In his Gospel Writing, Francis Watson argues that certain fragments from the so-called Egerton Papyrus that appear to have clear counterparts in the Gospel of John belong to a gospel that precedes John. This essay argues that while Watson seems right in his diagnosis of the historical sequence, he is also methodologically wrong in the manner he treats the later gospel as part of and a result of his argument. In two particular respects he mistreats John: (1) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel is no less logical than the Egerton gospel itself (though at a much more sophisticated level), and (2) John’s use of the Egerton Gospel does not allow for the discovery of “strata” within or behind John itself. In both respects, one must stick to a methodological rule that is of universal import within New Testament scholarship and directly relevant to “gospel reading”: in principle, the text that we have has priority over any attempts at reconstructing its origins.

Whereas Luke and Matthew are literary products of gospel reading, only the Johannine corpus demonstrates within the canon how a gospel was read by a specific network of early Christian communities. The Johannine Epistles (likely penned in a context later than that of the Fourth Gospel) affirm, clarify, expand, modify, and in some cases even omit key themes emphasized by the evangelist. This unique intra-canonical reception of John affords the earliest model of an early Christian community’s gospel reading. After analyzing the broad reading dynamics imposed by the Johannine literature’s placement in the sequence of the canon, this chapter explores the interpretive practices of the Elder in order to discern a Johannine theology of textuality, writing, and gospel reading.

A recent resurgence in support for Matthean Posteriority (Alan Garrow; Rob Macewen) builds on the secure footing of Marcan Priority alongside growing skepticism about Q. Could it be that advocates of what Francis Watson calls the “L/M Theory” have the direction of dependence wrong, and that Matthew knew Luke? The case for Matthean Posteriority refreshes the discussion of the Synoptic Problem by providing a new and interesting challenge, but the case for seeing Luke as a reading of Matthew rather than Matthew as a reading of Luke remains strong: (a) Matthew’s redactional fingerprints repeatedly appear in material he shares with Luke; (b) Luke often shows “fatigue” in his versions of double-tradition material; (c) Luke betrays knowledge of Matthean literary structures; and (d) Matthew fails to include congenial Lucan details on politics, personnel, and geographical context.

This chapter considers the reception of Mark’s Gospel in John’s text with special reference to the feeding miracle in John chapter 6. The following topics are explored. The first concerns how John reads Mark. In other words, what potential did the Markan rendering of this miracle-story have to offer John that answered to his purposes at that point? The second and main section will then explore how John writes his account. Put otherwise, how did John renarrate the feeding miracle not only in light of its Markan pretext but also as integral to his development and interpretation of its meaning in the chapter as a whole? The final topic will be a brief treatment of the further renarration of the miracle in chapter 21.