The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John's Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Mark Goodacre) - Review
At some point in my educational
career, I was disabused of the idea that the Gospel of John was just like the
other three, which are known as the Synoptic Gospels. I discovered that
Matthew, Mark, and Luke had a lot in common. In fact, most of Matthew and
Luke's narrative skeleton was based on Mark's Gospel. It seemed difficult to
connect John with that layout. For one thing, John lacks parables, and he places
some events in different places than the synoptics. He even has different
events, like the wedding of Cana and the raising of Lazarus. When you compare
John’s Gospel with the Synoptic Gospels, it seems as if John had his own
sources for writing his story of Jesus. At least that's the way I came to
understand things. But what if John knew the Synoptic Gospels and reworked them
in his own fashion? Would that make a difference in the way we read John?
One scholar believes this is true,
and he seeks to demonstrate this in his book The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John’s Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That scholar is Mark Goodacre,
who teaches New Testament and Christian Origins at Duke University. Goodacre is
not new to offering contrary positions on such matters, since he is also known
for questioning the existence of Q. This is the sayings source that Matthew and
Luke are said to draw upon as they composed their own Gospels, while using Mark’s
Gospel as the foundation, and adding in the sayings from Q, along with their
own materials. Goodacre isn't sure that's the way things worked. However, that
is not the point of this book. In The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, Goodacre
doesn't engage in a conversation about the underlying sources of the Synoptics.
Rather, he is interested in demonstrating the relationship of John's Gospel to
the Synoptics. Since I’m a church historian and not a New Testament scholar, I
will leave the more specialized engagements and critiques with Goodacre’s
arguments to the experts. However, as a
non-specialist with a strong background in biblical studies (I took numerous
Bible courses in college and seminary), who has been preaching for several
decades, I find his proposal compelling. Of course, that would mean John's
Gospel must have been written a bit later than the Synoptics, which is not
controversial. However, the suggestion that John may have had the Synoptic
Gospels in front of him as he wrote his Gospel is, to my knowledge, something
rather new. Goodacre’s proposal is simply this: he "argues that the author
of John's Gospel knew, used, presupposed, and transformed the Synoptics"
(p. ix). It is in transforming what we find in the Synoptics that makes John's
Gospel so different.
Although many modern scholars might
disagree with the premise that John knew the synoptics, that wasn’t always the
case. With that reality in mind, in the first chapter, titled "First
Impressions," Goodacre introduces the reader to the process that began in
the mid-twentieth century, which led to the contemporary view that John's
Gospel is completely independent of the Synoptics. The charge is that despite
similarities, there are not enough of them to demonstrate a relationship between
them. Goodacre believes, however, that there are “significant literary parallels
between the Synoptic Gospels and John, and that these are sufficient to
establish that John was familiar with Matthew, Mark, and Luke” (p. 17). When he
speaks here of the Synoptics, he means the Synoptics, not Synoptic-like
traditions. While he believes John knew the Synoptics, he isn’t suggesting that
John had a heavy dependence on them. Thus, while the author may know these
Gospels, he reimagined and transformed them into something that looks very
different. So, Goodacre begins in this
chapter to lay out his argument for a relationship. He suggests that we not
think in terms of dependence but knowledge and familiarity. The question then
is, how did the author of this Gospel transform what he found in the Synoptics?
In Chapter 2, titled "When
John is Synoptic,” Goodacre again acknowledges that John is very different from
the Synoptics. He notes that it tells different stories and omits several
stories found in the Synoptics, including the baptism of Jesus, the
transfiguration, the parables, as well as the institution of the eucharist. The
Synoptics focus on Jesus' proclamation of God's kingdom, while John focuses on
eternal life. Yet, there are connections, often unacknowledged. Although it is
true that you can't lay John side by side with the Synoptics and see how it
fits, there are ways of finding those connections. In Goodacre’s view, there
are enough of these parallels that it makes more sense to connect John with
them than to simply depend on a different oral tradition. Thus, while John is
very different, there is evidence that John had contact with the Synoptic
Gospels.
Having revealed the similarities
between John and the Synoptics, Goodacre dives deeper in Chapter 3, which is
titled "John, from Mark, via Matthew and Luke.” In this chapter, Goodacre
addresses the growing interest in the possibility that John transformed Mark's
Gospel. While agreeing with that assessment, he suggests that John's access to
Mark may have come through Matthew and Luke. He offers what he believes is
evidence that John knew how Matthew and Luke had reworked Mark. What he
discovers in his study of John are minutiae, small elements that reveal
interesting connections. While they are easily ignored when looking at the big
picture, like the archaeologist discovering a shard of pottery, those shards,
though small, can often reveal something about the bigger picture. He believes
this is true here.
