Is John independent of the Synoptics and does John use some parts of it?

Goodacre makes the point in a recent Mythvision podcast that the gospel of John is the same written phenomena as the Synoptic gospels, follows the same structure, and it is not credible this is coincidence. It’s much the same reason he believes that Luke copied Matthew – Luke follows Matthew’s structure where Mark didn’t (i.e. begins with a birth narrative, includes a genealogy, and has resurrection appearances). He also argues that either Matthew or Luke had to get the idea for modifying Mark from the other, otherwise you’re claiming they both came up with the same idea at the same time (coincidence); and I would say that argument can also be extended to John.
John starts his gospel with the baptism by John the Baptist. Goodacre points this out and asks – who told him that’s how he should start the Jesus story? He could only have got that idea from the Synoptics, it’s not from some universal master narrative as shown by the fact Paul doesn’t start the story with John the Baptist. Paul starts the story, Goodacre argues, with Jesus is of the seed of David (Rom 1:3) and never mentions John the Baptist.

What’s easiest here for me to point out and understand is the structure of the Passion – it’s unmistakeably Synoptic from start to finish, and as Goodacre points out with the start of the story saying there’s plenty of other ways you could start it – there are plenty of other ways to structure the Passion – especially given the fact that the structure we have comes from Mark converting a tradition (or a series of traditions) into a prose narrative.
2 Redaction Criticism:
The author of John is writing with theological purpose and intent. Consider the following passage:

Jn 19:38-42 After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. 39 Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. 40 They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. 41 Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. 42 And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Here John is “correcting” things he doesn’t like in Mark’s narrative. Quite a bit actually, but we’ll just focus on the fact that he has Nicodemus bring the burial perfumes for Jesus. Please note though that the rest of this narrative follows exactly the same structure as the Synoptics. So we can ask the question – is this really new information that is a genuine part of the master narrative?

Well no, it isn’t. Mark has the women go to the tomb to bring the burial perfumes/oils on the third day after he has been buried. John has a big problem with this, and that is why he is including this new segment. It’s to refute the idea that Jesus had been buried improperly as a straightforward reading of Mark 15-16 may imply. However, Mark is no fool. The typical scholarly thought has been that Mark is simply ignorant of Jewish burial customs. However that runs into two issues – 1. it’s illogical that you wouldn’t know you anoint the body as it’s being wrapped in linen. And 2. Mark does describe the anointing, and it happens back in Mk 14:3-9:
While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head. 4 But some were there who said to one another in anger, “Why was the ointment wasted in this way? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii, and the money given to the poor.” And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you trouble her? She has performed a good service for me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and you can show kindness to them whenever you wish; but you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for its burial. 9 Truly I tell you, wherever the good news is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in remembrance of her.”
These cannot both belong in the same “master narrative”. Here we have an allegorical burial anointing that takes place well prior to the burial, foreshadowing the women’s failure to bring the anointing oils in Mark 16. There’s a storytelling purpose and device at work which explains why “Jesus wasn’t anointed properly”. John however is incensed at the idea that the women would try to anoint an already buried body, and isn’t satisfied with a more allegorical anointing happening beforehand. So he has Nicodemus bring the perfumes which he has invented whole-cloth. This is no different to Matthew’s fictional guard at the tomb.
https://archive.org/details/newtestamentintr0000perr_2ed/page/334/mode/2up states this as well.

For a long time the general opinion of New Testament scholars was that the passion narrative existed as a connected unit before the gospel of Mark was written, and it was easy and natural to think that John had known and used a version of that pre-Markan narrative rather than the gospel of Mark.
One recent study that does reckon with this topic is Kari Syreeni’s Becoming John: The Making of a Passion Gospel (T&T Clark, 2019). In his analysis, the gospel underwent a secondary redaction that added the passion narrative, drawing on Mark and Matthew (as well as other possibly oral elements), with Luke possibly reflecting knowledge of John. “According to my hypothesis, the pervasive redaction where the Gospel of John became a passion gospel was influenced by Mark and especially Matthew, whereas the Johannine predecessor, still recognizable in chs 1-12 and parts of the farewell tradition in chs 14-17, was independent from the ‘Synoptics’ ” (p. 29).
John was dependent on the Synoptics through the Passion myself. However, he is indeed dependent on the Synoptic gospels for other parts, for example Matt 8:5-13/Luke 7:1-10 > John 4:46-54 (centurion’s boy/officer’s son) as per Glancy 2011.

