In her 1984 essay, “Jesus–Paul, Peter–Paul, and Jesus–Peter Parallelisms in Luke–Acts: A History of Reader Response,” Susan Marie Praeder surveyed the cataloging and analysis of parallelisms in Luke–Acts from the nineteenth century to 1983. In particular, she noted how different approaches to Lucan studies – tendency criticism (Schneckenburger, Bauer, Schwegler, Zeller), radical criticism (Bauer), literary criticism (Morgenthaler), typological criticism (Goulder), and redaction criticism (Talbert, Mattill, O'Toole, Radl, Muhlack) – have produced lists of alleged parallelisms that continue to share a significant degree of overlap, even if these data have then been subjected to disparate interpretations. Noting that parallelisms have been understood, for example, “as proof of literary sequences and structures, lack of historicity, and certain theological concerns,” she maintains nonetheless that, “although interpretations of the parallelisms have tended to be relatively short-lived, the proposed parallelisms lend some con-tinuity to the history of interpretation. At the same time, she cautions against what we might call parallelomania – i.e. the undisciplined ransacking of Luke–Acts for recurring patterns of narration – and urges readers (1) to be more forthcoming regarding their criteria for locating parallelisms and (2) not to confuse their findings with authorial intent. In their words of caution, some redaction critics have gone much further, querying whether such “correspondences” or “parallel structures” have much relevance at all for attempts at discerning the theology of the Evangelist. After all, in whose mind do these phenomena occur – Luke's or the modern reader's? Against the backdrop of such concerns, we will argue that, from the standpoint of our reading of the narrative of Luke– Acts, authorial intentions are less material than are the manifold interpretive responses supported by the narrative itself.