My "best book I have read this summer" is Mark Goodacre's The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John's Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2025). It is not a long book but it packs a punch. Written by the New Testament world's leading proponent of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (i.e. that non-Markan material common to Luke and Matthew is explained by Luke's knowledge of Matthew rather than by proposing use of a hypothetical document called Q), this book argues that
"the author of John's Gospel knew, used, presupposed, and transformed the Synoptics" (p. ix).
This is not a new position since for most of Christian history Christians have assumed John's Gospel had a relationship to the other three gospels, but it is a renewed position (with good arguments in the light of latest scholarship) since much of NT scholarship since the middle of the 20th century has either argued or simply assumed that John is independent of the Synoptics.
To be fair to the argument that John was composed independently of the Synoptics, there are multiple ways in which John's gospel is very different to the Synoptics. To take a few glaring differences, John reproduces none of the parables we know well from the Synoptics, he places the cleansing of the Temple at the beginning of Jesus' ministry and not at the end, and he narrates three Passover visits by Jesus to Jerusalem when the Synoptics know of only one.
Nevertheless, Goodacre argues, with the aid of a number of clearly set out textual parallels (in Greek and in English), 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. The author of the Fourth Gospel did not use Synoptic-like traditions but the Synoptic Gospels themselves" (p. 17).
I am persuaded that Goodacre is correct (and thus my personal position has shifted from "John seemed to know Mark's Gospel, possibly the other two" to "John definitely knew the Synoptic Gospels and drew on their wording in various parts of his gospel").
If Goodacre is correct, then what implications might that have for how we understand John's Gospel?
In no particular order of priority:
1. We must reckon with how John deals with the three Synoptic gospel accounts which he knows directly rather than allowing a form of wriggle room for John to have known "Synoptic-like" traditions so that where he differs from the Synoptics we can explain that in terms of his receiving variant traditions rather than the actual Synoptic material.
If John knows the Synoptic material he absolutely changes a number of ways in which their collective narrative is conveyed to us.
In particular, note these examples from a larger set of possible examples of Johannine changes:
- the revealing of various titles for Jesus is compressed into John 1 (along with some new John-sourced ones such as "Word" and "Lamb of God.");
- the calling of the first disciples is (so to speak) fish-free in John 1 (though it is possible that there is an initial Johannine calling and a later Synoptic calling from their nets);
- the cleansing of the temple by Jesus is brought forward chronologically (John 2);
- the healing of an official's son (John 4:46-50) is strongly reminiscent of the healing of a centurion's servant (Matthew 8:5-13; Luke 7:1-20: were there multiple such miracles in Jesus' ministry or has John recast the Synoptic stories?);
- then the healing of the man at the Bethsaida pool (John 5:1-18) recalls the healing and forgiveness of the paralyzed man (Mark 2:1-12 and parallels), with particularly strong verbal links concerning talk of taking up his mat and walking (John 5:8-9/Mark 2:9-12 - see further in Goodacre, p. 7) - again, there were multiple instances of dramatic healings across the gospel narratives, and so maybe John's language in influenced by Mark, rather than John has made a dramatic transformation of Mark's 2:1-12 story;
- then, the biggest change John makes to the narratives at the end of Jesus' life, is to detail his death occurring on the day of preparation for the Passover (Jesus is crucified as the lambs for Passover meals are slain, John 19:31) rather than on the day of Passover itself (so, the Synoptics).
2. We should note the ancient assessment of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic Gospels:
"Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irristibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel" (Eusebius, History, 6:14, citing Clement of Alexandria [c. 150AD to c 215AD].)
On the one hand, this is testimony to the view of Christian scholars through most of Christian history, that John knew the contents of the other gospels.
On the other hand, this is testimony to a reasonable way to understand the different character of John's Gospel in relation to the Synoptic gospels: it is a "spiritual gospel" in comparison to the Synoptics giving us "physical facts." Today we (if we might assume Clement's role for a moment or two) would likely say,
"Last of all, aware that the historical facts had been recorded in the Synoptic gospels, encouraged by his disciples (those belonging to his school of theological teaching about Jesus) and irristibly moved by the Spirit (who, according to John 16:13 "will guide you into all the truth"), John wrote a theological gospel (where "theological" means that John told the history of Jesus in such a manner that he took his students then, and his readers now, deeper into the truth of Jesus Christ in relation to the God of Israel and of the universe, summed up in John's conveying the idea that God the Father and Jesus the Son were one)."
3. We should allow that John has other sources of information than he has read in the Synoptic gospels. Some of this additional information may be due to his strong links with Jerusalem and Jewish leaders based in that city. But John's greatest source may be Jesus himself, if he (the beloved disciple) had intimate conversations with Jesus (perhaps including Jesus reporting to him special conversations between Jesus and others such as Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well). Nevertheless, it is far from explicable to suppose that every difference between John and the Synoptics is due to John's own sources.
4. We should allow that John may have changed what he read in the Synoptics because he lived in a different cultural context to our own and in that context saw no moral difficulty in writing what he wrote in comparison to the Synoptics. Today we would call such changes "spin doctoring" or "fictionalizing the facts." But our day is not John's day. In his day "biographies" and "histories" were different to our day. There is a wealth of scholarship devoted to those differences and I am not knowledgeable enough of that particular field of study to give a summary of findings. Suffice to say that we should not presume to conclude that John was doing anything other than writing the truth about Jesus Christ, with special reference to understanding the role of the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Jesus in guiding him to write what he wrote. The heart of that truth not being "historical facts" (if by that we mean "Jesus did this, then he did that, and afterwards he had a meal with these people, during which this particular dispute arose") but a profession of faith, that Jesus Christ was the Word of God become human flesh, that he was the ever existent Son of God in union with God the Father, and so forth. John writes not to recite for a fourth time (following Mark, Matthew and Luke) the historical facts of Jesus' life and times, but to lead us to belief in Jesus - the Jesus who is "the Messiah, the Son of God" so that through belief we might "have life in his name" (John 20:31).
5. We should allow that there are unexplainable (or yet to be explained) mysteries here. This is, I suggest, the critical question we do not have an answer to:
Why does John set out his understanding of Jesus Christ in relation to God and in relation to ourselves in the form of a gospel, structured similarly to the Synoptics (baptism, ministry, last supper, betrayal, arrest, trial, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) rather than, say, in the form of an exposition such as Paul gives (e.g. Ephesians 1, Philippians 2-3 and Colossians 1) or as an extended sermon such as the writer of Hebrews gives?
There is much more to be said and perhaps I will come back to this topic later in 2026.