Syreeni definitely notes that there is redactional material in the early chapters, including the pericope mentioned. “Where the influence of Mark or Matthew can be argued cogently [in chs 1-12], it follows from my hypothesis that these elements belong to the late passion redaction of John” (p. 29). With respect to the pericope in John 4:43-54, he finds it likely that the predecessor gospel had a healing narrative here (the second of the seven signs), but one substantially different from the parallel in Matthew. The encounter takes place in Cana, not in Capernaum. The man is a βασιλικὸς (i.e. a Herodian official), not a Roman centurion. The person to be healed is ill with fever (which Luke adopts possibly via John), not paralysis, and he is the official’s son, not his slave. So there may be a common oral tradition involving an official from Capernaum but the stories are developed quite differently (also the Matthean version is non-Markan and so may come from an independent source and it contains Q material and so it is itself redactional). Syreeni finds John 4:43-45 and 47b-48 are the insertions from the passion redactor. The former passage is dependent on Matthew 13:57 and clumsily contradicts the tenor of the predecessor gospel at this point (in which Jesus was very well-received in Galilee, unlike the Markan and Matthean narratives). Also v. 47b-48 is a probable insertion that duplicates the official’s plea and shares the theme of disbelief found in other material from the passion redactor (see 6:64, 20:27).
Adele Reinhartz’ introduction to John in The Jewish Annotated New Testament:
Today, the question of John’s relationship to the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) remains controversial. To be sure, there are a number of significant parallels between John and the Synoptics, such as the feeding of the multitudes (6.1–14; cf. Mt 14.13–21; Mk 16.32–44; Lk 9.10–17) and Jesus’ walking on water (6.16–21; cf. Mt 14.22; Mk 6.45–51). On the basis of these parallels, some scholars have argued that John is familiar with one or more of these Gospels. Yet most of the stories, such as the wedding at Cana (2.1–13), Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman (4.1–42), and the raising of Lazarus (11.1–44), are unique to the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel also has a distinctive perspective on Jesus, such as belief in his identity as the preexistent Word and the Word’s role in the creation (1.1–5). It seems reasonable to suggest that while all the Gospels had access to some common traditions, insufficient evidence exists to determine whether the Fourth Gospel had access to a complete text of one or more of the Synoptics.
Having mentioned this, however, there are traditions in John that vary from those of the Synoptics. All three Synoptic Gospels say that Jesus commanded his followers to take up their cross:
Mark 8:34

34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Matthew 10:38

38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.

Matthew 16:24

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.

Luke 9:23

23 Then he said to them all, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.

Luke 14:27

27 Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
What do we make of Eusebius’s statement that John knew the synoptics:
https://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Eusebius_Gospels.htm
Nevertheless, of all the disciples of the Lord, only Matthew and John have left us written memorials, and they, tradition says, were led to write only under the pressure of necessity. 6. For MATTHEW, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. 7. And when MARK and LUKE had already published their Gospels, they say that JOHN, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness…. [my emphasis]
Chapter 21 the last editor was definitely aware and largely dependent on Mark at least (See The Unfinished Gospel by Evan Powell).
Thomas L. Brodie (The Quest for the Origin of John’s Gospel, 1993) believes the author used all three synoptic gospels. He also believes the Epistle to the Ephesians was another source.

Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, 1996) believed that the closest similarities are with Mark, and that parallels with Luke are more of motif than of wording, although he chose not to identify these similarities and parallels as evidence of their use as sources.
John Dominic Crossan (The Birth of Christianity, 1998) says that that John is dependent on the synoptic gospels at least and especially for the passion narratives and the resurrection narratives. He explains that rhetorical techniques almost unique to Mark are present in John just as in Mark, sure evidence of the author having copied from Mark.
D Moody Smith (The Fourth Gospel in Four Dimensions, 2008) says that the evangelist knew all the Synoptics in the form we have them and incorporated elements of the elements from them in the first redaction of his Gospel. He discusses the views of some modern scholars who support the view that John incorporates material from the Synoptics.

