Literary dependence of the Fourth Gospel on the Synoptic Gospels

The hypothesis of the literary dependence of the Fourth Gospel on the Synoptic Gospels has recently become persuasive to a significant number of scholars. They point to evident similarities between numerous fragments of the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels. Moreover, they usually argue that literary dependence does not necessarily consist in faithful copying of the source material, but it can also include significant literary reworking thereof. On the other hand, they usually argue for literary dependence of only some fragments of the Fourth Gospel on their thematic and/or linguistic counterparts in the Synoptic Gospels. According to Urban C. von Wahlde, who postulates the presence of three editions in the Fourth Gospel, the author of the third, latest edition of the Fourth Gospel knew and used the Synoptic Gospels. The scholar argues that synoptic-like passages in the Fourth Gospel often do not relate well with their surrounding Johannine contexts, whereas their meaning and relevance is much more evident in their synoptic contexts (U. C. von Wahlde, The Gospel and Letters of John, vol. 1, Introduction, Analysis, and Reference (ECC; William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids · Cambridge 2010), 369–374). Steven A. Hunt in his monograph concerning the relationship between Jn 6:1-15 and the Synoptic Gospels has found evidence for John’s use of not only vocabulary and word order, but also redactional tendencies of the Synoptics. On this basis, he has argued that the author of the Fourth Gospel read all three Synoptic Gospels (S. A. Hunt, Rewriting the Feeding of Five Thousand: John 6.1-15 as a Test Case for Johannine Dependence on the Synoptic Gospels (StBibLit 125; Peter Lang: New York [et al.] 2011), esp. 281–283). Zbyněk Garský (who previously used the surname Studenovský) in his monograph concerning the relationship between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels argues for a ‘poetic’ or ‘allegorical’ dependence of the Galilean sections of the Fourth Gospel (Jn 2:1-12; 4:43-54; 6:1-7:10; 21:1-25) on all three Synoptic Gospels (Z. Garský, Das Wirken Jesu in Galiläa bei Johannes: Eine strukturale Analyse der Intertextualität des vierten Evangeliums mit den Synoptikern (WUNT 2.325; Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen 2012), esp. 297–298, 303–306. See my full review of this monograph in ColT 83 (2013) no. 2, 224–227).

In his commentary on the Gospel of John, Johannes Beutler has argued for the dependence of the Gospel of John on all three Synoptic Gospels, particularly in the fragments concerning John the Baptist and some miracles (esp. Jn 4:46-54), Jn 6, and the passion and resurrection narrative (0 J. Beutler, Das Johannesevangelium: Kommentar (Herder: Freiburg · Basel · Wien 2013), esp. 60). According to Mark Jennings, Jn 13:31-33 is a thematic reversal of Mk 13:24- 27, Jn 13:33-38 is a thematical reversal of Mk 13:27-31, and Jn 14:1-3 is a thematical reversal of Mk 13:24-27; 13:1-2. In the opinion of the Australian scholar, these correspondences, even if taken separately they are evidently rather weak, taken cumulatively they could point to John’s knowledge of Mark at least from memory (M. Jennings, ‘The Fourth Gospel’s Reversal of Mark in John 13,31-14,3’, Bib 94 (2013) 210–236).

