Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, most scholars generally assumed that John’s Gospel was largely independent from Mark’s Gospel, utilizing different sources and written with possibly little if any knowledge of the Synoptics, but only of prior underlying tradition. However, that view has shifted in recent years, with an increasing number of interpreters arguing that John was aware of Mark (and possibly Matthew and Luke as well) and consciously utilized and transformed his material. This volume is representative of this shift, with seventeen contributors (all of whom ascribe to the view that John used Mark) analyzing various aspects of this Johannine “transformation.” From the introductory chapter it is easy to see that the combination of these perspectives makes for a significant contribution to the study of literary relationships between early Christian texts, and how, as well as why, such “reworking” of earlier texts happened.Harold Attridge begins first with a major review of the most important studies related to John’s relationship with Mark, noting how the field has changed from Percival Gardner Smith to Stanley Porter. This is followed by a chapter from Jean Zumstein, who reviews elements of intertextual theory and the various models for how a derived text and a source text interact. Zumstein infers that John’s derived text functions as a sort of commentary or reproduction of Mark’s source text, but in a way distinct from basic intertextuality. That is, he argues that the two tests have a relationship of “co-presence,” rather than Mark’s text simply being found in John’s text, as it is in Matthew and Luke. He explores this idea via an examination of important Markan and Johannine parallels, such as the relocated incident in the temple.In the fourth chapter, Chris Keith examines John and Mark from the perspective of social memory theory, suggesting that differences between Mark and John need not indicate independence but familiarity and improvement. He specifically points to the idea of “critical inheritance,” which he defines as a deliberative process whereby positive aspects of historical figures are embraced and negative ones recognized but rejected, all in the appropriation of memory for the writer’s context. Through this, he suggests that John was a culturally sensitive writer who emphasized what resonated with his agenda and deemphasized what did not. In chapter five, Catrin Williams discusses practices of rewriting earlier sources in ancient Jewish texts, noting the ways that writers such as Plutarch and Josephus reconfigured their sources and concluding that John falls in line with the tendencies of such writers. Rather controversially, she concludes that John’s purpose in utilizing Mark was not to supplement it, or even to correct it, but to replace it.In chapter six, George Parsenios discusses the ways that both Mark and John frame the identity of Jesus, and specifically on how John “extends and expands on the portrait of Jesus in Mark” (p. 67), especially in the Johannine “I AM” statements, and does so by utilizing mechanisms used by classical writers. Chapter seven has an analysis by Mark Goodacre, which examines instances of verbal agreement between Mark and John, discussing certain instances in depth, like the anointing of the woman (Mark 14:8; John 12:7) and the theme of Jesus’s hidden identity. He essentially concludes that “the most striking parallels between John and the Synoptics occur at the literary level” (p. 89). In chapter eight, Eve-Marie Becker discusses the ways that Mark and the Synoptists use ancient literary conventions and rhetorical strategies typical of ancient history-writing, suggesting that John follows these same conventions even in his differences. Much of her contribution focuses on the narrative importance of John 11 as a turning point in the Gospel. In the ninth chapter, Christina Hoegen-Rohls focuses entirely on the similarities and differences between the Markan and Johannine prologues, from the specific vocabulary used by each to the way that each understands and portrays the narrative’s relationship to time.Chapter 10, by Steven Hunt, is an examination of Mark 1:2–8 and John 1:19-34, with Hunt concluding that the similarities and differences between the two suggest that John was not trying to supplement Mark (by adding omitted details), nor to supplant Mark (by correcting details), but rather than John creatively repurposes Mark’s narrative. In chapter 11, Troels Engberg-Pedersen engages in a detailed comparison of the Markan and Johannine portraits of John the Baptist, noting paradoxical differences between the two (such as the different ideas of the Baptist as Elijah). He concludes that the Baptist in John is not only a witness to Jesus but functions as “John’s own mouthpiece” in the narrative (p. 147). In chapter 12, Gilbert Van Belle proposes that in John 5:1–18, the Evangelist entirely reconstructs the Markan narrative of the forgiven paralytic.In chapter 13, Jörg Frey engages in an important study on differences between the eschatology of Mark and John, principally noting the various ways that John focuses more on the idea of “eternal life” while Mark focuses on the “kingdom of God.” As Williams does in her contribution, Frey suggests that John’s work is more of a “critical reception” of Mark and may be an example of “even open rejection” (p. 171). In saying as much, Frey contends that John’s “eternal life” is intended to replace the more Markan kingdom-language. In chapter 14, Oda Wischmeyer compares the ethics of Mark and John, specifically focusing on how John reformulates Mark’s concepts of Jesus as a teacher and of the importance of discipleship. In chapter 15, Susanne Luther compares the longer speeches of Jesus in Mark and John, noting how these function within each narrative and within the context of ancient historiography.The final three chapters begin with Kasper Larsen arguing that John reformulated the Markan temptation scenes, largely out of a critical revision that intended to minimize Jesus’s subjection to temptation. He accomplishes this largely through comparisons to depictions of philosophers like Epictetus, suggesting that John intends to portray Jesus as having a will uniform to God’s, in the form of a philosopher immune from temptation. Afterward, Michael Labahn analyzes the Markan and Johannine accounts of the plot to kill Jesus, arguing that these are key to understanding their literary relationship and the authors’ storytelling process. Labahn’s proposal centers on the idea that Jesus’s healing of a paralytic is the point on which both narratives turn, as it serves as the instigator for the plot against Jesus. Last, Helen Bond concludes with an examination of the Markan and Johannine Passion accounts, and the theological importance of the death of Jesus. In contrast with some of the other contributors, while Bond suggests that John deliberately alters details in Mark about Jesus’s death (even in a “cavalier” way), she contends that his amplification and dramatizing of Markan elements suggests that he valued and appreciated Mark’s work, not seeking to disparage or supplant it.There is much to commend in this volume, and it represents the detailed, rigorous exegetical work of high-quality scholarship. If its goal is to present John’s use of Mark as an academically viable hypothesis (and one to be reckoned with), it certainly accomplishes this. Despite their unity on the basic conviction of the literary connection between the documents, the diversity of opinion among many of the contributors on the particulars was refreshing and helpful. Some of the more provocative and controversial elements that were suggested (especially related to the “looseness” with which John may have rewritten, or even corrected some of Mark’s work) will doubtless be hard for some readers to accept and will surely be challenged. Even so, the volume is a unique and important contribution, which should be taken seriously be every scholar of the Gospels.