118 Hellen Mardaga lièrement apparente dans leurs récits de la Passion et des apparitions2. Commentant ces récits chez Lc, M.A. Matson essaye d’indiquer les élé- ments repris de Mc et Mt. Les autres parties du texte ne sauraient dès lors provenir que de la main créative de Luc, de la source L, de certaines traditions orales ou de l’influence de l’évangile de Jean. Cette dernière éventualité constitue la question prioritaire de son étude3. L’ouvrage de M.A. Matson est le point de départ de cet article sur la triple mention des disciples en Jn 18,1-2 qui a pour objectif principal de démontrer que la deuxième partie du verset 18,1 εἰς ὃν εἰσῆλθεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, n’est pas un ajout ultérieur mais cadre bien avec le contexte de la péricope et le style répétitif du quatrième évangeliste. I Au chapitre trois de son livre M.A. Matson discute les ressemblances entre Jean et Luc et fait remarquer qu’il s’y trouve trois correspondances principales entre Lc 22,39 et Jn 18,1(2)4 : 1. Le nom Γεθσημανί fait défaut, ce que l’auteur appelle ″une omission commune‶5. L’absence de ce toponyme dans les deux textes ne se présente pas comme un argument particulièrement fort pour faire admettre un rapport nécessaire entre ce verset de Lc et le quatrième évangile6. Matson, In Dialogue, 18: “As stated earlier, the aim of this study will be relatively 2 narrow: an examination of the Luke-John relationship from the perspective of Luke. Simply put, the question I want to consider is this: Is it reasonable to suppose that Luke knew and used John, either its final form or some earlier recognizable form, in the composition of the Third Gospel? In order to test that thesis, I will focus on [sic] my attention on the Passion and Resurrection narratives of Luke, which are the richest source of material for Luke-John similarities”. Matson, In Dialogue, 263: “I will attempt to clarify the elements of the Lukan story 3 that are derived from Mark, either directly or with some modification, and those derived from Matthew. From that analysis, it will become possible to identify unique material that cannot be traced back to Mark or Matthew. This unique material could have come from Luke’s creative hand, from a special written source (L), from some oral traditions or from the influence of the Gospel of John. It is, of course, the last possibility that is the focus of this study”. Matson, In Dialogue, 95: “Lk 22,39; Jn 18,1 Jesus ἐξῆλθεν alone, with his disciples fol- 4 lowing”, 117: “Lk 22,39; Jn 18,2 Mount of Olives was frequently visited” “Lk 22,40; Jn 18,2 Gethsemane is called ‘the place’”, p. 146: “Lk 22,40; Jn 18,1 Name Gethsemane is absent”. Matson, In Dialogue, 145: “Common Omissions”. 5 Matson, In Dialogue, 148: “The common omission of material from the Mark/Matthew 6 narrative is difficult to evaluate. The mere common absence of material is, by itself, hardly indicative of a literary relationship. In particular with Luke and John, the difficulty is intensified in that much of John’s Gospel is widely different from the Synoptics; therefore, any omission in Luke might simply be coincident with the absence of similar material in John” et sur 291: “While the absence of the term ‘Gethsemane’ is intriguing in light of its common absence in John, it does not offer a strong link to John or to other possible sources behind Luke”.