FOR A SUMMARY VERSION OF THIS PAPER, CLICK HERE.

I. Introduction

In a fascinating essay entitled “John for Readers of Mark,” Richard Bauckham explores the idea that John’s Gospel is intended to interlock with the sequence of events found in Mark’s Gospel.

In other words, John used Mark as a kind of template and then sequenced his own narrative in and around the elements in Mark so that the two Gospels fit together like puzzle pieces.

This essay is found in the book The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, edited by Bauckham but including contributions by others.

Bauckham’s idea runs contrary to much of contemporary scholarship, which tends to hold that John and Mark were entirely independent compositions and that the author of John likely never read Mark.

Many modern scholars would view the proposal as being an out-of-date throwback, since in the 19^th century it was commonly thought that John was meant as a supplement to the Synoptic Gospels and thus was dependent on them in one way or another.

Despite the fashion of contemporary scholarship, Bauckham is correct that John can be read as closely interlocking with Mark. As he points out, there are only two occasions (the clearing of the temple and the anointing with oil) where John’s sequence notably differs from Mark’s. On other occasions, the events of John’s Gospel can be seamlessly inserted into Mark’s sequence.

In this paper, I would like to do two things. First, since Bauckham only provides a sketch of how the two Gospels interlock, I would like to flesh out his treatment by going section-by-section through the two Gospels and showing how they fit together.

Second, since all three of the Synoptics have a similar structure, I would like to test Bauckham’s hypothesis by applying the same procedure to Matthew and Luke. Do we have special reason to think that John used Mark as a template, or could he have used one of the other Synoptics?

 

II. Mark and John

In “John for Readers of Mark,” Bauckham proposes a way to correlate the events in Mark’s narrative with those in John’s, but he does not offer an exhaustive comparison—leaving up to the reader how many of the later events in the two Gospels are to be related.

Fortunately, it is not difficult to take Bauckham’s premise and extend it further. One can even convert it into a table, allowing an overview of how the two Gospels might relate to each other if he is correct.

No.	Section	Mark	John
1.	Prologue	—	1:1-18
2.	John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing	1:1-13	—
3.	Early Ministry I	—	1:19-2:12
4.	Clearing the Temple	(11:11-25)	2:13-22
5.	Early Ministry II	—	2:23-4:43
6.	The Official’s Son	—	4:44-54
7	Galilean Ministry I	1:14-6:6	—
8.	Sending the Disciples	6:7-13	—
9.	Fate of John the Baptist	6:14-29	—
10.	Visit to Jerusalem	—	5:1-47
11.	Disciples Return	6:30	—
12.	Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water	6:31-53	6:1-71
13.	Galilean Ministry II	6:54-9:50	7:1-9
14.	Judean Ministry I	10:1a	7:10-10:39
15.	Transjordan Ministry	10:1b-31	10:40-42
16.	Judean Ministry II	—	11:1-57
17.	Travel to Jerusalem	10:32-52	—
18.	Anointing with Oil	(14:1-11)	12:1-8
19.	Triumphal Entry	11:1-10	12:9-19
20.	Clearing the Temple	11:11-25	(2:13-22)
21.	Before the Supper	11:27-13:37	12:20-50
22.	Anointing with Oil	14:1-11	(12:1-8)
23.	The Last Supper	14:12-26	13:1-14:31
24.	Extended Discourse	—	15:1-17:26
25.	After the Supper	14:27-52	18:1-12
26.	Before Annas	—	18:13-23
27.	Before Caiaphas	14:53-65	18:24
28.	Peter’s Denial	14:66-72	18:25-26
29.	Before Pilate	15:1-15	18:28-19:16
30.	Crucifixion & Burial	15:16-47	19:17-42
31.	Resurrection Narrative	16:1-8 (or 16:1-20)	20:1-21:25

To appreciate and evaluate Bauckham’s thesis, some commentary on each section will help:

 

1. Prologue (Mark: — , John: 1:1-18)

Mark does not begin with a prologue, unless one chooses to regard Mark 1:1 or 1:1-3 as such. Certainly Mark does not contain a prologue as ambitious as John’s.

While John’s Prologue transcends history, taking us back to the beginning of time (John 1:1), it also introduces the figure of John the Baptist (1:6-8, 15) and thus can be seen as interacting with Mark’s outline, which begins with John the Baptist.

 

2. John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing (Mark: 1:1-13, John: — )

This section contains Mark’s account of John the Baptist’s ministry, his baptism of Jesus, and his brief account of Jesus’ testing in the wilderness.

None of this material is directly presented in John’s narrative. That is, John does not contain a pericope in which he presents the Baptist preaching and baptizing before he baptizes Jesus. Neither does he directly depict the baptism of Jesus. Nor does he include an account of the testing in the wilderness.

Despite this, the ministry of John the Baptist has already been foreshadowed in the prologue and both his ministry and the baptism of Jesus will be discussed in retrospect in the next section of John (Early Ministry I, below). The Prologue and Early Ministry I thus can be seen as taking this section of Mark as read, which supports Bauckham’s thesis.

Bauckham proposes that a lengthy section of John (1:19-4:43) is meant to fit into Mark’s outline between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.

It should be noted that Jesus does go to Galilee in this section (John 1:43, 2:1), but he does not perform public ministry there. Bauckham explains:

[T]he beginning of the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee, which Mark 1:14 dates after the imprisonment of John, does not occur in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel until 4:43-45. In 2:1-12 there is no reference to a public ministry in Galilee: the miracle at Cana is witnessed only by Jesus’ disciples. Ministry in Jerusalem (2:13-3:21), Judea (3:22-4:3), and Samaria (4:3-43) follows. Not until 4:45 does the fourth evangelist indicate a public role for Jesus in Galilee [p. 154].

Because a key pericope—the Clearing of the Temple—occurs in the middle of this material, we have broken it into three parts, which we will consider individually.

 

3. Early Ministry I (Mark: — , John: 1:19-2:12)

This section includes John the Baptist’s explanation of his ministry, his testimony to Jesus as the Lamb of God, Jesus’ meeting with the first disciples, and the wedding at Cana.

This section contains material that can be seen as pointing to the previous section in Mark. John the Baptist’s discussion of his ministry (John 1:19-27) echoes Mark’s presentation of John’s ministry—particularly the reference to Isaiah, the mention of John’s baptism, and the reference to his not being worthy to untie the sandals of the one coming after him.

Most significant is the discussion of how John the Baptist identified Jesus as the coming one (John 1:28-34). He explains that he saw the Holy Spirit descending on Jesus as a dove and that, on the basis of a prior revelation, he knew this must be the coming one. He also says that this is why he came baptizing, so that the coming one might be revealed.

As it stands, John’s account is somewhat disjointed. He does not make it clear—as Mark does—that the Spirit was seen descending as a dove after John baptized Jesus. In John’s Gospel the connection between the baptism and the descent of the Spirit is left unclear, but in Mark it is spelled out.

This is significant, because it could reflect an assumption on the Fourth Evangelist’s part that his audience—or much of it—would already be familiar with Mark’s account. The other traditions he relates connected with John the Baptist (e.g., that he was Isaiah’s voice in the wilderness) could have been in general circulation among Christians, but the absence of a narrative account of Jesus’ baptism in John is more likely to reflect the idea that his audience already had a written account of it.

 

4. Clearing the Temple (Mark: [11:11-25], John: 2:13-22)

In the middle of the proposed Early Ministry, John records the clearing of the temple, which occurs much later in Mark. This is one of only two significant relocations of a pericope that appears in both Gospels (the other is the anointing with oil).

Bauckham views John’s placement of the pericope as a correction of Mark’s chronology. Given John’s attention to precise chronology, it is very possible that he places the clearing here for chronological reasons, though there are other possible interpretations (e.g., John placed the clearing of the temple early in order to bracket Jesus’ ministry and foreshadow where it is going, or Jesus cleared the temple twice).

Regardless of the reason why it is placed here, the fact that it is in the middle of John’s Early Ministry means that it doesn’t join with the text of Mark and so does not tell us anything about whether John was using Mark as a template.

 

5. Early Ministry II (Mark: — , John: 2:23-4:43)

This section in John contains a brief account of Jesus’ ministry in Jerusalem, the conversation with Nicodemus, the controversy over Jesus’ baptism, and the conversation with the Samaritan woman.

The section also contains the most significant indication that the proposed Early Ministry in John is meant to fit between Mark 1:13 and 1:14. This occurs in 3:22-24, which reads:

After this Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized. John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. For John had not yet been put in prison.

The Fourth Evangelist has not previously set up the idea that John the Baptist was put in prison. This is a sudden introduction of the idea, and it indicates that he expected his audience to already be familiar with the fact.

They could have known this from Christian preaching in general, rather than from one of the other Gospels in particular, but this does not explain why the Evangelist chooses to mention it here. If John was still baptizing at Aenon near Salim, the audience could have inferred that he was not yet in prison. Unless the Evangelist has some other reason to mention that John was not yet in prison, this remark seems—in Bauckham’s words—”ludicrously redundant” (p. 153). He continues:

Most commentators are therefore obliged at this point to refer to Mark 1:14 (par Matt. 4:12), where, following the account of Jesus’ baptism and period in the wilderness, Mark recounts the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee: “Now after John was arrested, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God.” If readers/hearers of the Fourth Gospel (or at least those of them for whom the parenthetical explanation in 3:24 is intended) can be presumed to know this Markan account, then the reason for the explanation becomes clear. It serves, not to make a point about the ministry and fate of John the Baptist for their own sake, but to make a point about the chronological relationship of Jesus’ ministry to John’s. The evangelist is pointing out that this period of Jesus’ ministry in Judea preceded the beginning of the Galilean ministry as recounted by Mark, since the former preceded John’s imprisonment, while the latter, as Mark 1:14 states, succeeded it. It is not very likely that readers/hearers of the Fourth Gospel would be expected to know from oral Gospel traditions that Jesus’ Galilean ministry followed the imprisonment of John. The chronological sequence in Mark 1:14 (followed by Matt. 4:12, but not by Luke 4:14) is more likely to be Markan than traditional [pp. 153-154].

