Tutor HuntResources Religious Studies Resources
An Evaluation Of The Relationship Between John`s Gospel And The Synoptic Gospels
How can we account for the differences and the similarities between John`s gospel and the synoptic gospels?
Date : 28/01/2017
Author Information
Uploaded by : Deiniol
Uploaded on : 28/01/2017
Subject : Religious Studies
IntroductionEvaluating
the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels becomes a
necessary exercise when both similarities and differences between the John and
the Synoptics are observed. Proposed similarities include parallel events (for
example, Mk 1:10 and Jn 1:32 Mk 1:7-8 and Jn 1:23 Mk 6:32-44 and Jn 6:1-15
Mk 6:45-52 and Jn 6:16-21),[1]
parallel sayings (for example, Mt. 9:37-38 and Jn 4:35 Mk 6:4 and Jn
4:44 Mt. 25:46 and Jn 5:29 Mt. 11:25-27 and Jn 10:14-15 Mk 4:12 and Jn
12:39-40),[2]
and a parallel ordering of events.[3]
Proposed differences include differing presentations of Jesus ministry
( geographical and temporal span ),[4]
different miracles or signs recorded, as well as a distinctively different
message presented by Jesus sayings.[5]
The question of how to explain the distinctive differences between John and the
Synoptics, without neglecting their similarities, is a fundamental question in
determining the nature of John s relationship to the Synoptics. Whilst taking
into account the risk of over-simplification,[6]
for the sake of coherence this essay will discuss relevant theories under two
headings: independence and dependence. Views will be evaluated throughout prior
to a final and summative evaluation.An
assumption of this essay is that John s relationship to the Synoptic Gospels is
most accurately understood in evaluating John s relationship to the Gospel of
Mark,[7]
and therefore the language of John and Mark will sometimes be used in reference
to John and the Synoptics. IndependenceIn
1938 Percival Gardner-Smith wrote a short book challenging the general
consensus that John was written in dependence upon the written Synoptic
gospels.[8]
It had been the general consensus through the centuries that John knew of the
Synoptics, but Gardner-Smith suggested that the vast array of differences
between John and the Synoptics had largely been overlooked, and the few
similarities over-emphasised. In addition to this, he called for greater prominence
to be given to form-criticism within the debate.[9]
By-and-large it had, until this point, been assumed that the author of John,[10]
had access to written copies of the Synoptics. The emergence of form-criticism,
he contended, highlighted the reality that the Gospels would likely have been
developed and spread through oral tradition. If this was the case, it would
therefore be less likely that John would have had access to written copies of
the Synoptics. Gardner-Smith s short book had a wide influence on the English
speaking world of the mid-twentieth century, leading many to understand John s
relationship to the Synoptics as one of independence. John, it was supposed,
did not know of the Synoptic gospels.
Parallels between John and the Synoptics, then, could be explained by a
common oral tradition that influenced both John and the Synoptics points of
divergence could simply be due to John s lack of knowledge of the Synoptics.While
a theory of independence makes it easier to accept John s differences,[11]
it rests heavily upon either an early dating of John, or interpreting John and
the Johannine community as an isolated or underground Christian community and
therefore not having access to Mark. The traditional dating of the four
gospels, however, does not support this view.[12]
The traditional dating for the composition of Mark is around AD60-70 and the
composition of John around AD80-90.[13]
Assuming these dates, for John to have written independently of Mark one must
subsequently conclude that Mark was in circulation for 10-30 years without
John s knowledge. For such a hypothesis to be plausible, either Mark s Gospel
must have circulated very slowly, or John and the Johannine community must have
lived in such isolation from the wider Christian community that John would not
have heard of, nor had access to, Mark. Both of these hypotheses are unlikely.
