Vorkosigan

Crosstalk is having an excellent discussion of the relationship between Luke and John. Here's a recent excellent post in response to one of our old friend Nomad's posts that I thought some of you might enjoy....

It's heartening to note that many on this list apparently think that Luke dates from 110-120, where I have always felt it belongs...

On Friday, April 26, Brian Trafford wrote to Gordon Raynal:

I noticed that you have listed some of your reasons for placing what I consider to be an unrealistically late date (c. 110-120 CE) on
Luke/Acts, and thought that I might inquire a bit into this if I may.

I noticed that none of your reasoning rests on source critical grounds, nor even on an evaluation of the texts themselves [outside
of a general reference in Luke 1:1-4, which says nothing about what Luke knew of any specific sources]. For example, I would agree
that Lucan dependence on Mark is relatively easy to establish, and that he was aware either of Q, or Matthew, not to mention a good amount of material unique to him (commonly called the "L" source). At the same time I see no evidence at all that he knew of GJohn. Perhaps you could point me to some specific pericopes in which you
see evidence of dependence. In my view, Luke appears to be completely unaware of GJohn (and vice versa for that matter), so if you have some evidence you think worth examining, then I would be happy to take a look at it.

Brian,

Barbara Shellard, in her Oxford dissertation under Robert Morgan, has argued that Luke knew John. Morgan has termed this the "Cribbs-Shellard
Hypothesis" (28). Shellard is following along the lines laid down by Lamar Cribbs in the 1970's. Cribbs did not advocate Luke's actual dependence on
John, but argued that in the common Luke-John matter, it is John and not Luke who consistently has the more original form. Shellard not only argues
for Luke's dependence on John, but accepts the Farrer theory that Luke knew Matthew as well. If so, the implication would be that the gospels were
written in the order: Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke, with each evangelist using the work of his predecessors. This theory of gospel relationships had
previously been put forward by Robinson Smith in 1920, but received little consideration. A revised version of Shellard's dissertation is to be
published in the JSNT Supplement series in (theoretically) August.

If Luke is dependent on John, it would, of course, necessarily have to have been written later than John (c. 85-110; widely dated in the 90's). As Luke
was used by Marcion (c. 130-140?), it could plausibly be dated in the first or second decade of the second century. I'm not aware of any good evidence
that would exclude such a late date for Luke. It is sometimes argued that it had to have been written before Paul's letters were collected, as Acts
does not seem to show knowledge of such a collection. Even if this is so, it remains undemonstrated that Paul's letters were collected early enough in
the second century to exclude an early second century date for Luke.

It has long been recognized that Luke and John have a good deal in common apart from the other two gospels, particularly in their passion narratives.
This has generally been explained either by their use of common, possibly oral, sources or by John's dependence on Luke. Exhaustive or nearly
exhaustive lists of the Luke-John agreements may be found in Cribbs' SBLSP publications. One of Shellard's initial observations, based on Cribbs, is
that Luke usually follows Mark's order. Where Luke departs from Mark's order, he frequently has material in common with John. This is a little bit
odd on the theory that John used Luke, as one would have to explain why John should choose to follow Luke especially where Luke had departed from the
order of Mark/Matthew (77). It is also a little bit odd on the theory of an oral tradition, as oral sources are more flexible in regard to order than
written ones and we might expect Luke to have kept Mark/Matthew's order and inserted his oral material into it. The idea that Luke may have felt
justified in coming up with his own order where his written sources conflict is at least worth investigating. It might also help explain the reference
in Luke's prologue to "many" (i.e., three or more) who had written previously and to his emphasis on order.

I admit that I was initially very skeptical of Shellard's theory, mostly because it differed a great deal from my existing idea of how Luke was
composed. I'm not completely sold yet, and I'm hoping her forthcoming book will clear up some of my remaining problems. But having looked at a (very)
few pericopes so far, I think it is plausible on a redaction-critical level. In particular, for those who accept John's use of Mark, attributing the
Luke-John parallels to Luke's knowledge of John can greatly clarify and simplify how John used Mark, and I think the same principle applies to John'
s potential use of Matthew.

