The Influence of John on Luke's Passion:
Toward a Theory of Intergospel Dialogue
Paper Presented at the Symposium für und wider die Priorität des
Johannesevangeliums,
March 10, 2000, Salzburg Austria
Mark A. Matson
Milligan College
Introduction
The relationship of the Fourth Gospel to the Synoptics has been the object of extensive discussion from the very earliest period of the church. One recalls that in second century, Clement of Alexandria embraced the Fourth Gospel, even while acknowledging the difference between John and the Synoptics, by arguing that John's purpose was to produce a "spiritual" gospel.(1) But Clement's remark was anticipated somewhat by previous ecclesiastical figures. Irenaeus emphatically argued for a four-fold gospel, seemingly in reaction to forces within the church to exclude some gospels, of which John was one viewed skeptically in this way. And indeed we know from Irenaeus' comments that including John in the canon of acceptable gospels was a concern; some had misinterpreted the gospel(2), and others had rejected it.(3) Those who rejected the Fourth Gospel, most notably Gaius of Rome, did so, it appears, in part because of its difference from the Synoptics.(4) What is clear is that the early church was painfully aware of the differences from the Synoptics, and embraced the Fourth Gospel as apostolic despite these differences. The "spiritual" nature of John provided a mechanism to explain and reconcile the divergent gospel accounts.
With the rise of critical studies, John came to be considered as a secondary composition, both late and derivative.(5) It was generally assumed that John was written last, and indeed relied on the other gospels for its information.(6) This assumption held sway until the twentieth century, with the rise of form criticism. Especially Percival Gardner-Smith re-oriented the discussion by claiming that the Fourth Gospel is better understood as independent of the Synoptics, relying instead on independent oral traditions.(7) And while this has been attractive to a wide number of scholars, especially in the English speaking community, there have been nonetheless nagging concerns that there must be some relationship between John and the Synoptics beyond simply common traditions. As a result, the most recent period of debate has seen a rise in various approaches to the relationship between the gospels. I note here, of course, Frans Neirynck's extensive efforts to demonstrate John's reliance on the Synoptics. Neirynck has been in great part reacting to various alternative approaches. Marie-Émile Boismard's rather complex suggestions of literary relationships between precursor documents which existed prior to our four gospels,(8) and Anton Dauer's arguments for the influence of the Synoptics on the oral tradition of the Fourth Gospel,(9) have both received extensive critiques in Neirynck's writings.(10)
Now this is not the place, nor is there sufficient time, to rehearse a complete Forschungsbericht of the problem.(11) But it is instructive that, in general, the approaches to the problem have tended toward two poles: either toward John's dependence on the Synoptics (all or some), or to complete independence. What has generally not been proposed is the influence of John upon the Synoptics.
The topic of John and the Synoptics, though, is a very broad subject. It is apparent that there are significant differences in the degree of closeness between the documents. Mark and John share a number of significant similarities, especially structural; Matthew and John share fewer similarities; Luke and John have extensive similarities. It is not clear to me that a consistent explanation is available that resolves the varied nature of the relationships between John and the Synoptics. It is preferable to begin with a careful consideration of particular relationships, without any assumptions about the broader issue. Of particular interest to me is the striking and unique relationship between Luke and John.
The Special Case of Luke and John.
Luke and John have been the focus of a small number of intensive examinations. Three in particular might be noted here: Julius Schniewind's monograph, Die Parallelperikopen bei Lukas und Johannes;(12) J. Amadee Bailey's monograph, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John;(13) and Anton Dauer's monographs, especially Johannes und Lukas.(14) Schniewind carefully considered the points of comparison, and perhaps under the influence of the dominant form critical assumptions of the time, concluded that all of the similarities could be attributed to common traditions. Bailey also found many of the points of similarity arose from common traditions, but a number could not be explained in that way, and therefore must be attributed to John's use of Luke. And Dauer, as noted before, also found a number of similarities too striking to be explained by common traditions, but he also was doubtful of a direct literary relationship; his explanation was that Luke's written gospel had directly influenced the traditions that John used. Each of their conclusions worked out of a prior view of gospel formation, that is each scholar brought to the question certain presuppositions. None of them, however, considered the possibility that John might have been early, and that the striking similarities might flow from John to Luke in one form or another. As a result, they focused their attention on John, attempting to explain John's textual form in light of Luke's narrative. But it is just this possibility that John influenced Luke, rather than the reverse, that will dominate the balance of my consideration: Does a theory of Johannine influence on Luke work?
