The Fourth Synoptic Gospel: John's Knowledge of Matthew, Mark, and Luke

by Mark Goodacre

In the past, it was widely believed in biblical studies that John wrote his gospel after reading Matthew, Mark, and Luke. However, this view was challenged in the 1930s, and since then, there's been no consensus on the issue. Many scholars now find the problem too complex or unsolvable. Mark Goodacre, though, presents a different perspective in his new book. He combines overlooked data with fresh insights to argue persuasively that John was indeed familiar with the three Synoptic Gospels.

Genres: Biblical Studies, History, Theology

176 pages, Kindle Edition

Published September 16, 2025

About the author

Mark Goodacre is Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Department of Religious Studies, Duke University, North Carolina, USA. He earned his MA, M.Phil and DPhil at the University of Oxford. His research interests include the Synoptic Gospels, the Historical Jesus and the Gospel of Thomas. Goodacre is the author of four books including The Case Against Q: Studies in Markan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002) and Thomas and the Gospels: The Case for Thomas's Familiarity with the Synoptics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012) and he is a former editor of the Library of New Testament Studies book series. He is well known for The New Testament Gateway, the web directory of academic New Testament resources, and he has his own regular podcast on the New Testament, the NT Pod. Goodacre has acted as consultant for several TV and radio programs including The Passion (BBC / HBO, 2008) and The Bible: A History (Channel 4, 2010)

Reviews

[Josh Kemp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Believe the hype - John knew the Synoptics.

We hardly ventured into Farrer territory until the last chapter, but he couldn’t help himself with the Johannine thunderbolt😂

[Sammie Hargrave · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic. First chapter is the weakest argument but also least important. Rest of the book is good

[Jonathan Brat · Rating 5 out of 5]

It appears that the honor of leaving the very first goodreads review for this book has fallen to me? No pressure.

The very first note I’d like to make is how approachable this content is for those who don’t have much background in textual criticism, and also for those who fall into even the most conservative theological camps. If one or both of these categories fits you well, I think you will come away from this finding his method of argumentation to be polite, professional, and (I think) quite persuasive.

In his other books and papers, Dr. Goodacre’s approach to developing an argument favors simplicity wherever possible. This work is no different. The way that he is able to problematize a topic that is actually incredibly technical and then reduce it into a series of easily digestible constituents is not a simple task, though it makes the task of reading him a simple affair.

Also in line with his previous work, this book has a sort of timeless voice that feels as though I’m reading something meant to be used as a standard against which other publications and theses will build upon and criticize and appeal to as an authority for this topic. Perhaps future readers will consider Goodacre’s ability to achieve his marked simplicity via reduction to be his own hermeneutical key.

Okay, onto the content itself. The initial groundwork of identifying when and where John owes its literary dependence on the synoptics is robust. The chapter on John’s dramatic transformation of the synoptics was my favorite and presented a novel lens for me to wear the next time I read through John. If there is any part that is left open to critique it’s the section on the identity of the beloved disciple, but the fact that Goodacre is able to say anything new at all on this subject is impressive in and of itself. The “I Am” section at the end is brilliant. I think that’s all I’ll say. I’d rather let the book speak for itself.

Please ask to borrow this book from me. It is a fairly quick read and one that I found to be worth every minute of my time. Thank you Dr. Goodacre for producing another banger. Until next time. διελθωμεν εις το περαν.

[Ryan Storch · Rating 4 out of 5]

While there is often seen to be a wall put up between the synoptic gospels and the gospel of John, Mark Goodacre seems to make the case for a profound connection between the two.

One way Goodacre does this is by pointing to the close verbal agreement between John and the Synoptics. He examines a myriad of stories to show that the verbal agreement between the two is quite strong. This indicates that the author of John does not use some sort of synoptic-like tradition but the Synoptics themselves (Goodacre, 17). While there is agreement, just like between the three Synoptics, we see there are degrees of difference between John and the Synoptic gospels. John does this by building on Matthew and Luke’s mediation of the gospel of Mark.

Another thing that Goodacre does is presuppose and transform what is seen in the Synoptics. Throughout the Gospel of John, it often assumes the narratives presented in the Synoptics. Not only that, but the Gospel of John presents a Christology thoroughly rooted in what is presented in the Synoptics.

[Robert D. Cornwall · Rating 4 out of 5]

At some point in my educational career, I was disabused of the idea that the Gospel of John was just like the other three. 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. John lacks parables and places some events in different places than the synoptics. It seemed 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?

Mark Goodacre, a New Testament scholar teaching at Duke University, is known for questioning the existence of Q, the sayings source that Matthew and Luke are said to draw upon as they composed their own Gospels, using Mark as the foundation, adding in the sayings from Q, and then adding in their own materials. Goodacre isn't sure that's the way things worked. That is, however, not the point of this book. Goodacre doesn't engage in a conversation about the underlying sources of the Synoptics. Rather, he is interested here in demonstrating the relationship of John's Gospel to the Synoptics. I'm not a specialist in this area, so I will leave that kind of critique of Goodacre's argument to the experts. However, as a non-specialist with a strong background in biblical studies (I took numerous Bible courses in college and seminary), I find his proposal compelling. Of course, that would mean John's Gospel must have been written a bit later than the Synoptics. That is the common view, so that is not a problem for most. His proposal, as he notes, is quite simple. 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 was the common view until recently. In the first chapter, titled "First Impressions," Goodacre introduces the reader to the process that began in the mid-twentieth century and 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. 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.

