JETS 41/2 (June 1998) 201213

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN

AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS
JAMES D. DVORAK*
Since the beginning of the modern era, scholars have debated everything
from the authorship of the fourth gospel to its purpose. Not uncommon among
these debates has been that concerning the relationship between this gospel
and the synoptic gospels. As D. M. Smith has noted, this particular debate
stretches far back into history:
The relationship of John to the synoptic gospels has been a recurring problem,
not only for two centuries of modern critical scholarship, but for Christian the-
ology and exegesis over a much longer period.
1
There has been no break in the debating over this issue. But there has been
some change in what many scholars believe about the relationship between
the gospels.
Until about World War II
2
the dominant view was that John knew and used
one or more of the synoptic gospels when writing his account.
3
P. Gardner-
Smith,
4
however, began a trend away from the dependence theory when he
brought to light two of its shortcomings:
First, the existence of continuing oral tradition at the time when the Gospel
was written, which renders the argument for Johns dependence on the Syn-
optics less compelling; second, the concentration of critics on points of agree-
ment between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics and their overlooking of
the signicance of the dierences.
5
Since that time many scholars have followed theories that view John as hav-
ing written independently of the synoptics.
In most recent debates, the arguments concerning Johns relationship to
the synoptics have centered around three distinct positions
6
: (1) that John
1
D. M. Smith, John and the Synoptics: Some Dimensions of the Problem, NTS 26 (1980) 425.
2
Ibid. Cf. also P. Borgen, John and the Synoptics, The Interrelations of the Gospels (ed. D. L.
Dungan; Leuven: Leuven University, 1990) 408.
3
L. Morris, Studies in the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969) 15.
4
P. Gardner-Smith, Saint John and the Synoptics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1938).
5
This summary of Gardner-Smiths points is from G. R. Beasley-Murray, John (WBC 36; Waco:
Word, 1987) xxxvi.
6
A fourth position, oered by H. Windisch (Johannes und die Synoptiker [Leipzig: J. C. Hin-
richs, 1926]), is that John aimed to replace the synoptics. Recently variations of this theory have
emerged, but they have not gained much support. Of them D. Guthrie (New Testament Introduc-
tion [4th ed.; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990] 286287) says that they may be dismissed with-
out further discussion. See also T. M. Dowell, Why John Rewrote the Synoptics, John and the
Synoptics (Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 453457.
* James Dvorak is a student at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 2065 Half Day Road,
Deereld, IL 60015.
one pica long
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 202
was literarily dependent upon one or more of the synoptics, (2) that John was
literarily independent of the synoptics but that similarities between them are
due to use of a common synoptic tradition(s), and (3) that John was literarily
independent of the synoptics but was aware of them and their tradition(s).
7
I. LITERARY DEPENDENCE
The rst theory that must be discussed is that which claims John was
literarily dependent upon one or more of the synoptics. This position must
be assessed carefully, since several distinct arguments have been made to
forward it.
In America the argument for the thesis has arisen, at least in part, as a
result of Norman Perrins
8
suggestion that one can nd traces of Marks re-
dactional work on the passion narrative in Johns account.
9
He writes:
For a long time the general opinion of New Testament scholars was that the
passion narrative existed as a connected unit before the gospel of Mark was
written, and it was easy and natural to think that John had known and used
a version of that pre-Markan narrative rather than the gospel of Mark. But
today the tendency is to ascribe more and more of the composition of the pas-
sion narrative to the evangelist Mark himself and to doubt the very existence
of a pre-Markan and non-Markan passion narrative extensive enough to have
been the basis for the gospel of John.
10
The principle here is simple and clear-cut: If elements of synoptic redaction
have found their way into the fourth gospel, then John must have known
not merely Markan tradition but the gospel of Mark itself.
11
Traces of in-
disputably Markan redaction in John should prove beyond reasonable doubt
Johns knowledge and use of Mark.
12
Therefore, according to Perrin, the
similarities between John and Mark in the passion materials
13
strongly im-
ply that John knew and used Mark.
This redaction-critical stance should not be too hastily acclaimed, how-
ever. Perrins position seems to be based on the presumption that Markan
redaction can be easily identied. Lloyd Kittlaus correctly observes that one
cannot be suciently certain about what is and what is not Markan redac-
tion.
