Why are there four gospels?

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
puddleglum
Sage
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
Contact:

Why are there four gospels?

Post #1

Post by puddleglum »

The Bible contains four accounts of the life of Jesus which are very different from each other and each one contains some information that isn’t in the others. Some of the differences are so great that the gospels almost seem to contradict each other. Why would God inspire men to write four different accounts rather than just one?

One thing to keep in mind when comparing the gospels is that they are called gospels, not biographies.None of them is intended to give a complete account of Jesus’ life as a modern biography does. The gospel is that Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead. All of the gospels give more detail about these events and the circumstances immediately leading up to them than they do to any other part of Jesus’ life. Each author has selected from the previous life of Jesus only those events which he considered necessary to provide the necessary background for the actual gospel. Each of the writers apparently had a specific audience in mind when he wrote his gospel and this influenced his choice of what to include.

Matthew’s gospel was written for a Jewish audience and often quoted from the Old Testament to show that Jesus fulfilled its prophecies. Luke was written in Rome to a believer named Theophilus who was probably a gentile. Both told of the birth of Jesus but they emphasized different aspects of it.

Matthew began by showing that Joseph was a descendant of Abraham and David. He wasn’t the biological father of Jesus but his marriage to Mary made him the legal father so his genealogy became that of Jesus. As a descendant of Abraham Jesus was the recipient of the many promises God had made to him. He was also in the line of the kings who succeeded David. Apparently Joseph would have been king if the monarchy had continued and so he passed on the Jesus the right to the throne of Israel.

Because of his emphasis on the kingship of Jesus Matthew is the only one who records the visit of the Wise Men who were looking for the king of the Jews. (They are often depicted visiting Jesus while he lay in the manger after his birth but this isn’t Biblically accurate. Matthew 2:16 shows that two years could have elapsed between the time they saw the star and their arrival in Bethlehem.)

Since Luke was writing for a gentile audience his readers probably wouldn’t have been interested in Jesus’ kingship over Israel. His emphasis is more on the humanity of Jesus. He tells the story of the birth from Mary’s point of view and the genealogy he includes is hers. When it says that Joseph was the son of Heli it obviously means that he was considered a son because he was married to Heli’s daughter because according to Matthew his father’s name was Jacob. This genealogy shows that Mary was a descendant of David through Nathan rather that Solomon. It also traces his ancestry all the way back to Adam.

Luke doesn’t record the visit of the Wise Men because his intended audience wasn’t Jewish and therefore wouldn’t be interested in whether Jesus was king of Israel. He does record some information not found in the other gospels, such as the visit to the temple when Jesus was forty days old and the fact that John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus.

Mark’s gospel doesn’t say anything about the birth or background of Jesus but begins with his baptism by John. This gospel emphasizes what Jesus did more that what he said. It records more miracles in proportion to its length than any other gospel and has less of his teaching that the others. The fact that he explains the meaning of Jewish customs shows that he was writing for gentiles who were unfamiliar with them.

John’s gospel is different from the other three. There are some events and a great deal of teaching that are found only here and he leaves out much that the other gospels include. There are three reasons for these differences.

1. John’s gospel was the last one to be written. By the time John wrote it the other gospels were in wide circulation and most Christians were familiar with them. He probably didn’t think there was any need to repeat what was already widely known so he selected events and teaching that the other writers had omitted.

2. Jesus had both a human and a divine nature. The first three gospels focussed mainly on his human nature although they also mentioned his deity. John’s emphasis was on the fact that Jesus was God, although he also wrote about his humanity.

3. John stated the purpose of his book in John 20:31, “These are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.� His purpose was evangelistic, to bring others to faith in Christ. Luke’s purpose for writing given in Luke 1:4, “That you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.� He was writing to instruct someone who was already a believer.

God sent Jesus to die for the whole world and he wants everyone to hear and believe the gospel. Because people are different there is no single way to present the gospel which will be effective for all of them. Paul said,

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though not being myself under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.
1 Corinthians 9:20-22 ESV


When he said this he was reflecting the same attitude that God showed when he gave us four gospels so that each of us can find in them what he needs to bring him closer to God.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 66 times
Contact:

Re: Why are there four gospels?

Post #2

Post by OnceConvinced »

theophilus40 wrote:
One thing to keep in mind when comparing the gospels is that they are called gospels, not biographies..
Try to tell that to your average Christian! :lol:

Christians see these as eye witness accounts when clearly they are only hearsay.

