Some Thoughts on Interpreting the Gospels

This is not going to be an exhaustive study of the four Gospels, but rather a brief overview of what Christians believe about these books. I also want to provide a different perspective to what you’ve probably seen in popular books and shows.

What Are the Gospels?

The four Gospel accounts presented at the beginning of the New Testament are the primary records we have of the life and ministry of Jesus. They were not written as modern biographies or impartial historical accounts. Rather, they are presentations of the life of Jesus by people who followed him. That doesn’t mean they aren’t accurate, but any evaluation of them must take into account what they are, and not judge them according to what they never claim to be.

Who Wrote the Gospels?

The names ascribed to the four Gospels–Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John–are not given in the texts themselves. For Christians, who wrote them is a matter of tradition. Since we believe these books to be written under inspiration, the human author is a secondary issue. That said, the tradition behind their authorship goes back to the earliest years of the church. The only reasons you might have to question it is on the basis of dating (you believe they were written outside the lifetime of Jesus’s disciples), or theology (you don’t think Jesus’s disciples believed these things about him, only later Christians did).

If we grant the tradition, then Matthew was written by Matthew (or Levi) the tax collector who became a disciple of Jesus, Mark was written by John Mark, a close associate of Peter’s mentioned in Acts, Luke was the physician who traveled with Paul (see Acts, a book he also wrote), and John was one of Jesus’s three closest disciples. In other words, we have three accounts from people very close to the story. For those concerned with the authenticity of the accounts the books contain, this is important to know.

When Were the Gospels Written?

Few if any scholars are willing to date the Gospels later than the first century AD. In other words, the unanimous opinion of scholars, Christian and non-Christian, is that these books were written before AD 100. Archaeologists have yet to find any copies of the Gospels that date to the first century, but there are some that come pretty close. One of these, a fragment of John’s Gospel, has been dated to around AD 125. Given where the fragment was found, the original was undoubtedly written in the latter years of the first century.

The question of how early scholars are comfortable dating the Gospels comes down to a couple of issues. First, do you believe Jesus was able to predict the future? If you don’t, then you will date the Gospels post-AD 70 since Jesus foretells the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Also, if you are convinced the earliest Christians had a fairly undeveloped theology, you will want to date the Gospels as late as possible to allow the writers time to reflect on the person of Christ and what his ministry meant.

Since both of these are subjective views and not based on any objective evidence, there’s no reason to doubt that the Gospels could have been written prior to AD 70. There’s nothing else in the Gospels that demands a pre-70 dating. And there’s ample evidence from the writings of the Early Church Fathers (starting about AD 90) that the early church had quite developed ideas of who Jesus is and the purpose of his coming. They also quote from the Gospels, which further supports an earlier date.

Why Were the Gospels Written?

The Gospels weren’t simply written on a whim, as if their authors had nothing better to do with their time. They were written for a purpose. We can’t be 100% sure what each purpose was, but we can pick up clues in the texts. Luke’s Gospel is addressed to a man named Theophilus. Luke also talks in his Gospel and in Acts about how he carefully researched his account to make it as complete as possible. Some have suggested from this that Theophilus worked in Caesar’s household, and that Luke and Acts are an amicus brief written to help Paul make his case before the Emperor (see Acts 28:17-22). Matthew, Mark, and John were probably written for churches. This would explain their selection of material and the sequencing of their accounts.

How Were the Gospels Written?

If you gather together all of Jesus’s teaching as found in the Gospel and put it into a single document, you could probably read it in less than an hour. And that’s if you’re a slow reader. Yet we know Jesus wandered around Judea teaching for three years. From this, we can deduce a couple of things

• Jesus probably did and taught the same things to different crowds in different places
• Jesus probably did and taught things none of the Gospel writers record
• The Gospels are not intended to be complete day-to-day, hour-to-hour accounts of everything Jesus said and did
• The Gospel writers selected their material and ordered it in a way that best suited their narratives

This helps us understand why, for example, we get the same stories cropping up in each Gospel but told differently, with different details. It’s likely the writers got their stories from different groups who heard Jesus teach similar things on different occasions in different contexts. A great example of this is the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew 5-7, which is the “Sermon on the Plain” in Luke 6:17-49.