14
In reality, of the linguistic and stylistic criteria used to establish re-
daction on the Markan side, eighty-ve to ninety percent are missing from
7
R. Kysar, The Gospel of John in Current Research, RelSRev 9 (1983) 316.
8
N. Perrin and D. C. Duling, The New Testament: An Introduction (2d ed.; San Diego: Har-
court Brace Jovanovich, 1982) 332337.
9
Kysar, Gospel 316.
10
Perrin and Duling, New Testament 334.
11
Smith, Dimensions 436.
12
Ibid. 437.
13
The materials of which Perrin and Duling speak are the trial scene set in the context of
Peters denial.
14
L. Kittlaus, John and Mark: A Methodological Evaluation of Norman Perrins Suggestion,
SBLSP (Missoula, Scholars, 1978) 269279. See also S. S. Smalley, Redaction Criticism, New
Testament Interpretation (ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 191, where one is
reminded to be cautious in the analysis of any editorial activity because one is not always sure
who the editor is.
spread run one pica long
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 203
the Johannine parallels.
15
Also the ones present are largely common Greek
words or words without which a story could scarcely be told.
16
In the end
the unambiguity that redaction critics hoped for with this argument still
turns up more ambiguity.
From Europe come much more extensive arguments for synoptic depen-
dence. Among the most recognized is that of C. K. Barrett. He asserts that
John had read Mark and was inuenced both positively and negatively by
its contentsthat is, he reproduced in his own way some Markan substance
and language and also emended some of the Markan materialand that a
few of Johns statements may be most satisfactorily explained if he was fa-
miliar with matter peculiar to Luke.
17
Barretts case rests heavily on the order in which certain key passages
occur, for he feels that since John has the same order as Mark in ten inci-
dents it is very likely that he knew Mark.
18
The list
19
of incidents Barrett
cites is represented in the following chart.
This argument is not a strong one. The similarity of order in which the key
passages occur (which is the foundation of Barretts argument) seems largely
determined by the events themselves.
20
15
Smith, Dimensions 437. See also E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Markan Gospel: A
Study of Syntax and Vocabulary as Guides to Redaction in Mark (SNTSMS 33; Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University, 1978).
16
Smith, Dimensions 438. Examples of common words being used would be g pgo, ko0a and
avg in John 1:23; Mark 1:3 and s3oi va, o0gg and roi ov in John 6:1617; Mark 6:45.
17
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John (London: Westminster, 1955) 34.
18
Ibid.
19
This list is found in Morris, Studies 16.
Incident Mark John
The work and witness of the Baptist 1:48 1:1936
Departure to Galilee 1:1415 4:3
Feeding the multitude 6:3444 6:113
Walking on the lake 6:4552 6:1621
Peters confession 8:29 6:6869
Departure to Jerusalem 9:3031;
10:1, 32, 46
7:1014
The entry 11:110 12:1215
The anointing 14:39 12:18
The last supper with betrayal
and denial predictions
14:1726 13:117:26
The arrest 14:4352 18:111
The passion and resurrection 14:5316:8 18:1220:29
20
L. Morris, John, Gospel according to, ISBE 2.11041105.
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 204
The ministry of John the Baptist had to come rst, and Jesus departure for
Galilee must follow that. The feeding of the multitude, which took place in
Galilee, must come later than the departure for that region. Barrett next cites
the walking on the lake, and this is the kind of sequence that would prove his
point if there were enough examples. He goes on to Peters confession, but it
seems that Mk. 8:29 does not refer to the same incident as Jn. 6:68f. Jesus de-
parture for Jerusalem had to follow the Galilean ministry, and the entry to Je-
rusalem could scarcely come anywhere else in the sequence. Actually, Barrett
here links two events, the anointing and the entry, but has to note that they
are in the reverse order in the two Gospels, so this is not very convincing. The
Last Supper, arrest, Passion, and Resurrection follow, and there is nothing re-
markable in their being in the same order in the two Gospels.
21
As it stands, the evidence advanced to show that John depended on the
Second Gospel in the writing of his own is rather meager.
22
Barrett bases his Lukan dependence theory partly on the fact that Mary
and Martha, a disciple named Judas (not Iscariot), and Annas are mentioned
in both John and Luke.
