The Fourth Synoptic Gospel

The Fourth Synoptic Gospel, Mark Goodacre. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802875136) 2025.

Summary: Maintains that John knew of and used Matthew, Mark, and Luke in composing his gospel.

Two things a first time reader of the New Testament will notice: the similarities of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and how different John’s gospel is from these. As it turns out, biblical scholars also noticed this and most over the last hundred years have concluded that John’s account is independent of the other three, commonly known as the Synoptic Gospels. It is generally believed that Matthew and Luke drew much of their material from Mark as well as using sharing a common source known as “Q.” Today, more are questioning the “Q” hypothesis since no “Q” document has ever been found.

Mark Goodacre, as his title suggests, believes John knew of the other three gospels and used them in his composition of John. First, he begins his case by noting the numerous instances of verbal agreement between John and the Synoptics. He sets passages side by side showing agreement in both Greek and English texts. Then he observes the parallel ordering of a number of events between John and the Synoptics.. From this, he argues, based on linguistic analysis, that John’s drew from Mark as mediated through Matthew and Luke.

In addition, John’s selectivity actually presupposes that not only he, but his readers, were familiar with the other gospels. He doesn’t include material that his readers were already familiar with. At other times, John recounts the same incidents but uses direct speech, putting Synoptic narrative on the characters lips.

Another question scholars raise is whether the Beloved Disciple of the gospel is John the son of Zebedee, as traditionally believed. Goodacre considers the various arguments for who the Beloved Disciple might be if not John the son of Zebedee. Goodacre agrees with the textual pointers to John, yet also that he is “an idealized witness to the key events of the earliest Christian tradition.”

Finally, Goodacre argues that while expressed in distinct language, John’s Christology is consistent with Synoptic Christology. He uses fourteen terms for Jesus in common with the Synoptics. The “I am’s” find precedence in Jesus statement in walking on water (Matthew 14:27//Mark 6:50). The seven “I am sayings all use imagery found in the Synoptics.

I found the evidence of verbal agreement most persuasive for his argument. A shared oral tradition alone would likely have been marked by less agreement. I also found the argument of John’s presupposition of the other gospels credible for explaining the differences. Lastly, I appreciated the discussion of Christology and how John’s is consistent with the others. However, I would like more discussion of the differences, particularly in discourses, that we find in John. Perhaps that’s another book!

_______________________

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary copy of this book from the publisher for review.