As a test case, I would like to examine Luke's account of the Pilate trial in Luke 23:1-25. Even a cursory examination of Luke's account will show that the Third Evangelist departs rather strikingly from the other Synoptics. Do the variances from the other Synoptics suggest the influence of John? If so, what kind of influence? How, then, might we conceive of the activity of Luke? As might be expected, the analysis will be primarily on Luke's gospel, not on John's.
Luke's Version of Pilate's Trial
As many have observed, Luke's Pilate trial is widely different from that found in Mark or Matthew. Strikingly, Luke divides the trial into two halves, separated by a hearing before Herod, a feature which is unique to Luke. A brief summary of the distinctive differences between Luke and the other Synoptics in the first half of the trial would include:(15)
1. Luke opens the scene with the Jewish leaders presenting formal charges against him in their prosecution before Pilate. The bill of particulars includes the charge that Jesus forbade tributes to Caesar, and that he claimed that he was Christ, a king. These particulars are actually supporting accusations to the broad charge brought against Jesus, that he was leading the people astray. Both of the specific charges are demonstrably untrue within Luke's narrative: he had specifically allowed for the payment of taxes to Caesar (20:20-26), and he had avoided claiming he was the Christ in his hearing before the Jewish leaders (22:67-71).
2. The existence of a crowd at the hearing is distinctive. Mark and Matthew relate only that a delegation of chief priests and elders accompanied Jesus to Pilate. Only later, in these Synoptics, does a crowd appear - at the Barabbas scene. Luke, however, presents a crowd accompanying Jesus at the initial stages of the prosecution.
3. Pilate's declaration that Jesus is innocent is remarkable, in that Mark and Matthew never find Pilate judging him innocent. Indeed, we find that in the course of the narrative, Luke records that Pilate declared Jesus innocent three times - clearly a significant motif in the Lukan story.
4. Luke also reports an additional accusation of sedition after Pilate's declaration of innocence. While Mark and Matthew do relate an accusation after Pilate's initial response, it is unspecified. Luke, however, says that Jesus was "stirring up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even up to this place." (Lk 23:5)
In the second half of the Pilate trial, following the hearing before Herod, there are additional striking divergences from the Markan and Matthean account:
5. As in the first half of the trial, Pilate attempts to release Jesus because he finds him innocent. Indeed, Luke reports that Pilate twice more attempts to release him, one of those times arguing that Herod as well found Jesus guilty of no crime. Of course neither Mark nor Matthew report that Pilate finds Jesus innocent. In contrast, Pilate in these synoptics first wonders at Jesus' failure to answer (Mk 15:5; Mt 27:14), and then in response to the crowd's desire to release Barabbas instead of Jesus asks simply, "Why, what evil has he done?" (Mk 15:14, Mt. 27:23).
6. In Luke, the crowd in direct address specifically calls for Barabbas to be released instead of Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, this is related primarily by the narrator's observation. Matthew does relate the crowd's direct quote, but only after the narrator's observation, and as a response to a follow-up question.
7. Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke presents the account of Barabbas' release in a completely different form. Instead of Pilate asking the crowd which one should be released, Jesus or Barabbas, Luke reports that the crowd independently, and in response to Pilate's desire to release Jesus, demands Barabbas be released instead. Only after the crowd has demanded Barabbas' release does Luke inform the reader who Barabbas was.
8. All the gospels report that the crowd, following their demand for the release of Barabbas, cries out for Jesus to be crucified. Luke seems to report this in a more emphatic way than Mark and Matthew. In the first case of the crowd calling for crucifixion, they cry out in a doubled form "crucify, crucify him." (Lk 23:21) This is then followed up by the observation that they were urgent, demanding with loud cries that he should be crucified.
9. In Matthew and Mark, Pilate accedes to the request of the crowd, and orders Jesus be crucified. It is clear that Pilate is in control of the process, and while wishing to satisfy the Jewish crowds, he nonetheless controls the crucifixion. In Luke, however, it is a bit more ambiguous. Pilate seems to turn over Jesus to the Jewish leaders, "he delivered them up to their will," (Lk 23:25) followed by "... as they led him away..." (Lk 23:26), both of which seem to refer back to the crowd led by the Jewish leaders.
It is particularly interesting for our study that each of these major points of substantive content in which Luke varies significantly from the other Synoptics finds some counterpart in the Fourth Gospel.