23
He also mentions several details that seem to link
John and Luke: The betrayal is due to the possession of Judas by Satan,
Peters denial is made at the supper and not after it, the high priests ser-
vant had his right ear cut o, at the tomb on Easter morning there were two
angels instead of one, and the details of the Johannine anointing story re-
call the Lucan as well as the Markan narrative.
24
Neither of these lists is
very impressive upon closer examination. That four people are mentioned in
both John and Luke is surely not enough on which to base literary depen-
dence. Nor does a small list of similar details require John to borrow from
Luke.
25
Barretts argument for Johns reliance upon Luke is even less im-
pressive than his case for dependence on Mark.
A more recent dependence argument coming from the European scene is
the one oered by M. E. Boismard and A. Lamouille.
26
This very complex
view of Johns dependence on the synoptics requires that John (or his re-
dactors) have several versions or documents. D. M. Smith gives the follow-
ing summary of Boismard and Lamouilles stance:
For Boismard the inuence of the Synoptics on John arrives on the scene rather
late. First, there was an independent, primitive gospel narrative called by Bois-
mard Document C (or John I); it was composed by an unknown author about
AD 50 in Palestine. This document was taken up, within the Johannine school,
21
Ibid. 1104. See also Morris, Studies 1617, for much the same coverage in somewhat greater
detail.
22
S. J. Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980) 125.
23
Morris, Studies 18.
24
Barrett, Gospel 37.
25
In fact there is even some discrepancy in the list of details. Luke has Satan entering Judas
before he rst sought out the high priests (Luke 22:3). John connects Satan and Judas at the sup-
per (John 13:2, 27). See Morris, Studies 18.
26
M. E. Boismard and A. Lamouille, Levangile de Jean: Synopse de quatre evangiles en
francais (Paris: Cerf, 1977). Kysar, Gospel 316, and D. M. Smith, John and the Synoptics, Bib
63 (1982) 102113, will serve as summaries of Boismard and Lamouille for this study.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 205
by the Evangelist who composed the rst recension of his Gospel in Palestine
in the sixties (John II-A). He revised it extensively thirty-odd years later at
Ephesus (II-B). Only at the stage of the second revision was he inuenced by
the Synoptics. But at that point he knew and used all three, and their inuence
upon him was signicant. At the level of II-B the discourse material, added in
II-A, was augmented and the Gospel received what is essentially its present
shape. Finally, a later redactor (John III) worked the nished Gospel over,
making some changes and additions, sometimes laying material from older level
II-A alongside II-B material intended to displace it.
27
While the Boismard-Lamouille analysis may be confusing to some, it is clear
that they believe John was dependent on the synoptics, albeit a late inuence.
The Boismard-Lamouille theory has been refuted by Frans Neirynck
and others based on the conjectural nature of the argument. Neiryncks
basic position is that John knows all the synoptic gospels,
28
and in that
respect he does not dier with Boismard and Lamouille.
29
But Neirynck
(and M. Sabbe
30
) rejects the theories of hypothetical sources behind John,
whether written or oral:
31
Not traditions lying behind the Synoptic Gospels
but the Synoptic Gospels themselves are the sources of the Fourth Evan-
gelist.
32
A substantial weakness of the Boismard-Lamouille theory, then, is
that it is so detailed and complex that in its totality it rarely attracts a con-
sensus of scholarly opinion.
33
Neiryncks position is a more recent dependence argument coming out of
Europe. His arguments
34
have helped the dependence viewpoint gain new
impetus. His attempt to show dependence involves studying each of the syn-
optics, listing several possible Scripture parallels between them and John,
stating several other scholars arguments about these supposed parallels, and
then formulating his conclusion.
35
For Matthew he concludes that a great
deal of the similarities between Matthew and John, in the passion and else-
where, are found in material that is parallel to Mark, and they are expli-
cable as independent minor agreements.
36
His argument for Luke does
not dier much from his Matthean argument in methodology but has some
27
Smith, John 107.
28
F. Neirynck, John and the Synoptics, Levangile de Jean (Leuven: Leuven University,
1977) 106.
29
Smith, John 107. See also Borgen, John, Interrelations (ed. Dungan) 409.
30
M. Sabbe, The Arrest of Jesus in Jn 18, 111 and its Relation to the Synoptic Gospels,
Levangile de Jean (Leuven: Leuven University, 1977) 205234.
31
Neirynck, John 103106.
