^{page 246 note 1} N.T.S. IV (1957/1958), 282ff.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 2} ibid. p. 289.

^{page 246 note 3} ibid. p. 293.

^{page 246 note 4} ibid. p. 306.

^{page 246 note 5} See the survey by Windisch, H., Johannes und die Synoptiker (Leipzig, 1926) and commentaries to the Gospel of John.Google Scholar

^{page 246 note 6} Those who maintain the independence theory are correct in stressing this point. See especially Gardner-Smith, P., Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1938);Google ScholarDodd, C. H., The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge, 1953), for example, pp. 289 f. and pp. 447 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 246 note 7} Bultmann, R., Das Evangeliwn des Johannes. Kritaschexegetischer Kommentar über des Neue Testament (Göctingen, 1950);Google ScholarNoack, Bent, Zur johanneischen Tradition, Publications de la Société des Sciences Ct des Lettres d'Aarhus, Série de Theologie 3 (Copenhagen, 1954);Google ScholarGardner-Smith, op. cit.;Google ScholarDodd, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 1} Mendner, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} For the agreements see Lee, E. K., ‘St Mark and the Fourth Gospel’, N. T. S. III (1956/1957), p. 55.Google Scholar Lee finds that John is dependent on Mark (and Luke?). Cf. Daube, , The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism (London, 1956), pp. 313–20.Google Scholar Daube thinks that John is dependent on a ‘Proto-Markversion’. Barrett, C. K., The Gospel According to St John (London, 1955), pp. 340 ff., reaches the conclusion that John is dependent on Mark and Luke.Google ScholarAmong the numerous agreements of John with the Syn., two point decisively to dependence: (1) The unique word which occurs only in John xii. 3 and Mark xiv. 3. (2) The incredible feature of Mary cleaning away the ointment from Jesus' feet with her hair. Certainly fragments of the Lukan narrative are used in this awkward way in John. Thus John has an account where synoptic elements are fused together.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 3} N. T. S. II (1955/1956), 17 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 4} Köster, Helmut, Synoptische Überlieferwzg bei den apostoliwhen Vätern, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. 65 (Berlin, 1957).Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 5} This thesis was advanced by Dahl, op. cit. p. 22 and p. 32, with reference to my investigation of which the present article is a part. Noack, op. cit. p. 1, n. 294, indicates the possibility of such an understanding. Cf. P. Borgen's review of Noack's book in North Teologisk Tidtskrjft (1956), pp. 250 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} See Dahl, op. cit. p. 32.Google ScholarCf. Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 516 f. and 527.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 2} See Schniewind, J., Die Parallelperikopen bei Lukas zusd Johannes (Leipzig, 1914), p. 80;Google ScholarBarrett, op. cit. p. 465: ‘The ugly collocation of sounds in both gospels suggests that John was dependent on Luke.’Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 3} Barrett, op. cit. p. 464, points to the agreement John xix. 38/Mark xv. 43 and thinks that the Section in John is taken from Mark. But what of the agreements with Matthew and Luke?Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 4} Cf. Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 516 f. and 527, n. 1; Bultmann supposes that Nicodemus was added to the account by the Evangelist.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 5} Cf. ibid. p. 527, n. 1. Bultmann stresses the plural as the lectio difficilior. Barrett, op. cit. p. 465, superficially explains the plural form as an anticipation of Nicodemus who comes later in the narrative.

