An Evaluation Of The Relationship Between John`s Gospel And The Synoptic Gospels

Introduction

Evaluating 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.

Independence

In 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]

Dependence

Turning 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]

Evaluation

Summarising 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