By T. W. Parker

As promised, this week, we will delve into the comparisons within the Synoptic Gospels, specifically Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and how they differ from the Gospel of John.

Differences:

(1). John omits many of Jesus’ words and works that are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels. This omission is significant as it shapes the narrative and theological focus of John’s Gospel. For example, narrative parables, exorcisms, the account of the transfiguration, the record of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, and many of Jesu’s more concise sayings are absent in John’s Gospel, leading to a different portrayal of Jesus’ ministry and teachings.
(2). John omits or barely mentions themes central to the Synoptic Gospels, especially the theme of the Kingdom of God.
(3). John’s Gospel is rich with unique material not found in the Synoptic Gospels. It includes Jesus’ frequent visits to Jerusalem, the resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus’ explicit identification with God, and his series of ‘I AM’ statements. John also presents extended dialogues and discourses not found elsewhere in the Gospels, adding a layer of depth and complexity that is sure to intrigue and engage the reader.
(4). However, some of this can be accounted for by the different geographic focus on Jesus’ ministry in the south (Judea and Samaria). In contrast, the Synoptic Gospels focus on Jesus’ ministry in the north (Galilee). For this reason, one cannot legitimately reduce all distinctions to questions of geography.

Similarities:

It appears likely that John read Mark, Luke, and possibly even Matthew, but we cannot prove that John directly borrowed from the Synoptic Gospels (in the sense that Matthew and Luke likely borrowed from Mark).
(1). Parallel incidents include the Spirit’s anointing of Jesus as John the Baptist testified (1:32), the contrast between John the Baptist’s baptism with water and the Messaih’s anticipated baptism with the Spirit (1:33), feeding the 5,000 (6:1-15), and Jesus’ walking on water (6:16-21).
(2). Many sayings are at least partially parallel (4:35, 44, 5:29, 10:14-15, 12:39-40).
(3). Also more significant yet are the subtle parallels: these are instances where both John and the Synoptic Gospels describe a Jesus given to colorful metaphors and proverbs, many drawn from the world of nature (4:37, 5:19-20, 8:35, 9:4, 10:1-18, 11:9-10, 12:24, 15:1-16, 16:21). These parallels, while not direct repetitions, show a shared literary style and thematic focus in the Gospels. Moreover, all four Gospels depict Jesus with a unique sense of sonship to His heavenly Father; all of them note the distinctive authority Jesus displays in His teaching: all of them show Jesus referring to Himself as the Son of Man, a title used neither by nor toward anyone else (John. 12:34 is not a real exception).
(4). As a result, even more impressive are the many places where John and the Synoptic Gospels represent an (interlocking) tradition, where they mutually reinforce or explain each other without necessarily borrowing from each other. John explains several events from the Synoptic Gospels. For example, the charge that Jesus had threatened to destroy the temple (Mark. 14:58, 15:29) finds its only adequate explanation in (John 2:19). Mark gives no reason as to why the Jewish authorities should bother bringing Jesus to Pilate: John provides the reason (18:31-32). Only John explains why Peter can be placed within the high priest’s courtyard (18:15-18, Mark 14:54, 66-72). Accordingly, numerous features in John are explained by details reported only in the Synoptic Gospels. For instance, in Chapters 18-19, the trial quickly plunges into the Roman court, and it is difficult to see what judicial action the Jews have taken, if any, to participate in this trial; the Synoptic Gospels provide the answer.

Next week we will go over the Characteristics and Themes of John.