━━━━━
More indications
Both the multiplication miracle and bread of life discourse in John 6 seem to indicate some kind of familiarity with the events of the Synoptic/Pauline institution narrative, as well as John’s (at least partially) realized eschatology.
The timing of the multiplication miracle is proximate to the Passover feast, which the synoptics use as a setting for the Last Supper.1 All four of the gospel accounts of this miracle have the receivers of the multiplied food sitting down before Jesus gives them the miraculous food, just as in the synoptics’ accounts of the Last Supper. All of the synoptics describe Jesus as “looking up to heaven” (as he does in John 17:1), blessing, and breaking the bread before distribution. John describes Jesus as “giving thanks” (εὐχαριστήσας) before blessing and breaking.2 All of this imagery appears at one place or another in the various accounts of the institution narrative. There is enough conceptual overlap here to think that there’s some sort of relationship, whether literarily, or between distinct traditions.

John displays the multiplication of the loaves and the Bread of Life discourse as related by their Eucharistic undertones (Jn 6:23, 30-31). It should be noted that the telos of the entire discourse is a precise methodology for the attainment of divine life (see John 6:33, 39, 40, 44, 47, 49-51, 53-58, 63, 68). The attainment of divine life, elsewhere in John referred to as mutual indwelling with God, is a common theme in the Fourth Gospel and is the epitome of John’s eschatology.3 Aune states, “As the primary mode of expressing realized eschatology within the Fourth Gospel, eternal life has both a communal setting as well as a cultic setting.”4 Léon-Dufour opines, “…authentic cult or worship is inseparable from life.”5
Its also interesting to note that in the institution narratives, there is an implicit image of Jesus as a new prophet like Moses. The explicit identification of blood and covenant evokes the covenant establishment of Exodus 24, and the fact that it is connected to a meal seems to evoke the heavenly meal of Exodus 24. Likewise, John’s multiplication miracle and bread of life discourse seem to portray Jesus as the giver of miraculous bread and the new manna (cf. Exod 16).
It seems to me that John doesn’t depend on the synoptics in the same literary way they depend on each other, but he does seem to have familiarity with them and/or their originating traditions. Perhaps he even assumes that his audience does as well.
John 6:52-56 shows that there is a familiarity with the Eucharistic ritual.
━━━━━━━━━━

John/Synoptics share some material.

Scholars more affirm John used Luke, and John is dependent on the Synoptics.

Ken Olsen argues that the author of John knew all of the synoptics. Chris Keith and Mark Goodacre both argue for the same conclusion. Another video where Mark Goodacre argues the same.

1. Mark

In the book The Case for a Proto-Gospel: Recovering the Common Written Source Behind Mark and John Gary Greenberg argues for a shared source between the gospels of Mark and John, see this video.

See this article that argues John knew gMark.

A second theory on the origins ofFG suggests that the Fourth Evangelist employed one or more of the Synoptics as sources, and the most convincing argument along these lines infers FE’s spiritualized use of Mark. C. K. Barrett, for instance, develops the implications of connections between the broad out lines of, and particular Greek phrases within, Mark and John (Barrett 1978, 5-15). While FG differs greatly from Mark, Barrett nonetheless infers that FE has borrowed from Mark’s overall structure and has spiritualized some of Mark’s content. But a closer analysis reveals the following facts. First, the gen eral similarities between the Markan andJohannine passion narratives do not necessarily imply derivative influence in either direction. Important events and details are missing or present between each of these gospels, and this implies separate traditions and individual developments. Some contact may have existed between Mark’s and John’s traditions, but the relationship does not appear to have been a derivative one, at least not in the way that Matthew and Luke were derivative from Mark. This conclusion is confirmed when one compares the feeding story in John 6 with its parallels in Mark 6 and 8. Barrett proposes six linguistic similarities and three points of contact in the outlines of these chapters, but in fact one may infer twenty-four points of contact between John 6 and Mark 6 and twenty-one contacts between John 6 and Mark 8. On close scrutiny, however, the number of identical contacts among these forty-five potential similarities is zero (Anderson 1996, 97-104). This fact makes it impossible to conceive FE used Mark in a derivative way, at least not in the ways Matthew and Luke did. In that sense, Gardener-Smith’s (1938) judgment that FG was m· ,aet:•en dent of Mark remains essentially correct.