32
Ibid. 106. See also F. Neirynck, John and the Synoptics: 19751990, John and the Synop-
tics (ed. A. Denaux; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 15.
33
Smith, John 111.
34
Neirynck, John and the Synoptics: 19751990 1659.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid. 35 (italics his). Keeping in mind that Neirynck believes that John knew and was inu-
enced by all of the synoptics, it is very interesting that he adds to his conclusion on Matthew the
somewhat anticlimactic phrase that some of these similarities may possibly point to independent
use of Mark, the common Gospel source of Matthew and John. Neiryncks conclusion here almost
admittedly stands on unstable ground.
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 206
minor dierences in the conclusion. His Lukan argument is based on basi-
cally the same ground upon which Barrett
37
based his, except that Neirynck
adds the similarity of themes between John and Luke to his argument.
38
His Markan argument is based on practically the same argument as Bar-
retts
39
but focuses more on the passion narrative.
40
It becomes obvious that
Neiryncks position places great emphasis on the similarities between John
and the synoptics, especially the similarities with Mark.
Donald Guthrie briey describes the similarities as follows:
All the records include narratives and comments about John the Baptist, the
call of the disciples, the confession of Peter, the entry to Jerusalem, the last
meal and various sections of the passion narrative. In addition there are com-
mon narratives about the cleansing of the temple and an anointing of Jesus,
but both placed in a dierent setting. These similarities may also be supple-
mented by a number of isolated words of Jesus and others. Yet the whole of this
common material contains very little verbal agreement. There are a few other
allusions which are hardly suciently close to be called similarities, such as
the placing of resurrection appearances by both Luke and John in Jerusalem,
the possible connection between the feet-washing incident in John and the
words of Luke 22:27, and the parallel shing episodes of John 21:1 . and
Luke 5:1 .
41
Craig Blomberg also shows that John is similar to the synoptics in three dif-
ferent categories: (1) John shares a few of the same incidents from Jesus
pre-passion ministry, (2) John shares some stories which narrate incidents
unparalleled in the Synoptics but wholly in keeping with the type of thing
which regularly happens in the rst three gospels, and (3) John records
specic teachings of Jesus which closely resemble those found in the Syn-
optics, even if the contexts and important details vary.
42
As Guthrie in-
directly suggests in his list of similarities, however, some of the similarities
that Neirynck and others base their arguments on do not suciently ex-
plain the incredible amount of peculiarities of the gospel of John. In agree-
ment with this, Raymond Brown writes:
If one were to posit dependency on the basis of similarities alone, one would
have to suppose that the fourth evangelist knew all three Gospels and chose
in an eclectic manner, now from one, now from another. However, even this
suggestion does not hold up when one examines the dissimilarities.
43
Blomberg suggests ve categories of distinctives of Johns gospel and gives
brief examples of each.
44
First, and probably most obvious, involves Johns
37
Cf. supra.
38
Neirynck, John and the Synoptics: 19751990 4546.
39
Cf. supra.
40
Neirynck, John and the Synoptics: 19751990 4849.
41
Guthrie, Introduction 303. On Guthries comment that there is very little verbal agreement,
see also B. de Solages, Jean et les Synoptiques (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 421. Cf. also C. Blomberg,
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987) 156159.
42
Blomberg, Reliability 156157.
43
R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB; Garden City: Doubleday, 1966) xlv.
44
Blomberg, Reliability 153156.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 207
selection (omission) of material. Numerous features about the life of Christ,
found in all three of the synoptics, nd no place in John. For example, Jesus
baptism, the transguration, the parables, and the institution of the Lords
supper are omitted from John. Instead John includes narratives and teach-
ings that are not found in the synoptics: the miracle of turning water to
wine, the raising of Lazarus, Jesus early ministry in Judea and Samaria, his
regular visits to Jerusalem, and extended discourses in the temple and syn-
agogues as well as in private meetings with his disciples and his opponents.
45
A second category Blomberg gives is that of Johns theological distinctives.
Whereas the synoptics seemingly unfold the messianic identity of Jesus some-
what gradually, climaxing with Peters confession on the road to Caesarea
Philippi (Mark 8:2730), Johns gospel from the very beginning directly
identies Jesus as fully divine.
46
This characteristic is particularly discern-
ible, as well as reinforced, by Johns record of Jesus I am statements.
