The gospel and the gospels. We must distinguish between the gospel and the gospels. The gospel is the "good news" of salvation, announced by Jesus from the beginning of His preaching (Mark 1:15), and that the apostles continued according to the great mission given by the Lord: Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15). Peter announced the gospel to the Jews the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:22-36). The gospels, on the other hand, are the books that proclaim that message of salvation or good news.
The gospel is a fact. The gospel is more than a proclamation; the gospel is, basically, a fact: the fact of salvation by Jesus Christ. Paul called "gospel," the announcement of what Jesus did, as we read in Corinthians (15:1); and Mark says, at the beginning of his history of the sayings and deeds of Jesus: Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1); no other evangelist gives the name of gospel to his work. For Mark the whole life of Jesus, from His baptism to His resurrection, is a gospel. Hence later, the name of gospel was given to the books proclaiming the deeds and sayings of Jesus' life.
The expectation of the second coming of the Lord. Early Christians didn't care a lot, at the beginning, to put the gospel in writing, because they were convinced that Jesus would come back pretty soon. The apostles had taken very seriously the words of Jesus: There are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom (Matthew 16:28), and so they hoped that something great would be happening very soon. This could be noticed on several occasions, as when the disciples thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately (Luke 19:11); or the disciples of Emmaus that said: We were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel... (Luke 24:21). They believed that something was going to happen soon; and in Acts we read that the disciples asked Jesus: Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (Acts 1:6). Paul also had the same feelings: We who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord... Then we who are alive and remain... (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 17. Compare also: 1 Corinthians 7:29; James 5:8; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Revelation 1:3). There was then a conviction that Jesus would come soon, and so, to write His history was not one of their priorities.
Narratives regarding Jesus. As Jesus didn't come and the gospel was spreading everywhere, some people who had known Jesus or had heard about Him, started writing short anecdotes about His life and His teachings; short memories in order not to forget what Jesus had done or said. These narratives were anonymous, single, disconnected one from the other, and they didn't specify either the moment or the circumstances in which they happened; that is, they were not in an historical context. We must recognize that the context, the circumstances of the facts, are very important when history is to be written; but the context of the words and deeds of Jesus was lost forever.
How the first gospel could have started. Christians must have learned the kerigma by heart, because the gospel was repeated constantly. Kerigma and gospel are practically the same; the authoritative proclamation of the gospel was called kerigma; the kerigma included the proclamation of the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus, as we read it in Acts and Paul's letters. As long as the message was spreading, it was necessary to put the kerigma in writing, to distribute to various communities. Many years passed, perhaps 30 or more, for somebody to decide to put together the message, and to gather and order all the narratives that were circulating; it was that way that a "complete life" of Jesus was compiled, and the oral gospel started being also a written one. This could have been the first gospel, whose author, perhaps, was somebody who never knew Jesus in person.
Literary character of the gospels. The question is: what kind of books are the gospels? Are they historical in the strict sense of the word? This is a very serious question. The answer is yes and no. According to Luke, for instance, he set in order a narrative of those things which are most surely believed among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us (Luke 1:1, 2). John, without telling his name, says: This is the disciple who testifies of these things (John 21:24).
The gospels are a unique literary genre. The gospels are historical books, yes, but not purely history, nor biographies in the modern sense of the word. The gospels are, by themselves, a unique literary genre, created by Mark when he wrote the first gospel; they are a mixture of history, theology, together with a little interpretation and creativity of their authors. The gospels are not simply a history of Jesus, but the result of a slow process of reflection of the early church. The theological character of the gospels is undeniable, because they had the purpose of creating faith in Jesus.
The gospels are trustworthy. On the other hand, the gospels are credible, because their authors didn't have the intention of deceiving, and there is no reason to suspect fraud or lying. As a proof of their truthfulness it can be adduced that there were many "gospels" in vogue at the beginning, which they not subsist, a proof that Christians found them lacking authenticity or truth. Hence the fact that these four subsisted is an argument in favor of their veracity.
Go to the Steps directory.