As an example, John's version of the Anointing (12.1-10) is more easily understood as John's rewriting of Mark alone rather than as a conflation of
Mark and Luke. John replaces Simon the leper with Lazarus and the unnamed woman with his sister Mary. This works well in John's sequence (and may
also be the inspiration for Luke's Lazarus "full of sores" in 16.20): Jesus raises Lazarus (11.1-45), for which both he and Lazarus are condemned to
death by the council (11.46-57; 12.10), and has dinner with Lazarus' family (12.1-10). The raising of Lazarus seems to replace Mark's temple cleansing,
which John has used in 2.13-25, as the trigger for the council's plot against Jesus.

John's other major changes to Mark are that Mary anoints of Jesus' feet rather than his head, and then dries them with her hair. Her actions are
closely paralleled by Jesus' washing the disciples' feet and drying them with a towel in the Last Supper (13.1-20; Luke may show his knowledge of
John's version in 12.37). John seems to have modified the Anointing and the Last Supper in parallel ways that stress the theme of service and humility.

One of the objections that has been raised to the theory of John's use of Mark in the Anointing is that the John-Luke parallels require John to have a
second source here. This has two effects. If the second source was Luke, John's conflation may seem rather odd in places (e.g., why should John
identify the virtuous Mary with Luke's sinful woman?). If the second source is a lost common source for the Anointing, why do we need the theory of John
's use of Mark here at all? A compositional theory that sees Luke in 7.36-50 as rewriting Mark and adding the Johannine footwashing and drying
elements, and making it the occasion for Jesus' short sermon on repentance seems much clearer. The introduction, with Jesus dining with a Pharisee,
and the conclusion "Your faith has saved you" are thoroughly Lukan, as is the theme of repentance and forgiveness.

As a brief additional example, there is the well-known parallel in Lk. 24.12 and Jn. 20.3-13. This has been seen by those who advocate John's dependence
on Luke as a Johannine expansion of Luke's brief account. On that theory, John would be expanding Luke and inserting the presence of the Beloved
Disciple. Two considerations make plausible the alternative theory that Luke is abbreviating John and removing the Beloved Disciple. First, many of
those who advocate John's independence from Luke consider Lk. 24.12 to be a later insertion into Luke's text based on John. If this is plausible, it
seems arbitrary to exclude the possibility that the insertion was made by the author of Luke himself. Second, Luke 24.24 refers to what is evidently
the same incident, but seems to assume that more than one disciple was present. This may be taken as evidence that Luke in fact knew of a version
such as John's in which another disciple accompanied Peter to the empty tomb.

The theory of Luke's use of John is a book-length subject at the very least. I do not expect, in a single post or even a series of posts, to be able
persuade you or anyone else to adopt it. I am not yet entirely convinced of it myself. But my initial impression is that the theory is very
plausible and deserving of attention. Best Wishes,

Ken

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cribbs, F. Lamar, "St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition," JBL 90 (1971),
422-50.

_____"A Study of the Contacts That Exist Between St. Luke and St. John," SBL
1973 Seminar Papers, ed. George McRae (Cambridge, MA: SBL, 1973) 2.1-73.

_____"The Agreements That Exist Between Luke and John," SBL 1979 Seminar
Papers, ed. Paul Achtemeier (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979) 1.215-61.

Matson, Mark, "The Influence of John on Luke's Passion," on his homepage at:
<a href="http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/papers.htm" target="_blank">http://www.milligan.edu/administrative/mmatson/papers.htm</a>

Morgan, Robert, "Which was the Fourth Gospel? The Order of the Gospels and
he Unity of Scripture," JSNT 54 (1994) 3-28.

Shellard, Barbara, "The Relationship of Luke and John: A Fresh Look at an
Old Problem," JTS 46 (1995) 71-98.

______New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context
(Sheffield Academic Press-forthcoming 2002).

Smith, Robinson, The Solution of the Synoptic Problem (London: Watts and
co., 1920).

Kenneth A. Olson
Graduate Teaching Assistant
University of Maryland
Department of History
2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
College Park, MD 20742-7315

[ April 27, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Sauron

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
<strong>Crosstalk is having an excellent discussion of the relationship between Luke and John. Here's a recent excellent post in response to one of our old friend Nomad's posts that I thought some of you might enjoy....

It's heartening to note that many on this list apparently think that Luke dates from 110-120, where I have always felt it belongs...</strong>

It's also heartwarming to see Nomad's trademark arrogance shot down in a calm and scholarly manner. The position below (i.e., that Luke knew of GJohn) may not be conclusively proven, but nobody can say that it isn't grounded in good research.