John among the gospels relationship

Similarities among John's Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels |

john among the gospels relationship

I have not counted how many similarities there are among John and one or two other Synoptics. But a reader is invited to compile these totals. PDF download for Book Review: John Among the Gospels: The Relationship in Twentieth-, Article Information. No Access. Article Information. Volume: 48 issue: . Evaluating the relationship between the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels becomes a necessary exercise when both similarities and.

The Sanhedrin the high court and other religious leaders seek a way to get rid of Jesus and to trump up evidence Matt.

He challenges the Jerusalem religious establishment, particularly Pharisees and chief priests Matt. The people use branches to usher him in Matt. King or kingdom is used Mark He rides a beast of burden Matt. The image of the vine and its fruit is used metaphorically Matt. At the Last Supper, Jesus states that someone will betray him Matt. The disciples ask who the betrayer is Matt. Whoever dips into a bowl will betray Jesus Luke says the hand of the betrayer is at the table Matt.

Judas Iscariot leads an armed mob to arrest Jesus Matt. His Arrest Jesus agonizes in his spirit over his impending death Matt. On the night he is arrested, he faces and resists temptation to avoid the cross Matt. The Denial Jesus predicts that Peter will deny him three times Matt. Peter goes to the courtyard of the high priest Matt. A servant girl spots Peter and questions him, and he denies Jesus Matt.

A second time, a similar question and denial Matt. Yet another challenge and Peter denies Jesus a third time Matt. He also predicts that Peter will be restored, and Jesus makes sure that Peter is restored Lk.

2. Major Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels |

Pontius Pilate tries Jesus, hesitates to press the matter, but hands Jesus over to be executed Matt. Releasing a prisoner is a custom Matt. Crowds and authorities clamor for the release of Barabbas Matt. Barabbas is a rebel or insurrectionist Mark Barabbas is released instead of Jesus Matt.

A crowd clamors for his crucifixion: The Sonship of Jesus is one of the accusations leveled at him Matt. They weave or twist and put a crown of thorns on Jesus Matt. They throw a robe on him Matt. They mock him Matt.

john among the gospels relationship

They hit him Matt. They lead him away to crucify him Matt. Soldiers cast lots for his clothing Matt. He is crucified on a cross at the Place of the Skull Matt. Two others criminals are crucified alongside him Matt. Mary Magdalene and other women watch him on the cross Matt.

He is offered gall Matt. The body is laid in a tomb before the start of Sabbath Matt. His Resurrection Jesus is resurrected on the first day of the week before dawn or early in the morning Matt. Mary Magdalene is the first at the empty tomb Matt. The stone is discovered to be rolled away Matt. Mary Magdalene is named as being blessed with the first divine appearances Matt.

He appears to men disciples Matt. After the resurrection, he shares bread and fish with his disciples Lk. Luke and John emphatically insist on a bodily resurrection Lk.

john among the gospels relationship

For me, the most surprising feature of this list is how often the four Gospels share similarities: The four Gospels cohere together in a unified storyline and present the same characters in the life of Jesus, though, of course, an author like John omits some and highlights others.

Why do the four Gospels share the same storyline? Broadly speaking, the chronology in this list follows the ministry of Jesus because he lived one day at a time — chronologically, historically, as we all do. But what about all the variations between the Gospels? If a Gospel author varies the order of the story or omits characters — variations and omissions that all Greco-Roman authors used — then these decisions do not take away from the bigger chronology in the Gospels.

Sometimes the authors emphasized theology and literary techniques, instead of a strict chronology or sequence. But this does not mean that they did not anchor their stories in historical events and a broad sequence. This long list demonstrates how stable the traditions were. To cite an example, when the author of John wrote his Gospel probably in the 90's, the Baptist's name was still known as John, not Simon or Jacob.

We should not take these facts or this stability for granted. Stability means historical reliability. So does the huge number of agreements between the four Gospels indicate a common "pool" of traditions about the life of Christ, or do they indicate eyewitness testimony? The answer is both. In John's case, I have reached the decision that it was written by an eyewitness.

But he also had a stable "pool" of traditions from which to draw. The life of Christ presented in a broad, outlined story provides easy access to the common pool of traditions and remembrances and repetition by the tradition transmitters. This pool explains, in part, why Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree, even if we assume that Matthew and Luke borrow from Mark.

There had to be a starting point. We already learned in the article on Mark's Gospel that Peter was the main eyewitness in this Gospel.

Undoubtedly, he wisely decided that the best way to preach the gospel is to follow Jesus' life story, though of course he may have told short anecdotes in a context, and Mark put things in a broad storyline. Jesus really did teach, for example, in the synagogue in Capernaum, which is confirmed in the Synoptics.

Back to the issue of storytelling and a storyline -- in my view, stories are easier to remember and repeat than is a list of facts or disconnected or barely connected pile of sayings. Stories provide a context and natural order that accurately jar the memory. Years ago I attended the performance of a memory expert. The audience randomly shouted out about thirty of them. He wrote them across the chalkboard, in the order or disorder we gave him.

