Deiniol Williams
1
AN EVALUATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN’S GOSPEL AND THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS.
BY
DEINIOL WILLIAMS
April, 2016
Deiniol Williams
2
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 1:78 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.’
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.
Deiniol Williams
3
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
8
Percival Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels, (London: Cambridge University Press, 1938).
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.
9
Deiniol Williams
4
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
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), 362. 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
Brown, John, 100.
20
For an overview and critique of the supplement theory, see Moody Smith’s overview of Hans Windisch’s
work in Moody Smith, John Among the Gospels, 19-31.
Deiniol Williams
5
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
C. H. Dodd, following on from Gardner-Smith’s work, argued strongly for the significance of oral tradition in
the relationship between John and the Synoptics. Whilst Dodd contended for an independent understanding of the
relationship, many scholars who hold a dependent view are now open to the view that John may have known of a
Markan tradition rather than Mark. C. H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel, (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1963). Oral transmission is also reviewed helpfully by James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 238-254.
22
Other related questions can be asked of this theory, such as ‘Why did John not affirm/deny the validity of
Mark?’ but the answer to questions like this one will likely be found in determining John’s intention.
23
See Carson, John, 52-55.
24
Ibid, 52-55.
25
This plausibility of John presupposing a certain level of knowledge of Mark was judged ‘likely’ in Barrett,
“John and the Synoptic Gospels,” and is developed extensively in Bauckham, “John for Readers of Mark.” Bauckham
highlights particularly two ‘explanatory parentheses’ in John 3:24 and 11:2 respectively. These parentheses, he argues,
‘are intended specifically for readers/hearers who also knew Mark’s Gospel,’ 151.
26
Anderson, in “John and Mark: The Bi-Optic Gospels,” contends for an ‘interfluential, augmentive, and
corrective’ relationship between John and Mark.
21
Deiniol Williams
6
‘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,’
27
It is acknowledged that there may be ways in which John supplements Mark, interprets Mark, and possibly
even corrects Mark. The view presented here is that these do not make up John’s main interest in writing his gospel in
relation to his proposed use of Mark.
28
“ee Anderson, John and Mark, 186.
Deiniol Williams
7
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 description of John’s relationship to the Synoptics is one of augmenting and
complementing the material therein.
---
29
George R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco, Texas: Word, 1987), xli-xlii.
C.K. Barrett, “The Place of John and the Synoptics Within the Early History of Christian Thought,” in
Adelbert Denaux, John and the Synoptics, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 63-79.
31
Whilst acknowledging the work of F. Neirynck as adding value to the discussion concerning John’s
relationship to the Synoptics, one wonders whether even his attempts are in a large way seeking to find in John a
writing style that is simply not present, namely, verbatim use of the Synoptics and strict adherence to the Synoptic
order.
30
Deiniol Williams
8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, Paul N. “John and Mark: The Bi-Optic Gospels.” Pages 175-188 in John and the
Johannine Tradition. Edited by Robert Fortna and Tom Thatcher. Philadelphia:
Westminster John Knox, 2001.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. The Gospel According to St John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text. London: SPCK, 1958.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. “John and the Synoptic Gospels,” Expository Times LXXXV (1974):
228-233.
Barrett, Charles Kingsley. “The Place of John and the Synoptics Within the Early History of
Christian Thought.” Pages 63-79 in John and the Synoptics. Edited by Adelbert Denaux.
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Bauckham, Richard. “John for Readers of Mark.” Pages 147-171 in The Gospels for All Christians:
Rethinking the Gospel Audiences. Edited by Richard Bauckham. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998.
Beasley-Murray, George R. John. Word Biblical Commentary 36. Waco, Texas: Word, 1987.
Brown, Raymond Edward. An Introduction to the Gospel of John. New York: Doubleday, 2003.
Brown, Raymond Edward. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1991.
Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Leicester:
Apollos, 1992.
Dodd, C.H. Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel. London: Cambridge University Press, 1963.
Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 3d
ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Gardner-Smith, Percival. Saint John and the Synoptic Gospels. London: Cambridge University
Press, 1938.
Green, Joel B., and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Leicester: InterVarsity, 1992.
Deiniol Williams
9
Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John: The English Text With Introduction, Exposition and
Notes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.
Neirynck, Frans. “John and the Synoptics: 1975-1990.” Pages 3-62 in John and the Synoptics.
Edited by Adelbert Denaux. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992.
Smith, Dwight Moody. John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-Century Research.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.
Smith, Dwight Moody. “John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem,” New
Testament Studies 26 (1980): 425-444.
Stanton, Graham. The Gospels and Jesus. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.