Bauckham goes on to draw out the further significance of the remark:

The function of John 3:24 is not, therefore, merely that of precluding the impression that John’s narrative is at this point inconsistent with Mark’s. It also serves to make quite clear the way in which the narrative of John’s first four chapters is designed to dovetail into Mark’s, such that John 1:19-4:43 fits into a putative gap that readers/hearers of John who also know Mark are obliged by John to postulate between Mark 1:13 and Mark 1:14. This rather explicit indication of the way in which john’s narrative relates chronologically to Mark’s would encourage readers/hearers of John who also knew Mark to correlate the rest of the two Gospel narratives in a similar way. Modern scholars rarely notice the ease with which this, for the most part, can be done [pp. 154-155].

Bauckham thus sees John 3:24 as a key clue for how John’s Gospel and Mark’s are supposed to relate.

 

6. The Official’s Son (Mark: — , John: 4:44-54)

This section contains the story of the healing of the official’s son. It is noteworthy that the official lives in Capernaum but visits Jesus when he is at Cana (4:46-47).

Bauckham proposes two possibilities about how this pericope is meant to relate to the outline of Mark. The first is that this pericope is John’s parallel to Galilean Ministry I (Mark 1:14-6:6). This is supported by the fact that it is, actually, set in Galilee (John 4:46-47).

On the other hand, Bauckham suggests:

Even this story could easily be presumed, by readers/hearers familiar with Mark, to have taken place before Mark’s account of the Galilean ministry begins. It takes place when Jesus, traveling north from Samaria, is in Cana (John 4:46), before he reaches the Sea of Galilee (Mark 1:16) [pp. 155-156].

Regardless of whether the pericope is understood to be grouped with Early Ministry II or Galilean Ministry I, it falls at a place in John’s narrative that is consistent with his theory that John’s Gospel is largely meant to dovetail with Mark’s. Consistency, however, is not the same as offering a positive reason to think that the two are meant to be read in this way.

 

7. Galilean Ministry I (Mark: 1:14-6:6, John: — )

Bauckham points out that “the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water (John 6:1-21; Mark 6:31-53), which are the only events narrated by both evangelists prior to Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem, divide the Galilean ministry narrated by Mark into two parts” (p. 155).

Here we will refer to those two parts as Galilean Ministry I and II. As initially proposed, the first would last from 1:14 to 6:30—the verse before the feeding of the five thousand begins. However, I have carved out the last part of this (from 6:7-6:30) into separate sections for making some of the connections with John’s Gospel clearer.

I will thus treat Galilean Ministry I as running from Mark 1:14 to 6:6. It includes an extensive collection of familiar stories. It should be noted that, although these stories occur during Jesus’ Galilee-based ministry, he does not remain within Galilee the whole time. Notably, he goes on an excursion into Gentile territory in Mark 5:1-20, where he perform an exorcism in the “country of the Gerasenes.”

This large block of stories does not interact with the outline of John’s Gospel, though they can be seen as fitting between John 4:54 and John 5:1 (or, if the healing of the official’s son is meant to parallel this section, between 4:43 and 4:44).

The outlines of Mark and John’s Gospels appear to begin interweaving more in the next few sections.

 

8. Sending the Disciples (Mark: 6:7-13, John: — )

In this section, Jesus sends the disciples on a mission, from which they will return in 6:30. This creates a period of time in which Jesus is alone, without the disciples being present. This period seems to be reflected in both Mark and John.

 

9. Fate of John the Baptist (Mark: 6:14-29, John: — )

In Mark, while the disciples are on mission, they perform many miracles (6:12-13) and the matter comes to the attention of King Herod (6:14). Although the disciples are known to be Jesus’s (6:14a), a question arises about whether John the Baptist has been raised from the dead (6:14b). This leads to an extended treatment of how John the Baptist met his fate at the hands of King Herod (6:16-29).

 

10. Visit to Jerusalem (Mark: — , John: 5:1-47)

Meanwhile, in John’s Gospel, Jesus undertakes a trip to Jerusalem in which he heals the man at the pool of Bethesda.

Bauckham notes two points of contact with Mark’s Gospel:

First, Mark narrates what the twelve did when Jesus sent them out on mission (6:7-13, 30), with no indication of what Jesus himself did meantime, whereas John narrates a visit of Jesus to Jerusalem in which no mention is made of the disciples (John 5). Secondly, during this visit to Jerusalem, Jesus refers to John the Baptist’s ministry as now past (John 5:33-35), while the death of the Baptist, which this reference most naturally presupposes, is an event of which readers of Mark have been informed precisely at the corresponding point in Mark’s narrative, immediately prior to the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:13-29). Although these correlations are not important enough for John to make them explicit, they could easily be seen by readers/hearers of John who were familiar with Mark’s narrative, especially since many such readers/hearers are likely to have been very familiar indeed with the narrative sequence of the only written Gospel they had previously known [p. 156].

 

11. Disciples Return (Mark: 6:30, John: — )

Mark now records the return of the disciples, closing the period in which Jesus was alone.

 

12. Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water (Mark: 6:31-53, John: 6:1-71)

We now arrive at the feeding of the five thousand and the waking on water, which appear in both Mark and John and which serve as a tent pole in the story of Jesus’ ministry.

The feeding of the five thousand occurs in all four Gospels, and it is placed in a similar position in each of them (both a substantial amount of time after Jesus’ baptism and a substantial amount of time before Passion Week).

Because the feeding of the five thousand occurs in all four Gospels, and because the walking on water occurs immediately after this event in the three Gospels that record it (Matthew, Mark, and John), its occurrence here does not establish a particular connection between John and Mark, but it does provide another instance of how the two can be seen as fitting together.

In John’s Gospel, the walking on water is immediately followed by the Bread of Life discourse (6:22-71), which naturally is grouped here as a theological meditation and amplification on the feeding of the five thousand.

 

13. Galilean Ministry II (Mark: 6:54-9:50, John: 7:1-9)

In all four Gospels, Jesus resumes ministry in Galilee at this point, but John’s account of this is very brief. According to John 7:1,

After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.

Bauckham sees interaction with Mark’s outline at this point:

The second part of the Galilean ministry in Mark (6:54-9:50), following the feeding of the five thousand and the walking on the water, is summarized by John in a single sentence (7:1a), which very clearly implies a significant period of ministry left wholly unnarrated by John. According to John’s explicit chronology (6:4; 7:2) a period of six months in Galilee is here left entirely unnarrated by John. No clearer indication would be needed for readers/hearers who knew Mark to understand this period as that narrated by Mark in chapters 7-9 [pp. 156-157].

The two verses that Bauckham cites—6:4 and 7:2—refer to the feasts of Passover (occurring in the first month) and Tabernacles (occurring in the seventh month), thus indicating a period of six months between the two.

Since the feeding of the five thousand, the walking on water, and—in John—the Bread of Life discourse would have taken only a few days, the period of ministry in Galilee mentioned in John 7:1 would seem to span the kind of lengthy period reflected in Mark 6:53-9:50.

 

14. Judean Ministry I (Mark: 10:1a, John: 7:10-10:39)

We now find a very brief statement in Mark about Jesus’ movements:

And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, and crowds gathered to him again; and again, as his custom was, he taught them [Mark 10:1].

Bauckham sees this statement as introducing both a period of ministry in Judea and one in the Transjordan—the first of which is elaborated only in John. He writes:

For readers/hearers of John who were also familiar with Mark, what John narrates in 7:10-10:39 would fill out Mark’s mere indication that, at the conclusion of his Galilean ministry, Jesus “left that place [Capernaum] and went to the region of Judea” (Mark 10:1a) [p. 157].

In John 7:1-9, Jesus’ brethren advise him to go to Jerusalem, but he initially does not. In the next pericope, however, he does. This begins a period in which he does a substantial amount of teachers, heals the man born blind, and (in the canonical version of John) encounters the woman caught in adultery.

All of these events occur outside of Galilee—a pattern which will continue in future sections. Bauckham notes:

After John 7:1-9 John’s Jesus is never again in Galilee (until after the resurrection) but visits Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths (7:10-10:21), is still there at the Feast of the Dedication (10:22-39), engages in ministry beyond the Jordan (10:40-42), visits Bethany (11:7-44), and goes into hiding in Ephraim (11:54), before returning to Bethany (12:1-8) at the beginning of his final week in Jerusalem [p. 157].

 

15. Transjordan Ministry (Mark: 10:1b-31, John: 10:40-42)

Both Mark and John record a period, after going to Judea, in which Jesus ministered in the Transjordan. We have already seen the reference in Mark 10b, where the Second Evangelist stated that Jesus “went to the region . . . beyond the Jordan.”

In John, the description of this period is quite brief:

He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained. And many came to him; and they said, “John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.” And many believed in him there [John 10:40-42].

In Mark, however, there is a longer sequence of events apparently taking place in the Transjordan. This includes Jesus’ teachings on divorce and adultery, “Let the children come to me,” and the account of the rich young man.

Following the period in the Transjordan, both Mark and John indicate that Jesus returned to Judea.

 

16. Judean Ministry II (Mark: — , John: 11:1-57)

In John, the transition to Judea is marked in the raising of Lazarus, which takes place in Bethany (John 11:1).

 

17. Travel to Jerusalem (Mark: 10:32-52, John: — )

In Mark, the transition to Judea is indicated in the passion prediction where Jesus and the twelve are “on the road, going up to Jerusalem” (10:32). Bauckham notes that John’s audience, would “have to insert the events of John 11 between Mark 10:31 and Mark 10:32” (p. 157).