The first pattern involves the similarity of detail typified by the sorts of linguistic contacts inferred by Barrett and others. These details resemble the sorts of material employed by storytellers & preachers, and they appear to reflect traces of early oral traditions. John offer translations of Aramaic terms into Greek and the explanations Jewish customs for Gentile audiences. Such features are missing from and Luke, and the best inference is to consider these as bridges between (Palestinian) oral traditions and later, more cosmopolitan written ones.

If] ohannine/Markan contacts can be traced, however, to oral stages of their respective traditions, it is impossible to infer which direction the influence may have gone. Indeed, “influence” may be the wrong term; the relationship may better be described as “interfluential” rather than influential. If both traditions appear primitive at times, and if the contacts were between preachers telling their own versions of Jesus stories, the Markan tradition may have picked up on early Johannine renderings of accounts rather than vice versa. Contacts between FG and Mark can clearly be seen at the beginning of]esus’ ministry, in the role of]ohn the Baptist, in the feeding and sea-crossing miracles, in sev eral teachings of]esus, and in events surrounding the Passion, death, and res urrection of Jesus. If pre-Markan and early Johannine preachers picked up and reinforced details from one another, this hypothesis also may account for some of the differences in perspective between the two traditions. Indeed, gospel traditions were not simply disembodied sets of ideas floating from one reli gious setting to another. Rather, they represent living, feeling, thinking human beings, who perceived and reflected on events distinctively and creatively. The fact that much of Mark’s outline is similar to John’s suggests that Mark may have provided something of a pattern for the first edition ofFG.Jesus’ healing and teaching ministries come across in their own distinctive ways in FG, but when the five signs included in the first edition of FG (the water into wine, the healings of the official’s son, the paralytic, the blind man, and the raising of Lazarus) are considered in relation to Mark, it becomes apparent that these are all absent from Mark.

Likewise, the explicit emphasis that the first two miracles are the first two signs done in Cana of Galilee (John 2: 11; 4:54) may be FE’s attempt to fill out the earlier part of Jesus’ ministry. The contents of]ohn 1-4 may reflect an opinion that the launch ing of Jesus’ ministry was a bit more public, extensive, and festive than the Markan healing in the household of Simon Peter’s mother-in-law (see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 24).
A third feature emerging from comparisons and contrasts between FG and Mark involves material in FG that appears dissonant with, and corrective to, Mark. Neither Matthew nor Luke was satisfied with Mark as it stood, let alone the contributor of Mark’s “long ending.” But Matthew and Luke simply built on Mark and added their own material and material from Q to produce “new and improved” versions of the earlier gospel. If FE, however, built around Mark and added distinctively Johannine material, this might account for a good deal of FG’s independence from Mark without entirely rejecting FE’s familiarity with Mark. FG’s independence from Mark may be considered non derivative and autonomous, but it also appears FE was engaged dialogically with Mark’s tradition. Familiarity and dissonance together, however, imply a corrective to Mark. In many ways, the Johannine presentation ofJesus’ ministry is more realis tic than Mark’s rendering. In Mark, Jesus ministers for less than one year, goes to Jerusalem only once, and is then killed. FG, on the other hand, mentions three Passovers and portrays Jesus more realistically going to and from Jerusalem and Galilee. Mark suggests an abrupt transition between the min istries of John the Baptist and Jesus, whereas FG presents a more interwoven connection. FE’s emphasis that Jesus did not baptize, though his disciples did (John 4:2), also seems to be a corrective clarification in the interest of realism,
Parallels between Mark/John

One intriguing difference between Mark and John is FE’s placement of the Temple Incident at the beginning of] esus’ ministry rather than at the end. The standard explanation states that FE has shifted the event from its original loca tion in the story for theological reasons, but this assumption has several prob lems. First, such theological motives must be assumed; they are not stated explicitly by the evangelist. Second, the Temple Incident appears to be one of Jesus’ early demonstrations that the Galilean crowd had witnessed when they too were in Jerusalem (John 4:45). As a third consideration, since Mark places all of his Jerusalem-related material at the end of Jesus’ ministry, the Temple Incident may appear at the end of Mark less as a factor of historicity and more as a factor of common-sense con jecture.

