The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels⤒🔗

As the New Testament scholar D. Guthrie remarks, “It is obvious to the most casual reader that John has features that are strikingly different from the Synoptic Gospels.”¹ In this Introduction we wish to consider the Gospel of John in comparison to the three Synoptic Gospels, considering their similarities and their differences. Then we will seek to come to an understanding as to how they relate to one another. The latter part of this Introduction focuses on the alleged “discrepancy” in the dating of the crucifixion when one compares John’s account with that of the Synoptics.

Similarities Between John and the Synoptics←⤒🔗

All four Gospels include the following: (1) narratives and comments about John the Baptist; (2) the call of the disciples; (3) the feeding of the five thousand; (4) the trip across the Sea of Galilee; (5) Peter’s confession; (6) the entry into Jerusalem; (7) Jesus’ last meal will His disciples; (8) the arrest, trial, and crucifixion; and (9) various post-resurrection appearances. In addition to this general agreement among the four Gospels, there are also narratives about the cleansing of the temple and an anointing of Jesus, but both these events are placed in different settings in John’s Gospel (see more on this below).

These similarities may also be supplemented by a number of isolated words spoken by Jesus and others, recorded both in John as well as in the Synoptics. Yet the whole of this common material contains very little verbal agreement when John is compared with the Synoptics, (unlike the verbal agreement that is found among the Synoptics themselves when they quote the words of Jesus and others). Note, for example, Peter’s confession as it is reported by John (6:68-69) in comparison to the Synoptics (Matt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20).

In common with the Synoptics, John records samples of both healing and nature miracles, although John treats them differently from the Synoptics, (identifying them as “signs”). Moreover, John records some Galilean material in common with the Synoptics, although he concentrates on the Jerusalem ministry.²

Differences Between John and the Synoptic Gospels←⤒🔗

The first type of difference between John and the Synoptics is what may be called significant omissions. For instances, parables in the proper sense of the word are lacking in John, yet they constitute the staple of Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptics. In John much of the teaching comes out in debates with opponents or in intimate contact with the disciples.³ However, it should be noted that the parabolic element in Jesus’ teaching is not altogether absent from John. John 12:35-36a may be seen to be a parable, and there are also the vivid “I AM” declarations. More significant is the narrative material John omits; this would include, among other things, the virgin birth, Jesus’ baptism, the temptations in the wilderness, the transfiguration, and the institution of the Lord’s Supper.

Perhaps the best explanation of this phenomenon is given by D. Guthrie who maintains, “any omissions by John were dictated by his assuming his readers’ acquaintance with the events, and by his specific purpose.” Furthermore, it has been pointed out that the statement found in the Prologue, (“the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory,”) is John’s testimony to the transfiguration. Whereas the Synoptics emphasize that on a particular occasion the Lord Jesus dramatically displayed His divine glory, John’s emphasis is on the fact that the Lord’s divine glory was manifested in various ways throughout His ministry (note, for instance, 2:11). Then, too, Jesus’ discourse on His identity as “the Bread of life” (6:35,51) is supplemental to His teaching at the time of the institution of the Lord’s Supper as recorded in the Synoptics. Finally, when he records the words of Jesus, “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour. But for this cause I came to this hour. Father, glorify your name” (12:27-28a), it may well be John’s intention thereby to summarize the agony of Gethsemane which the Synoptics present in more detailed narrative.⁴

A second type of difference to be found when John is compared to the Synoptics is that of significant additions. Among the significant additions unique to John’s Gospel are the following: (1) the early Judean ministry, including the miracle at Cana; (2) Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus and with the Samaritan woman; (3) the healing of the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda; (4) the healing of the blind man in Jerusalem; (5) the raising of Lazarus; (6) the washing of the disciples’ feet; (7) the farewell discourses in the upper room; and (8) portions of the passion narrative.

Why is there so much new material introduced? Once again, D. Guthrie responds, “If John is designed to supplement the Synoptic Gospels, the answer will be ready to hand.” One must also remember John’s clearly defined purpose as stated in John 20:30-31,

Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples that are not recorded in this book. ³¹But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and by believing you may have life in his name.

