In chapter 2, Goodacre shows how, contrary to what is usually said, passages from St John’s Gospel can be set alongside parallel passages from the Synoptics, such as the sundering of Malchus’ ear (noting that only in John is the name Malchus given). In the anointing episode (John 12, see also Matthew 26 and Mark 14), St John includes the saying “leave her alone” but not the fact, noted in both Matthew and Mark, that people had been scolding her. (30) This would indicate that St John assumed knowledge of both those Gospels. Then he argues that the demonstrated similarity in order of the narrative in all four Gospels indicates a literary rather than an oral tradition (33). At page 44, he concludes this chapter saying that: “… the similarities between John and the Synoptics are on a spectrum from words, to phrases, to sentences, to paragraphs, to passages, to gospel structures, but the most striking thing of all is that the Synoptics and John share the same fundamental literary conceit, of the hidden Messiah who is only truly understood by insiders whom he has called, who only retrospectively understand the whole because they have witnessed the resurrection.” (44)
In chapter three, he takes five examples from Matthew and five from Luke where that evangelist has made changes to or “redacted” St Mark’s Gospel (on the thesis of Marcan priority), and shows that St John followed these changes. St John must have had these Gospels, as the redactions were only to the form of expression; they did not involve new information. For example, in the description of the crowning with thorns, St Mark has only that a crown of thorns was put on the Lord, while both Matthew and John have significant redundancy that they placed it “on his head” (49-50). While I agree that the fact that Joseph of Arimathea was a pupil of Jesus (mentioned only in Matthew and John) indicates that St John probably had St Matthew’s Gospel, I cannot follow his argument that the fact the two Marys “saw where Jesus was laid” in Mark 15 indicates that Mark means Joseph was not a disciple, as otherwise they would have helped Joseph (52). Perhaps they were afraid to, or were in awe. But Goodacre does not explain why his supposition follows.
That St John presupposes a knowledge of the Synoptics is the theme of chapter four, and this fact explains why so many significant episodes, such as the Baptism of the Lord and the Institution of the Eucharist are omitted: he is always adding, supplementing, and (I would say) correcting (e.g. in making clear that there was a three-year ministry, and that cleansing of the Temple was at the start thereof). Since St John assumes knowledge of the Synoptics, he can speak in 6:1 of the other side of the Sea of Galilee, because his readers know the context.
Chapter 5 deals with how St John transforms the Synoptics: for example, he takes narrative from the Synoptics and rephrases them as direct speech (compare St John the Baptist in Mark 1 and John 1; and what Our Lord says after the feeding of the five thousand in Mark 6 and John 6). Also, John names characters who were anonymous in the Synoptics (e.g. Peter and Malchus in the Garden of Gethsemane) and gives “speaking roles” to Philip, Nathanael, Thomas, Judas not Iscariot, Mary, Martha, and Mary Magdalene.
That the evangelist was the beloved disciple appears from chapter 6, where he argues, I think perfectly correctly, that St John did not name himself because he expected readers would realise this from their knowledge of the Synoptics. An excellent point is made when Goodacre points out that while St John does not recount the Transfiguration, he does say in 1:14: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us, and we have seen His glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.” This picks up not only the contents of the Synoptic account but also Luke 9’s explicit statement that they “saw His glory.”
In chapter 7, Goodacre deals with St John’s Christology, and argues that it was based on imagery from the Synoptics. There is a good basis for that, but I rather think that the content was rather unique to St John – yet, Goodacre is correct to point to how much Matthew 11 and Luke 10 anticipate St John’s Christology, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. … All things have been handed over to me by my Father.” Where I disagree with Goodacre is that he believes that St John developed this passage (159). It seems to me, rather, that St John records the full Christological teaching of which the Synoptics a part. This, I suggest, is the real reason why, as Goodacre correctly says: “So much of John’s Christology is in continuity with Synoptic Christology” (160)
All in all, this is one of the best 21st century books on a New Testament topic I have read.