It goes without saying that the Gospel writers used sources. Luke is explicit about this. Some have suggested Mark’s rough style is due to the fact he’s taking dictation from Peter. Some scholars have suggested Matthew, Mark, and Luke used an early document of sayings of Jesus scholars have called “Q” (short for Quelle, which is German for “source”). They suppose the Gospel writers all shared this “source” and this explains the similarities in their stories. “Q” is, however, purely hypothetical. No “Q” document has ever been found. It’s far more likely they each drew from sources who heard the same story in different contexts.

Another explanation for the stories in common is that the Gospel writers, especially Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all copied from one another. More precisely that Matthew copied from Mark, and Luke copied from Mark and Matthew. Variations on this argument include other hypothetical sources (“proto”-Lukes and “Q” and so on). This assumes the Gospel writers were aware of each other’s work, that they were able to get copies of these other Gospels, and they had the time and inclination to re-edit them. Of the three, Luke is the only one who more than likely knew the other Gospels. But it’s pure speculation to suppose the Gospel writers used one another like this. Again, it’s more likely they each used their own sources to tell the story of Jesus the way they each needed to tell it.

Another important point about the way the Gospels were written has to do with authorial style. Even in English translation, it’s clear the four Gospels have very different styles. This fact is more pronounced in the original Greek. Mark is rough and abrupt, frequently using the phrase “and immediately.” Luke, on the other hand, is very polished and reads more like one of the classic Greek historians (e.g., Thucydides). John uses a limited vocabulary and words loaded with meaning and implications (light, darkness, world, etc.). If we believe these accounts were inspired by God, how do we deal with these differing styles?

Christians recognize that God is not only sovereign over the end of the inspiration process but also the means. He ordained when and where the four Gospel writers would be born, their education, their influences, and all things that shaped their style. When they wrote, the Lord guided their minds to write no more and no less what He wanted them to write. But they wrote in their own style, not in some neutral “divine” style. Their voices and characters come out, which helps make the text understandable to us. Calvin once said that in Scripture God “lisps” to us. He talks baby talk to us. He has to, otherwise we wouldn’t understand any of it. This is why it’s helpful that the Gospel writers communicate in their own voices with their own words. As is often God’s way, He uses human vessels to fulfill divine purposes.

Why Is John So Very Different?

As I noted above, each Gospel has a distinct style. Of the four, John’s is perhaps the most notably different. Not only does the way he write stand out, but the content of his Gospel is different. Many of the stories we find in Matthew, Mark, and Luke are not found in John. This is why Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the “Synoptic” Gospels. The term “synoptic” literally means “seen together.” In other words, these accounts share so many stories you can read them together and make comparisons. John, on the other hand, has few stories in common with the other three.

It’s one thing to observe the differences, it’s another to explain them. Since John doesn’t say, we can only surmise that the style he employs and his choice of material all have to do with his audience. He is writing for a particular group of people to whom his style will best communicate. One possibility is that he’s writing to a church that has come under Gnostic influence. This would account for the language and themes he brings out in the stories and sayings he selects and the way he presents them. For example, John appears to use Gnostic buzzwords (e.g., “light” and “darkness”) to counter Gnostic ideas.

Are There Contradictions Between the Four Accounts?

People have claimed for centuries that the Gospels present contradictory accounts. However, if we understand the points mentioned above, and pay careful attention to context, these supposed contradictions disappear.

For example, we can explain the differences between the accounts of the Feeding of the Five Thousand (Matthew 14, Mark 6, Luke 9, and John 6) by noting that:

• Each writer based his story on accounts from different people who saw different things
• Each writer includes information that’s important to him and doesn’t include what he thinks is secondary
• Each writer employs his own style in narrating events
• It’s possible the event happened more than once–this perhaps accounts for why there’s also a Feeding of the Four Thousand story (Matthew 15 and Mark 8)

The differences between the resurrection accounts can similarly be explained by different eyewitness perspectives, and the inclusion of only those details the writer wanted to include.

These are just some brief thoughts. Much more could be said on each point. I might expand on some of these in weeks to come.

If you have respectful questions or comments, feel free to ask below!