47
A third category involves apparent contradictions of chronology. Here
Blomberg gives the example of how the synoptics record Jesus attendance
only at the Passover Feast that immediately preceded his death, and they
give no clear indication that he had ever been in Jerusalem as an adult prior
to that occasion. John, however, recounts three Passovers and other lesser
festivals with extensive teaching ministries of Jesus in the Jewish capital.
Also, specic events of Jesus last twenty-four hours seem to be full of ap-
parent discrepancies. The day Jesus died, the number (and nature) of the
various hearings and the hour of crucixion dier between Johns account
and the synoptics.
Fourth, various other apparent historical discrepancies emerge. For in-
stance, John shows no knowledge of Christs birth in Bethlehem but tells
how the Jews rejected Jesus since they knew that no prophet would come
from Nazareth (7:52). There are also diculties with the location of the tem-
ple cleansing: The synoptics place it toward the end of Jesus ministry (as
if to be a catalyst for Jesus arrest), while John places it early in Jesus
ministry.
Finally, Blomberg notes that the style of Johns writing diers markedly
from the synoptics. One of the dierences is that in John Jesus is recorded
as having extended discourses, while in the synoptics he is recorded as
speaking in the shorter parabolic style. It is also notable that in John more
thematic language is prevalent (e.g. light, life, witness, truth, glory, election,
knowledge, abiding, the word, the world), whereas in the synoptics such
topical writing is relatively uncommon.
48
It seems, then, that arguments
for Johns dependence on the synoptics are severely hampered by the strik-
ing dierences between them and are therefore improbable.
45
Ibid. 153154.
46
Ibid. 154.
47
For an excellent discussion of these sayings see L. Morris, Jesus Is the Christ (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989) 107125.
48
Blomberg, Reliability 155.
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 208
II. LITERARY INDEPENDENCE
The second theory concerning Johns relationship to the synoptics at-
tempts to take into consideration the similarities and dierences noted above.
It contends that John was not dependent on the Synoptics but that the simi-
larities between the two are due to use of a common tradition.
49
A momentous work in this area has been done by Bruno de Solages.
50
He
contends that John only knew the tradition behind the synoptics, or at least
behind Mark.
51
To establish his argument he begins his book with a statis-
tical analysis to identify those verses of John that may reasonably be said to
be paralleled in the synoptics. De Solages observes that one cannot fail to be
struck by the relative scarcity of such correspondences as compared with
those among the synoptics.
52
Totaling the corresponding verses, de Solages
concludes that of the 868 verses in John only 153 (17.6%) have synoptic
counterparts, most of which are found in the passion, feeding of the multi-
tude, and Jesus walking on the water.
53
Following the analysis of corresponding verses, de Solages compares their
order, particularly in the passion narrative.
54
In a table
55
he demonstrates
how Mark and John have the same sequence in the passion where they cor-
respond, but this sequence is sometimes broken or interrupted by omissions
or dislocations on one side or the other.
56
Perhaps most importantly, de Solages attempts to set a percentage value
on the verbal agreements between John and the synoptics in the passion,
John 6, and certain common logia.
57
To do this, he uses three categories of
agreement: (1) verbatim agreement, (2) equivalent words (i.e. words from
the same root but with dierent inection), and (3) synonyms. In the passion
narrative he nds a total (i.e. total of verbatim, equivalent and synonymous
wording) agreement of about 15.5 percent.
58
For the John 6:121 corres-
pondences
59
he nds about a 27.2 percent total agreement, and for the logia
correspondences
60
he nds very similar results. From these statistical data,
de Solages rather condently states that John does not use the synoptics as
sources but must have been aware of and used their tradition by conrming,
clarifying and correcting it.
61
49
Kysar, Gospel 316.
50
De Solages, Jean. See Smith, John 102106, for an excellent review and summary of de
Solages work.
51
De Solages, Jean 9899; Smith, John 104; Kysar, Gospel 316.
52
De Solages, Jean 21.
53
Smith, John 103.
54
De Solages, Jean 2327.
55
Ibid. 24.
56
Smith, John 103.
57
De Solages, Jean 2766.
58
Smith, John 103.
59
Smith reminds his readers that this passage corresponds to the synoptics throughout. The
percentage of identical agreement is only 13.9 percent.