Chapter 2 is titled "When John is Synoptic. Goodacre again acknowledges that John is very different from the Synoptics. It tells different stories and omits a number, including the baptism of Jesus, the transfiguration, and, of course, the parables, as well as the eucharist. The Synoptics focus on Jesus' proclamation of God's kingdom, while John focuses on eternal life. Yet, there are connections, often unacknowledged. It is true that you can't lay John side by side with the Synoptics and see how it fits, except that there are ways of doing so. There are enough of these parallels that it makes more sense to connect John with them than to depend on simply a different oral tradition. Thus, while John is very different, there is evidence that John has contact with the Synoptics.

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. Here, he 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 come through Matthew and Luke, in that there is evidence that John knew of how Matthew and Luke reworked Mark. Again, Goodacre shows us the evidence of how this took place.

In Chapter 4, "John's Presupposition of Synoptic Narratives," Goodacre shows how John presupposed elements from the Synoptic stories, such that he assumes the readers knew the larger story from the Synoptics. He points to a number of places where John appears to presume that the audience knows the context, so he doesn't feel he needs to narrate the entire story.

We move on in Chapter 5 to "John's Dramatic Transformation of the Synoptics." Here, he reminds us that John's Gospel is more dramatic. In places that the Synoptics use the narrator to tell the story, John uses dialogue by the characters in the story. Again, he provides the reader with several examples---usually first in Greek and then in English. Even when the narrator is present, the narrator is usually a participant in the drama.

The active participation of the narrator in the text leads us to the next chapter (Ch. 6), titled "The Beloved Disciple for Readers of the Synoptics." One of the big questions when it comes to the Gospel 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, with others such as Thomas, Philip, and Nathaniel, along with Peter, standing at the forefront. While several options have been suggested over the centuries, 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 with the Synoptics. But not all will agree. This is a really nice 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).

So, yes, John's gospel is very different in language and tone from the Synoptics, and yet, John may have known the Synoptics, transforming them for his own purposes. It is a premise that makes sense, and explains some of the absent material and the similar material. The book is accessible and well-written. Thus, it is worth working through as the proposal may make John a lot more understandable.

[Bob · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Reidar Røyset · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kort og lettlest. Ein god ressurs for den som ønska å dykke djupare ned i koplingane mellom dei synoptiske evangelia og Johannes. Goodacre har ikkje som mål at ein skal begynne å tenke på Johannes som eit fjerde synoptisk evangelie (trass boka sin tittelen), men ønskjer heller å vise kor stor kjennskap Johannes har til dei tre evangelia som kom før han. Det er nok ikkje alle som kjem til å vere einige med alle delar av argumentasjonen hans. Dette gjeld særleg drøftinga hans om identiteten til disippelen Jesus elska. Ein må likevel seie at Goodacre sine argument er velutvikla, tydelege og nær den greske teksta. Dette blir nok ein fast ressurs for meg i førebuingar til preiker/undervisningar om forholdet mellom dei fire evangelia.
Highligsta for meg i denne boka var kap. 4 (John’s Presupposition of Synoptic Narratives) og kap. 5 (John’s Dramatic Transformation of the Synoptics).

[Fiona Thompson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a book I have been waiting to get my hands on. John's Gospel is such an interesting text to explore and Mark Goodacre has explored it well to present his argument for John to be seen as synoptic as MM&L. The evidence is clear and the author presents it in such an accessible way that you don't need to be a biblical scholar to enjoy it and understand it.

The author also engages with the whole issue of the beloved disciple. I am not sure this was necessary in this book - although it does appear as if you have to engage with that irksome question whenever you look at John in any detail. He presents a good argument, again drawing on synoptic evidence, but I am still not convinced! The rest is very convincing and a great book to have read.

[Conrad Gempf · Rating 3 out of 5]

I agree with his conclusions, but many of the detail arguments are pretty weak. For example, he takes the gospel writer's parenthetical comment "This was before John [the Baptist] was put in prison" (Jn 3:24) to show that the writer expected his readers to know the other gospels... But John the Baptist was pretty famous in the first century and his imprisonment and beheading must have widespread common knowledge.

Still... this book is worth reading and will certainly help disrupt a consensus view that had only prevailed in the recent decades.

[Felix · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book! I wasn't sold on every single example, but each argument Goodacre makes has many examples, most of which I find very convincing. The overall arc of his thesis in this book (John's knowledge and use of the synoptics) is well developed and presented with his usual engaging style. Not quite as funny as some of his other work, but still a very interesting and enjoyable read :)

[Chris G · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm a layman so take it with a grain of salt, but I found this book very well written and well argued.

[Matt Salmon · Rating 4 out of 5]

It’s simply too good to be Q.

[Blory · Rating 3 out of 5]

probably the best argument that could be made against Q but I'm still not really convinced

[Ben - the Amateur Exegete · Rating 5 out of 5]

As ever, Goodacre makes a cogent case for John’s knowledge and use of the Synoptic Gospels. I had already come into this volume thinking this was the case (due in large part to the edited volume ‘John’s Transformation of Mark’) but Goodacre just helped drive that nail into the coffin. And given that ‘The Fourth Synoptic Gospel’ comes in at under 200 pages, it is a fairly quick read if you have a few hours with nothing else pressing. It’s well worth it.