Which are the synoptic gospels. Known under the name 'synoptics' are the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. This name is given to them because they present the narration of the life of Jesus in a very similar way (from the Greek synoptikos, which means "to look at the whole together"). The three follow the same pattern, with some small differences; all three coincide on the supernatural and divine character of Jesus and His salvific and redemptive mission.
How the synoptics could be explained. How could it be explained that three evangelists could write three books so similar in order, style and content? The most probable answer, based on the internal study of the three, was that Matthew and Luke used the gospel of Mark as their primary source of information. From the 661 verses of the Greek original of the gospel of Mark, Matthew reproduces 600 verses and Luke 350.
How the differences and inconsistencies could be explained. There should also be an explanation for the existent differences among the three gospels, some of which are real inconsistencies when the written events could not all have been true at the same time; it must be one or the other; (which is a proof that the literal interpretation can not be always be applied verbatim). Several causes might have intervened for these differences.
The use of different sources of information. The main reason for the differences could have been that each writer used different sources of information. Among the different sources of information is a document called "Q", (from German Quelle, which means "source"), which could have been used by one of them; to which must be added every other kind of inquiry. As Luke says at the beginning of his gospel: Me also, having had perfect understanding of all things, Greek text: having investigated (Luke 1:3).
Each gospel reflects the personal thinking of each evangelist. The gospels have a very personal feature; they reflect the way of thinking of each writer, their own experiences and philosophy. The evangelists did not just reproduce the writings in circulation and the verbal traditions of the time, but they re-thought them and wrote them according to their own theology.
They addressed different communities. Another factor that could have influenced the differences was the fact that each evangelist addressed different communities, each one with different cultural basis and different needs. Matthew, for instance, addressed Christians of Jewish descent; Mark, the gentiles; Luke, the Greeks, more sophisticated and learned.
The use of anecdotes. Another factor that could have contributed to the differences among the synoptics is the use they made of the anecdotes about Jesus. Each evangelist ordered them in his own way and put them in a different context, as can be observed by reading the gospels.
Material "created" by Christians. Christians "created" also new material, not by fraud or dishonesty, but because they had, day by day, a deeper understanding about the character of Jesus' personality and about the work of salvation He performed. Before the gospels were written, the gospel was preached, actualized and lived by the Christians. The evangelical event was a living tradition, and it was interpreted according to the different situations of the church and the theology of the believers. The evangelists evaluated later, under their own perspective, this tradition and the interpretation given to the gospel, and put them in writing. That was the way for the message to respond to the actual needs of the communities. There was then a wide margin for differences among the evangelists. There is no certainty about the cause of all the variants, because of the lack of documentation, and to explain the process between the oral gospel and the written gospel is a difficult task, not to say impossible.
Go to the Steps directory.
The gospels circulated anonymously at the beginning. It may be said that the gospels circulated anonymously at the beginning, without the headings that we find today in the translations of the bible, as The Holy Gospel according to..., because these headings are not in the manuscripts until the middle of the second century; the manuscripts before that time, do not have that heading. We do not know if the anonymity at the beginning was intentional, but it is understandable that the authors had preferred to say simply: This is the gospel of Jesus Christ, rather than to add their own names as if it were individual interpretations of the gospel of Jesus.
The authorship of the gospels was added. At the middle of the second century began the assignment of an authorship to each of the gospels, according to the feelings of the churches. Following the order in which the gospels are in the bibles, the first one was assigned to Matthew, or Levi, disciple of Jesus; the second one to Mark, probably the same person who accompanied Paul and Bernabe in the apostolic trips related in Acts; the third one, with better arguments, was attributed to Luke, Paul's companion in his trips and prison; and finally the fourth one to John, "the loved disciple," although he does not use his name not even once.
Inspiration problem. The way the synoptics were originated creates a problem to explain their inspiration, because, finally, who were their authors and how were they written? We know that the church has received the four gospels as inspired, and we must discard the hypothesis that the gospels are only collections of texts (anecdotes), without literary paternity, that is, without authors who, under divine inspiration, used intelligently the sources available to write the gospel of Jesus.
Time the gospels were written. The gospel of Luke must have been written before the book of Acts, because in this one Luke makes reference to the gospel he had already written. As we know that Acts covers the whole ministry of Paul up to his prison in Rome, the year 62 AC approximately, we must conclude that the gospel of Luke could not be written after that time. And, if we accept the theory that Luke used the gospel of Mark as a source for his gospel, Mark's should have been written before Luke's. Regarding Matthew we do not know, but the scholars put the year 70 as an approximate date.
Language of the gospels. Regarding the language in which the gospels were written, the existent manuscripts are in Greek, but the possibility can not be excluded that some of the accounts or anecdotes that preceeded them had been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, the language of Jesus, and then translated into Greek. There are no manuscripts in Aramaic. The actual text that we use in our bibles is a translation of Greek manuscripts of the sixth century.
Particulars of the gospel of Mark. The first gospel to be written was Mark's, as we said before. It is the shortest of all, about one half the length of Luke's. He begins saying: Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Mark 1:1), and abruptly he starts talking about the ministry of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. It seems that the gospel ended originally with the verse 16:8, with the women scared because they didn't find Jesus in the tomb, since the oldest manuscripts end there; but the appearances of Jesus are in most of the other manuscripts. Mark devotes one third of his gospel to the last week of Jesus' life.
Particulars of the gospel of Luke. It seems that the gospel of Luke was the second to be written, probably when he was in Rome, accompanying Paul in his prison. The theme of his gospel is contained in the Canticle of Simeon: Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen Your salvation which You have prepared before the face of all peoples (Luke 2:29, 30). The theme of the redemption of Jesus Christ is one of the main topics of this gospel.
Particulars of the gospel of Matthew. The gospel of Matthew is the first book of the New Testament, but probably was the last of the synoptics to be written. Matthew writes as a Jew to other Greek Jews. According to him, in Jesus were accomplished all the oracles of the Old Testament regarding the Messiah; that is why he quotes it so frequently. His gospel is like a catechetical manual for Christians, as he organizes and puts together the teachings of Jesus, his parables and miracles; that does not mean that Jesus had actually said or done it at the same time and place.
Go to the Steps directory.
Characteristics of the gospel of John. The gospel of John deserves special consideration; it differs so much in style, character and content compared with the synoptics, that the scholars wonder how this gospel could have originated. John and the synoptics coincide in very few things, and it seems that he used, for the narration of the passion, an older source than the synoptics. In Step 64 we will study more in detail the problems presented by this gospel, and the possible answer to these difficulties.
Author and time of this writing. By all the details given in this gospel, its author had to be a disciple of Jesus, one of the twelve. The apostolic Fathers, among them Ireneus who was disciple of Policarpus, who in turn was a disciple of John, speak about this gospel as the gospel of John. This is confirmed by internal evidence, since the author appears to be very familiar with the places and circumstances of the facts he narrates. The abundance of details suggests, perhaps, that this gospel was addressed to the Gentiles of Asia, who did not know the country of Jesus. It could have been written probably in the year 85 AC.
The content of the gospel of John. The gospel of John is the testimony of an ocular witness who, in his late years and through the light of his own Christian experience, makes his own reflection and interpretation about the person of Jesus, His divine character and His redemptive work. John did this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who, as he said in his gospel, He will teach you all things (John 14:26). John identifies Jesus with the Verb or Word of God. There are some who say that John took these words from the Greek culture; some others say that these words were already familiar to the Jews. The affirmation that Jesus is God, in the first line, is repeated through the whole gospel. It is probable that the emphasis put by John affirming the divinity of Jesus was due to the fact that, by the end of the first century, the faith of the Christians was threatened by the errors of those who deny His godship. The gospel of John contains preachings of Jesus which have no parallel in the synoptics.
Theological scope. The theological character of this gospel is more evident than that of the synoptics; it seems that John wanted to put more emphasis explaining how, through faith in Jesus Christ, the plan of salvation promised by God to Israel, was accomplished. The fundamental objective of this gospel is to gain followers for Christ, as can be concluded from 20:31: These (signals) are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. John does not speak of many events related in the synoptics, but instead he includes new material, ordained to show the glory of the Son of God, His mesiahship and His redemptive act.
Go to the Steps directory.
Continuity between the historical Jesus and the Jesus of faith. For Christian faith to have validity, there must be continuity between the historical Jesus and the divine Jesus presented in the gospels; if this were lacking, the whole Christian faith would collapse. That is why we should ask how the Christian community reached the concept about Jesus which is revealed in the gospels. For some critics who, it seems to us, lost the Christian faith, the step from the Prophet of Galilee to the exalted Lord and Christ, is pure fantasy and does not have justification. Let us see, in summary, the process through which Christians found the divine and glorified Jesus bearing in mind that we can not enter this territory except by faith, and therefore it is unattainable to those who do not have faith.
The new prophet in Israel. The gospels, as we have said, were written 30 or more years after the death of Jesus. When the gospels were written, they reflected the thinking which those earliest Christians had formed about Jesus. What Christians thought and believed about Jesus 30 or 60 years after His death, was not exactly what the people and disciples of Jesus thought and believed about Him at the beginning. Through the narrative of the gospels, Jesus was recognized as a prophet when He started preaching; but a prophet was no more than a prophet.
Could this be the Christ or Messiah? Little by little, the Jews wondering about the preaching of Jesus and, because of the signs He was doing, started asking: Could this be the Christ? (John 4:29). And when they saw Him preaching openly in the temple, they wondered: Do the rulers know indeed that this is truly the Christ? (John 7:26). It was in that way that many related Jesus with the Messiah promised by God to Israel, and with the salvation that this Messiah was going to bring them.
They discovered that there was something divine in Jesus. The deepest experience that those who heard Jesus and saw His wonders had, was that something divine was inside Him, that the power of God was with Him, and that He had an intimate communication with God. But to think that He was God was something still very far from their minds. Nobody told Jesus: "You are God," nor did Jesus say that of Himself. The expression "Son of God" that we find in the gospels, didn't mean then a profession of godship, because that expression, in the context of the Old Testament, applied to kings, angels and even human beings (Compare Deuteronomy 14:1; Job 1:6; 2:1; Osea 1:10). To call Jesus "Son of God," meant only some communication with God.
Jesus is God. When Peter told Jesus: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16), he probably recognized God in Jesus; but this was by special revelation, as Jesus said: Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven (Matthew 16:17). Even so, his faith was so weak that he denied Jesus later. How then did Jesus' followers come "to discover" that He really was God, the God shown in the gospels? When and how did Christians come to understand that Jesus was really the Son of God?
The Resurrection! The answer to the questions of the previous paragraph is very clear: the resurrection. Let us see. The resurrection of Jesus produced a radical change in all Jesus' followers. With the resurrection of Jesus a process started of interpreting and rediscovering His person; this process is reflected in the gospels. Under the guidance and action of the Holy Spirit, the doubts and uncertainties of the disciples of Jesus started diminishing, as Peter said in the words we already quoted: God has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead (1 Peter 1:3). It was then that they started to understand, as the centurion who stood by the cross said, that this Man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). Whom they had recognized so far as man and prophet, they recognize now as Son of God; Whom they thought could be the Messiah, they recognize now as Redemptor of the whole mankind.
Continuity in the person. The resurrection enabled and enlightened Christian minds to make the nexus between the Jesus of Bethlehem and of Calvary, with the exalted Christ. Faith allowed them to see that the person was the same, and that the only change was the condition of this person, now glorified.
The oracles of the Old Testament. As a consequence of this rediscovering of the person of Jesus, Christians assigned to Him the oracles and prophesies of the Old Testament, that we find now in the gospels and in the other books of the New Testament. If Jesus was really the Messiah, all the prophesies must be accomplished in Him. The evangelists actualized this accomplishment when they wrote the gospels.
Other reflections over Christian faith. The Christian reflection that started with the resurrection was not limited to the person of Jesus, but was extended to all He taught or mandated. It was so that Christians would understand better His doctrine regarding the Father and the Holy Spirit, regarding the church, the Eucharist and the fraternal love. When the gospels were written, all this doctrine was incorporated and actualized.
Understanding the gospel of John. What we just said enlightens and explains the gospel of John, which is the last inspired phase of that reflection and development, regarding the person and doctrine of Jesus Christ.
Go to the Steps directory.