Difference Between John And The Synoptic Gospels: A Thorough Analysis
Question
Task: Present a detailed analytical report on difference between John and the synoptic gospels.
Answer
The topic of the fourth Gospel, its characteristics, authorship, etc. have always been a point of debate for scholars, and the same situation sustains in the modern era. The same level of dilemma and confusion also exists among the scholar community regarding the difference between John and the Synoptic Gospels. It is from centuries that this dispute is going on and there has been no effective and satisfactory solution achieved for it till now. Though the matter of differences between John and the synoptic Gospels have not been much of an issue for the historians, the same has troubled the Christian theologists for centuries (Moloney & Harrington, 1998). It was stated by Throckmorton that more than one synoptic Gospels were simultaneously used and retained by John. Whereas, P Garner Smith has defied this dependence theory by highlighting two of its shortcomings. The first shortcoming mentioned is the existing challenge of verbal tradition and the reliance of John on Synoptic Gospels, a less compelling factor. The second shortcoming was the fact that the scholars have missed in tracing the major differences between John and the synoptic Gospels (Bultmann, 2014).
If taken into account the cases of the Gospel of John, Mark and Luke, and the Gospel of Matthew, there could be traced some significant differences. The factor that makes the Gospel of John different from other Gospels is that most of its properties (around 90 % of them) are strongly related to the life of Jesus. The materials in the Gospel of John permeate different tones and content when compared to other Gospels which are strongly related to each other in order to tell stories regarding Jesus (Barclay, 1975). Hence even in the initial section of the analysis, it could be noted that there are some evident differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels. The major difference could be traced in the style of narrating various events in the life of Jesus Christ. The synoptic Gospels narrate the same events regarding Jesus though there is some subtle difference in the narration style. The three Gospels focus on the Jesus related events in Jerusalem and Galilee along with events which are related to the confrontations, miracles, discourses, and other major proclamations done by him. These events are organized differently as per the writing style and intentions of different writers through the scripts written by Luke, Mark, and Matthew are quite in harmony from a similar perspective. However, a similar context could not be implied in the case of the Gospel of John. The events mentioned under the Gospel of John are considerably dissimilar from others (Barclay, 1975).
The Gospel of John could be further classified into four divisions. They could be stated as an introduction; The Book of Exaltation where the conversation and interaction between Jesus after the period of crucifixion and resurrection is mentioned; The Book of Signs which highlights the messianic signs of Jesus; and the section of Epilogue where the verdicts and future ministries are given by John and Peter are mentioned. Though some of the contexts match with that of the synoptic Gospels, the major part of it could be considered as unique (Bruce, 1994).
Though this may raise confusion why the events mentioned in the Gospel of John are so different than that of the context described in Luke, Mark, and Matthew. The possibility should be checked whether John had a different perspective or have witnessed something different about Jesus as compared to others. The suspicion could also be raised that the description of Matthew, Luke, and Mark regarding Jesus are incorrect.
Though when the chronology of the events is analyzed, it could be observed that they were not wrong and there was a significant period gap of 20 years in between the works of John’s Gospel and the works of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in the respective Gospels. The reality is that certain realities and details were avoided by John since they were already mentioned in the previous works of synoptic Gospels. John had the strong intention to provide the extra information which was missed in the previous artworks. Most of the unique information presented by him was regarding the Passion week that occurred before the crucifixion of Jesus, and it was in the later period when the significance of the week was identified (Ridderbos, 1997).
The differences between John and the synoptic Gospels are limited to the style and chronology of mentioning the events but also the style of illustrating the events. The artworks of Luke, Mark, and Matthew relied on the narrative approach and thus focused on the characteristics like the proliferation of the dialogue, geographical settings, etc. which was later referred by a lot of directors. It was by the use of parables that the teachings of Jesus were discussed in the synoptic Gospels along with the appropriate use of short burst proclamations. When considered the case of the Gospel of John, it has implied a protracted and introspective approach. It is the usage of full long discourses which were stated by Jesus that are majorly used in the art forms of Gospel of John. Only a few events could be claimed as the one which moves cordially with the plot and encourages the theological exploration (Michaels, 2010).
For a detailed analysis of the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels, you could compare the instance when Jesus was born to find the evident dissimilarity in narration. The style of narration followed by Matthew and Luke is quite suitable for drama writing that effectively describes the costumes, mood of the person, etc. There is a specific focus on describing all the events in chronological order under this format. When considered the Gospel of John, there is no focus given on any character and clarity of the context. John had tried to reiterate the theological proclamation made by Jesus as it is in his works. Rather than a narrative tone, the poetic approach is taken by Joseph in his Gospel (Neyrey, 2007).
