ABILENE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY !!!! JOHN, THE GOSPEL AROUND MARK AND IN LUKE !!! A PAPER SUBMITTED TO

Transcription

1 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 OF BIBL 620: ADVANCED INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BY DEREK WILSON

2 At the end of his gospel John 1 APRIL 23, 2013 writes, Now Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the 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. 2 In an attempt to reconcile these 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 1 There is much debate over the identity of the author(s), however for sake of simplicity and clarity the author(s) of the Fourth Gospel will be referred to as John. 2 Jesus mentions the Kingdom of God 3 times in all of John compared to over a 100 within the Synoptics. 2

3 John to the Synoptic Gospels. 3 Scholarship in the past century has moved between dependence 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. 4 For much of the first half of the 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? 5 Gardner-Smith concludes that the similarities of John s Gospel are 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... 7 Dodd supports this by looking textually at the overlaps of the Fourth Gospel 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), B. Streeter, The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins (London: Macmillan & Co., 1953), Smith, John Among the Gospels, Ibid., C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1963),

4 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 9 while ἰχθύς appears over 20 times throughout the New Testament and Hebrew Bible. 10 The question 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? 12 Raymond Brown 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 fact that John does not mention the wilderness does not necessarily imply John was not aware of 8 Ibid., ὀψάριον, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2, S. Pederson, ἰχθύς, Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2, Smith, John Among the Gospels, Dodd, Historical Tradition, Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII (AB, New York: Doubleday, 1966),

5 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 Frans Neirynck, John and Synoptics , in John and the Synoptics (ed. A. Denaux; Leuven: Leuven 14 University Press, 1992), 3. 5

6 making this statement we must look to Mark John s statement does not make sense, unless both he and his primary readers had a knowledge of Mark. John makes another allusion to the Baptist s imprisonment in Again this allusion is confusing unless the reader already has 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," 17 implying that John does not need to explicitly 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). 18 These appear to imply an author aware of the First Gospel. 15 Paul Anderson, The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus (London: T&T Clark, 2006), Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, Smith, John Among the Gospels, 40. Richard Bauckham, The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem, in New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. 18 P. Foster, A. Gregory, J.S. Kloppenborg, and J. Verheyden; Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2011),

7 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. 19 Mark s gospel does seem 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. 20 Paul Anderson argues that the three Judean signs within John serve to round out Jesus ministry geographically. 21 Luke seems to find 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. 23 As stated above the Fourth 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. 24 Even if the factuality of 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. 19 Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1982), Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, Ibid., Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, 51. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (The Fathers of the Church; trans. Roy J. Deferrari; Washington DC: Catholic 24 University of America Press, 2005),

8 Anderson prefers the word autonomous to independence from Mark when describing the Johannine-Markan relationship. 25 He argues that John was written to provide a corrective perspective on the Jesus of Mark. 26 Papias (via Eusebius) asserts that Mark preserved Peter s preaching accurately, but in the wrong order. 27 If this is true, this would explain why John places 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. 28 If Papias is of a Johannine tradition, then we might have a clue about an ancient 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. 29 The Fourth Gospel overplays the beloved 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 25 Anderson, The Fourth Gospel Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, XX. 27 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Ibid., 203. Whether this is John the Elder, John the Apostle or some other John seems inconsequential, but demonstrates an association of Papias with the Johannine community. 29 J.L. Martyn, History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (London: Westminister John Knox Press, 2003), 23. 8

9 testimony but then complements it with is own. 30 When viewing John as a two-level drama, I 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?" 31 It does seem unlikely that 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. 32 This might provide 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 30 Bauckham, The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem, Martyn, History and Theology, Richard Bauckham, For Whom Were the Gospels Written? in The Gospels for all Christians (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1998), 30. Michael Thompson, The Holy Internet: Communication Between Churches in the First Christian Generation, in 33 The Gospels for all Christians (ed. Richard Bauckham; Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1998),