Evidence suggests Mark circulated widely and quickly,[14] and an isolated Johannine community hardly seems
plausible given how well-connected the first century Roman Empire was.[15]DependenceTurning
to theories (plural) here summarised as those of dependence, the shared basic
premise is that John did know of at least Mark.[16]
Similarities between John and the Synoptics are, therefore, simply explained by
John s knowledge of Mark.[17]
The differences between John and the Synoptics, however, are not as easily
explained, and several different suggestions have been made. One theory is that
John sought to supplement Mark by
writing his own gospel. This could be described as the classical theory of
dependence.[18] The historical and
theological content of John supplements the historical and theological content
of Mark. A second theory of dependence takes shape when differences are
explained as interpretations of Mark.
It is suggested that John, evidently writing in a more reflective manner,
offered a theological reflection upon Mark s Gospel. A third theory of
dependence emerges once it is suggested that John, diverging so overtly from
Mark, sought to displace Mark with a
more accurate portrayal of the life and ministry of Jesus.Raymond
Brown, evaluating John s relationship to the Synoptics, suggests that to accept
John s dependence on Mark is to accept that John was careless, even
capricious, when it came to his use of Mark or the Synoptics.[19]
Here lies the difficulty in the view that John knew of and/or used Mark. If
this is true, then the problem becomes John s intention. Take the above
theories of dependence, for example. If John wrote to supplement Mark, then it is by no means obvious how he intended to do so.[20]
It is possible that 20:30-31 and 21:25 were written in reference to John s use
of Mark, but it is by no means clear. If John wrote to interpret Mark, then more overlap of events and sayings would be
expected, along with a more direct linking of Markan material and Johannine
interpretation. If John wrote to displace
Mark, it is not unrealistic to expect John to state his aim clearly. Indeed,
20:30-31 and 21:25 seem to suggest that this was not John s intention. Little
difference is made in this regard by the recent developments in research that
suggest John knew of Synoptic traditions (most
likely oral, but possibly written), but not the Synoptics as we have them
today[21]
the difficulty of finding a likely purpose in John s use of Mark remains.While
the question facing the independent theory is one of plausibility, then, the
question facing dependent theories is one of intention. John, knowing of Mark s
Gospel, deliberately wrote a very different Gospel. The question, therefore,
becomes Why? [22] If a robustly plausible
answer could be suggested in answer to this question, then the view that John
knew of Mark would gain considerable strength, for John s intention in writing
a very different gospel would cease to be an enigma.In
search of an answer to this question, it is worth noting another feature in the
relationship between John and the Synoptics. In addition to similarities and
differences, an interlocking
relationship exists between John and the Synoptics.[23]
That is, there are several passages in John that work to reinforce Mark, and
vice versa.[24] The highlighting of this
feature naturally gives way to the plausibility that John presupposed a
knowledge of Mark when considering his potential readership,[25]
for such inter-connectivity points to careful design. Knowing that many of his
readers would know of and potentially also have access to Mark, John s use of
Mark could then be explained as one of augmenting and complementing, rather
than supplementing, interpreting, or displacing.[26]
The significant differences in John could therefore point to John s dependence
upon Mark in the sense that the author knew of Mark and therefore was able to
decide what Markan content to complement, what content to include, and what
content to exclude. Where John felt more could be written about a particular
event or saying he retold the episode, sometimes offering a more spiritual or
theological reflection. Events and sayings that were omitted in Mark, for
whatever reason, but deemed by John to be significant, were then included in
John s Gospel. Conversely, episodes included by Mark that John did not see as
needing further comment, he did not feel constrained to include. The way in
which John interlocks with Mark, giving way to the plausibility that John presupposed
a knowledge of Mark on the part of his readers, presents the seemingly plausible
thesis that John wrote with the intention of augmenting and complementing
Mark s Gospel. With such an intention, John s dependence upon Mark appears more
plausible than theories of supplementation, interpretation, and displacement,
for the enigma of John s intention would then be removed.[27]EvaluationSummarising