This final journey to Jerusalem continues in Mark with the request of James and John and the healing of blind Bartimaeus.

 

18. Anointing with Oil (Mark: [14:1-11], John: 12:1-8)

Prior to the Triumphal Entry, recorded in both Gospels, John inserts the anointing with oil. This occurs later in Mark’s sequence, and Bauckham interprets this as a second instance of John correcting Mark’s chronology (the relocation of the clearing of the temple being the first instance).

As before, given the attention that John gives to chronology, it is quite possible that he is informing us of the exact time at which this event occurred. It is also possible, however, that he is recording it here for another purpose—the most obvious being that the anointing with oil is a suitable preparation for the overtly Messianic actions that Jesus is about to undertake, including the Triumphal Entry itself.

The question of why John recorded this event here goes beyond our present purpose.

 

19. Triumphal Entry (Mark: 11:1-10, John: 12:9-19)

The Triumphal Entry serves as one of the tent poles for the chronology of Jesus’ ministry, occurring in all four Gospels at the beginning of Passion Week. It is thus no surprise that it occurs in this position in both Mark and John.

 

20. Clearing the Temple (Mark: 11:11-25, John: [2:13-22])

We now arrive at the clearing of the temple in Mark’s sequence, which was relocated earlier in John’s.

 

21. Before the Supper (Mark: 11:27-13:37, John: 12:20-50)

There is a significant difference between what happens in Mark and John in the lead up to the Last Supper.

In Mark we have a large sequence of events including Jesus being repeatedly challenged in the temple, but he fends off all these challenges, silences his critics, and then critiques them in turn. He also sees the widow giving her mite and delivers the Olivet Discourse.

In John, by contrast, we have the incident in which a group of Greeks ask to see Jesus, prompting a significant discourse on Jesus’ part and a theophany. In the midst of this material, we read:

When Jesus had said this, he departed and hid himself from them [John 12:36b].

Bauckham sees this as significant regarding Mark’s outline. He explains:

John 12:36b indicates that Jesus’ public ministry ended with the first day of his last visit to Jerusalem, the day of the triumphal entry (John 12:12-36), contradicting, in this respect, not only Mark’s placing of the “cleansing” of the temple on the following day (Mark 11:12, 15-18), but also Mark’s account of Jesus’ public teaching in the temple on the subsequent day (Mark 11:27-12:40). Thus readers/hearers of Mark who learn from the Fourth Gospel that Jesus visited Jerusalem several times prior to the only visit they knew from Mark would also learn from John that some of the events in Jerusalem that Mark placed in the only part of his Gospel in which Jesus is in Jerusalem could with greater chronological accuracy be placed in the earlier visits which Mark does not record [p. 160].

While it is possible that all of the material Mark records in this section could have occurred prior to Holy Week, when Jesus visited Jerusalem on previous occasions (or even when he was elsewhere), it is also possible that the concealment that John refers to could be meant to supplement Mark’s account of Holy Week and thus happened—along with the things Mark mentions—during this time. The concealment might, for example, have occurred just before the Last Supper, which is the next event that John narrates.

 

22. Anointing with Oil (Mark: 14:1-11, John: [12:1-8])

We now arrive at the clearing of the anointing with oil in Mark’s sequence, which was relocated earlier in John’s.

 

23. The Last Supper (Mark: 14:12-26, John: 13:1-14:31)

Both John and Mark record the Last Supper, but it is striking that they record it in such different ways:

• Mark includes the preparations for the supper (Mark 14:12-16), while John omits them.
• Mark omits the washing of the disciples’ feet, which John includes (John 13:2-20).
• Mark includes the prediction of Judas’s betrayal (Mark 14:17-21), which John does also (John 13:21-30).
• Mark does not record the prediction of Peter’s denial until after the supper (Mark 14:27-31), but John places it in the supper itself (John 13:31-38).
• Mark includes the institution of the Eucharist (Mark 14:22-26), which John omits.
• Mark omits a lengthy, dialogic discourse involving Thomas, Philip, and Judas (“not Iscariot”), while John includes it (John 14:1-31).

The only thing that the two Evangelists both record as occurring during the supper is the prediction of Judas’s betrayal. Everything else is different.

This is consistent with the theory that John is writing with the deliberate intent to supplement what is found in Mark. While it is not necessary to read Mark in order to profit from reading John, the mutual omission of so many elements, as well as the fact that the two narratives can be seen as fitting together with the pieces occurring in one Gospel falling between the pieces recorded in the other, suggest the intention of supplementation.

One could regard the inclusion of Jesus’ prediction regarding Judas as required for purposes of being able to read John without having read Mark, but even here John provides supplementary information not available in Mark (i.e., the interaction between Peter and the beloved disciple in identifying Judas as the betrayer).

Perhaps most noteworthy is John’s omission of the institution of the Eucharist. The Eucharist was central to the lives of the early Christians—so much so that its institution is not only recorded in the Synoptic Gospels but even in St. Paul’s letters (see 1 Cor. 11:23-25).

John’s omission of the Eucharist’s institution might be explained if he was part of an otherwise-unknown pocket of the early Church that didn’t know or care about the Eucharist, but this cannot be, since he has already included a lengthy discourse foreshadowing the Eucharist (John 6:26-71) and in which Jesus is depicted as willing to lose even the core disciples if they do not accept his teaching on the Eucharist (John 6:66-69).

The omission of the Eucharist’s institution is, therefore, more plausibly explained if John supposes that his audience, or most of it, has already read Mark’s account and John is writing in a manner intended to supplement this.

John’s account of the Last Supper thus provides additional support for Bauckham’s thesis.

 

24. Extended Discourse (Mark: — , John: 15:1-17:26a)

John 15-17 contains an extended discourse that takes place in an ambiguous location:

• In John 14:31b, Jesus says, “Rise, let us go hence,” apparently concluding the Last Supper.
• In John 18:1 we read: “When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples across the Kidron valley, where there was a garden, which he and his disciples entered.”

The discourse of chapters 15-17 is thus inserted between the apparent end of the Last Supper and the trip across the Kidron to Gethsemane. It is as if everyone stood up at the end of the supper and then Jesus delivered three chapters worth of discourse before they left the house.

Some have suggested that the sayings of Jesus that this discourse is based on were given on other occasions and that John placed them here.

Regardless of whether this material was delivered on this specific occasion or gathered from other occasions, it could either be grouped with the material that precedes it or that follows it in John—or it could be treated as an independent section, as I have done here, based on its length and the ambiguity of its location.

What is less clear is how it would relate to Mark’s outline. It is tempting to place it between Mark 14:26a (“And when they had sung a hymn . . . “) and 14:26b (“ . . . they went out to the Mount of Olives”).

However, there is at least one element of Mark’s chronology that would not match: The prediction of Peter’s denial. In John, this occurred in the previous section, while the supper is still going on (John 13:36-38), but in Mark it does not occur until the next section, after the supper is over (Mark 14:27-31).

One could regard this difference as John again providing the literal, chronological placement of that prediction, but it is another point of discontinuity between John and Mark’s outlines.

 

25. After the Supper (Mark: 14:26b-52, John: 18:1-12)

In Mark, the period after the Last Supper contains three events: Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial (Mark 14:27-31), his prayer in Gethsemane (14:32-41), and his arrest (14:42-52).

In John, there is only a single incident: Jesus’ arrest. In part, this is because John recorded Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial earlier, during the Last Supper (13:36-38), but the omission of the prayer in Gethsemane is striking. This is a moment of great pathos, and its omission in John could be seen as evidence of his intent to supplement Mark.

The one incident that he must record for his narrative to hang together is the arrest of Jesus, and even when he does this, he includes supplemental detail not available in Mark. In particular, he includes the names of the high priest’s servant (Malchus) and the one who struck his ear (Peter).

Bauckham has argued elsewhere that Peter’s name was omitted in Mark for reasons of protective anonymity (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 194-195), and this may well be. However, the presence of the names in John may signal the latter Evangelist’s supplemental intent.

 

26. Before Annas (Mark: — , John: 18:13-23)

In this section we have an identification of two high priests (John 18:12-14), following which we have an account of Peter’s first denial of the Lord (John 18:15-18), and the appearance of Jesus before Annas (John 18:19-23). All three of these suggest supplemental intent.

The first is a necessary set-up to help the reader understand the relationship between Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas—the latter being the unnamed high priest mentioned in Mark’s account.

The second contains additional information about how Peter obtained entrance to the high priest’s house and the role of the beloved disciple in making that happen.

The third pays off the introduction of Annas by giving an account of what happened between him and Jesus—something not discussed in Mark. Bauckham comments:

A final, impressive instance of the way John’s narrative seems designed to dovetail into Mark’s occurs in John 18:13-28. According to Mark 14:53, Jesus was taken from Gethsemane “to the high priest [archierea],” with whom the Jewish ruling group (“all the chief priests [archiereis] and the elders and the scribes”) was assembled. The high priest is not named by Mark. John’s narrative involves two high priests: Caiaphas, the reigning high priest, and Annas, who, as a powerful ex-high priest, can still be called high priest (John 18:19), one of the group known as “the chief priests” (where the distinction between “high” and “chief” is made only in English translations, not in the Greek). In John Jesus is first interrogated by Annas and then taken to Caiaphas. For readers/hearers of John who were also familiar with Mark, John makes quite clear that the interrogation before Annas is not the trial before the high priest and the ruling group that Mark records, but precedes it. According to John 18:13, “they took [Jesus] first to Annas,” who is then distinguished from Caiaphas, identified as the reigning high priest (“who was high priest that year”) [p. 157].

The supplemental intent of the Fourth Evangelist becomes apparent when we contrast the way he treats Jesus’ appearance before Annas with the subsequent appearance before Caiaphas.