10 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. 34 John seems aware that Nicodemus needs an introduction, and 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. 35 If John is augmenting and building 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. 36 John restructures the story (i.e. putting the cleansing of the temple at the beginning) when he feels corrective, but for the 34 Robert Maddox, The Purpose of Luke-Acts, Neirynck, John and Synoptics, 50. Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context (Ebook: Sheffield Academic 36 Press, 2002),

11 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. 38 I would like to propose that John s 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 37 Bauckham, The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem, 673. These include the pericopes of John the Baptist & Jesus Baptism, Peter s Confession, Feeding of 5,000, the 38 Anointing, a Last Supper Ritual, the Passion Narrative, and the Resurrection. 11

12 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 In the 45 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, 41 when John 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). 42 For 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). 43 The sheer scope of the agreements suggest 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 39 Shellard, New Light on Luke, F. Lamar Cribbs, St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition, JBL 90 (4, 1971): 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; 23:1-5, 13-25, 26-32, 33-38, 46-49, 50-56; 24: Cribbs, St. Luke, Ibid., 423. ; These are to name but a few. 44 Shellard, New Light on Luke,

13 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. 45 Luke s agreements with John 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. 46 For example in their resurrection accounts, Mark states the sun had risen (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). 47 This bent towards bridging and synthesizing will be 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. 48 Both Mark and John agree the anointing took place at Bethany, and both contain an 45 D.P. Moessner, The Meaning of καθεξῆς, in n vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), Anderson, The Fourth Gospel, Shellard, New Light on Luke, 252. Matthew and Mark s account are so similar (at times verbatim), and for simplicity will be treated as one tradition 48 stemming from Mark. 13

14 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." 50 The question then remains did 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 49 M. Sabbe, The Anointing of Jesus in Jn 12, 1-8 and Its Synoptic Parallels, in n vol. 3 of The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift F. Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), M. Sabbe, The Anointing of Jesus,

15 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, 51 however this does not need to be so. John makes no explicit claim to 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. 52 If this is so, it is curious that in all of John s Gospel Jesus mother is never named. 53 Surely if names were an 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. 54 Supposedly, John pulls the names from the Lukan story of Martha 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. 55 However JF Coakley offers a long list of instances, ranging from Homer to Pliny to Jewish sources, where feet are in fact anointed with oil or perfume. This does 51 Shellard, New Light on Luke, Robert Holst, "One Anointing of Jesus: An Application of the Form-Critical Method," JBL 95 (1976): Mark Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel? (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2001), Barnabas Lindars, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 1972), Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII,

16 not prove that the practice was common in Palestine, yet it does show that while unparalleled, it is not unthinkable. 56 Since it would be such an odd event, it is strange that John would write 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. 57 It may be assumed that if Luke had two differing 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. 58 However Coakley explains Mary s action was necessary because of the large amount of perfume which was poured over Jesus feet. 59 John notes that it was a λίτρα (about twelve ounces) of perfume 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. 60 The wiping of Jesus 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 56 J.F. Coakley, The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John, JBL 107 (2, 1988): M. Sabbe, The Anointing of Jesus, (See Acts 22.3, Luke 8.35, 10.39) 58 Brown, The Gospel According to John I-XII, Coakley, The Anointing at Bethany, Ibid.,

17 she anoints His feet. 61 However we find no counter to her hair. 62 Perhaps Luke has included the 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. 63 Robert Fortna notes that perhaps in the original event the woman anointed 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. 64 If Luke is aware of John, perhaps he finds it so improbable that a disciple of Jesus, 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. 61 Compare the lists in Luke 7.38 & Shellard, New Light on Luke, Joel Green, The Gospel of Luke (NICNT, Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, 2010), Robert Fortna, The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor (London: T&T Clark, 1988),

18 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. 65 Reading the Markan and 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 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, 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 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 ) and 67 and 65 Shellard, New Light on Luke, Ibid., Bauckham, The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem,

19 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. 68 Luke 16:31, If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be 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. 69 of Tabitha in Acts 9 Fortna notes there are lexical parallels between Lazarus resurrection and the Raising 70 which possibly indicates a Lukan awareness of John 11. This along with 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. character in a parable than the reverse. 71 It seems far more probable for a real person to become a 72 Perhaps Luke who is using Mark as his outline, does not 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 68 John ; namely John Donald Bretherton, Lazarus of Bethany: Resurrection or Resuscitation? Expository Times 104 (6,1993): Robert Fortna, The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), Coakley, The Anointing at Bethany, R. Dunkerley, "Lazarus," NTS 5 ( ),