the evaluation of the above presentations, for John to have been written independently
of the Synoptics one of three scenarios would have to be true. Either, 1) John
wrote around the same time as the other Gospels and therefore did not have
prior knowledge of them, 2) Mark s Gospel (and Matthew and Luke) did not
circulate widely nor quickly enough for John to be aware of them, despite John
writing at a later date, or 3) John resided in strange isolation from the wider
Christian community. Each of these three scenarios seem improbable when the
likely respective dates of composition are taken into account and the first
century Graeco-Roman culture observed. It is likely that John wrote around
10-20 years after Mark and was indeed connected to the wider Christian
community, giving way to the likelihood that he at least knew of Mark by the
time he wrote his Gospel.John s
possible knowledge of Mark is further strengthened when it is observed that
John and Mark appear to function in an interlocking relationship. This feature
of their relationship, coupled with proposed parentheses that suggest John s
presupposing of knowledge of Mark, give way to the plausible theory that John
wrote to augment and complement Mark. This provides an adequate answer for the
difficult question facing theories of dependence, namely, John s purpose in using Mark. He was not merely
supplementing, nor merely interpreting, nor seeking to displace Mark, but
building around Mark s account.[28]As
a final contribution to the evaluation of John s relationship to the Synoptics,
a simple and related point is raised. Scholars have long observed how carefully
John s Gospel has been woven together. This has been observed structurally, in
the way that John s prologue precedes a book of signs, transitioning into a
book of glory and concluding with a fitting epilogue. Throughout these
distinct parts of the Gospel run shared themes, motifs, and key words ( life,
world, believe, light, truth, for example). Beasley-Murray contends
that each of the signs and their ensuing discourses in John appear to be a
series of sermons, with each pericope presenting the gospel in miniature form.[29]
All of this suggests great attention to detail and fine literary skill on the
part of the author. This
factor contributes to the discussion on John s relationship to the Synoptics in
the following ways. On the one hand, it challenges the supposition of the
independent theory that the differences between John and the Synoptics are best
explained by independence. Given the author s obvious skill in compiling his
Gospel, it is certainly entirely plausible that he carefully and skilfully
wrote a very different Gospel whilst
making use of Mark. When it comes to John s knowledge of the Synoptics, difference,
then, does not disprove it. [30]
On the other hand, the fact that the author is clearly highly-skilled
undermines overly-simplistic theories of John s dependence on the Synoptics
and, in some cases, challenges the methodology of such theories. Attempts to prove
John s dependence upon the Synoptics by seeking out as many verbatim agreements
as possible, and emphasising parallel order in as many places as possible, seem
somewhat misguided.[31]
Surely such a skilled author would make use of the Synoptic Gospels in much
more fluid and eloquent ways than simply repeating content and order.In
summary, the traditional dating of the Gospels and the knowledge we have of
early Christian tradition presents John s knowledge of (at least) Mark as
probable. Observing the literary skill evident in John, along with the author s
apparent presupposing of knowledge of Mark, it seems that the most fitting
descri ption of John s relationship to the Synoptics is one of augmenting and
complementing the material therein.[1] This list of examples has been
taken from D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament, (Leicester: Apollos, 1992),
161.[2] This list of examples has also
been taken from Ibid, 161.[3] See C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St John: An
Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, (London: SPCK,
1958), 34-36. Barrett highlights a number of passages in Mark and John which he
suggests reveal a strong resemblance in order, and therefore pointing to John s
dependence on the Synoptics. Leon Morris strongly refutes Barrett s conclusion
in Leon Morris, The Gospel According to
John: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 50-52.[4] For example, in the Synoptics,
Jesus ministry is largely presented as taking place in and around Galilee and
could be supposed to take place over less than one year. In John, on the other
hand, Jesus makes frequent visits to Jerusalem and three Passovers are
observed, suggesting Jesus ministry lasted around three years. See Dwight
Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels: The
Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992),
4-5.[5] See again Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels, 4-5. Further and
more extensive discussion of the similarities and differences between John and
the Synoptics can be found in Bart Ehrman, The
New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 3d
ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 159-160 Graham
Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus 2d ed., (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 99-102 Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament,
(New York: Doubleday, 1997), 364-365.[6] Paul N. Anderson, John and Mark:
The Bi-Optic Gospels, in Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher (eds.), Jesus and the Johannine Tradition, (Philadelphia:
Westminster/John Knox, 2001), 184. Anderson warns that Given the complexity of
the evidence, any theory that attempts to summarize [the relationship between
John and Mark] in one word is certain to be wrong. [7] This assumption is based on the
general consensus on dating the gospels, as well as the fact that most
similarities between John and the Synoptics exist between John and Mark. Moody
Smith comments that John s agreements in wording or order with the Synoptics
seem to be principally agreements with Mark. Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels, 3. This is also the view expressed in
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the
Gospel of John, (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 100. It also appears to be an
assumption in Paul Anderson, John and
Mark, as well as in Richard Bauckham, John for Readers of Mark, in
Richard Bauckham (ed.), The Gospels for
All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmens,
1998), 147-171.[8] Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1938).[9] For an overview of Gardner-Smith s
points, see Moody Smith, John Among the
Gospels, 37-43.[10] For the purposes of this essay,
the author of John s Gospel shall be referred to as John. One notes the varying
views on authorship of John.[11] Gardner-Smith s position has the
apparent advantage and attractiveness of sweeping aside the complexities and
perplexities of Johannine-synoptic relationships by in effect denying that
there is a relationship at all Dwight Moody Smith, John and the Synoptics:
Some Dimensions of the Problem, NTS 26
(1980), 428.[12] See Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 162-163. There the
authors write, If Mark was written sometime between 50 and 64, and the fourth
gospel not until about 80, it is very difficult to believe that John would not
have read it. See also Barrett, John and the Synoptic Gospels, ExpT LXXXV 8 (1974), 233. Barrett
comments that If the traditional date of the gospel is correct one wonders
where the evangelist can have lived if indeed he knew none of the earlier
gospels, and it is natural rather than difficult to believe that he had read
at least Mark. [13] Paul Anderson suggests a final
date of composition for Mark of AD70 in Paul Anderson, John and Mark, 181 Carson highlights dating of the various gospels
as a reason he believes that John had read Mark, in D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, (Leicester:
Inter-Varsity, 1991), 51. For dating of John see also Joel B. Green and Scot
McKnight, ed., Dictionary of Jesus and
the Gospels, (Leicester: InterVarsity, 1992), 371.[14] Bauckham comments that we can
assume that Mark had circulated widely by the time John wrote, in Bauckham,
John for Readers of Mark, 148.[15] See Carson, Moo, and Morris, An Introduction, 163. In relation to a
consideration of how authorship and dating effect John s relationship to the
Synoptics, it is stated that The idea of hermetically sealed communities is
implausible in the Roman Empire anyway, where communications were as good as at
any time in the history of the world until the nineteenth century. It is
acknowledged that this line of argument presupposes John of Zebedee as at least
the source of the material in John,
but the argument still stands with the assumed author or source as John the
Elder. Authorship cannot be proved absolutely, but these two sources appear to
be the most likely.[16] It is attested by some scholars
that John knew of all three Gospels, for example see F. Neirynck, John and the
Synoptics: 1975-1990, in Adelbert Denaux (ed.), John and the Synoptics, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992),
3-62. Neirynck goes into fine detail in reviewing scholars who point to
parallels between Matthew and John, Luke and John, as well as Mark and John.
Moody Smith gives an overview of Neirynck s work and own position in Moody
Smith, John Among the Gospels, 147-158.[17] Again, the assumption here is that
Matthew and Luke used Mark to shape their Gospels. As John s Gospel relates to
Mark, then, it relates similarly to Matthew and Luke.[18] Described this way in Moody Smith,
John and the Synoptics, 427.
[19]
[20]
[21][22][23]
[24][25][26][27]
[28][29]
[30]
[31]This resource was uploaded by: Deiniol