60
These are John 4:44; 5:23b29; 6:51; 8:51(52); 12:23b, 2526; 13:16, 20; 14:2526, 31; 15:19b,
20a21, 2627; 16:23.
61
De Solages, Jean 67, 172173, 182185.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 209
De Solages bases his view that John and the synoptists had a common
tradition on the fact that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the
fourth gospel and was an eyewitness to the historical Jesus.
62
Much of his
foundation for Johannine authorship is based on the study of B. F. West-
cott,
63
which is still very crucial in the study of Johannine authorship in
modern scholarly circles. From internal evidence Westcott (and hence de
Solages) has determined the following about the author of the gospel: (1) He
was a Jew, (2) he was a Palestinian Jew, (3) he was an eyewitness, (4) he
was one of the twelve apostles, and (5) he was the apostle John.
64
According
to de Solages, if the apostle John is the author then several characteristics
of the fourth gospel are explained: (1) the precision of the facts that are
reported, (2) the independence toward the synoptics (which he sometimes
neglects and sometimes corrects), and (3) the relative scarcity of traces of
Matthew and Luke, who were not eyewitnesses.
65
De Solages view that John knows the synoptics (or at least Mark) but
does not use them as sources makes very good sense in light of his statisti-
cal research. But some could (and would) take issue with de Solages on a
possible weakness in his reasoning, as D. M. Smith observes:
The explanation that this state of aairs results from the authors having been
not only eye-witness to the events he describes, but one of the Twelve, has
a wondrous simplicity and attractiveness. But Solages hardly meets the objec-
tions that have been mounted against this view. Indeed, his references to
scholarly discussions of the problems with which he deals are at best minimal.
Moreover, the supplementation theory (Windisch) which Solages represents
as basically explaining Johns treatment, or omission, of the greater part of the
Synoptic material, is more satisfactory as a general theory of their relationship
when one does not examine individual cases or pericopes in order to assess how
well they may actually be interpreted on this basis.
66
Others (e.g. Brown, Peder Borgen) would disagree with de Solages view
that John had the same traditions as the synoptists. Rather, they would
argue that John had a tradition similar to that of the synoptists.
67
Borgen has oered an interesting argument for the possibility of John
being able to write similarly to the synoptics (or their tradition). He pro-
poses that one could look to Pauls letters in order to gain insight into pre-
synoptic usage of gospel materials.
68
First he compares 1 Cor 10:34, 1617,
21; 11:2329 and Mark 14:2225, from which he determines that be-
tween mutually independent versions of units of oral and/or written tradi-
tions there may be close verbal agreements in the form of sentences, word-
pairs and sets, single words, and corresponding variant terms. Since the
62
Ibid. 200201. See Smith, John 105.
63
B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962) vxxviii.
64
Ibid.
65
See Smith, John 105.
66
Ibid. 106.
67
Brown, Gospel xlv; Borgen, John, Interrelations (ed. Dungan) 410411, 437.
68
P. Borgen, John and the Synoptics: Can Paul Oer Help?, Tradition and Intepretation in
the New Testament (ed. G. F. Hawthorne; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 80.
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 210
agreements between John 2:1322; 5:118; 6:5158 and the synoptics are
neither closer nor more striking then those between the passages in 1 Cor-
inthians and Mark, one could easily hold that John and the synoptics are
mutually independent.
69
Next, Borgen makes several observations about the nature of the tra-
dition behind the gospels: They were handed down and received, activated
and used in Christian communities, and sometimes commented on and in-
terpreted.
70
Also, these expositions had largely the form of sentences, para-
phrases and phrases of sentences, word sets, and words from the given
tradition.
71
The transmission and exposition of tradition can take both a writ-
ten and oral form. The form behind the gospel, however, seems to be pri-
marily oral. Borgen gives the following reasons for believing so:
a) Paul states explicitly that 1 Cor. 11:23 was brought orally to the church at
Corinth. Thus there is a basis for assuming that the tradition as recorded in
the Gospels was also primarily transmitted orally. b) Paul gives his exposition
of the gospel in tradition in written form because he is not present himself and
thus cannot interpret the tradition in person (i.e., orally). This evidence sug-
gests that similar kinds of exposition in the four gospels primarily originated in
oral settings. c) The material discussed in 1 Cor. 10 and 11 and in the Gospels
belongs to identiable pericopes. . . . This observation also speaks in favor of the
view that the oral form is primary, although written form also may be used.