He turned his back on the board, faced us, and repeated the string of digits in the exact order on the board. Long before this performance, he had developed and assigned a comical character to each digit from zero to nine.

As he wrote them on the board, he developed a story in his mind, from one random digit to the next in our string. All analogies are flawed if they are pushed too far. This true anecdote is not to say that the Gospel tradition transmitters and the Gospel authors were modern memory experts though they may have come close.

Nor does the anecdote say that the Gospel authors always follow a strict and detailed chronology. Sometimes sayings alone have value. To cite the ultimate illustration, the Grand Narrative or Story of the Iliad surely helped Homer, an oral poet, in keeping track of the main plot and subplots and the many characters. How does this list apply to the Gnostic gospels? The Gnostic gospels in the latest edition of the Nag Hammadi collection do not come anywhere near this detailed, unified storyline in the four Biblical Gospels.

These heretical texts seem glad to engage in nothing but dialogues and discussions with very few references to historical facts. Gnostic teachings are disembodied and cut off from the real-life story of Jesus; no one can be confident that he or his disciples actually said or did those things in the Gnostic texts, except a few passages that obviously derive from the earlier Biblical Gospels.

Matthew Relied on Contemporaries Matthew wrote before Mark and Luke, so he could not refer to either of their Gospels. But he did write fairly soon after the Ascension, when at least a few of the Apostles were still in Jerusalem and Judea.

Perhaps some of the other Apostles left Jerusalem before Matthew and some after. So, Matthew could consult with either of the James' as well as Peter and perhaps a few other Apostles, while he was writing his Gospel. Matthew, as one of the Twelve, could also rely on his own memories and experiences with Christ. Mark and Luke were not among the Twelve Apostles.

Mark was but a child during Christ's Ministry. Luke was an adult during Christ's Ministry, but he probably joined the disciples late in Christ's Ministry.

Luke describes an event after the Resurrection involving himself and another disciple, Cleopas Luke The many details in this narrative come from Luke's own participation in this event. Yet Luke was not one of the Twelve, and he does not seem to give similar detailed descriptions of events he himself was involved in earlier during Christ's Ministry. Luke seems to have joined the disciples later than the Apostles, or perhaps, early on, he had a small but growing interest in Christ, which reached its fullness at the appropriate time.

Matthew knew how to read and write Hebrew, since he was a Jew who was literate. As a tax collector for the Romans, he also must have known a fair amount of Latin. He could speak and understand Aramaic well, since that was his daily language. Greek would have been the language that he know least well. Matthew wrote in Hebrew, not only because his audience was Hebraic Christians raised as Jewsbut also because it was his best written language.

The other Apostles were scattered throughout the Roman empire and beyond, preaching, so they were unavailable to Mark. Mark wrote his Gospel in Latin because he was writing for the Christians of Rome.

john among the gospels relationship

However, having been raised in Judea, Mark also knew Hebrew. Since Matthew's Gospel was written about a decade earlier, it would have been in fairly wide circulation by the time that Mark began to write. Rome was the capital city of the Roman empire, and the home base of Peter, leader of the Apostles, and it had a thriving Christian community.

Therefore, Matthew's Gospel was available to Mark in Rome. Mark had a copy of Matthew's Gospel in the original Hebrew. Mark knew both Hebrew and Latin, but was probably more proficient in Latin, the language of daily use in Rome. This set of circumstances explains the similarities between Matthew and Mark's Gospels. It also explains some of the minor differences in parallel passages. This produces some minor differences in otherwise similar passages.

But, secondly, Mark relied on one of the earliest versions of Matthew's Gospel. This version must differ somewhat from our current version and even from the oldest extant Greek versions. This, too, explains some of the minor incongruities in parallel passages between Matthew and Mark. Later on, both Gospels were translated into Greek. However, some ancient versions of Mark's Gospel in Latin have a different ending.

john among the gospels relationship

In place of Mark And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. The second part of the verse has a very Latin and Roman feel to it. It may have been the original ending to Mark's Gospel, written by Mark himself.

Or, it may have been added soon after by another member of the Christian community of Rome. But, the fact that this last verse has a Latin feel to it and that it is found, in the oldest extant copies, in a Latin version of the Gospel of Mark, supports the idea that Mark originally wrote in Latin.

john among the gospels relationship

Prior visits of Jesus to Jerusalem before the passion week are mentioned in John but not found in the synoptics. The seventh sign-miracle, the resurrection of Lazarus John 11 is not mentioned in the synoptics. The extended Farewell Discourse John 13—17 is not found in the synoptic Gospels. Different length of Jesus' public ministry. Literary Point of View: John versus the synoptics. The synoptics are written from a third person point of view, describing the events as if the authors had personally observed all of them and were reporting what they saw at the time.

Thus they are basically descriptive in their approach. The author of the Fourth Gospel very carefully separates himself from the events he describes cf. However clear it is that he was an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, it is no less clear that he looks back upon it from a temporal distance. We understand more of the significance of the events described from the position the writer now holds than an eyewitness could have understood at the time the events took place.

Four will serve as examples: