Yuri Kuchinsky

Re: Whether or not John knew Luke.

Yes, I agree with these observations, indicating that John indeed knows Luke.

But now, some problems begin...

Luke's account of the Anointing is certainly not based on Mark's version IMO. It's the other way around...

Yes, in Lk, the host is called "Simon", and in Mk the host is also called "Simon". But this has nothing to do with any "fatigue". Carlson doesn't seem to understand what the term "fatigue" really means in Synoptic studies.

Mk uses the name "Simon" only once in this story,

(Mk 14:3) And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment...

But Lk uses the name "Simon" 3 times in this story!

(Lk 7:40) And Jesus answering said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." And he answered, "What is it, Teacher?"

(Lk 7:43) Simon answered, "The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more."

(Lk 7:44) Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, "Do you see this woman?

So what sort of a "fatigue" is it? This certainly has nothing to do with "fatigue".

Yes, this item also indicates that John knows Luke.

Now, this item is a bit more complicated, because I believe that Lk 3:19-20 (the early imprisonment of John) was not in the original Lk. Nevertheless, I still agree that it doesn't really seem like Lk 3:19-20 was based on Jn.

There was no redaction of Mark by Luke.

Yes, this one is a valid point.

These are some real problems in Shellard.

In recent years, it's become fashionable among some interpreters to reject the idea that Mary Magdalene was really a prostitute (or at least someone 'sexually liberated', so to speak) before she met Jesus. According to such theories, she might have been 'virtuous' all her life; it was only much later that some Church fathers 'made' her into a prostitute.

For example,

=====quote=====

http://www.inq7.net/globalnation/col_pik/2005/mar28.htm

Pope Gregory the Great, in the 6th century, was the first to describe Mary Magdalene as a public sinner who repented.

=====unquote=====

So, here, the interpretation of Lk 7:36-8:3 becomes the key. Was this woman who anointed Jesus in Lk 7:36-8:3 really Mary Magdalene? If so, then clearly she wasn't 'virtuous' all her life.

It is true that, in our canonical Lk 7:36-8:3, the woman is not named explicitly as Mary Magdalene (although she might have been so named in the earlier versions of Lk). Nevertheless, Jn 11:1-2 makes it pretty clear that the name of the woman who anointed Jesus in Lk 7:36-8:3 was Mary, and that she later became a special friend of Jesus.

I certainly think that this 'special friend of Jesus' was Mary Magdalene, and that 'Mary of Bethany' was invented later as a virtuous female character, that Jesus required in his entourage.

All the best,

Yuri.

offa

Luke was well known. He was known as James of Zebedee. He was not killed, but making James "dead" allows him a new life under the code name Cornelius. Cornelius is the author of the Samaritan gospel LUKE, and he was taught by the Samaritan SIMON MAGUS also known as LAZARUS (Zebedee).

Offa

offa

James of Zebedee had a brother named JOHN of Zebedee, so, John would know Luke!, They're brothers.

offa

Yuri Kuchinsky

It's too bad that Carlson is unwilling to admit that he made some mistakes, when they are pointed out to him.

I thought this was a pretty interesting case where some of the typical knee-jerk assumptions on the part of the Synoptic scholars are exposed... And also, quite typically, the usual response is to run away and hide one's head in the sand... :wave:

Here we see an obvious case where Luke must have been the source of the other 3 NT gospels. And nobody but offa is interested! (In reply to offa, I'll just confess, once again, that I don't really understand anything he's saying... I guess I'm just not enlightened enough! )

And all this is happening at the time when there's a growing cadre of NT scholars, the followers of Farrer, who claim that Luke is the latest and the most derivative of the Synoptics... Yes, up is down, and the sun rises in the West every morning.

Regards,

Yuri.

Amaleq13

If you check his profile, you will find that Mr. Carlson has not visited the forum since the morning of May 28 while you started the thread later that day.

Chili

What else is new! Black is white and white is black or heaven would not be opposite to earth. But maybe that is just the way it should be, at least, it makes a complete metanoia possible.

Chris Weimer

Yeah, Yuri, that really was uncalled for. Attacks like that are not warranted and automatically hurt your credibility, regardless of your position...

S.C.Carlson

Yeah, I've been away on vacation with a poor Internet connection. At any rate, Yuri and I seem to agree on the bottom line as far as John's knowledge of Luke, regardless of our disagreement on the relationship between Luke and Mark. That's really an ancillary issue that begs more questions than needed to address the specific literary relationship between Luke and John.

The other disagreement is on the meaning of fatigue. I've been using this term in the sense of Mark Goodacre's seminal article (online at http://www.ntgateway.com/Q/fatigue.htm). I have no idea what Yuri's sense of the technical term is supposed to be.

Stephen

Yuri Kuchinsky

The question of what was the earliest anointing story is hardly "an ancillary issue", although it can be treated as separate from the question of whether or not Jn used Lk.

Not really, as this quote from the above page indicates,

"Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will
inevitably occur when a writer is heavily
dependent on another's work. In telling the same
story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in
the early stages which he is unable to sustain
throughout. Like continuity errors in film and
television, examples of fatigue will be unconscious
mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally
arise in the course of constructing a narrative."

See above.

Yuri.