1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp 399-403
Today, pp. 403-5.
Now Allison returns to Mark and John. He considers John to be independent tradition from Mark and so finds correlations between the two particularly significant. I don't know his back argument here. The more I read the more I sense that there is an intuitive element to his thinking, which pulls a little against the more scientific image.
I am much the same. My own sense of things--it not being my area--is that I find it hard to believe that the author of John did not know the Gospel of Mark, yet I consider John to incorporate many oral traditions that do not go through Mark directly.
I find Allison's chart on p.404 very persuasive. On the points he has extracted from Paul we find agreement in Mark and John (Jesus speaking in advance of his death, being handed over, Judeans involved, Romans triggering a crucifixion, etc.). Allison now asks the historical question. Which came first? Are the gospels based on Paul or are they both drawing on a pre-Markan passion narrative?
Allison goes for pre-Markan passion narrative. What is unclear to me is whether Allison is thinking of an oral or written source here. I completely agree that at least some often recounted oral version of Jesus' passion existed. How could it not have. I await being convinced if he means there was a written version of the passion prior to Mark. I'm very open. I just haven't seen the argument to convince me.