similar accounts of Luke 24.36-49 and John 21.1-14, Jesus cooks a meal for him

and his disciples. While these two late accounts do not exactly mirror each other, we can assume

some sort of connection based upon their relative location and the use of a very similar account

in Luke 5.2-10. Luke is explicit about Jesus eating while John does not mention it. The Lukan 81

modification makes more sense here. For John to remove Jesus eating might give room for

docetic interpretations. “John would hardly have altered the story in the opposite direction

unless he wanted to imply that Jesus was indeed a spirit, rather than flesh.” 82

These two along with several other Johannine elements found within Luke seem to

indicate a direction of influence whether from a literary source or oral sources. Several other

�22

! Paul Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR.: Cascade Books, 2010), 274.80

! Cribbs, “St. Luke,” 433.81


elements which we do not have time to discuss at present include the use of the historical present

(a Johannine feature) in Luke 24:12. Also the use of Simon Peter (a Johannine form of Peter’s 83

name) in Luke 5.8. It is interesting that the only time Luke uses the term “Simon Peter” is in 84

an account with parallels to John 21. Furthermore the name “Simon Peter” seems even more

strange when considering that Jesus does not name Simon, Peter until one chapter later.

!Conclusion

There is not sufficient space to demonstrate an overarching case for all of the nuances of

the interrelations between John and Synoptics, but the goal is to propose a possibility which

stands in contrast to the present accepted view that John used the Synoptics, especially in regards

to Luke. Arguably there is the chance Luke was simply familiar with Johannine oral tradition,

however the possibility remains that Luke used John in some sort of literary form.

After spending over four hundred pages defending his thesis that Luke used John, Mark

Matson writes, “The assessment of John’s independence, then, is very much up in the air.” In 85

reality what I have done here amounts to little more than “creative sleuthing,” but it is the hope 86

of this author to provide the basis for a framework of interrelation between Mark, John, and

Luke. An interrelation which emphasizes John’s awareness and corrective attitude towards Mark

as well as Luke’s awareness and synthesizing posture towards John especially in regards to the

anointing stories found within the gospels.

�23

! Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?, 402.83


! Mark Matson “Current Approaches to the Priority of John,” Evangel 25(Spr. 2007): 8.85

! Fortna, The Fourth Gospel, XII.86

Works Cited !Anderson, Paul. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. Eugene, OR.: Cascade Books, 2010. !Anderson, Paul. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered. London: T&T Clark, 2006. !Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, editors. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: 1981. !Bauckham, Richard. “The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem.” Pages 657-688 in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem: Oxford Conference, April 2008 (Essays in Honour of Christopher M. Tuckett). Edited by P. Foster, A. Gregory, J.S. Kloppenborg, and J. Verheyden,. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2011. !Bauckham, Richard. “For Whom Were Gospels Written?” in The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham, 9-48. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. !Bauckham, Richard. “The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels.” NTS 37(2, 1991): 225-46. !Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John I-XII. Anchor Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, 1966. !Bretherton, Donald J. “Lazarus of Bethany Resurrection or Resuscitation?” Expository Times 104 (6,1993): 169-173. !Coakley, J. F. “The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John.” JBL 107 (2, 1988): 241-256. !Cribbs, F. Lamar. “St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition.” JBL 90 (4, 1971): 422-450. !Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. London: Cambridge University Press, 1963. !Dunkerley, R., “Lazarus.” NTS (5, 1958-59): 321-27. !Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. !Fortna, Robert. The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. London: T&T Clark, 1988. !

�24

Fortna, Robert. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970. !Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2010. !Holst, Robert. “One Anointing of Jesus: An Application of the Form-Critical Method.” JBL 95 (1976): 435-46. !Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics: 1975-1990.” Pages 3-63 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by A. Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. !Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1972. !Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Edited by John Riches. Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1982. !Matson, Mark. “Current Approaches to the Priority of John.” Evangel 25 (Spr. 2007): 4-14. !Matson, Mark A. In Dialogue with Another Gospel?:The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. !Martyn, J. L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003. !Moessner, D.P. “The Meaning of καθεξῆς in the Lukan Prologue as a Key to the Distinctive Contribution of Luke's Narrative Among the 'Many.’” Pages 1513-1528 in vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C.M Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. !Moloney, Francis. The Gospel of John: Text and Context. Boston: Brill Academic, 2005. !Sabbe, M. “The Anointing of Jesus in Jn 12, 1-8 and Its Synoptic Parallels.” Pages 2051-2082 in vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift F. Neirynck. Edited by F. Van Segbroeck, C.M Tuckett, G. Van Belle, and J. Verheyden. 3 vols. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992. !Shellard, Barbara. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context. Ebook: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002. !Smith, D. M. John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992. !

�25

Streeter, B. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan & Co., 1953. !Thompson, Michael B. “The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the First Christian Generation.” Pages 49-70 in The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1998. !!!!!!!

�26

Date post:	19-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF … · Synoptic Gospels. While three out of the...

Documents