Corrections to Mark’s Gospel in John:

Matthew

This video argues that John knew Matthew.

Barker contends that Johns saying concerning forgiving and retaining sins derives from Matthews binding and loosing logion. John knows Matthew’s second binding and loosing saying (18:18) embedded within an extended discussion of sin and forgiveness (18:15–35). Matthew’s redactional transition from Jesus’ saying about binding and loosing (18:18) to Peter’s question about forgiving sin (18:21) explains how John adopted the form of the Matthean logion and inserted the content of forgiveness and non-forgiveness. As a corrective to Matthew, John emphasized the disciples’ responsibility not to forgive in every instance. The first Johannine epistle harmonizes the binding and loosing saying in Matt. 18:18 and the forgiving and retaining sins saying in John 20:23. First John thus reveals traces of the Gospels of Matthew and John being read alongside one another, which was most likely John’s original intent.

Against oral tradition: Emerton’s supporting evidence is far too late to establish first-century usage. He posits opening and shutting (Aram. חתפ and דחא) in place of binding and loosing (Aram. רסא and ירשׁ) as explaining the sayings in Matt. 16:19 and 18:18 as well as John 20:23. However, Emerton supposes that particular meanings of ירשׁ also extended to חתפ without ever demonstrating his thesis that חתפ (open) morphedintoMatthew’sλύω(loose) andJohn’sἀφίημι(forgive). Matthew’s binding and loosing sayings use δέω and λύω, the equivalents of רסא and רתנ (Hiphil) in Hebrew and רסא and ירשׁ, which is also spelled ארשׁ, in Aramaic. This purported synonymy constitutes the basis for many arguments that John’s forgiving and retaining sins saying (20:23) represents an independent variant of Matthew’s binding and loosing saying (16:19; 18:18) (Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 347–49; those citing Dodd approvingly include Barrett, Gospel according to St. John, 571; Brown, Gospel according to John, 2:1039; Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 693n2; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2:639–40; Tobias Hägerland, Jesus and the Forgiveness of Sins: An Aspect of His Prophetic Mission (SNTSMS 150; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 81; Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Gospel according to St. John, trans. Kevin Smyth et al. (3 vols.; HTKNT 4; New York: Herder & Herder; Seabury; Crossroad, 1968–82; repr. New York: Crossroad, 1990), 3:473 n. 87; Urban C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John (3 vols.; Eerdmans Critical Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 2:856–57. For John’s “forgiving and retaining sins” as the original form of the saying, which Matthew changed to “binding and loosing,” see Michael Theobald, Herrenworte im Johannesevangeliums (Herder’s Biblical Studies 34).

If binding and loosing do not mean retaining and forgiving sins, then the language in John 20:23 requires another explanation. My solution is quite simply that John knows the context of Matthew18,particularly the redactional transition from instructions for convicting a sinner (18:15) to the binding and loosing saying (18:18) and then to Peter’s question about forgiveness of sins (18:21) (Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, 348–49). loosen (λύω) is synonymous with forgive and that John is reacting against Peter’s authority as depicted in Matt. 16:19. John 20:23 amounts to a reinterpretation of the entire redacted chapter of Matthew 18. Whereas Matthew admonishes disciples not to withhold forgiveness from the penitent, John reminds disciples of their authority and responsibility not to grant blanket forgiveness. The Johannine saying occurs after Jesus’ resurrection when he first appears to a group of disciples.