1. While Mark and Matthew begin the trial with Pilate, seemingly with no provocation, asking Jesus, "Are you the King of the Jews?", John opens with Pilate's demand to the delegation from the High Priests to know why Jesus has been brought to him. The Jewish leaders then respond that he is an evildoer. Thus, Luke and John have constructed the opening phrases of the trial before Pilate similarly, with some statement of charges being profferred, and with the initial exchange between Pilate and the Jewish leaders. In Mark and Matthew, the charges always remain anonymous, and are brought only after Pilate has asked if Jesus is the king of the Jews.
But even as Luke has the Jewish leaders openly charge that Jesus claims to be a king, this is also the implication in John as well. In John's account, Pilate tries to have the Jews deal with Jesus themselves, and they turn it back to him since the charge is a capital one. Pilate then returns to the inner area of the praetorium where Jesus is being held, and he asks if Jesus is the king. But this is also expanded by Jesus' question whether Pilate has come to this by himself, or as the result of charges laid against him by the Jews. To this Pilate answers, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?" (Jn. 18:35) While the accusation is never explicitly stated, John seems to be presenting the situation very similar to Luke's narrative construction: the Jews have presented formal charges that Jesus claims to be a king, a capital crime. This then prompts Pilate to ask whether Jesus is the King of the Jews.
2. Unlike Mark and Matthew, who explicitly bring a crowd onto the scene only at the beginning of the Barabbas incident, John is similar to Luke in the constant presence of a large group. John never goes out of his way to present in detail the existence of a crowd, yet it is also apparent that the same group that calls for Jesus' crucifixion has also brought Jesus to the praetorium at the beginning of the trial. This group is "the Jews" (18:31, 38), and acts like a large crowd in its strident demand for Jesus' death and Barabbas' release. The rather inclusive sense of "the Jews" in this scene is emphasized by Pilate's own comment to Jesus at the initial presentation of the charges against him that "your nation and your high priests" (Jn 18:35) accused him.
3. and 5. Perhaps the most striking similarity between Luke and John in the Pilate trial narratives is that of Pilate's threefold declaration of innocence. The statements are not identical, but the trebling of the statement, repeated at intervals in the account, and the similarity of the statement by Pilate, suggests some close relationship.
But it must also be noted that it is very difficult to obtain a precise matchup between the narratives and the declarations of innocence. This is due, in part, to the different narrative structures of Luke and John: Luke is built around an alternation between Pilate and Herod and then Pilate again, while John's scene is constructed around the praetorium, with its geographical separation of the accusers and the accused. Still, the strong similarities beg for some explanation.
4. Within the passion narrative itself, John does not report a similar charge to that presented as an addendum to Luke's accusations: "He stirs up the people, teaching throughout Judea." (Lk 23:5). This political charge of sedition, of stirring up the people with the possible repercussion from Roman rule, is found however in a different setting in John. Following the raising Lazarus, in 11: 45-53, the Jewish leaders have a hearing of sorts. In it, the danger of Jesus is that he is creating too great a following - a following that could result in Roman retribution. (Jn 11:48).
6. Direct address of crowd for Barabbas. Although not a striking similarity, both John and Luke share the common narrative device of direct address at the opening stages of the Barabbas event. Luke has the crowd, unasked, demand Barabbas' release instead of Jesus. In John, Pilate asks the crowd if they want Jesus released, to which they respond directly in direct discourse, "Not this man, but Barabbas!" (Jn 18:40)
7. Not only is the narrative device similar, but the basic thrust of two narratives is also striking in that the crowd in both instances demands Barabbas' release before any mention of his name is given. Both Luke and John must, then, create a narrative aside to explain who Barabbas was. The thrust is clear - rather than being given a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, as in Mark and Matthew, the crowd itself offers the alternative to releasing Jesus to Pilate.
8. Both Luke and John share the emphatic pattern of doubling the call to crucify Jesus: "crucify, crucify him" in Luke (Lk 23:21), and "crucify him, crucify him" in John (Jn 19:6).
9. And finally, Luke and John seem to share the ambiguous nature of the group that actually carries out the crucifixion. In both cases, Jesus seems to be delivered to precisely those who have been urging his crucifixion. In Luke he is delivered to "their will", where previous antecedents to the pronoun would suggest the Jewish crowds. In John, Pilate handed Jesus over "to them to be crucified." (Jn 19:16), where the preceding verses are with the Jews, indeed with Pilate urging the crowd to "take him yourselves and crucify him..." (Jn 19:6).