Goodacre titles Chapter 4,
"John's Presupposition of Synoptic Narratives." In this chapter, Goodacre
seeks to demonstrate how John presupposed elements from the Synoptic stories
when writing his own Gospel, such that he assumes the readers already knew the larger
story from the Synoptics so that he could add other details to the story. He
points to several places where John appears to presume that the audience knows
the context from other sources, so he doesn't feel he needs to narrate the
entire story. Why is this important? According to Goodacre, “If John is routinely
leaving key materials unnarrated and expecting his readers to know those
materials, it helps to answer one of the age-old questions about the gospel,
and one we love to underline in our introductory lectures: why does John omit
so much?” (p. 91).
We move on in Chapter 5 to
"John's Dramatic Transformation of the Synoptics." When one reads the
Gospels, one may, if one is attentive to the storylines, recognize the
differences in the way the story of Jesus is presented. For example, Mark
always seems in a hurry to get to the next point, whereas Matthew and Luke take
their time. In the case of John’s Gospel, a closer read reveals that his
version is much more dramatic than the Synoptics. Therefore, in places where the
authors of the Synoptics use the narrator to tell the story, John uses dialogue
by the characters in the story to move the scene along. Again, he provides the
reader with several examples—usually first in Greek and then in English. Another
interesting element of this more dramatic presentation is that even when the
narrator is present in the story, the narrator is usually a participant in the
drama.
Having taken note of the active
participation of the narrator in the story in Chapter 5, Goodacre moves on to a
chapter titled "The Beloved Disciple for Readers of the Synoptics"
(Chapter 6). One of the big questions when it comes to the Gospel of John is
the identity of the Beloved Disciple. While tradition suggests it is John the
Apostle, who figures prominently in the other Gospels but remains absent or at
least unnamed in the Gospel of John, in this Gospel, others, such as Thomas,
Philip, and Nathaniel, along with Peter, stand at the forefront. While several
options have been suggested over the centuries regarding the identity of the
Beloved Disciple, including intriguing ones such as Mary Magdalene and Lazarus,
the evidence seems to point to one of the twelve (minus Judas). If it is one of
the twelve, then who might that be? Goodacre believes the evidence points to
John, and some of that evidence comes from comparing John’s Gospel with the
Synoptics. But not all will agree with this assessment. Nevertheless, this is a
really intriguing chapter that should be of interest to many who have long
wondered who this Beloved Disciple is, who sat beside Jesus at the Last Supper,
and who appears to be the narrator.
Readers of the Gospels will have
noticed that John seems to have a much more developed and bolder Christology.
Whereas the Synoptics point to the Kingdom of God, in John, Jesus points to
himself. Here, the focus is on the I Am statements, which do not have a
parallel in the Synoptics. However, as Goodacre notes here, there are
connections between the I Am statements and material, especially in parables,
that are found in the Synoptics. In fact, without exception, John uses material
found in the Synoptics rather than materials found elsewhere. This includes the
titles of Messiah and Son of God. He lists all fourteen shared titles, noting
all the passages where they are found. Thus, regarding John's Christology, as
it relates to the Synoptic Christology, he writes that "what John's Gospel
does is to underline, emphasize, and center Jesus language so that it becomes
simpler and more direct. The disciples, who so often fail to understand in the
Synoptics, here Jesus clearly in John" (p. 160).
Yes, John's gospel is very
different in language and tone from the Synoptics. That cannot be denied.
However, a close reading offers evidence that John may have known the
Synoptics, which he transformed for his own purposes. It is a premise that seems
to make sense, since it explains some of the absent material as well as the
similar material. Although Goodacre’s The Fourth Synoptic Gospel is rooted
in deep scholarship, even if Goodacre’s views of the Gospels are at times at
odds with the consensus view, it is also well-written and accessible to the
non-specialist, whether clergy or well-informed laity. Therefore, I believe it
is worth working through the proposal because it may make John a lot more
understandable. I think that preachers, especially, will want to investigate
Goodacre’s proposal even if they end up rejecting it. That’s because the
proposal is so intriguing and makes so much sense of the available evidence.
Comments