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

gospels

Post #3

Post by Overcomer »

Thanks for outlining that so well, Theophilus.

I'm a writer by trade. My job is to present information for a specific audience. That means I don't package the same material in the same way for different readers. For example, if I'm going to talk about abortion and ethics, I will not present the information in identical ways to a group of philosophers, a group of Christians at my church, a group of medical professionals or a group of laypeople from different backgrounds.

I have also heard people suggest that, just as four newspapers cover an event differently, so, too, did the authors of the gospels. They will all get the basic information right, but there will be minor variations.

The question of whether they are biographies or not is still under debate. I think some people expect them to be like modern biographies, but biographies in that time and place weren't like those of today. Genre dictates how we read something, but we have to make sure we understand the genre first.

Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is one source I recommend in exploring the gospels as history. He points out that ancient historians demanded that proper history could only be recorded while there were eyewitnesses to provide the correct information. This is why Luke starts his gospel out the way he does, to show that he is giving proper history, from eyewitnesses.

Bauckham makes a distinction between oral history and oral tradition. The former comes from eyewitnesses to the events they're reporting. The latter is information that is passed down from generation to generation. He maintains that the gospels are the result of oral history and makes a credible argument to that effect. It's an excellent book. I highly recommend it.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Why are there four gospels?

Post #4

Post by Divine Insight »

theophilus40 wrote: When he said this he was reflecting the same attitude that God showed when he gave us four gospels so that each of us can find in them what he needs to bring him closer to God.
The only problem is that it doesn't appear to have worked. Many people have read all four gospels and have still been totally unconvinced.

The idea that a creator God could fail to communicate to so many people of his own creation doesn't seem like a viable idea to me.

I don't think the Christians buy into that either. This is why so many Christian evangelists hold that if people refuse to believe it can only be because they are knowingly and willingly choosing to reject God, which to the non-believers is utterly absurd.

A non-believer would surely know if they are knowingly and willingly rejecting a God. So this kind of accusation charge made toward non-believers is absurd. The only people who are fooled by it are believers who simply accept that all non-believers are indeed evil people who have knowingly and willingly chosen to reject God.

But the non-believers know that this is a lie.

In fact, even from a logical point of view, it would be impossible for a non-believer to do this. The only person who can reject a God is a believer. A person would actually need to believe in a God before they could reject it. So it's not even a sound accusation. It's just evangelistic trickery.

This religion is infamous for trying to make out like anyone who doesn't believe in it is the enemy of God. I personally feel this is actually a quite dishonest and underhanded tactic that this religion stoops to.

And Islam does the same thing with their version of Allah.

This is a big part of what keeps these religions going. Socially they were able to convince the masses that anyone who refuses to believe is some sort of immoral or evil person, often even being accused of being possessed by the devil himself.

This is what kept these cults alive for so many centuries. This kind of accusatory intimidation. But it's not scaring people anymore. It's lost its superstitious effectiveness in our modern age of enlightenment. People no longer cower down to threats of boogieman. And that's basically what these kinds of tactics have amounted to.

It's no different from telling a child that there is a Santa Claus who knows if they've been naughty or nice and will treat them accordingly. Only in the case of this religion the Santa Claus God threatens extremely hideous eternal damnation instead of just a lump of coal. And he also threatens it, not for being naughty, but for merely not believing that he exists. :roll:
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

puddleglum
Sage
Posts: 685
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Why are there four gospels?

Post #5

Post by puddleglum »

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]
A non-believer would surely know if they are knowingly and willingly rejecting a God.
You underestimate the human capacity for self deception.
His invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.
Romans 1:20 ESV

keithprosser3

Post #6

Post by keithprosser3 »

You underestimate the human capacity for self deception.
I'll give DI 100 points not to use the word 'irony' in any reply.

Robert H
Student
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:22 am

Re: Why are there four gospels?

Post #7

Post by Robert H »

[Replying to post 1 by theophilus40]

There are only 4 because the rest of the writings didn't make it into the 4th century compilation.

Freethinker23
Student
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:29 pm

Post #8

Post by Freethinker23 »

In his work "Against Heresies", the early church father Irenaeus said "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the 'pillar and ground' of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit."

Post Reply