Summary of Luke's Pilate Trial and Possible Approaches
What we have found, then, is that in this relatively short narrative about Jesus' trial before Pilate, Luke shows a number of significant variations from the core synoptic narrative found in Mark and Matthew. Assuming Luke is following either Mark or Matthew in the basic account, these differences are quite numerous and important.
Moreover, at almost every point that Luke has significantly departed from the Markan account, there is a striking commonality in the Johannine narrative. This suggests, then, some relationship between John and Luke at this point. The question that presents itself, then, is what kind of relationship?
1. Independent. John's independence from the Synoptic gospels has been a major assumption in modern gospel studies. From this perspective, the similarities can be accounted for by common oral traditions that both gospels draw on. In the case of Luke and John, however, and especially the passion narrative as illustrated by this pericope, the idea of complete independence is difficult to maintain. The sheer number of points of commonality, and the net effect they have on the meaning of the narrative, raises serious questions about independence.
It is particularly important to note the degree to which Luke departs from the Mark/Mathew pattern. This alone has suggested to many that Luke has relied on another source or sources for his narrative.(16) Why else, in material following the general Markan outline, does Luke make such substantive modifications in the story? It is possible, of course, that both Luke and John rely on a common source that they have drawn on. But invoking the Occams' razor, one should perhaps seek the solution which does not require a hypothetical source behind both gospels.
2. John Knew and Used Luke. The dominant theory of John's relationship to the Synoptics has been that John at least knew, and possibly used as a source, the synoptic accounts. Under this view, a simple answer to the various points of commonality noted in the Pilate Pericope would be that John used Luke as a source.
But there are real difficulties with this view. We might simply note a few that raise some broad questions about John's use of Luke:
First, as has been shown a number of times, John's style shows little evidence of external sources.(17) This, of course, does not mean that John is not relying on some possible sources. But if John is relying on sources, then they have been completely assimilated into the style of the Fourth Evangelist, and have been processed to form a unified narrative. This merely suggests that John's use of other sources is certainly difficult to point to in any stylistic way.
Secondly, in this part of the passion narrative, John's account seems to be less structured and less coherent in some ways than Luke's. As Schniewind noted, I think rightly, with respect to the threefold declarations of innocence: "Dies deutliche Disposition des Lk, die durch den entscheidenden Gesichtspunkt bestimmt ist, läßt sich nun nicht unmittelbar by Joh. wiederfunden."(18) Is it likely that John took Luke's trial, with its rather clear tripartite pattern of a Pilate hearing, a Herod hearing, and a second Pilate hearing, and instead disrupted this with the conceit of the praetorium?
With Luke the progression is clear and decisive: at the first presentation of charges, Pilate renders an initial finding of not guilty on the face of it. But the Jewish leaders continue their accusation with a charge of sedition. To this, Pilate seeks to deflect the case to Herod. Following Herod's finding, Pilate renders a second finding of not guilty, based in part on, apparently, Herod's similar judgement. He seeks to assuage the crowd by seeking a flogging instead, followed by release. To this the crowd then demands the release of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate once again seeks to flog and release Jesus, but the crowd's cries intensify, and he finally accedes to their request. Luke shows Pilate to be uniformly reacting to increased pressure by the Jewish leaders through a series of statements and actions that finally find him acceding to their demands.
John's presentation shows little evidence of direct influence by Luke. Pilate moves in and out of the inner precincts of the praetorium, alternating between confronting the Jews and discussing with Jesus. After the first hearing, he finds Jesus innocent and goes back out to tell the Jews assembled outside. At this instance he offers to release someone because it is Passover, but the Jews refuse this offer, demanding Barabbas instead. Pilate then has Jesus flogged, and he is brought out to the Jews as a spectacle, but with the intention of releasing him. To this the Jews respond with cries to have him crucified. And finally he re-enters the praetorium (with Jesus?) and has another exchange with Jesus. This exchange leads to a final effort to release Jesus (outside the praetorium), which prompts a political threat from the Jews, and finally Jesus' being turned over for crucifixion. The alternation between inside and outside of the praetorium is a bit muddled, and there is no clear development in the narrative. John's version of the trial is distinctive, but bears few if any marks of Luke's account. Is it likely that John could have adapted his version around Luke's account? While possible, it seems less than likely.