In the forgiveness saying, the (divine) passive voice conveys that God concurs with the disciples’ decisions, and the perfect aspect signifies the enduring significance of the disciples’ decisions:

The passive verbs in Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23 are rightly understood as divine passives, but there is a persistent misunderstanding of the meaning of the perfect tense/aspect. Julius Mantey (“The Mistranslation of the Perfect Tense in John 20:23, Mt 16:19, and Mt 18:18,” JBL 58, no. 3 [1939]: 243–49; idem, “Evidence That the Perfect Tense in John 20:23 and Matthew 16:19 Is Mistranslated,” JETS 16, no. 3 [1973]: 129–38; idem, “Distorted Translations in John 20:23; Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18,” RevExp 78, no. 3 [1981]: 409–16) argued that the perfect tense—generally a past action, the result of which endures to the present—means that God has already decided whom or what to bind, loose, forgive, or retain and that disciples must simply adhere to God’s prior declarations. Others (see esp. Henry J. Cadbury, “The Meaning of John 20:23, Matthew 16:19, and Matthew 18:18,” JBL 58, no. 3 [1939]: 251–54, here 252) have corrected Mantey by pointing out that all three verses constitute conditional sentences and in each one the (future) perfect tense appears in the apodosis; the action described in the apodosis does not precede the action of the protasis. Although in Matt. 16:19; 18:18; John 20:23 a future perfect such as “will have been bound/loosed” constitutes formal equivalence, it is not a mistranslation to use the dynamically equivalent present or future.

John agree with Matthew that humans have the authority to forgive sins. However, John leaves out Matthew’s proviso that God will only forgive the disciples’ sins inasmuch as the disciples forgive other people’s sins. In other words, Matthew 18 focuses on what happens to the disciples if they do not forgive, and John 20:23 focuses on what happens to the sinners whom the disciples do not forgive. John copied the structure of Matthew’s binding and loosing saying while knowing that binding and loosing refer to declarations of prohibited and permissible beliefs and actions. John would not merely have encountered a free-floating, orally transmitted saying. John must know Matthew’s redactional transition from the binding and loosing saying to the discussion about forgiveness and the consequences of withholding forgiveness. In other words, the wider context of Matthew 18—not the Aramaic term ירשׁ or its Greek cognate λύω—accurately and sufficiently explains how John turned Matthew’s binding and loosing into forgiving and retaining sins. John’s logion intimates a concern that unrestrained permissiveness toward sinners in the church in effect declares their sins permissible. Read in this light, the operative concern in John 20:23 is not Matthean authoritarianism, as Anderson characterizes Diotrephes. In John’s estimation, church authorities were not too strict; church authorities were too lenient. John’s primary intent was to correct Matthew by reasserting the church’s authority and responsibility to withhold forgiveness in some instances (Maria Mayo, The Limits of Forgiveness: Case Studies in the Distortion of a Biblical Ideal).

The protases of 1 John 5:16 and Matt. 18:15 closely resemble one another:

1. Luke

Dionysian Gospel: The Fourth Gospel and Euripides by Dennis MacDonald argues that John is dependent on Luke:

Alot of scholars however believe Luke was dependent on John:

• Becoming John: The Making of the Passion Gospel Kari Syreeni
• F. Lamar Cribbs, “A Study of the Contacts That Exist Between St. Luke and St. John and A Reassessment of the date of origin and destination of the gospel of John
• Mark A. Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?
• Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke; Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context and the relationship of Luke on John: A fresh look at an old problem
• Robert Morgan, which was the fourth gospel? The order of the gospels and the unity of the scripture
• Paul Anderson The Fourth Gospel and the Quest For Jesus; Modern Foundations Reconsidered and Acts 4:19-20—An Overlooked First-Century Clue to Johannine Authorship and Luke’s Dependence upon the Johannine Tradition https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/acts357920
• Luuk van de Weghe the beloved disciple https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/964BF90DF6ECDC4EA7C6144A17F55754/S0028688521000473a.pdf/beloved_eyewitness.pdf
• Andrew Gregory The Third Gospel? The Relationship of John and Luke Reconsidered.

Bilby argues in his book that the gospel of John depends on the Evangelion, and that the final version of Luke in turn depends on the gospel of John.