 

27. Before Caiaphas (Mark: 14:53-65, John: 18:24)

In light of the foregoing, Bauckham comments:

Readers/hearers of John who also knew Mark would therefore realize that it is Caiaphas, not Annas, whom Mark calls the high priest, and in relating the two narratives they would interpose the interrogation by Annas in John before the trial before the high priest in Mark. John’s later information that “Annas then sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (18:24) would be the indication for them that John’s narrative joins Mark 14:53 only at this point. Such readers/hearers of the Gospel, unlike those who know only the Fourth Gospel, would not have to wonder what happened when Jesus was brought before Caiaphas, about which John is completely silent (18:24, 28a). For them this is another case where John supplies what Mark lacks (the interrogation by Annas), while taking as read what Mark recounts (the trial before Caiaphas and the ruling group, as well as the meeting of the whole council which followed: Mark 15:1) [pp. 157-158].

The fact that John dwells so much on the unofficial appearance before Annas and then passes over the official appearance before Caiaphas so lightly, with no account of what happened in this appearance is strong evidence of supplemental intent.

 

28. Peter’s Denial (Mark: 14:66-72, John: 18:25-26)

In Mark, all three of Peter’s denials occur in this section. Since John has already recorded one of them prior to Jesus’ appearance before Annas (John 18:17), he now records the further two denials.

 

29. Before Pilate (Mark: 15:1-15, John: 18:28-19:16)

Both Mark and John now record how Jesus was taken before Pilate, the latter’s attempt to free Barabbas instead of Jesus, and his final condemnation of Jesus.

Again, Bauckham sees evidence of John expecting many in his audience to have already read Mark:

John’s continuing narrative in fact presupposes that the Jewish ruling group (“the Jews”: 18:31) have considered Jesus’ case along with Caiaphas, since it is “they” (unexplained at first) who take Jesus from Caiaphas to the praetorium (18:28) and hand him over to Pilate (18:28-31). It is not strictly necessary to suppose that their charge against Jesus (“he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God”: 19:7) presupposes Mark’s account of the trial before the high priest (Mark 14:61-64), since Jesus’ claim to be the Son of God and the Jewish ruling group’s judgment that this deserves death have already occurred at earlier points in John’s narrative (5:17-18; 8:49-59; 10:24- 39). But readers/hearers of John who also knew Mark would readily connect this charge with Mark’s narrative of the trial before the high priest [p. 158].

 

30. Crucifixion & Burial (Mark: 15:16-47, John: 19:17-42)

Both Mark and John record the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, each adding different details:

• Mark mentions the initial abuse from the Roman battalion (Mark 15:16-20)
• Mark also mentions the role of Simon and Cyrene (Mark 15:21)
• Both identify the place as Golgotha, and both explain its name (Mark 15:22, John 19:17).
• Mark mentions the drink that Jesus refused (Mark 15:23).
• Both mention the dividing of his garments, and John brings out its prophetic significance (Mark 15:24, John 19:23-24).
• Mark mentions the time of the crucifixion (Mark 15:25).
• Both mention the titulus, and John records the objection that the Jewish leaders made against it (Mark 15:26, John 19:19-22).
• Both mention that he was crucified between two others (Mark 15:27, John 19:18).
• Mark mentions the deriding by others (Mark 15:29-32).
• Mark mentions the darkness over the land (Mark 15:33).
• Mark mentions the quotation of Psalm 22 and the misunderstanding of it as Jesus calling for Elijah (Mark 15:34-35).
• Both mention that Jesus was given a drink by means of a sponge (Mark 15:36, John 19:28-30a).
• Both mention Jesus’ death (Mark 15:37, John 19:30b).
• Mark mentions the tearing of the temple curtain and the remark of the centurion (Mark 15:38-39).
• John mentions the breaking of the other two’s legs, the piercing of Jesus side, and the prophetic significance of these (John 19:31-37).
• Both mention certain women standing nearby (Mark 15:40-41, 47, John 19:25), and John mentions the entrustment of the Virgin Mary to the beloved disciple (John 19:26-27).
• Mark mentions Joseph of Arimathea obtaining the body and burying it (Mark 15:42-46). John adds the role of Nicodemus and the spices he brought (John 19:38-42).

We thus see Mark contributing some details not mentioned in John and visa versa.

It is harder, though, to see evidence of John using Mark’s outline as a template for this section. The above elements are recorded in the order of Mark’s narration. If you look down the list at the entries for John, you will see multiple deviations from Mark’s order.

While the above facts are consistent with the idea that John wished to supplement Mark, this is not suggested as strongly as in the account of the Last Supper, where John’s outline interweaves with Mark’s so that the sequence of both is preserved. Here, it is only partially preserved, making it of less evidential value for Bauckham’s thesis.

 

31. Resurrection Narrative (Mark: 16:1-8 [or 16:1-20], John: 20:1-21:25)

Both John and Mark record women going to the tomb and discovering it empty. However, there are a number of differences in their narratives:

• Mark records that a group of women went to the tomb, bringing spices and intending to anoint the body (Mark 16:1), however John only mentions Mary Magdalene and does not explain her motive for going (John 20:1). This may be significant because John has already indicated that Jesus was buried with very large amounts of spice that Nicodemus had brought (John 19:39-40).
• John then records that Mary ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple, and they both ran to the tomb and returned home (John 20:2-10).
• Mark, however, records that after finding the tomb already open, the group of women encounter an angel in the tomb who gives them instructions, after which they depart in terror, not having fulfilled the instructions by the shorter ending of the Second Gospel (Mark 16:5-8).
• In John, however, Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb and encounters two angels, after which she immediately encounters Jesus (John 20:11-18).

We here encounter a problem because of the shorter ending of Mark. It is endlessly debated whether Mark intended his Gospel to stop at 16:8, whether he was prevented from finishing it, or whether there was an original ending that was lost and later replaced.

We cannot settle this question here (if it even is possible to settle it), but if John was using Mark as a template, it raises a fascinating set of questions: What ending did the copy of Mark’s Gospel that John was using have? Are there any clues in the end of John’s Gospel that might shed light on this question? On the off chance that there are, we will continue to compare and contrast the longer, canonical ending of Mark with the remainder of John’s resurrection narrative:

• Mark records that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9), which corresponds to John 20:11-18), though Mark notes that those who heard her did not initially believe her (Mark 16:10-11).
• Mark records that Jesus appeared to two disciples in the country, who were also disbelieved (Mark 16:12-13).
• In Mark, Jesus then appeared to the disciples as a group and gave them evangelistic instructions (Mark 16:14-18). John also records a group appearance occurring swiftly afterward (John 20:19-23).
• John records the subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present (John 20:24-29) and notes that Jesus did many other things (John 20:30-31).
• Finally, John records the appearance at the Sea of Galilee where he enabled a miraculous catch of fish, restored Peter, and predicted Peter’s death, before again noting that Jesus did many other things (John 21:1-25).
• The canonical edition of Mark, for its part, records that Jesus ascended to heaven and the disciples began their evangelistic work (Mark 16:19-20).

What can we make of the two Gospels’ resurrection narratives? It does not appear that John was using Mark as a template. The differences are too great to assert this with confidence.

Regarding the shorter ending, both Gospels record women/a woman going to the tomb, finding it empty, and encountering angels, but the differences in the two narratives are so great that we can’t assert with any confidence that John was basing his outline on Mark’s.

Regarding the longer ending of Mark, we again find points of contact between the two Gospels, but the problem is that the longer ending was likely written after John and so may have taken these points of contact from John rather than the other way around. This also makes it impossible to assert with confidence that John was using the longer ending of Mark.

One particular point of contact that should be noted is the appearance at the Sea of Galilee. In the shorter ending of Mark, the women are told to say to the disciples that they will see Jesus in Galilee (Mark 16:7). This is something Jesus had already foretold (Mark 14:28).

The shorter ending of Mark does not contain such an appearance. Neither does the longer ending, unless you want to suppose that the meeting recorded in Mark 16:14-18) took place there. John, however, does contain a meeting in Galilee, and it is the whole of chapter 21. This raises the question of whether this narrative is an alternative account of or supplement to an appearance in Galilee that was described by an original, lost ending or planned-but-never-written ending of Mark (if there was either).

A final, possible point of contact between Mark’s longer ending and John is the ascension. The early Christians must have—universally—had an account of where Jesus went after he rose from the dead and why he was not presently leading the Church on earth. We thus find the ascension referred to in canonical Mark (16:19-20), in Luke-Acts (Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9), in the Pauline epistles (Eph. 4:10, 1 Tim. 3:16), and it is alluded to in Hebrews (Heb. 10:12) and Revelation (Rev. 5:6).

Even John contains allusions to it (John 6:62, 20:17), but it is not recorded in the narrative itself.

This indicates that John expected his audience to already know about it. They would have known about it from general Christian preaching, but if they already knew Mark, either with its canonical ending or with a lost ending containing an account of the ascension, then this would have reduced pressure on John to record the event.

It is quite likely that, if Mark had a longer, lost ending that it would have mentioned the ascension. However, given that we do not have such an ending, we cannot draw any firm conclusions regarding John’s use of such an ending.