20 proposed many possible sources for the parable, anonymous story to which names have been added later. 73 and this parable may be a primitive 74 Perhaps Luke reviewing his sources 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 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: 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. 75 Jesus 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 76 to indicate a possible literary tradition. If there is a 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 73 Richard Bauckham, The Rich man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels, NTS 37 (2, 1991). 74 Francis Moloney, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Boston, MA: Brill Academic, 2005), Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?, 134. διεζωσατο, περιζώσεται and the root ζώννυµι are only used 12 times in the New Testament. Nine of which are 76 found within Luke-Acts and John. 20

21 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. 79 However the 77 Coakley, The Anointing at Bethany, That is with the exception of Luke 10:38-41, although the thrust of that whole section is a teaching. 79 M. Sabbe, The Anointing of Jesus,

22 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 , 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 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 and John , 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 Luke is explicit about Jesus eating while John does not mention it. The Lukan 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 80 Paul Anderson, The Christology of the Fourth Gospel (Eugene, OR.: Cascade Books, 2010), Cribbs, St. Luke, Shellard, New Light on Luke,

23 elements which we do not have time to discuss at present include the use of the historical present (a Johannine feature) in Luke 24: Also the use of Simon Peter (a Johannine form of Peter s name) in Luke It is interesting that the only time Luke uses the term Simon Peter is in 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. 85 In reality what I have done here amounts to little more than creative sleuthing, 86 but it is the hope 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. 83 Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?, Shellard, New Light on Luke, Mark Matson Current Approaches to the Priority of John, Evangel 25(Spr. 2007): Fortna, The Fourth Gospel, XII. 23

24 Works Cited Anderson, Paul. The Christology of the Fourth Gospel. Eugene, OR.: Cascade Books, Anderson, Paul. The Fourth Gospel and the Quest for Jesus: Modern Foundations Reconsidered. London: T&T Clark, Balz, Horst, and Gerhard Schneider, editors. Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Bauckham, Richard. The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Problem. Pages 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, Bauckham, Richard. For Whom Were Gospels Written? in The Gospels for all Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, Bauckham, Richard. The Rich Man and Lazarus: The Parable and the Parallels. NTS 37(2, 1991): Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John I-XII. Anchor Bible Commentaries. New York: Doubleday, Bretherton, Donald J. Lazarus of Bethany Resurrection or Resuscitation? Expository Times 104 (6,1993): Cribbs, F. Lamar. St. Luke and the Johannine Tradition. JBL 90 (4, 1971): Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. London: Cambridge University Press, Coakley, J. F. The Anointing at Bethany and the Priority of John. JBL 107 (2, 1988): Dunkerley, R., Lazarus. NTS (5, ): Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History. Fathers of the Church: A New Translation. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. Washington DC: Catholic University of America Press, Fortna, Robert. The Fourth Gospel and its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. London: T&T Clark,

25 Fortna, Robert. The Gospel of Signs: A Reconstruction of the Narrative Source Underlying the Fourth Gospel. London: Cambridge University Press, Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, Holst, Robert. One Anointing of Jesus: An Application of the Form-Critical Method. JBL 95 (1976): Neirynck, Frans. John and the Synoptics: Pages 3-63 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by A. Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, Lindars, Barnabas. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans, Maddox, Robert. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Edited by John Riches. Edinburg: T&T Clark, Matson, Mark. Current Approaches to the Priority of John. Evangel 25 (Spr. 2007): 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, Martyn, J. L. History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 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 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, Moloney, Francis. The Gospel of John: Text and Context. Boston: Brill Academic, Sabbe, M. The Anointing of Jesus in Jn 12, 1-8 and Its Synoptic Parallels. Pages 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, Shellard, Barbara. New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources, and Literary Context. Ebook: Sheffield Academic Press, Smith, D. M. John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,

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