In keeping with that purpose, John has inserted this material not found in the Synoptics. For example, the miracle at Cana reveals Jesus’ true identity and serves to elicit and confirm the faith of the disciples (2:11). His discourses with Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman serve to expound the doctrines of regeneration and true spiritual worship. The healing of the paralytic affords Jesus the opportunity to bear witness to the fact that He is the Son of God who is Lord of the Sabbath. Or, again, the raising of Lazarus becomes the occasion of Jesus’ assertion that He, as the great “I AM,” is the Resurrection and the Life (11:25-26).⁵

The third type of difference between John and the Synoptics is what might be called historical/chronological variations. The most notable differences in this category are: the dating of the cleansing of the temple, the duration of Jesus’ ministry, and the anointing at Bethany.

Whereas the Synoptics record the cleansing of the temple very late in Jesus’ ministry, (in conjunction with His triumphal entry into Jerusalem), John records a cleansing of the temple that occurred early on in Jesus’ ministry. There seems to be no true difficulty here; in all likelihood there were two occasions on which Jesus cleansed the temple.

The seeming variation in the duration of Jesus’ ministry poses less of a problem than is often imagined. It is generally supposed that the Synoptics require only one year for Jesus’ entire ministry, whereas John requires almost three. But the chronological indications in the Synoptics are too vague to settle the question of the duration of the Lord’s ministry. Furthermore, there are in fact many incidental details that suggest a much longer period than one year. Moreover, there are some obvious gaps in the Synoptic narratives, particularly in relation to the Judean ministry. It is not impossible to regard both the Synoptics and Johannine accounts as complementary in this matter.⁶

With regard to the dating of the anointing at Bethany, we may consider the following information that has bearing on our understanding of how to reconcile John and the Synoptics at this point. Luke tells us that the plottings of the chief priests were immediately followed by Judas’ desertion (Lk. 22:1-6). Mark and Matthew record the plottings of the chief priests as occurring two days before the Passover, then they report the anointing at Bethany, and finally they tell us of Judas’ desertion (Mk. 14:1-11; Matt. 26:1-16). John, on the other hand, informs us that the anointing at Bethany occurred six days before the Passover (12:1). There is, however, no true contradiction between these accounts. Mark (and Matthew following him) informs us of the plottings of the chief priests (14:1-2), then gives us a “flashback” to the anointing which occurred previously at Bethany (14:3-9), and then goes on to inform us of Judas’ desertion and bargain with the chief priests (14:10-11). By presenting the events in this order Mark and Matthew have served to highlight Mary’s loving act of self-denial by “sandwiching” it between the self-seeking efforts of the chief priests on the one hand and Judas on the other.

Understanding the Relationship Between John and the Synoptic Gospels←⤒🔗

According to M.C. Tenney, it is possible that John’s Gospel was written as an attempt to supplement the accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus that had found written expression in the Synoptic Gospels. The general omission of Jesus’ Galilean ministry, the almost total absence of the parables, the definite selectivity in choosing what miracles to include in his account (cf. John 20:30), and the dovetailing of some of John’s historical data with that found in the Synoptics makes one feel that the author was trying to give to the public fresh information that had not previously been used in writing. For instance, in the account of the Last Supper, John described the foot-washing scene and explained how Jesus wished to provide an object lesson in humility for the disciples. Luke, for his part, tells how the disciples were arguing among themselves as to which of them was the greatest (Lk. 22:24). The two accounts thus interlock, and one may speculate whether John was not explaining how Jesus met the situation Luke described.⁷

D. Guthrie, too, contends that the large amount of material in John, which is absent from the Synoptics, would be well accounted for if John were filling in the gaps. Moreover, John often avoids unnecessary duplications, so that it would seem he assumes his readers will be acquainted with the Synoptic records. Guthrie sums up the situation by commenting, “Whatever view of their relationship is held, it cannot be denied that each is necessary to make the other intelligible.”⁸

The Date of the Crucifixion←⤒🔗

The question we here address is this, Is there a conflict between the evidence for the dating of the crucifixion in the three Synoptic Gospels and that found in the Gospel of John?