 

Summary

All four of the Gospels record the ministry of Jesus including these major events, in this sequence:

1. The ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus
2. A period of ministry in Galilee
3. The feeding of the five thousand
4. Another period of ministry in Galilee
5. A journey to Judea
6. The Triumphal Entry
7. The Last Supper
8. The arrest of Jesus
9. An appearance before Caiaphas
10. An appearance before Pilate
11. The Crucifixion
12. The burial of Jesus
13. A resurrection narrative

Since these events are common to all of the canonical Gospels, they do not—of themselves—allow us to infer anything about which Evangelist may have been familiar with the work of one or more of the others. However, there are points of contact between John and Mark and suggest that John intended his own narrative to interweave with Mark’s. These elements include the following:

• John’s prologue introduces John the Baptist (John 1:6-8, 15) and can be seen as interacting with the beginning of Mark (Mark 1:1-13).
• John 1:19-4:43 can be seen as fitting between Mark 1:13 and 1:14.
• In John 1:19-34, John the Baptist gives an account of his own ministry and of how he identified Jesus as the coming one that reflects Mark 1:1-13.
• The fact that John does not directly record the baptism of Jesus (a major event!) suggests that his audience already had a written account of it.
• John 3:24’s reference to an incident that occurred when “John had not yet been put in prison” seems to be intended to clarify when the events of John 1:19-4:43 fit into Mark’s outline.
• In Mark 6:7-13, Jesus sends the disciples on a mission from which they will return in Mark 6:30. The material between these verses is thus a time when Jesus does not have the disciples with him. This period seems to be reflected in John 5:1-47, which is a period in which the disciples are not mentioned. Further, in both John and Mark, these sections contain material recording or referring to the death of John the Baptist, with John seeming to presuppose that the audience already knows how the Baptist died (presumably from Mark’s account).
• John 7:1a seems to summarize a continuation of the Galilean ministry that is recorded in Mark 6:54-9:50. Further, John 6:4 and 7:2 imply a period of six months spent in Galilee that John does not otherwise record and that seems to correspond to Mark 7-9. This period is the last time that Jesus will be in Galilee until after the Resurrection.
• Mark 10:1a and John 7:10-10:39 record a period in which Jesus ministered in Judea.
• Mark 10:1b-31 and John 10:40-42 record a period in which Jesus ministered in the Transjordan.
• The way that the Last Supper is recorded in Mark 14:12-26 and John 13:1-14:31 suggests supplemental intent on John’s part. John omits virtually everything Mark records happening before and at the supper and provides additional material about it not found in Mark. Even when he records the one events that the two have in common—Jesus’ prediction of Judas’s betrayal—John provides supplementary detail not found in Mark. Also, the events that John narrates seem to interweave easily with the events that Mark records. The fact that John does not record the institution of the Eucharist (another major event!), which he has already foreshadowed in John 6:26-71, is strong evidence that his audience already had a written record of its institution.
• John’s supplemental intent may be illustrated by his giving names to figures that are otherwise unnamed in Mark (e.g., Peter and Malchus in the incident where Peter cuts off Malchus’s ear; cf. Mark 14:47, John 18:10).
• John 18:13-23 discusses the relationship between Annas and Caiaphas, provides additional detail about how Peter got into the courtyard of the high priest, and preserves an account of Jesus’ appearance before Annas, which is not mentioned in Mark. All of these may be seen as an effort to supplement Mark’s account.
• John 18:24 refers, in a single verse, to the appearance of Jesus before Caiaphas, which is described in detail in Mark 14:53-65. This may be evidence of John taking Mark’s account as read.
• In John 19:7, the Jewish authorities charge Jesus before Pilate with making himself out to be the Son of God. This charge is not found in John’s account of Jesus’ appearances before the Jewish authorities, but it is found in Mark’s (Mark 14:61-64).

On the other hand:

• The clearing of the temple and the anointing with oil are placed differently in Mark and John.
• John records Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial as occurring during the Last Supper, but in Mark it appears just after the supper.

These differences could be counted as evidence that John was not using Mark as an outline, but it also can be understood in other ways, such as John providing additional clarity on precisely when these events occurred. The dislocation of these events thus does not overcome the positive evidence that John used Mark.

This hypothesis needs to be tested, however, for Matthew and Luke have a large number of similarities with Mark, and we need to ask whether there is evidence pointing to John’s use of one of them as an outline instead of Mark.

While Mark’s Gospel is commonly regarded as the earliest Synoptic, and thus the one that had the most time to circulate before John wrote his Gospel, it’s also possible that he could have used Matthew or Luke as his template rather than Mark. These possibilities need to be investigated as well.

Since Luke departs more from Mark than Matthew (e.g., via the Great Omission), we may find more problems meshing John with Luke than with Matthew, and so we will look first at how Luke might have functioned as John’s template.

 

III. Luke and John

Because we have already been through Mark and seen the points of contact that it has with John’s Gospel, we will be able to proceed more expeditiously through Luke. Rather than re-arguing the material discovered by comparing Mark with John, we will only comment on those things that it appears more likely or less likely that John used Luke instead of Mark.

As a form of visual shorthand, we will annotate sections with a “differential” of -1, 0, or +1:

• -1 indicates a place where it appears less likely that John used Luke than Mark
• 0 indicates a place where it appears neither more nor less likely
• +1 indicates a place where it appears more likely that John used Luke than Mark

These differentials are not meant to be added up mathematically. Some +1s and some -1s are much weightier than others. The differentials are merely a form of visual shorthand indicating some degree of higher or lower probability.

One further note: We will not consider places where John simply omits something from Luke as affecting the probability that he used Luke. John omits many things from Mark, and so a mere omission does not affect the probability that he used a particular Gospel. There must be something else (e.g., the fact that John alludes to but does not record an event of great significance) for probability to be affected.

Here is a table of how the two Gospels can be meshed, along with the differentials discussed in the commentary below:

No.	Section	Luke	John	Differential
1.	Prologue	1:1-4	1:1-18	-1
2.	Infancy Narrative	1:5-2:52	—	0
3.	John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing	3:1-4:13	—	0
4.	Early Ministry I	—	1:19-2:12	0
5.	Clearing the Temple	(19:45-48)	2:13-22	0
6.	Early Ministry II	—	2:23-4:43	-1
7.	The Official’s Son	—	4:44-54	0 or +1
8.	Galilean Ministry I	4:14-7:35	—	0 or +1
9.	Anointing with Oil	7:36-50	(12:1-8)	0
10.	Galilean Ministry II	8:1-56	—	0
11.	Sending the Disciples	9:1-6	—	0
12.	Fate of John the Baptist	9:7-9	—	0
13.	Visit to Jerusalem	—	5:1-47	0
14.	Disciples Return	9:10a	—	0
15.	Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water	9:10b-17	6:1-71	0
16.	Galilean Ministry III	9:18-50	7:1-9	0
17.	Travel to Jerusalem I	9:51-10:37	7:10	0
18.	Judean Ministry I	10:38-13:21	7:11-10:39	0
19.	Transjordan Ministry	—	10:40-42	-1
20.	Judean Ministry II	—	11:1-57	0
21.	Travel to Jerusalem II	13:22-19:27	—	-1
22.	Anointing with Oil	(7:36-50)	12:1-8	0
23.	Triumphal Entry	19:28-44	12:9-19	0
24.	Clearing the Temple	19:45-48	(2:13-22)	0
25.	Before the Supper	20:1-22:6	12:20-50	0
26.	The Last Supper	22:7-38	13:1-14:31	+1
27.	Extended Discourse	—	15:1-17:26	0
28.	After the Supper	22:39-53	18:1-12	0
29.	Peter’s Denial	22:54-62	(18:25-26)	0
30.	Before Annas	—	18:13-23	0
31.	Before the Council	22:63-71	18:24	-1
32.	Peter’s Denial	(22:54-62)	18:25-26	0
33.	Before Pilate	23:13-25	18:28-19:16	0
34.	Crucifixion & Burial	23:26-56	19:17-42	0
35.	Resurrection Narrative	24:1-53	20:1-21:25	0

 

1. Prologue (Luke: 1:1-4, John: 1:1-18)

Both Gospels contain prologues, but there is no indication that John used Luke’s or that his prologue is meant to interact with Luke’s. However, John’s prologue is thematically connected to his presentation of the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus’s baptism. If John were using Luke as a template then he would have had to skip the first 132 verses of Luke and start relating his prologue to material found in Luke 3. This makes it more likely that John was using Mark than Luke.

Differential: -1

 

2. Infancy Narrative (Luke: 1:5-2:52, John: — )

Luke contains an extensive infancy narrative that John does not. There are no clear points of contact between Luke’s infancy narrative and the early portion of John’s Gospel that would suggest John using the former as a template. A mere omission, however, does not create a differential.

Differential: 0

 

3. John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing (Luke: 3:1-4:13, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:1-5, above).

Differential: 0

 

4. Early Ministry I (Luke: — , John: 1:19-2:12)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:3, above).

Differential: 0

 

5. Clearing the Temple (Luke: [19:45-48], John: 2:13-22)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:4, above).

Differential: 0

 

6. Early Ministry II (Luke: — , John: 2:23-4:43)

This material contains a reference to Jesus’ early Judean ministry preceding the point at which John was put in prison (John 3:24). Bauckham sees this as a cue relating to Mark 1:14, which reveals that Jesus began his Galilean ministry only after John was imprisoned. Luke 4:14 (which parallels Mark 1:14) does not mention this, which makes it less likely that John was using Luke than Mark or Matthew.

Differential: -1

 

7. The Official’s Son (Luke: — , John: 4:44-54)

We noted above that Bauckham was ambivalent about whether this pericope should be classed with the Early Ministry era of John or viewed as a parallel of his to Mark’s Galilean Ministry I.

Both views are similarly possible if John was working from Luke rather than Mark.

Although Bauckham does not raise this possibility, if John was using Luke there might be an additional reason to see this pericope as paralleling Galilean Ministry I. Some commentators have noted enough similarities between this account and the healing of the centurion’s servant to suggest that the healing of the official’s son is John’s version of the former.

If so, the healing of the official’s son would naturally parallel Galilean Ministry I, since this is where the healing of the centurion’s servant occurs (see Luke 7:1-10). Furthermore, this would increase the odds that John was using Luke since the latter account is found in Luke but not in Mark.

