In The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, Mark Goodacre offers a clear, systematic argument for John’s knowledge of the written texts of the synoptic Gospels. In the opening chapter, Goodacre first traces the emergence of a focus on oral tradition as the Gospel’s primary source to Charles Dodd and Percival Gardner-Smith. Goodacre returns to this argument for oral traditions repeatedly across the book in order to refute it. He also argues that readers have overemphasised the Fourth Gospel’s differences from the synoptics and not looked closely enough at the considerable similarities between them.
Chapter two explores examples of ‘when John is synoptic’. Goodacre meticulously lays out parallel words and phrases in shared material but also shows how the Fourth Gospel largely maintains the order of synoptic passages. Deviations from the synoptic order of events, such as the temple cleaning account in John 2:13–22, are, he argues, exceptions rather than the rule. The Fourth Gospel shares the synoptic structure of a passion narrative with an extended introduction. Goodacre also notes a significant thematic consistency: like the synoptic Gospels, John tells the story of a hidden messiah who is only (partially) understood by insiders.
Chapter three builds the case for the fourth evangelist’s knowledge of Matthew and Luke by showing where the author picks up words or phrases from Matthean and Lukan redactions of Mark. For example, John follows the Matthean redaction of Mark when the Johannine Jesus tells Mary Magdalene to go to ‘his brothers’ (Matt. 28:9–10; cf. John 20:17–18). Similarly, John follows Lukan redaction when he reports that Satan entered Judas (Lk 22:3–6; cf. John 13:26b–27).
Chapter four moves to the question of where the narrative of the Fourth Gospel presupposes knowledge of the synoptics. In this case, the point is not only that the author is familiar with the synoptic Gospels but also that his readers are as well. Here, not every example offers a convincing case against the use of oral tradition. Goodacre asks, for example, how likely it is that knowledge from the oral tradition of Martha, Mary and Lazarus would lead to the opening of John 11, where the author assumes that readers know of Martha and Mary but not of Lazarus. One answer could be that the audience knows of oral traditions about Martha and Mary but not of Lazarus (who, incidentally, does appear in Luke 16, just not as the brother to Martha and Mary).
Chapter five explains how John interacted with his source material. Goodacre turns to the long-recognised dramatic elements in the Fourth Gospel to show how the author worked creatively with the synoptic sources. Indirect accounts become more dramatic direct-address accounts voiced by newly introduced dramatic personae. In these cases, instances of dramatic irony are heightened if one assumes the author had knowledge of the synoptic Gospels.
Chapter six takes up the well-worn question of the identity of the Beloved Disciple. Goodacre claims that readers of the synoptic Gospels would see clues in the Johannine narrative indicating that the Beloved Disciple is John the Son of Zebedee. Goodacre is right to distinguish the question of the identity of the Beloved Disciple from the question of authorship. Still, his argument has at least one puzzling inconsistency. Goodacre argues that the ‘other’ disciple mentioned in John 18:15–16, 19 is clearly not the Beloved Disciple, because the author does not point back to when the Beloved Disciple was introduced in 13:23. Yet, Goodacre considers the unnamed disciple in John 1:35–37 to be an important clue for identifying the Beloved Disciple as John, the son of Zebedee, even though here, too, there is no retrospective indicator linking the two characters. Moreover, when the Beloved Disciple appears at John 21:20, there is a retrospective reminder precisely of the Beloved Disciple at his first appearance in chapter 13. Space does not permit a listing of other counterarguments here. Suffice it to say that this chapter distracts from the otherwise convincing case that Goodacre builds.
The final chapter treats John’s christological focus. Goodacre suggests that the roots of Johannine Christology can be found in Matthew. The so-called ‘Johannine thunderbolt’ in Matthew did not in fact strike from the Johannine heavens. Rather, Matthew’s (not Q’s) introduction of the Father and Son relationship in Matthew 11:25–27 inspired the development of Johannine Christology. Similarly, the imagery associated with the ‘I am’ sayings in John can readily be found in the synoptic Gospels. Here, one wonders how far to go in seeing, for example, a common reference to vines as a sign of familiarity. To see Jesus’ status as the ‘true vine’ as part of the Fourth Gospel’s wisdom imagery is a more compelling association than with synoptic traditions, where Jesus refers to drinking from the ‘fruit of the vine’.
Given the emphasis that Goodacre places on readers of the Fourth Gospel, more attention to how we should think of this group of readers would have been helpful. Are these highly informed readers that Goodacre’s argument requires further evidence that the Gospel authors were primarily members of literary communities?Footnote 1
Questions over details aside, Goodacre offers many convincing examples of John’s knowledge and use of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. The result is a strong contribution to the question of John’s sources that I expect will contribute to a new scholarly consensus. With his engaging style, Goodacre succeeds in writing an accessible book for students and non-specialists, but specialists will benefit from his work as well.