There is not the least indication in the writings of the ancient church fathers that during the first hundred and fifty years A.D. any problem was seen in the four Gospels with regard to the dating of the crucifixion. Only about 170 A.D. do we for the first time find signs indicating that confusion had arisen concerning the evidence of the four Gospels with regard to the dating of the crucifixion. It appears Tatian (120-180 A.D.), in compiling his Diatessaron, (i.e. a Harmony of the Four Gospels), was the first to detect an apparent conflict between the three Synoptic Gospels on the one hand, and the Gospel of John on the other. Now it is significant that, taking into consideration all the evidence bearing on the views held by the church fathers up until circa 160-170 A.D., one comes to the conclusion that the early church of the first hundred and fifty years, when contact with the apostles was still fresh, saw no contradiction in the Gospels with regard to the dating of our Lord’s crucifixion.

 Having said this, we must ask the question, What exactly did Tatian see that caused him to suppose that there might be a conflict between John and the Synoptics with regard to this matter? When one closely studies the Gospel accounts, it becomes apparent that the Synoptics clearly indicate that Jesus partook of the paschal meal with His disciples according to the Jewish law (cp. Ex. 12:1-20, esp. vs. 6), and was crucified on the following day. Thus, His partaking of the paschal meal would have occurred on the evening of Thursday, the 14th of Nisan, His crucifixion on that Friday, the 15th of the month, (the day of solemn Passover observance), and He would then have rested in His tomb on the Sabbath, awaiting the third day, the day of His resurrection. However, certain passages in the Gospel of John (especially 18:28; 19:14) seem to indicate that the eating of the paschal meal took place on the evening of the day of Jesus’ death. According to John 18:28 and 19:14, the Jews’ presentation of Jesus before Pilate, His trial before the Roman governor, and His subsequent crucifixion, all occurred prior to the Jews’ “eating the Passover.”

We need now to consider these passages of John more carefully in order to determine if there is, indeed, a conflict between John’s account and that of the Synoptics, or, if, in fact, the conflict is merely apparent and the four Gospel accounts are actually in harmony with one another.

The text of John 18:28 is the text of cardinal importance in our investigation. That passage reads as follows:

Then they led Jesus from Caiaphas to the Praetorium, and it was early morning. But they themselves did not go into the Praetorium, so that they would not be defiled, but might eat the Passover [φαγωσιν το πασχα].

Often times scholars have (wrongly) assumed that by the expression, “[that they] might eat the Passover,” John is indicating that the Jews had yet to eat the paschal meal, and, therefore, according to John, Jesus was already tried and sentenced to be crucified on the morning before the eating of the paschal meal.

Contrary to this understanding of the text, there is convincing evidence that the expression, “[that they] might eat the Passover,” does not refer to the eating of the initial paschal meal, but refers to the entire seven-day feast of unleavened bread, and especially to the sacrificial meals eaten during the feast. During the seven-day Passover observance, in addition to the usual offerings, festal offerings were required to be brought to the temple every day. In John 18:28 the evangelist seems to be referring to the partaking of some such sacrificial meal.

Then, too, we must bear in mind that the entire Passover observance, (extending for a period of seven days), was commonly referred to by the people as “the feast of Passover,” or, simply, “the Passover.” It is generally recognized that the term, το irtασXα (“the Passover”), had a wider meaning than merely the paschal meal.⁹ An Old Testament example of this broader usage can be found in Ezekiel 45:21, where the term “Passover” is used in reference to the entire seven-day feast: “In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month, you shall have the Passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.”¹⁰John himself frequently uses the term το irtασXα in this broader sense: Jn. 2:13; 6:4; 11:55; 18:39; etc. Thus, apart from any other consideration, it is highly probable that in 18:28 John is also using the term in this broader sense.