72
After a rather complex comparison of Paul and Mark on the one hand and
John and the synoptics on the other, Borgen comes to a twofold conclusion.
(1) The agreements between John 2:1322; 6:5158 and the synoptics are
neither closer, nor more striking, than those between the above-mentioned
Pauline passages and Mark, and in the case of John 5:118 there are fewer
agreements with the synoptics. To this extent the analysis of these three Jo-
hannine passages supports the hypothesis that John and the synoptics are
mutually independent.
73
(2) Although written documents have been exam-
ined, the oral tradition seems to be the primary source behind the docu-
ments. Also, the parallels between the passages discussed in John and those
in 1 Corinthians 1011 give support to this interpretation. In all of these
passages the traditions seem to be interpreted to meet the challenges that
existed in the Christian communities.
74
Borgens argument does not go without objection. Among his primary ob-
jectors is Neirynck, who disagrees with him on several issues. First he claims
that Borgens point of departure is a comparison between the 1 Corin-
thians 11 passage and the Mark 14 passagethe versions of the Eucha-
rist.
75
He claims that 1 Cor 11:23b25 is irrelevant to the discussion of John
69
Borgen, John, Interrelations (ed. Dungan) 410.
70
Ibid. 41011.
71
Ibid. 411.
72
Ibid.
73
Ibid. 437.
74
Ibid.
75
F. Neirynck, John and the Synoptics: a Response to Peder Borgen, Interrelations (ed. Dun-
gan) 440.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 211
and the synoptics because it is more liturgical than Mark 14:2225.
76
He
also claims that Borgen does not take into consideration the possible problems
of Markan redaction and Pauline interpretation and that, in his discussion
of tradition and exposition, he fails to dene each word and dierentiate
between the two.
77
Borgen replied to the objections of Neirynck,
78
but the
two seem to have reached a stalemate in their debating.
III. MEDIATING VIEW
A third position that has been cautiously hinted at by D. M. Smith
79
has been called a mediating view
80
by some scholars. Smith writes: Pos-
sibly the Fourth Gospel can be adequately explained without primary or
fundamental reference to the Synoptic gospels, but also without denying the
fourth evangelists awareness of them.
81
Among others who have hinted at
this idea are J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin.
82
Upon examining evidence ad-
vanced for Johns use of Mark, they remained unconvinced that Mark was a
source but felt that John must have known Mark. They added: But knowing
Mark and using it as a source are two dierent things.
83
Consequently,
mediating view may be understood to mean that John wrote his gospel lit-
erarily independent of the synoptics but that he knew them and their tradi-
tion(s). This theory seems to best handle the major dierences and the minor
similarities (as noted above) between the fourth gospel and the synoptics.
Perhaps the best mediating view is that put forward by Morris and later
reinforced by D. A. Carson: The Johannne narrative interlocks with that of
the synoptists.
84
By interlocking tradition Morris means those places where
John and the synoptics mutually reinforce or explain each other, without
betraying overt literary dependence.
85
Carson explains:
Direct literary dependence should not in any case be the exclusive issue. When
we see how free John is when citing or alluding to the Old Testament, we per-
ceive that if he adopted a similar practice when citing or alluding to other writ-
ten works it would be exceedingly dicult to reconstruct any part of them from
the Gospel he has written. My views . . . suggest that John had probably read
Mark, and probably Luke. It is not impossible that he read Matthew, but that
is harder to prove. But if he had them in front of him as he wrote, he did not
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid. 441.
78
P. Borgen, John and the Synoptics: A Reply, Interrelations (ed. Dungan) 451458.
79
Kysar, Gospel 316.
80
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Synoptics and John, The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (ed.
J. B. Green, S. McKnight and I. H. Marshall; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992) 795.
81
Smith, Dimensions 444.
82
J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, The Gospel According to St. John (New York: Harper, 1969).
83
Ibid. 10.
84
Morris, Studies 40; Morris, John 1105; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991) 51; D. A. Carson, D. J. Moo and L. Morris, An Introduction to the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 161.
85
Carson, Moo and Morris, Introduction 161; cf. Carson, Gospel 52.
JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 212
consult them, or at least he did not make verbatim use of them. John wrote his
own book.