^{page 248 note 6} Lee, op. cit. p. 56, notices this repetition and thinks the Jews did not succeed in burying Jesus. John indicates no such motif however.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} See Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preachuig and its Developments (London, 1951, 7th printing), pp. 29 f., concerning the primitive kerygina-tradition in Acts xiii. 16–41.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 2} Haenchen, Ernst, Die Aposklgeschichse, Kriticchexegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament (Göttingen, 1956), p. 358, does not give a satisfactory explanation: ‘Hier wird anscheinend den Juden Kxeuzabnahme und Bestattung Jesu zugeschrieben; in Wirklichkeit hat Lukas nur den Bericht äusserst verkürzt.’Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 3} Lee, op. cit. p. 56,Google Scholar and Buse, S. I., ‘St John and the Markan Passion Narrative’, N.T.S. IV (1957/1958), 215 ff., do not look into the agreements with Matthew and Luke. Therefore they overlook the significance of the agreements with the Syn. in John's narrative of the burial of Jesus.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 4} Against Mendner, op. cit.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 5} Dahl, op. cit. p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 1} See Gardner-Smith, op. cit. pp. 56 f., who shows more fully the independent features of John xviii. 1 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} Barrett, op. cit. pp. 431 and 436. Barrett seems to think that John knows the Syn.'s report of the Prayer in Gethsemane. Bultmann, op. cit. p. 493, thinks that a source corresponding to the Syn. was used. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 426, maintains a similarity between the parallel traditions in John and the Syn. Gardner-Smith, op. cit. p. 59,Google Scholar goes so far as to say that John shows here a general knowledge of the tradition which was used in the Syn. Cf. Jeremias, Joachim, The Eucharistic Words of Jesus (Oxford, 1955), p. 62.Google ScholarNoack, op. cit. p. 106, finds it most likely that John is independent of the Syn. in its use of the Gethsemane tradition.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 3} See Dahl, op. cit. p. 25, concerning Matthew xxvi. 42. Concerning John, see Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 426, and Bultmann, op. cit. p. 496, n. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 4} Kilpatrick, G. D., The Origin of the Gospel According to St Matthew (Oxford, 1946), p. 44, emphasizes the different vocabulary in John and Matthew, saying: ‘The partial resemblance to John may be due to the fact that both evangelists felt this need for an explanation.’ Kilpatrick, however, evaluates the differences too literally. This element from Matthew could have been used orally. Noack, op. cit. pp. 99 f., thinks that John took the saying from an oral source.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 5} Buse, op. cit. p. 217, does not go into the agreements with Matthew and Luke here either.Google Scholar But these must be discussed with the John/Mark agreements if Buse's theory is to be feasible (cf. his discussion of ‘The Cleansing of the Temple in the Synoptics and in John’, The Expository Times, LXX (10 1958), 22 ff., where he also considers the John/Matthew and the John/Luke agreements, but develops quite a complicated conclusion).Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 1} Gardner-Smith, op. cit. p. 59, says that different accounts of the same subject must contain points of similarity. G.-S. does not, however, take into consideration the striking combination of agreements with the Syn. in John.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 2} If codd. R ⊝ D give the original reading, John xviii. 10 follows Matthew, and not Mark.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 3} See Barrett, op. cit. p. 442, concerning the cross-reference in John xviii. 26 back to xviii. 10. Such cross-references are typical in John, cf. John xix. 39/iii. 1 and xix. 38/xii. 42.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 4} Dahl, op. cit. p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 251 note 5} See Barrett, op. cit. pp. 443 and 449 ( from Mark xv. 13);Google ScholarBultmann, op. cit. p. 503 (remnants of a source parallel to the Syn.).Google ScholarGardner-Smith, op. cit. pp. 65 ff., emphasizes all the independent features in John xix. 1 ff., but does not discuss whether or not the Evangelist has reworked his sources, and overlooks the combination of agreements with the Syn.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 1} Cf. Gardner-Smith, op. cit. p. 65.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 2} Buse, op. cit. p. 218, must again be supplemented by agreements with Matthew and Luke.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 3} Barrett, op. cit. p. 443.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 4} Cf. ibid. pp. 441 and 449.