Thirdly, positing John's reliance on Luke still doesn't answer why Luke has varied his account from Mark's version. Did Luke know of another version with the same points of similarity to John, which points (but not much else from Mark) were also subsumed by John in his account? Does this adequately explain why Luke's variations from Mark bear such strong similarities with John's narrative? In my opinion, it seems difficult to imagine such a scenario, and it is far simpler to simply suggest that Luke must have known the Fourth Gospel directly.
3. John Was Influenced by an Oral Tradition. Dauer, as noted before, was less willing to grant a direct influence of Luke upon John. Instead he suggested that intermediary forces, the general influence of the narrative on the oral traditions that were still alive, produced the strong similarities between Luke and John. And these traditions then influenced the Vorlage of John.
There are two difficulties with Dauer's hypothesis. The first is that in such a view, mediated both by oral tradition and a precursor document, one could easily explain any cluster of similarities. Dauer attempts to show signs of redaction and intrusion into the Johannine text, but the basic critique of Schweitzer and Ruckstuhl are not adequately addressed. It is still hard to detect with precision where John ends and sources begin. The second difficulty is his starting point - Dauer simply assumed John must have absorbed some of the Lukan material, even while he was rightly uncomfortable seeing how John used the Third Gospel directly.
4. Luke was Influenced by John. As a simpler solution, John's influence upon Luke has significant advantages. On the one hand, it explains a number of points of similarity between Luke and John, while also explaining Luke's departure from the Markan narrative. Put simply, this solution would suggest that Luke was aware of John, and at times departed from his Markan narrative under the influence of the Johannine narrative. Luke generally followed Mark's narrative outline, but found John's account to occasionally have worthwhile material that helped him expand and interpret the passion narrative that Mark puts forward.
Luke as Interpreter of Mark, Under the Influence of John
If we allow for the possibility that Luke has had available some form of John in constructing the Third Gospel, a plausible explanation for Luke's departure from the Markan outline is presented. Moreover, the series of striking similarities in content and presentation between John and Luke are also explained. And this ought not surprise us, since Luke in his prologue shows that he is aware of a plurality of writers who have already undertaken to write narratives of Jesus. To think that Luke knew of John, while certainly requiring the alteration of some commonly held dating, would fit nicely with what we know of Luke's authorial method.
The instances in which Johannine parallels are found in Luke's gospel would appear, at first blush, to present a situation such as Barbara Shellard noted with regard to the passages about John the Baptist, that Luke "seems ... to be conflating the two traditions [Mark and John] and seeking to mediate between them when they disagree."(19) This observation by Shellard appears to work in a number of instances, and serves as a strong argument for the priority of John to Luke. But perhaps it is too strong a statement for a generalization, for it seems to imply that Luke was using John much the same as he used Mark - as a primary literary source. That is, one could possibly understand Luke's use of John in a similar way to Luke's use of Mark, and that the two gospels had a somewhat equal footing. But that does not seem to be the case. In the various points of similarity between Luke and John, a standard "cut and paste" view of editorial activity is difficult to envisage.
In the Pilate trial outlined above, various motifs of John are found in Luke's accounts. But also there seem to be some conclusions, some interpretation of the Johannine story which have found fuller expression in Luke's modification of John. Let me briefly take a couple of the examples cited above. In the declaration of innocence, Luke appears to have been struck by the effect and the fact of Pilate's three-fold finding that Jesus was innocent. Much of the language seems to have found its way into Luke. But the rather striking conceit of the praetorium trial, with the occillation back and forth from inside and outside have been dropped. Instead, Luke uses the basic motif of declaring Jesus innocent to modify Mark's account into a clear story of the progression of Jewish responsibility for the crucifixion. Luke would appear to be cognizant of the essential Johannine story, yet critical of the praetorium setting, and willing to use this in the construction of a new and compelling account. The Jewish responsibility and the threefold declaration of innocence are used in a completely reworked narrative. Similarly, it would seem that Luke was struck by the way John presents the crowd demanding Barabbas's release, without him even having been offered as an alternative by Pilate. Luke takes this motif, however, and expands it by removing even a comment that a release of a captive was offered at all. Thus, Luke emphasizes the Jews' rejection of Jesus. This is not simply a mediation between John and Mark, but a situation where Luke has grasped the central feature of John's narrative, and used it freely in rewriting his Markan source.