Differential: 0 (if the two pericopes are not parallel) or +1 (if they are)

 

8. Galilean Ministry I (Luke: 4:14-7:35, John: — )

This section in Luke records an incident in which Jesus enables Peter and his companions to have a miraculous catch of fish while on the Sea of Galilee (Luke 5:1-10). John records a similar incident at the end of Jesus’ ministry (John 21:1-14). Some have proposed that these were the same event. If so, they could be seen as John providing additional clarity about when the event occurred. However, if they are two different events, this is not the case.

Differential: 0 (if the two pericopes are not parallel) or +1 (if they are)

 

9. Anointing with Oil (Luke: 7:36-50, John: [12:1-8])

In Luke’s account, Jesus is anointed with oil much earlier than in the other three Gospels, though it appears to be the same event, with Luke referring to Jesus’ host as “Simon” (Luke 7:40-44), with Matthew and Mark referring to him as “Simon the leper” (Matt. 26:6, Mark 14:3).

On its face, this would seem to be a case of Luke providing additional clarity about when this event literally occurred (cf. Luke 1:3), though he could have included it here for other reasons.

In either case, it does not appear that John used Luke as a template at this point. The same is true of Mark, however, since Mark also records this event in a different place than John.

Differential: 0

 

10. Galilean Ministry II (Luke: 8:1-56, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:7, above).

Differential: 0

 

11. Sending the Disciples (Luke: 9:1-6, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:8, above).

Differential: 0

 

12. Fate of John the Baptist (Luke: 9:7-9, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:9, above).

Differential: 0

 

13. Visit to Jerusalem (Luke: — , John: 5:1-47)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:10, above).

Differential: 0

 

14. Disciples Return (Luke: 9:10a, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:11, above).

Differential: 0

 

15. Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water (Luke: 9:10b-17, John: 6:1-71)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:12, above). Luke does not record Jesus walking on water, but as we have noted, an omission does not by itself create a differential.

Differential: 0

 

16. Galilean Ministry III (Luke: 9:18-50, John: 7:1-9)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:13, above). This section includes Luke’s “Great Omission,” but this does not affect the way his outline can be seen as meshing with John’s.

Differential: 0

 

17. Travel to Jerusalem I (Luke: 9:51-10:37, John: 7:10)

We now encounter the beginning of Luke’s travel narrative, which starts with Luke 9:51:

When the days drew near for him [Jesus] to be received up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

The travel narrative in Luke is extraordinarily long, taking up almost 10 of Luke’s 24 chapters (between 9:51 and the beginning of the Triumphal Entry in 19:27).

Many of the events in the travel narrative are sayings of Jesus (e.g., the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Lord’s Prayer; cf. Luke 10:27-37 and 11:1-4). These likely were given at various times in Jesus’ ministry but have been preserved here for reasons of Luke’s literary artistry rather than literal chronology.

There are also geographical reasons that some have suggested indicate that Luke’s travel narrative may not represent a literal travel diary. In other words, Luke records Jesus going places in a way that seems to deviate from the travel itinerary that would expect to get from Galilee to Jerusalem.

Also, this journey takes only a few days on foot, but it fills a huge portion of Luke’s Gospel, comparatively speaking, and during a period (unlike Holy Week), for which a detailed chronology was unlikely to have been committed to memory.

It is therefore reasonable to question how much of the chronology of Luke’s travel narrative should be taken literally and how much should be assigned to the freedom in arranging material non-chronologically that Luke had in composing his Gospel.

Whatever the answer to this question, it does not initially affect how Luke’s narrative may be seen as meshing with John (but see III:31, below).

John 7:10 records a trip to Judea that inaugurates a period of ministry there. This may provisionally be identified with the beginning of Luke’s travel narrative, stretching from Luke 9:51-10:37 and ending when Jesus arrives at the house of Mary and Martha (very near Jerusalem) in 10:38.

Differential: 0

 

18. Judean Ministry I (Luke: 10:38-13:21, John: 7:11-10:39)

We do not know this from Luke, but from John we know that Mary and Martha lived in the town of Bethany (John 11:1), which is just outside Jerusalem, and so it is a reasonable point to date the beginning of the Judean ministry recorded in John 7:10.

Most of the material in Luke 10:38-13:21 is sayings material, and so it may be placed here for literary rather than chronological reasons. Even the non-sayings material in this section does not contain geographic references, and so this could fit with the Judean ministry described in John.

Differential: 0

 

19. Transjordan Ministry (Luke: — , John: 10:40-42)

Luke contains no equivalent to the Transjordan ministry described in Mark and John at this point. This provides less of a reason to think that John was using Luke as an outline than Mark.

Differential: -1

 

20. Judean Ministry II (Luke: — , John: 11:1-57)

Luke contains no section paralleling this section in John (the raising of Lazarus), but neither does Mark.

Differential: 0

 

21. Travel to Jerusalem II (Luke: 13:22-19:27, John: — )

We may have found a way to mesh the first part of Luke’s travel narrative with John’s outline (see III:17-18, above), but now we encounter a huge problem.

The six-chapter travel odyssey that we now find in Luke is not paralleled in John, who already has transitioned back to Judea from the Transjordan in the previous section. If the way we have been looking at Luke’s travel narrative is correct then we have a major disruption with John.

Is there another way of looking at the travel narrative?

On first glance, the most natural way to take the narrative is as an account of Jesus making a single journey to Jerusalem. This view runs into problems, though, because he arrives at the house of the Bethany family (Luke 10:38), just a tiny distance from Jerusalem, and then seems to back up and be travelling through Galilee and Samaria (Luke 17:11).

If John were using Luke as an outline then it would be very surprising for him not to do something to clarify the matter, as clarification of the chronology of Jesus’ travels seems to be one of his concerns.

It has also been proposed that Luke’s travel narrative is meant to represent more than one journey. And it has been proposed that the travel narrative is a hodgepodge of traditions that Luke put together to provide a bridge between Jesus’ Galilean ministry and Passion, without intending them to be taken as a chronological account.

John, however, is attempting to provide a chronological account, and if either of the latter two views is true then one would expect John to do something to clarify how the very large body of material in Luke’s travel narrative should be understood chronologically.

Thus, on any obvious interpretation, it appears that the travel narrative becomes a major stumbling block to the idea that John used Luke as an outline.

Differential: -1

 

22. Anointing with Oil (Luke: [7:36-50], John: 12:1-8)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:18, above).

Differential: 0

 

23. Triumphal Entry (Luke: 19:28-44, John: 12:9-19)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:19, above).

Differential: 0

 

24. Clearing the Temple (Luke: 19:45-48, John: [2:13-22])

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:20, above).

Differential: 0

 

25. Before the Supper (Luke: 20:1-22:6, John: 12:20-50)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:21, above).

Differential: 0

 

26. The Last Supper (Luke: 22:7-38, John: 13:1-14:31)

The same basic considerations apply to Luke’s account as apply to Mark’s account.

Two notable additions to Luke’s account of the supper that are not found in Mark are the discussion of who is the greatest (Luke 22:24-32) and the discussion of preparations for the future (Luke 22:35-38). However, these could be omitted from John for the same reasons that John omits the other elements of Mark’s narrative. (Indeed, John 21:15-19 can be seen as an equivalent to Luke 22:31-33, giving John less of a reason to repeat such material here.)

There is one notable agreement between Luke and John against Mark: Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denial. In both Luke and John, this occurs during the Last Supper (Luke 22:33-34, John 13:31-38). Mark, however, places it after the supper (Mark 14:27-31). This is a minor relocation that might not be significant, but on the face of it, this section appears to support the idea that John used Luke as a template more than it supports the idea he used Mark.

Differential: +1

 

27. Extended Discourse (Luke: — , John: 15:1-17:26)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:24, above).

Differential: 0

 

28. After the Supper (Luke: 22:39-53, John: 18:1-12)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:25, above, though note that Luke has the prediction of Peter’s denial in section III:26, above).

Differential: 0

 

29. Peter’s Denial (Luke: 22:54-62, John: [18:25-27])

Luke places all three of Peter’s denials before his account of Jesus’ discussion with the high priest(s), while John places one of them before and two of them after. There is thus a difference between Luke and John on their sequencing. However, there is also a difference between Mark and John, for Mark places all three denials after the encounter with the high priest(s). There thus is no reason to think that John used either Luke or Mark over the other at this point.

Differential: 0

 

30. Before Annas (Luke: — , John: 18:13-23)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:26, above).

Differential: 0

 

31. Before the Council (Luke: 22:63-71, John: 18:24)

John has a single verse alluding to Jesus’ encounter with Caiaphas (John 18:24), which Bauckham takes as summarizing the fuller account of the meeting given in Mark.

This verse could not play the same function with respect to Luke’s narrative. In Luke, Jesus is mocked and abused at the high priest’s house (Luke 22:63-65), but no encounter with him is recorded. Instead, after the abuse, he is taken away to appear before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:66-71; cf. Matt. 27:1, Mark 15:1), where the charge against him is formulated.

Differential: -1

 

32. Peter’s Denial (Luke: [22:54-62], John: 18:25-27)

Here John records two of Peter’s three denials. Both Mark and Luke place the denials in slightly different (but nearby) places, resulting in no differential.

Differential: 0

 

33. Before Pilate (Luke: 23:1-25, John: 18:28-19:16)

Bauckham sees the charge before Pilate in John 19:7 (that Jesus made himself the Son of God) as possibly alluding to Mark’s account of the appearance before Pilate (Mark 14:61-64), however, the same charge appears in Luke’s account of Jesus’ appearance before the Sanhedrin (Luke 22:69-71), so there is no particular reason to see John using Mark over Luke here.

A notable difference between Luke and John is that Luke preserves the account of Jesus appearing before Herod in the middle of his interactions with Pilate, but this is something John could have simply chosen to omit.