Hence from the initial analysis, it could be stated that though all the Gospels are discussing the same story, there are some significant differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Though there are some major differences between them, most of them are very subtle and hard to trace. It has always been a point of discussion why the written account in the Gospel of John is much different from other similar synoptic Gospels. For the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels, you could trace a lot of authentic pieces of evidence. The major difference is the period in which the data were inscribed in these Gospels. Most of the Christian scholars advocate that the first-ever Gospel was created by the Mark which could be dated between Ad 55 and 59. The Ministry of Jesus and portrayal of his life are much clear and swiftly described in the Gospel of Mark. However, it is still debated by the Christian community whether the Gospel of Mark was agreed upon by Luke and Matthew. It is evident that both their work were influenced by the work of Mark.
By historical analysis, it has been revealed that there was a gap of around 25 to 30 years in between the work of synoptic Gospels and the resurrection of Jesus. Since Luke, Mark, and Luke were contemporary, they had to go through immense pressure to record all the relevant events. There was no chance of error since the whole generation had witnessed the events. It may be because of this reason that three of them have not taken any innovative approach in describing the associated events. The objective was just to publish the teachings and the life of Jesus. Hence reality was the major parameter that was focused upon by three of them (Malina & Rohrbaugh, 1998).
The context in which the Gospel of John got created was entirely different. It was after Jerusalem was brought down and one generation passed away that the Gospel of John was created. John had detailed knowledge on the life of Jesus, and thus he had included them elaborately in his works. The data were copied directly from the relevant sources by the synoptic Gospels, and there was no need to reiterate the same activity. The Gospel of John hence was created by keeping in mind the cultural aspects (Thompson, 2001). Similar is the context with the case of the Gospel of Mark who wanted to communicate the teaching of Jesus for the fellow Gentile Christians. In his works, the Gospel identified Jesus as the Son of God (Smith, 1995).
In this report on differences between John and the synoptic Gospels, it could be observed that the Gospels were created by the writers to affirm the teachings of Jesus in a very apologetic manner. It was considered to be a very holy and significant task since the contemporary generations of Jesus were dying off. It was by the work of these Gospels that the teachings of Jesus were circulated through Churches. However, there has been an imminent danger to the religion since they were under the control of Jerusalem and the Jewish faith.
Conclusion
From the analysis conducted in this report on differences between John and the synoptic Gospels, it has been revealed that the major intent behind the creation of the Gospel of John and Synoptic Gospel was to restate the story of Jesus in a very authentic and convincing manner. The objective was that the message of Jesus would always remain in the mind of the new generation since the contemporary generation had started dying. The writer tried their best to bring credibility to the description of the story of Jesus. The Churches were earlier built under the protection of Jerusalem and the Jewish faith, and there has been a fear that the ideologies of Jesus would wear away. It was to provide a unique touch to the ideologies of Christianity that a new approach was taken in the Gospel of John. It was after the fall of Jerusalem that the Gospel of John was drafted. Hence there is an obvious cultural difference between John and the synoptic Gospels. In the earlier period, the Christian population had not only faced persecution from Jewish but also from the Roman Empire, and hence displaying pure honesty in the art forms was quite difficult to do. We hope that this article on the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels was quite helpful for you. Stay tuned with us for similar solutions.
References
Moloney, F. J., & Harrington, D. J. (1998). differences between John and the synoptic Gospels (No. 4). Liturgical Press.
Bultmann, R. (2014) differences between John and the synoptic Gospels: a commentary. Vol. 1. Wipf and Stock Publishers.
Barclay, W. (Ed.). (1975). differences between John and the synoptic Gospels (Vol. 2). Westminster John Knox Press.
Bruce, F. F. (1994). Difference between John and the synoptic Gospels: Introduction, Exposition, Notes. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Ridderbos, H. (1997). The differences between John and the synoptic Gospels: A theological commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Michaels, J. R. (2010). The differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Neyrey, J. H. (2007). The differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Cambridge University Press.
Malina, B. J., & Rohrbaugh, R. L. (1998). Social-science commentary on the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Fortress Press.
Thompson, M. M. (2001). The God of the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.
Smith, D. M. (1995). The theology of the differences between John and the synoptic Gospels. Cambridge University Press.
