gnosis92

IMO, John did not know of, nor use, the synoptics, b/c so many things in the synoptics are either not in John (i.e exorcisms, parables), are in a different sequence (i.e cleansing of the Temple), or complete different context (Lazarus is a parable in Luke, is the brother of Mary and Martha in John).

IMO I do think John may be familiar with the community that produced Thomas (see Elaine Pagel's Beyond Belief for a fuller discusion).

The feeding of the 4000 in John and Mark, may be the result of similar oral traditions, and I think John may have used a signs gospel, and even possibly a "Discourses" Gospel. But IMO John did not know of Mark or any of the synoptics.

hatsoff

I cannot give you a direct answer on the state of scholarships, but I can offer some thoughts on the issue.

There does not appear to be any direct literary borrowing. However, consider the popularity of the canonical synoptics even early on (Mk was used by Mt, Lk and Thomas; Mt was used by the Didache and Papias; all three achieved enough popularity to survive the tumultuous latter years of the first century). It seems to me that the author of the fourth Gospel, writing in the 90s, could hardly have been oblivious to his synoptic precursor Mark, composed more than two decades earlier. Given Matthew's quick inception, I suspect he knew of it, as well. Whether he had personally read either may never be known, but my suspicion is that he had seen at least one of them. And of course if he had, it would be expected that he drew on his memories thereof when writing his own narrative.

But he does not appear to have used them directly, as Matthew and Luke did with Mark.

hallq

It's seems pretty clear that there was no direct borrowing. There seems to be some interesting similarities between Luke and John, not to the level or direct borrowing, but enough to make some scholars wonder if there was some unique relationship. I'd suspect that maybe the author of John read Luke some time before writing his book, no idea what the majority view is on that issue.

Ben C Smith

The line of argumentation I am most sympathetic toward is that John knew the gospel of Mark and probably the gospel of Luke. Whether he knew that of Matthew is more tentative, but I am inclined to think he did, but just did not care for it very much.

I recommend B. H. Streeter, chapter 14 of The Four Gospels, as an introduction into the topic. More recent work includes Richard Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Ben.

ETA: I hasten to add, in response to the OP, that I do not think any firm consensus on the matter exists. This lack of consensus perhaps culminates in Crossan, who thinks that John is independent of the synoptics in the main body of the gospel, but dependent on the synoptics in the passion narrative.

S.C.Carlson

There's no real consensus but there are some geographical differences. For example, American scholars tend to think that John is independent of the synoptics, while European scholars tend to think that John knows the synoptics. But you can find exceptions on either continent.

gnosis92

These books might be hard to get for me, but I'll see what can happen.
John's Gospel is quite different than the synoptics on the passion, and actually contradicts them on several points such as day that it occurred, last event before betrayal, etc..

gnosis92

Besides Lazarus what else is there?

gnosis92

Goodacre argued Mark used Thomas. Not that he's correct, but I think Thomas was probably independent of the NT.

Ben C Smith

Indeed. But what is interesting is that one can, with care and in the judgment of many scholars, detect a Johannine chronology underneath some of the Marcan redaction. IOW, it looks as though turning the last supper into a Passover has created some inner tensions in the Marcan narrative, since other parts seem to hint that the last supper came before the Passover. For some of these details, see the first volume of A Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk). (Sorry, I do not have this book in front of me, so no page numbers.)

Also, it is very plausible to read some parts of John as deliberate corrections of parts of Mark. The differences do not have to mean independence; they can mean a genuine difference of opinion or even living memory.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That is what Stevan Davies argues, IIRC; where does Goodacre agree with it? (I think that Goodacre has flirted with John knowing the gospel of Thomas.)

Ben.