Moreover, it was the Jewish custom to speak, in connection with the Passover, of “eating the feast,” instead of, “celebrating the feast.” This way of speaking about the Passover is also to be found in the Hebrew text of 2 Chronicles 30:22, where the phrase (found in the American Standard Version),¹¹ “they did eat throughout the feast for the seven days,” is literally, “they ate the festival (יןאַכֹלְוֹ אֶת הַמּ וֹעדֵ ).” So, when speaking about the Passover, it would be quite natural for John to employ the usual expression, “eat the Passover,” instead of saying, “celebrate the feast.”

Writing at the rather late date at which he composed the fourth Gospel, John would assume that his readers were acquainted with the accounts provided by the three Synoptic Gospels. In particular, he would have been aware that, according to the other Gospels, Jesus was crucified on Friday, the 15th of Nisan. Therefore, he was not concerned that by using the expression “the Passover” (το rtaoXa) in 18:28 there would be any misunderstanding or that anyone would get the impression that by this expression he had in mind the eating of the paschal meal. Thus, it is quite clear, in light of all this, that John 18:28 is an allusion to the celebration of the entire seven-day feast, which included the eating of the sacrificial meals during the whole seven-day period. According to the biblical scholar Alfred Edersheim, (who, with his Jewish background was an expert on Jewish customs and terminology), John 18:28 is in all likelihood referring to the eating of the so-called Chagigah (“Festival Offering”), which had to be eaten during the forenoon after the first Passover day, (i.e. the first Passover day being the previous evening at which time the paschal meal was eaten).¹²

N. Geldenhuys concludes this present portion of our study by writing,

...it is not John’s actual statements that create a problem in relation to the Synoptics, but a wrong interpretation of his statements. This wrong interpretation...originated about the last quarter of the second century A.D., when the close contact with first-hand knowledge concerning the views of John and the other leaders of the first century became more and more meager, and expressions in the Gospels were interpreted differently from what the authors had intended.¹³

We turn now to consider the other “problematic” passage found in the Gospel of John, that being John 19:14. This verse is also generally adduced as a so-called proof that John teaches that Jesus was already crucified before the Passover, (i.e. before the partaking of the paschal meal). The verse has been offered as such “proof” due to the mistranslation of the Greek phrase, παρασκευη του πασχα. At times that phrase has beenrendered, “the preparation for the Passover,” when in fact, the proper translation is, “the preparation of the Passover.”

At the time John wrote, term παρασκευη (“preparation”) was already an accepted designation for “Friday,” the equivalent of the Hebrew עֵרבֶ שַׁבּתָ (“the evening of the Sabbath;” i.e. the evening prior to the Sabbath day). Apart from John 19:14, the term occurs in five other places in the New Testament (Matt. 27:62; Mk. 15:42; Lk. 23:54; Jn. 19:31, 42). In all these instances its meaning is clear, as Mark defines it, “preparation [παρασκευη], that is, the day before the Sabbath.”

The Jews, in order to observe the Sabbath laws (cf. Ex. 16:5), were accustomed to making preparations for the Sabbath on Friday, the day before the Sabbath. Thus, the day prior to the Sabbath became known as “the Preparation.” Accordingly, the phrase, “preparation of the Passover,” in John 19:14 means that the day of our Lord’s crucifixion was the Friday of the Passover; that is to say, the Friday that falls during Passover week, or, Passover Friday.

This expression, “the preparation of the Passover,” as it occurs in John 19:14, was most probably intended by John as preparatory to his statement in verse thirty-one of this same chapter, namely, that the Sabbath after the Lord’s crucifixion was a “high” day. John calls it a “high” day because it was the Sabbath that fell within the Passover week. According to A. Edersheim, “The Sabbath about to commence was a ‘high day;’ it was both a Sabbath and the second Paschal Day, which was regarded as in every respect equally sacred with the first, nay, more so, since the so-called Wave Sheaf was then offered to the LORD.”¹⁴