Differential: 0

 

34. Crucifixion & Burial (Luke: 23:26-56, John: 19:17-42)

Both Luke and John obviously record the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, each adding different details:

• Luke mentions the role of Simon of Cyrene (Luke 23:26)
• Luke mentions Jesus’ comments to the women of Jerusalem (Luke 23:27-31).
• Both mention the two robbers (Luke 23:32, John 19:18).
• Both identify the place as Golgotha, though only John gives its Aramaic name (Luke 23:33, John 19:17).
• Luke mentions Jesus’ prayer for his executioners (Luke 23:34a).
• Both mention the dividing of his garments, and John brings out its prophetic significance (Luke 23:34b, John 19:23-24).
• Luke mentions the deriding by others (Luke 23:35-37).
• Both mention the titulus, and John records the objection that the Jewish leaders made against it (Luke 23:38, John 19:19-22).
• Luke mentions his abuse by one thief and his interaction with the good thief (Luke 23:39-43)
• Luke mentions the darkness over the land and the tearing of the temple veil (Luke 23:44-45).
• Luke mentions Jesus’ entrustment of his spirit into his Father’s hands (Luke 23:46a).
• John mentions that Jesus was given a drink by means of a sponge (John 19:28-30a).
• Both mention Jesus’ death (Luke 23:46b, John 19:30b).
• Luke mentions the remark of the centurion (Luke 23:47).
• John mentions the breaking of the other two’s legs, the piercing of Jesus side, and the prophetic significance of these (John 19:31-37).
• Both mention certain women standing nearby (Luke 23:49, 55-56, John 19:25), and John mentions the entrustment of the Virgin Mary to the beloved disciple (John 19:26-27).
• Luke mentions Joseph of Arimathea obtaining the body and burying it (Luke 23:50-53). John adds the role of Nicodemus and the spices he brought (John 19:38-42).

We thus see Luke contributing some details not mentioned in John and visa versa.

It is harder, though, to see evidence of John using Luke’s outline as a template for this section. The above elements are recorded in the order of Luke’s narration. If you look down the list at the entries for John, you will see deviations from Luke’s order.

This is similar to what happens when the material from Mark’s account is paralleled with John and placed in Mark’s order.

Differential: 0

 

35. Resurrection Narrative (Luke: 24:1-53, John: 20:1-21:25)

Both John and Luke record women going to the tomb and discovering it empty.

There are a number of differences in their narratives:

• Luke records that a group of women went to the tomb, bringing spices and intending to anoint the body (Luke 24:1), however John only mentions Mary Magdalene and does not explain her motive for going (John 20:1). This may be significant because John has already indicated that Jesus was buried with very large amounts of spices that Nicodemus had brought (John 19:39-40).
• Luke, however, records that after finding the tomb already open, the group of women encounter an angel in the tomb who gives them instructions, after which they return and inform the eleven, who don’t believe them (Luke 24:2-11).
• Luke records that Peter ran to the tomb (Luke 24:12), and John records that both Peter and the beloved disciple ran to the tomb and returned home (John 20:2-10).
• In John, Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb and encounters two angels, after which she immediately encounters Jesus (John 20:11-18).
• John records a private appearance to Mary Magdalene (John 20:11-18).
• Luke records that Jesus appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35).
• In Luke, Jesus then appeared to the disciples as a group and gave them evangelistic instructions (Mark 24:36-49). John also records a group appearance occurring swiftly afterward (John 20:19-23).
• John records the subsequent appearance to the disciples with Thomas present (John 20:24-29) and notes that Jesus did many other things (John 20:30-31).
• John records the appearance at the Sea of Galilee where he enabled a miraculous catch of fish, restored Peter, and predicted Peter’s death, before again noting that Jesus did many other things (John 21:1-25).
• Finally, Luke, records that Jesus ascended to heaven and the disciples returned home and continued worshipping God in the temple (Luke 24:50-53).

There is a notable point of contact between Luke and John in that both mention Peter going to the tomb, but the differences between the two narratives are great enough that it is hard to assert that John was using Luke as a template, which is the same conclusion we drew with respect to Mark’s account.

Differential: 0

 

Summary

In favor of the idea that John used Luke rather than Mark:

• There is a possible agreement between Luke and John if the healing of the Centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1-10) is the same as the healing of the Official’s son (John 4:44-54). If they are different events (my preference) then there is no such interaction.
• A similar, possible interaction is the miraculous catch of fish recorded in Luke 5:1-9. If this is the same event as the miraculous catch recorded in John 21:1-14 then it could be a case of John providing greater clarity about when this event occurred chronologically. However, if these are two different events (my view) then there is no such interaction.
• There is also one notable agreement in that Luke and John place the prediction of Peter’s denial within the Last Supper (Luke 22:31-34, John 13:36-38), rather than after it (Mark 14:26-31).

These, however, pale in comparison to the differences in sequence that make it much less likely that John used Luke for a template compared to Mark. These include the following:

• John would have had to skip the first 132 verses of Luke and begin by relating his prologue to material in Luke 3.
• Luke 4:14 does not mention that Jesus began his Galilean ministry only after John was imprisoned (it thus fails to set up John 3:24)
• Luke omits the Transjordan ministry found in John 10:40-42
• Luke does not provide an account of Jesus’ encounter with Caiaphas, so John 18:24 could not be a summary of such an encounter.
• And—most especially—the major disruptions posed by Luke’s travel narrative and the fact that John—with a known interest in clarifying chronology—would not have passed over them without doing anything to resolve them.

It thus appears more likely that John used Mark as a template than that he used Luke.

But what about the idea that he might have used Matthew?

 

IV. Matthew and John

Matthew has more things in common with Mark than Luke does. Indeed, Matthew has parallels for 90% of the verses in Mark, compared to Luke, which has parallels for only 55% of them (B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 160). At first glance, Matthew might appear to be a better candidate than Luke for John to have used as an outline.

To begin our investigation, here is a table of how Matthew and John’s narratives might be made to mesh, along with the same kind of differentials that we used in the previous section. Again, these differentials are only a visual shorthand and are not to be treated as true numerical values.

No.	Section	Matthew	John	Differential
1.	Prologue	—	1:1-18	-1
2.	Genealogy & Infancy Narrative	1:1-2:23	—	0
3.	John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing	3:1-4:11	—	0
4.	Early Ministry I	—	1:19-2:12	0
5.	Clearing the Temple	(21:12-13)	2:13-22	0
6.	Early Ministry II	—	2:23-4:43	0
7.	The Official’s Son	—	4:44-54	0
8.	Galilean Ministry I	4:12-10:4	—	0 or +1
9.	Sending the Disciples	10:5-11:1a	—	0
10.	Galilean Ministry II	11:1b-13:58	—	-1
11.	Fate of John the Baptist	14:1-12	—	-1
12.	Visit to Jerusalem	—	5:1-47	0
13.	Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water	14:13-36	6:1-71	0
14.	Galilean Ministry III	15:1-18:35	7:1-9	0
15.	Judean Ministry I	19:1a	7:10-10:39	-1
16.	Transjordan Ministry	19:1b-30	10:40-42	0
17.	Judean Ministry II	—	11:1-57	0
18.	Travel to Jerusalem	20:17-34	—	0
19.	Anointing with Oil	(26:1-16)	12:1-8	0
20.	Triumphal Entry	21:1-11	12:9-19	0
21.	Clearing the Temple	21:12-13	(2:13-22)	0
22.	Before the Supper	21:14-25:46	12:20-50	0
23.	Anointing with Oil	26:1-16	(12:1-8)	0
24.	The Last Supper	26:17-35	13:1-14:31	0
25.	Extended Discourse	—	15:1-17:26	0
26.	After the Supper	26:36-56	18:1-12	0
27.	Before Annas	—	18:13-23	0
28.	Before Caiaphas	26:57-68	18:24	0
29.	Peter’s Denial	26:69-75	18:25-26	0
30.	Before Pilate	27:1-26	18:28-19:16	0
31.	Crucifixion & Burial	27:27-66	19:17-42	0
32.	Resurrection Narrative	28:1-20	20:1-21:25	0

 

1. Prologue (Matthew: — , John: 1:1-18)

John’s prologue is tied in to his account of the ministry of John the Baptist and Jesus’ own baptism. If John were using Matthew, he would have to skip the genealogy and infancy narrative and then relate his prologue to what occurs in Matthew 3. This makes it more likely he was using Mark.

Differential: -1

 

2. Genealogy & Infancy Narrative (Matthew: 1:1-2:23, John: — )

John could have chosen to omit the genealogy and infancy narrative, but we are not counting omissions as producing a differential in and of themselves (see our discussion of differentials at the beginning of the section on Luke and John).

Differential: 0

 

3. John the Baptist, Jesus’ Baptism, & Testing (Matthew: 3:1-4:11, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply in the parallel with Mark (see II:2, above).

Differential: 0

 

4. Early Ministry I (Matthew: — , John: 1:19-2:12)

The same considerations apply here that apply in the parallel with Mark (see II:3, above).

Differential: 0

 

5. Clearing the Temple (Matthew: [21:12-13], John: 2:13-22)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:4, above).

Differential: 0

 

6. Early Ministry II (Matthew: — , John: 2:23-4:43)

The same considerations apply here that apply in the Markan parallel (see II:5, above). Note that Matthew 4:12 functions as well for setting up John 3:24 as does Mark 1:13.

Differential: 0

 

7. The Official’s Son (Matthew: — , John: 4:44-54)

In our discussion of Luke, we noted that some have proposed that the healing of the Official’s son is the same event as the healing of the Centurion’s servant (Matt. 8:5-13; see III:7, above). If so, this would provide a potential point of contact between Matthew and John, located at a similar place in the narrative, and thus providing a greater likelihood that John was using Matthew for an outline rather than Mark.

