THE FOURTH SYNOPTIC GOSPEL: John’s Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. By Mark Goodacre. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2025. Xiii + 191 pages.
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.
This review originally appeared on BobCornwall.com.
Robert D. Cornwall is an ordained minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ). Now retired from his ministry at Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Troy, Michigan, he serves as Minister-at-Large in Troy. He holds a Ph.D. in Historical Theology from Fuller Theological Seminary and is the author of numerous books, including “Eating With Jesus: Reflections on Divine Encounters at the Open Eucharistic Table” and “Second Thoughts About Hell: Understanding What We Believe” coauthored with Ronald J. Allen. His blog Ponderings on a Faith Journey can be found here.