86
He goes on to say that the relationship between John and the synoptics
should not be evaluated exclusively in terms of dependence one may have on
the other, nor in terms of their divergence, but in terms of their interlocking
connections. These interlocking connections explain the parallels with the
synoptics and the subtle touches or similarities with them as well.
87
Carson goes on to list seven dierent examples
88
of this type of connec-
tion, two of which are quoted here. The rst is an example where John re-
inforces the synoptics:
At several points, John provides explicit theological justication for actions or
motifs common in the Synoptics, but relatively unexplained. Consider, for in-
stance, the commonly noted fact that the Synoptics report many exorcisms
while John records none. It is true that the Synoptics provide some theological
reection on what Jesus is doing when he eliminates demons from human per-
sonalities (e.g., Mt. 12:2528; Lk. 11:1426); but it is the Fourth Gospel that
provides a theology of the devil. Jesus opponents in Johns Gospel trace their
paternity to the devil himself (8:44). The betrayer is moved and inspired by the
devil (6:70; 13:2). . . . In short John, as usual, is profoundly interested in the
undergirding theology.
89
Next is an example where the synoptics reinforce John:
This interlocking cuts the other way. . . . In other words, if John often usefully
explains something in the Synoptic Gospels, the Synoptists frequently provide
information that enables us to make better sense of something in the Fourth
Gospel. . . . Although Johns prologue pronounces that Jesus is the Word that
was with God and was God, and that has now become esh, and although his
Gospel happily refers to Jesus mother and even to his father and mother,
nothing begins to even remotely explain by what means the one who shared
the glory with the Father before the world began somehow became the son
of Mary. For that, the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are far more
helpful.
90
This interlocking view alleviates the alleged contradictions between the
synoptics and John. One such contradiction is that the synoptics only require
about a year for the ministry of Jesus while John requires about three years.
This contradiction of chronology falls into place if one accepts the Johannine
evidence of a ministry lasting longer than a year and that a considerable
part of it was spent in and around Jerusalemwhich the synoptics do not
record.
91
This particular example, as well as other chronological problems
solved by this view, proves to be of inestimable value to the historian. The
implications of the interlocking patterns is that at the historical level what
86
Carson, Gospel 51.
87
Ibid.
88
Ibid. 5253. See Morris, Studies 4262, for 17 such examples of interlocking.
89
Carson, Gospel 5354.
90
Ibid. 54.
91
Morris, Studies 4344.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOHN AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS 213
actually took place was much bigger and more complex than any one gospel
intimates.
92
Much in the quest to establish the historical reliability of the
gospels can be gained when viewing the relationship between John and the
synoptics in this way.
IV. CONCLUSION
It is now benecial to summarize the three basic positions scholars are
taking on the subject of Johns relationship to the synoptic gospels. The rst
position claims to nd evidence for a literary dependence of the fourth evan-
gelist on one or more of the synoptics.
93
The second position contends that
John was not dependent on the synoptics but that the similarities between
the two are due to use of a common tradition.
94
The third view, called a me-
diating view, proposes that John wrote his gospel literarily independent of
the synoptics but that he knew them and their tradition(s).
95
Many complex
arguments have been made for each of these views, a few of which have
been outlined above. It seems best, however, to view Johns relationship to
the synoptics as mediating. This argument seems to make the most sense
theologically and historically. It proposes that John perhaps read Mark and
Luke (and maybe Matthew) but wrote his own gospel, not consulting or
making verbatim use of any of the synoptic gospels. The main idea behind
this view is that John and the synoptics have an interlocking tradition
that is, they mutually reinforce and explain each other. Because of this, the
alleged contradictions between John and the synoptics are explained and dis-
pelled, thus making all of the gospels theologically and historically reliable.
Blomberg makes the following observation about Johns gospel in light of
the synoptics:
A careful comparison of the rst three gospels demonstrates that the similari-
ties between them far outweigh the dierences. When one turns to the Fourth
Gospel, however, one seems to be in a dierent world altogether. The person
who reads the four gospels straight through from start to nish notices this
most clearly; after having read many of the same stories three times over, he
or she is amazed how dierent John is.
96
92
Carson, Moo and Morris, Introdution 163 (italics theirs).
93
Kysar, Gospel 316.
94
Ibid.
95
Ibid. See Smith, Dimensions 444.
96
Blomberg, Reliability 153.