Wendy E. S. North is of the opinion that John’s reworking of the thematically corresponding Marcan and Lucan accounts in Jn 12:1-8; 20:3-10 is consistent with his creative reworking of earlier materials in his Gospel. Therefore, she argues that the hypothesis of John’s dependence on the Synoptic Gospels is more plausible than the hypothesis of his independence from them (W. E. S. North, ‘The Anointing in John 12:1-8: A Tale of Two Hypotheses’, in T. Thatcher and C. H. Williams (eds.), Engaging with C. H. Dodd, 216–230 (esp. 220–230); ead., ‘Points and Stars: John and the Synoptics’, in ead., A Journey Round John: Tradition, Interpretation, and Context in the Fourth Gospel (LNTS 534; Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London [et al.] 2015), 207–219 (esp. 215–218). Manfred Lang has suggested that John marked his dependence on the synoptic material in Jn 6:10-11.13-15 with the use of the particle οὖν (‘so’) (M. Lang, ‘Andersheit und Musterwissen: Beobachtungen zum Verhältnis Johannes und die Synoptiker anhand von Johannes 6,1-71’, in J. Verheyden [et al.] (eds.), Studies, 189–204 (esp. 197). Tobias Nicklas has argued that the Johannine accounts Jn 5; 10:22-39 are not simply literary borrowings, but rather ‘new inscenations’ of the thematically corresponding synoptic passages. In the opinion of the German scholar, John verbatim copied some elements of the synoptic accounts, but he also reorganized them, placed them in new contexts, and supplemented them with new elements (T. Nicklas, ‘“Du bist nur ein Mensch und machst dich selbst zu Gott” (Johannes 10,33): Das Motiv der Gotteslästerung bei Johannes vor dem Hintergrund der Synoptiker’, in J. Verheyden [et al.] (eds.), Studies, 239–256 (esp. 255). John Painter, following C. K. Barrett, has noted that the Fourth Gospel begins in a way which resembles that of the Gospel of Mark: with the noun ἀρχή, the verb ἐγένετο, and a reference to John as sent by God. This fact is best explained by the hypothesis of John’s familiarity with the Gospel of Mark (J. Painter, ‘The Prologue as an Hermeneutical Key to Reading the Fourth Gospel’, in J. Verheyden [et al.] (eds.), Studies, 37–60 (esp. 43). James W. Barker has recently argued for John’s literary dependence on the Gospel of Matthew, which was hitherto regarded as the least plausible candidate for being one of John’s synoptic sources. In Barker’s opinion, the bipartite formula concerning forgiving and retaining sins (Jn 20:23) is a reworking of the structurally and thematically related bipartite Matthean formula concerning binding and loosing (Mt 18:18), together with its Matthean redactional context concerning church discipline (Mt 18).

Roland Bergmeier argues that numerous particular details of various literary characters in the Fourth Gospel (Mary of Bethany, Nicodemus, etc.) were borrowed from the Synoptic Gospels (R. Bergmeier, ‘Das vierte Evangelium in seiner Stellung zwischen Synoptikern und Gnosis’, in id., Zwischen Synoptikern und Gnosis – ein viertes Evangelium: Studien zum Johannesevangelium und zur Gnosis (NTOA 108; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2015), 10–68 (esp. 55–60). In the opinion of Michael Chung, John’s use of the literary technique of intercalation in Jn 12:1-2.3-8.9-11 reflects its Marcan use in the thematically corresponding text Mk 14:1-2.3-9.10-11, a fact which points to John’s familiarity with the literary form of the Marcan Gospel (M. Chung, ‘A Bracketed Bethany Anointing’, BBR 25 (2015) 359–369 (esp. 368). Chris Keith has recently presented an interesting argument for John’s literary dependence on the Synoptic Gospels. The British scholar has argued that the intentionally competitive rhetoric of the ‘colophons’ Jn 20:30-31; 21:24-25 suggests that their author was familiar with earlier, similar, book-size textualizations of the Jesus tradition, which were most probably known to him in the form of the Synoptic Gospels (C. Keith, ‘The Competitive Textualization of the Jesus Tradition in John 20:30-31 and 21:24-25’, CBQ 78 (2016) 321–337). Jean Zumstein has argued that the dependence of John on Mark and possibly also Luke does not resemble that of Matthew or Luke on Mark, but it should rather be explained in terms of literary hypertextuality. In the opinion of the Swiss scholar, the implied author of the Fourth Gospel assumed the implied reader’s knowledge of at least the Gospel of Mark (J. Zumstein, Das Johannesevangelium (KEK 2; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht: Göttingen 2016), 46–47).

The Fourth Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles

The issue of the possible literary relationship between the Fourth Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles has, alas, attracted attention of only few scholars. This fact is really surprising in view of the growing scholarly recognition of John’s dependence on the Synoptic Gospels, including the Gospel of Luke. Stanisław Mędala has argued that there are intriguing similarities in the changing geographic framework of the opening parts of the Fourth Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles (Jerusalem, Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, and the ends of the world). In the opinion of the Polish scholar, these similarities suggest that John resolved to inscribe the history of early Christianity into the history of Jesus. According to Andreas J. Köstenberger, John thematically developed (‘transposed’) many motifs from the Gospel of Mark and possibly also the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, John reworked the two volumes of Luke-Acts into his own twopart work, which consists of the Book of Signs (Jn 1–12) and the Book of Exaltation (Jn 13–20). Accordingly, he reworked the pattern of the Church’s mission in Acts into the pattern of Jesus’ own ministry. Although, contrary to Köstenberger’s intention to present John as an eyewitness of Jesus’ life, it seriously undermines the historicity of the Johannine story of Jesus.

