Writing and Rewriting the Gospels, James W. Barker, foreword by Mark Goodacre. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. (ISBN: 9780802874528) 2025.

Summary; Drawing on ancient compositional practice, argues for for a “snowballing” process of gospel writing.

We have long noticed the similarities of the first three gospels. Hence the term “synoptic” (literally “seeing together”). Yet we also notice that Matthew and Luke share a body of material in common not in Mark as well as some material being unique to each. The scholarly consensus is that Mark wrote first. Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as a second source known as Q (short for Quelle). No actual Q manuscript has ever been found but its existence is posited on the basis of shared material. Finally, John wrote much later and independently.

James W. Barker challenges this consensus, defending a hypothesis by Farrer that argues for a “snowballing” of composition. The argument is that Mark indeed wrote first, Matthew followed, drawing upon Mark. In turn Luke wrote using both Mark and Matthew. Finally, John used all three Synoptic gospels in a creative formulation. And there was no such thing as Q. The shared material of Matthew and Luke was added by Matthew and used by Luke.

Barker develops his argument in part upon recent research into ancient compositional practice. Some of this includes his own work in copying the gospels onto codices and bookrolls. He also develops evidence of that the practice of rewriting an earlier writer’s work was common practice. Moreover, it was not overly cumbersome to work with multiple sources in rewriting. He then turns to the synoptics and offers evidence for Matthews rewriting of Mark and Luke’s use of both. For example, in Mark 12:38b-39, Jesus warns about scribes, their finery, the greetings and the seats they expected. Matthew 23:2b, 5b-8a elaborates this. Luke 20:46 virtually copies Mark verbatim, but Luke 11:43 adds some of Matthew’s material.

Then Barker turns to John. Only about a quarter of the material in John is shared. He notes that the differences reflect a storytelling device known as oppositio in imitando, the imitating of a story while turning many elements inside out. Barker compares, for example, the synoptics treatment of Samaritans with Jesus encounter with the Samaritan woman. He looks at the paralysis healings, the feeding of the five thousand and taking Luke’s Lazarus character and literally raising him to life. He develops from this a case that John also “rewrote,” interacting with the prior material.

Finally, he traces Christology in Paul’s work, the synoptics, and John, as well as later works. He contends Mark and some of Paul left room for adoptionist Christologies. Matthew and Luke, with the birth accounts laid groundwork for a higher Christology. He argues that John’s high Christology anticipates the councils and contributed substantively to them.

The most attractive aspect to me of Barker’s proposal was his argument against Q. I always wondered about this shadowy source no one has ever found. He offers a plausible account to me for both the distinctive composition of each gospel and how they “snowballed” on earlier accounts. In so doing, he advances Farrer’s hypothesis of the literary relationships between the gospels. I think he makes a good case for this being at least a viable alternative to the two source explanation. And he even incorporates John in the process, although I suspect there is much more to be done to make his case fully persuasive. All told, this is an important contribution to our understanding of the relationship of the four gospels.

____________________

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