If they are two different events, this does not apply.

Differential: 0 (if the two pericopes are not parallel) or +1 (if they are)

 

8. Galilean Ministry I (Matthew: 4:12-10:4, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:7, above).

Differential: 0

 

9. Sending the Disciples (Matthew: 10:5-11:1a, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:8, above).

Differential: 0

 

10. Galilean Ministry II (Matthew: 11:1b-13:58, John: — )

Has noted in the parallel in Mark (see II:8, above), the departure of the disciples creates a period in which Jesus is alone, and this period seems to extend for a considerable amount of time. In Mark, it lasts from 6:13 to 6:30, and in John, it appears to occupy the whole of chapter 5 (i.e., 5:1-47). This latter pericope seems to refer to the death of John the Baptist (John 5:33-35), which is referred to at the corresponding part in Mark (Mark 6:13-29). For more on this, see II:10 (above).

In Matthew the return of the disciples is not explicitly announced, as it is in Mark 6:30. Instead, they are suddenly mentioned as being with Jesus again in Matthew 12:1, which is well before the death of John the Baptist (Matt. 14:1-12). This makes it more likely that John was using Mark than Matthew.

Differential: -1

 

11. Fate of John the Baptist (Matthew: 14:1-12, John: — )

Unlike the parallel in Mark, Matthew’s account of John the Baptist’s death occurs after the disciple have returned from their mission, not during the period when Jesus was alone. We have already recorded a negative differential for this fact in the previous section, so we will not re-record it here.

Differential: 0

 

12. Visit to Jerusalem (Matthew: — , John: 5:1-47)

One could try to move this pericope from John earlier (before Matt. 12:1) to keep it in the period when Jesus was without the disciples, but this would generate a new problem, with Jesus appearing to refer to John the Baptist’s death earlier in John’s sequence than the death is recorded in Matthew’s. This move thus would not remove the negative differential recorded in III:10, above. If the pericope is left at this point in the chronology, it does not generate any new differential beside the one already recorded.

Differential: 0

 

13. Feeding the Five Thousand & Walking on the Water (Matthew: 14:13-36, John: 6:1-71)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:12, above).

Differential: 0

 

14. Galilean Ministry III (Matthew: 15:1-18:35, John: 7:1a)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:13, above). Note that, as in the Markan parallel, this section contains an excursion into Gentile territory even though Jesus is still based in Galilee.

Differential: 0

 

15. Judean Ministry I (Matthew: 19:1a, John: 7:1-10:39)

In this section, Matthew states that Jesus left Galilee and went to “the regions of Judea beyond the Jordan.” The parallel in Mark says that he went to “the regions of Judea and beyond the Jordan.”

The absence of the word and (Greek, kai) causes significant problems. The meaning of Matthew’s text is debated. Some have suggested that it means Jesus entered Judea by way of the Transjordan. On the other hand, if the kai has simply been omitted, then it would appear that Jesus first entered Judea and then the Transjordan.

The latter is suggested by the parallel Judean and Transjordanian ministries in Mark and John, suggesting a greater likelihood that John used Mark than Matthew.

Differential: -1

 

16. Transjordan Ministry (Matthew: 19:1b-20:16, John: 10:40-42)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:15, above).

Differential: 0

 

17. Judean Ministry II (Matthew: — , John: 11:1-57)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:16, above).

Differential: 0

 

18. Travel to Jerusalem (Matthew: 20:17-34, John: — )

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:17, above).

Differential: 0

 

19. Anointing with Oil (Matthew: [26:1-16], John: 12:1-8)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:18, above).

Differential: 0

 

20. Triumphal Entry (Matthew: 21:1-11, John: 12:9-19)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:19, above).

Differential: 0

 

21. Clearing the Temple (Matthew: 21:12-13, John: [2:13-22])

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:20, above).

Differential: 0

 

22. Before the Supper (Matthew: 21:14-25:46, John: 12:20-50)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:21, above).

Differential: 0

 

23. Anointing with Oil (Matthew: 26:1-16, John: [12:1-8])

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:22, above).

Differential: 0

 

24. The Last Supper (Matthew: 26:17-30a, John: 13:1-14:31)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:23, above).

Differential: 0

 

25. Extended Discourse (Matthew: — , John: 15:1-17:26)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:24, above).

Differential: 0

 

26. After the Supper (Matthew: 26:30b-56, John: 18:1-12)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:25, above).

Differential: 0

 

27. Before Annas (Matthew: — , John: 18:13-23)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:26, above).

Differential: 0

 

28. Before Caiaphas (Matthew: 26:57-68, John: 18:24)

The same considerations largely apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:27, above). A very small difference is that, unlike Mark, Matthew names the high priest as Caiaphas. This difference is not enough, however, to amount to a significant differential.

Differential: 0

 

29. Peter’s Denial (Matthew: 26:69-75, John: 18:25-26)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:28, above).

Differential: 0

 

30. Before Pilate (Matthew: 27:1-26, John: 18:28-19:16)

The same considerations apply here that apply to the parallel with Mark (see II:29, above).

Differential: 0

 

31. Crucifixion & Burial (Matthew: 27:27-66, John: 19:17-42)

Both Matthew and John record the crucifixion and burial of Jesus, each adding different details:

• Matthew mentions the initial abuse from the Roman battalion (Matt. 27:27-31)
• Matthew mentions the role of Simon and Cyrene (Matt. 27:32)
• Both identify the place as Golgotha, and both explain its name (Matt. 27:33, John 19:17).
• Matthew mentions the drink that Jesus refused (Matt. 27:34).
• Both mention the dividing of his garments, and John brings out its prophetic significance (Matt. 27:35, John 18:23-24).
• Both mention the titulus, and John records the objection that the Jewish leaders made against it (Matt. 27:37, John 19:19-22).
• Both mention that he was crucified between two others (Matt. 27:38, John 18:18).
• Matthew mentions the deriding by others (Matt. 27:39-44).
• Matthew mentions the darkness over the land (Matt. 27:45).
• Matthew mentions the quotation of Psalm 22 and the misunderstanding of it as Jesus calling for Elijah (Matt. 27:46-47).
• Both mention that Jesus was given a drink by means of a sponge (Matt. 27:48, John 19:28-30a).
• Both mention Jesus’ death (Matt. 27:50, John 19:30b).
• Matthew mentions the tearing of the temple curtain, the earthquake, the raising of saints, and the remark of the centurion (Matt. 27:51-54).
• John mentions the breaking of the other two’s legs, the piercing of Jesus side, and the prophetic significance of these (John 19:31-37).
• Both mention certain women standing nearby (Matt. 27:55-56, 61, John 19:25), and John mentions the entrustment of the Virgin Mary to the beloved disciple (John 19:26-27).
• Matthew mentions Joseph of Arimathea obtaining the body and burying it (Matt. 27:57-60). John adds the role of Nicodemus and the spices he brought (John 19:38-42).
• Matthew mentions the placing of the guard at the tomb (27:62-66).

We thus see Matthew contributing some details not mentioned in John and visa versa.

It is harder, though, to see evidence of John using Matthew’s outline as a template for this section. The above elements are recorded in the order of Matthew’s narration. If you look down the list at the entries for John, you will see deviations from Matthew’s order.

This is the same as in Mark.

Differential: 0

 

32. Resurrection Narrative (Matthew: 28:1-20, John: 20:1-21:25)

Both John and Matthew record women going to the tomb and discovering it empty.

There are a number of differences in their narratives:

• Matthew records that a group of women went to the tomb (Matt. 28:1), however John only mentions Mary Magdalene (John 20:1).
• John then records that Mary ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple, and they both ran to the tomb and returned home (John 20:2-10).
• Matthew, however, records that an angel opened the tomb (Matt. 28:2) and gave them instructions, after which they rushed to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:3-8).
• In Matthew, Jesus then meets the women and they take hold of his feet (Matt. 28:9), and he tells them to tell “my brethren” to go to Galilee, where they will see him (Matt. 28:10).
•  In John, however, Mary Magdalene encounters two angels, after which she immediately encounters Jesus, and he tells her not to “touch” him (John 20:11-18).
• Matthew also records what happened with the guard that had been set at the tomb (Matt. 28:11-15).
• John records the appearance at the Sea of Galilee where he enabled a miraculous catch of fish, restored Peter, and predicted Peter’s death, before again noting that Jesus did many other things (John 21:1-25).
• Matthew ends with the disciples going to Galilee, to a particular mountain that Jesus had mentioned, where he gives them evangelistic instructions (Matt. 28:16-20).

What can we make of the two Gospels’ resurrection narratives?

It does not appear that John was using Matthew as a template. The differences are too great to assert this with confidence. An interesting point of contact between Matthew and John is that, in the former, the women who meet Jesus immediately touch him, while in John, Mary Magdalene is told not to touch/hold/clasp him (perhaps indicating that she had just done so). This commonality is offset, however, by parallels between Mark and John, such as the women finding the tomb already open.

Differential: 0

 

Summary

In favor of the idea that John used Matthew rather than Mark:

• There is a possible agreement between Matthew and John if the healing of the Centurion’s servant (Matt.  8:5-13) is the same as the healing of the Official’s son (John 4:44-54). However, these may very well be two separate events (my preference), in which case there is no such agreement.

This single possible agreement is more than offset by elements that make it less likely that John used Matthew for a template than Mark. These include the following:

• John would have had to skip the first two chapters of Matthew and begin by relating his prologue to material in Matthew 3.
• In John the death of John the Baptist seems to be announced while Jesus’ disciples are out on mission, but in Matthew the disciples return to Jesus before the death of John the Baptist.
• Matthew 19:1 seems to blur together the Judean and Transjordanian ministries recorded in John 7-10.

It thus appears that John more likely used Mark as a template than either Luke or Matthew.