Petrus Maritz has recently argued that John used not only the Synoptic Gospels (including the Gospel of Luke), but also the Acts of the Apostles (P. Maritz, ‘Judas Iscariot: Ironic Testimony of the Fallen Disciple in John 12,1-11’, in J. Verheyden [et al.] (eds.), Studies, 289–316 (esp. 312–313). More plausible is Maritz’s structural argument that the narrative shift in the Fourth Gospel: John the Baptist → Peter → the disciple whom Jesus loved reflects the similar narrative shift in Acts: Peter → James → Paul. Likewise quite plausible is the argument that the story of the Samaritan woman (Jn 4:1-42) reflects the importance of Samaria in Acts (312-313) Therefore, although Maritz’s arguments for John’s dependence on the Acts of the Apostles are at times quite weak, some of his intuitions are certainly worthy of notice.

Date of composition

The terminus a quo of the composition of the Fourth Gospel is determined, as is consistently argued in this commentary, by its literary dependence on all three Synoptic Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. The Gospel of Mark was written after the writings of Flavius Josephus, so not earlier than c. ad 100–110, maybe even as late as c. ad 130–135. The Lucan Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were most likely written c. ad 120–140. As concerns the Gospel of Luke, see e.g. C. Mount, Pauline Christianity: Luke-Acts and the Legacy of Paul (NovTSup 104; Brill: Leiden · Boston · Köln 2002), 168: sometime before about ad 130; B. Adamczewski, Luke, 23: c. ad 120–140. As concerns the Acts of the Apostles, see e.g. W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources’, NTS 54 (2008) 479–495 (esp. 495): in the middle of the second century ad; R. I. Pervo, Acts: A Commentary, ed. H. W. Attridge (Hermeneia; Fortress: Minneapolis 2009), 5, 20: c. ad 115; id., ‘Acts in the Suburbs of the Apologists’, in T. E. Phillips (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Acts (Mercer University: [s.l.] 2009), 29–46 (esp. 46): c. ad 110–130; K. Backhaus, ‘Zur Datierung der Apostelgeschichte: Ein Ordnungsversuch im chronologischen Chaos’, ZNW 108 (2017) 212–258 (esp. 258): c. ad 100–130. The Gospel of Matthew was probably written c. ad 130–150, most likely c. ad 145–150. The terminus ad quem of the composition of the Fourth Gospel is constituted by its use in Justin’s Apologia I67 (cf. 1 Apol. 61.4-5 and Jn 3:3-5, etc.) (See ibid. 94–116; C. E. Hill, ‘“The Orthodox Gospel”: The Reception of John in the Great Church prior to Irenaeus’, in T. Rasimus (ed.), The Legacy of John: Second-Century Reception of the Fourth Gospel (NovTSup 132; Brill: Leiden · Boston 2010), 233–300 (esp. 252–265); P. F. Bartholomä, The Johannine Discourses and the Teaching of Jesus in the Synoptics: A Contribution to the Discussion Concerning the Authenticity of Jesus’ Words in the Fourth Gospel (TANZ 57; Francke: Tübingen 2012), 12–13) which was in turn composed in ad 153 or shortly after that date (Cf. Justin, Apologie pour les chrétiens, ed. C. Munier (SC 507; Cerf: Paris 2006), 28). The palaeographic dating of the earliest known manuscripts of the Fourth Gospel can only suggest that this Gospel was composed before the end of the second century ad. For the dating of the manuscript 𝔓52, which seems to be the earliest preserved manuscript of the Fourth Gospel, see B. Nongbri, ‘The Use and Abuse of 𝔓52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel’, HTR 98 (2005) 23–48 (here: 46): ‘any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for 𝔓52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries’; D. Barker, ‘The Dating of New Testament Papyri’, NTS 57 (2011) 571–582 (here: 575): ‘a date of II or III could be assigned’. The manuscript 𝔓52 is dated to 125–175, but probably to the second half of the second century, by P. Orsini and W. Clarysse, ‘Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Dates: A Critique of Theological Palaeography’, ETL 88 (2012) 443–474 (esp. 462, 466, 470). 71 B. Adamczewski, Narrative ‘We’, 39–43. Accordingly, the Fourth Gospel was probably written c. ad 140–155, most likely c. ad 150–155.

Intertextuality Example (#1 – Jn 1:1-18 (cf. Acts 1:1-8b))