^{page 252 note 5} See especially Bultrnann, R., Die Geschithte der synoptischen Tradition, Forschungen z. Religion u. Literatur d. A. u. N.T.'s, N.F. 12, 2nd ed. (Göttingen, 1931), pp. 297 f.Google Scholar, and Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 502.Google ScholarCf. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 424, and Jeremias, The Eucharistic Words, pp. 61 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 253 note 1} See Barrett, op. cit. p. 458 and other commentaries.Google ScholarStendhal, Krister, ‘The School of St Matthew’, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis, xx (Uppsala, 1954), p. 131;Google ScholarNoack, op. cit. p 82.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 1} Buse, op. cit. p. 218, clarifies the independent features in John's presentation by comparison with Mark. See also Gardner-Smith, op. cit. pp. 68 ff. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 516, indicates features from the Syn. which are lacking in John. Lee, op. cit. p. 56, simply takes all the agreements as proof for dependence on Mark, without asking about possible agreements between independent traditions. Concerning the common tendency in John and Matthew to emphasize the voluntary character of the sufferings of Jesus, see Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 426 (with reference to John xix. 30) and Dahl, op. cit. p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 2} See Barrett, op. cit. p. 459.Google Scholar

^{page 254 note 3} Against Lee, op. cit. p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 1} Against Barrett, op. cit. pp. 447; 450 and 454 and Buse, op. cit. pp. 217 f. They do not discuss the types of agreements with the Syn., that is whether they are in fixed expressions, etc.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 2} The judgment seat motif is used quite differently in John xix. 13 and Matthew xxvii. 19. See Barrett, op. cit. pp. 452 f. and Dali, op. cit. p. 26. Cf. Buse, op. cit. p. 218.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 3} See Barrett, op. cit. p. 449 and other commentaries.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 4} Barrett, op. cit. p. 449 and Buse, op. cit. p. 218.Google Scholar Thus the use of in John xviii. 40 rather shakes than supports Buse’s theory of dependence here on stratum B in Mark (concerning stratum B, see Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1953).Google ScholarBultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 502, has seen that must refer to a source independent of the Syn.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 5} Correctly in Schniewind, op. cit. pp. 66 and 69 f. Cf. Acts iii. 14, John viii. 46, I Pet. ii. 22 f., II Cor. V. 21.Google Scholar

^{page 255 note 6} As usual Gardner-Smith, op. cit. pp. 62 ff. emphasizes the independent features in John, but the analysis is rather sketchy.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 1} Barrett, op. cit. p. 437.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 2} Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, pp. 496 f., clarifies the difference between John and the Syn.Google Scholar

^{page 256 note 3} Gardner-Smith, op. cit. pp. 60 f. Buse, op. cit. p. 217, stresses thatJohn echoes Mark. However, one can find a similar echo, to take just an example, in the Crucifixion narrative, but Buse does not consider any dependence on Mark there.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 1} Barrett, op. cit. p. 437, thinks thatJohn has built on the hint of two hearings in Mark. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johamzes, p. 497, maintains that the addition of Caiaphas is secondary. Cf. the attempt to smooth over among the textual variants.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 2} See Fridrichsen, Anton, Missionstanken i Fjärde evangeliet, Svensk Ex. Årsbok, II (1937), 139.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 3} Cf. Barrett, op. cit. p. 437. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, p. 498.Google Scholar

^{page 257 note 4} Against Barrett, op. cit. p. 441.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 1} See the analysis in Bultmann, Das Evangeliwn des Johasmes, p. 528 (the narrative of the disciples going to the grave is secondary), and Barrett, op. cit. p. 466 (John is independent, but also influenced by Mark).Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 2} Barrett, op. cit. p. 467, indicates this understanding.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 3} See Bultmann, Da Evangelium des Johannes, p. 531, n. 6, with references.Google Scholar

^{page 258 note 4} Dahl, op. cit. p. 32.

^{page 259 note 1} More thorough discussion in Dahl, ibid.

^{page 259 note 2} We have pointed to only a few parallel tendencies in connexion with particular verbal agreements, since a fuller treatment would have necessitated a broader discussion of the theology in the Gospel of John as well as the theology of each synoptic gospel individually. It was for this reason that John xviii. 1–9 was not discussed in detail, even though the section stressed the majesty of Jesus in a way comparable to the tendency in Matthew xxvi. 47–56.