Instead of mediation between, or use of, sources, it is perhaps better to think of Luke engaging in an intertextual or intergospel dialogue with John and Mark. Mark is his primary dialogue partner, and he uses Mark heavily as a "source." But Luke engages in a secondary dialogue with John, finding in his presentation features that are critiques of the Markan account. Throughout, however, it is clear that Luke is more impressed by Mark's overall account than John's. But at the same time that Luke uses and quotes Mark as a primary focus, the Third Evangelist shows himself to be very aware of another narrative development, with material that he judges at times to be valuable and important for this revised story of Jesus.
Finally, this presents an interesting possibility for future research. If this model of intergospel dialogue is correct, one must also ask if the references to Mark and John are not specifically aimed at an audience that might already know the gospels. In other words, are the references to Mark and John intended to be intertextual, and thus engaging in a public dialogue with already existing gospels? This seems definitely likely in the case of Mark(20), and I would suggest it is also likely for the Fourth Gospel as well. In this case, we might assume that John was circulating quite early in the churches, well before the Gospel of Luke was written.
ENDNOTES
1. Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7
2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.11.1-9.
3. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.27.2-4. "But others (alii), in order that they might set aside the gift of the Spirit, which was poured out in the last times upon the human race by the good pleasure of the Father, do not accept that form (of the Gospel according to John) in which the Lord promised to send the Paraclete, but reject at the same time both the Gospel and the Prophetic Spirit."
4. See Epiphanius' discussion of the Alogoi in his Panarion, 51.3-22. A much more extensive discussion of the issue of Gaius and the Alogoi, and the reasons for their rejection, is found in M. Matson, "In Dialogue with Another Gospel: The Influence of the Fourth Gospel on the Passion Narrative of the Gospel of Luke," ( Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University), pp. 209-215.
5. See F. C. Baur, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evanglien (Tübingen: Verlag und Druck, 1847), p. 239. See also my discussion in "the Contribution to the Temple Cleansing by the Fourth Gospel" in 1992 SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press), p. 489-505.
6. See, for instance, Benjamin Bacon, The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate (Moffat, Yard & Co, 1910), pp. 356-84.
7. Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1938).
8. See especially M.-É. Boismard and A. Lamouille, with collaboration of G. Rochais. L'Évangile de Jean (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1977), and also his article "Un procédé rédactionnel dans le quatrième évangile: la 'Wiederaufnahme'" in L'Évangile de Jean, ed. M. de Jonge (Leuven: University Press, 1976).
9. Anton Dauer, Die Passiongeschichte im Johannesevangelium; Eine traditionsgeschichtliche und theologische Untersuchung zu Joh 18, 1-19, 30 (Munich: Kösel-Verlag, 1972) and Johannes und Lukas: Untersuchungen zu den johanneisch-lukanischen Parallelperikopen John 4,46-54 / Lk 7,1-10 -- Joh 12,1-8 / Lk 7,36-50; 10,38-42 -- Joh 20,19-29 / Lk 24, 36-49 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984).
10. Frans Neirynck, with Joël Delobel, Jean et les synoptiques: Examen critique de l'exégèse de M..-E. Boismard. BETL 49 (Louvain: Louvain University Press, 1979); and with respect to Dauer, F. Neirynck "John 4:46-54: Signs Source and/or Synoptic Gospels," ETL 60 (1984): 367-75.
11. See especially for a recent review D. Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
12. Julius Schniewind, Die Parallelperikopen bei Lukas und Johannes (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1958 [1914])
13. John Amadee Bailey, The Traditions Common to the Gospels of Luke and John. Suppl. Novum Testamentum 7 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963).
14. As noted above, footnote 9.
15. The analysis presented below, in very shortened form, is dealt with in more extensive form in Matson, "In Dialogue with Another Gospel?", pp. 331-376.
16. For instance, Vincent Taylor, The Passion Narrative of St. Luke (Cambridge University Press, 1972), 86-87, or A. Büchele, Der Tod Jesu im Lukasevangelium (Frankfurt am Main: Joseph Knecht, 1978), 27-28.
17. Eduard Schweizer, Ego Eimi (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1935); Eugen Ruckstuhl, Die literarische Einheit des Johannesevangeliums (Freiburg: Paulus, 1951).
18. Schniewind, p. 66.
19. Barbara Shellard, "The Relationship of Luke and John: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem," JTS 46 (1995): 84.
20. This was the substance of my recent paper at the Synoptic Gospel Section of the 1999 Annual SBL Meeting in Boston, "The Rhetoric of Gospel Rewriting."