Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
No discussion of the relationship between the Fourth and Second Gospels can ignore the striking verbal agreement περιπάτει (John v. 8 and 11; Mark ii. 9 and 11), particularly in view of the inclusion of the late κράβαττος, so frowned upon by the purists and avoided by Matthew and Luke in the parallel passages.
1 Cf. for example, Dodd, C.H, The Fourth Gospel, p. 449 n. 2,Google Scholar and Howard, W. F., Christianity according to St John, p. 17 n. 2. For the opposite view, cf, McNeile, Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd edit., p. 270.Google Scholar
2 St John and the Synopiw Gospels.Google Scholar
3 op. cit. pp. 5–6, 21–2.Google Scholar
4 Cf. Strachan, R. H., The Fourth Gospel, its Signficance and Environment, p. 28.Google Scholar
5 op. cit. p. 26.Google Scholar
1 Evangile selon Saint Jean, 8th edit., p. 139.Google Scholar
2 For the view that the collection was in written form before the composition of St Mark's Gospel, cf., for example, Branscomb, B. H., The Gospel of Mark, p. xxiii.Google Scholar
3 The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate, p. 377.Google Scholar
4 Op. cit. p. 138.Google Scholar
1 The Gospel According to St Mark, pp. 192f.Google Scholar
2 Bulletin of John Ryland's Library (1944), p. 133.Google Scholar
3 op. cit. particularly pp. 102, 327 and 332.Google Scholar
4 The Earliest Sources for the Lfi of Jesus, p. 94.Google Scholar