Hope Christian Fellowship Church Tuesday Night Bible Study Session I May 2, 2017
The four Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are our primary sources for learning about Jesus. Even though some of the Epistles were written before the Gospels, it is essential to use the Gospels to provide both factual and theological information about Jesus. References to Jesus outside the Gospels are so few in number that they provide little help in reconstructing His life.
Even though the four Gospels are our primary source for learning about Jesus, we must recognize that even these do not contain enough material for a full biography of Jesus. The Synoptics show a degree of uniformity in describing Jesus ministry, but the Gospel writers did not intend to provide a complete historical harmony of Jesus life. The Gospels are primarily theological interpretations of the historical life of Jesus.
The differences among the Gospels do not imply error or creation of material, but all reflect different arrangement and presentation in order to convey meaning. The Gospel accounts are not always written in a strict chronological order, but they should receive complete trust as documents which correctly proclaim the redemption in Christ and urge us to place our faith in Him.
The commonly accepted order of the writings of the Gospels are: Mark Matthew Luke John Like a witness before a court, the Gospels give testimony about the life and ministry of Jesus. Also like witnesses in court, the Gospels will have particular and individual characteristics that make them unique.
The Gospel accounts of the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus provide a trustworthy foundation for our faith in Him. The Gospels are a Proclamation of Good News.
The Gospels are portraits, not photographs. They are witnesses that will bring a different perspective from the various writers. The Gospels are Pastoral Literature. In the same way Paul wrote his letters, the Gospels were written to meet the pastoral needs of a specific church center. Mark Matthew Luke John Rome Antioch of Syria Caesarea Ephesus
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels. The term synoptic comes from a Greek word meaning to see the same or to have the same view or vision. The first three Gospels have a high degree of similarity relating to Jesus life and ministry. The Gospel of John does not share in these similarities.
Several features characterize the Synoptic Gospels: The Synoptics have the same general historical arrangement. In many sections the verbal content of the Synoptics is similar. Despite the similarities between the Gospels, many differences in arrangement and vocabulary appear.
Mark Matthew Luke 1:21-45 7:28-8:15 4:31-5:16 2:1-22 9:1-17 5:17-39 2:23-3:12 12:1-16 6:1-6:11, 17-19 3:13-19 10:1-4 6:12-16 3:20-35 12:22-37 6:43-45 4:1-34 13:1-34 8:4-18 4:35-5:20 8:18-34 8:22-39 5:21-43 9:18-26 8:40-56
The similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels may raise several questions: What could cause the appearance of so many similarities and, at the same time, so many differences? Why do we have more than one Gospel? These, and other, observations and questions are known as the Synoptic Problem. To address the synoptic problem, we must look at how the Gospels were written.
The opening sentences of Luke describe the process by which the author gathered the material for the Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). After reading Luke 1:1-4, discuss the three stages in the development of the Gospels.
Luke 1:1-4 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
The Gospels were developed in the following three stages: Many have undertaken to compile an account of these things The Period of Written Sources (Source Criticism) They were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses The Period of Oral Tradition (Form Criticism) investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out The Period of Final Composition (Redaction Criticism)
The first Christians did not have any written copies of the Gospels. During the Period of Oral Tradition, information about Jesus was largely passed on by word of mouth and some portions of written materials.
Although this is the case, we know that the Gospel content is true for several reasons: What was passed orally actually happened. Some things were written, and when crossreferenced, those things that were written were consistent with those things that were said. The pattern of kerygma has not changed from the earliest of records up to today.
Some written materials containing Gospel incidents were predominantly transmitted orally. As the apostles and early eyewitnesses aged or passed away, the demand to put their materials into writing increased. It has been suggested that the Gospel writers used one or more of the other Gospels, and perhaps additional documents in, in writing their material.
The most common belief is the Two-Source Theory. Mark as a primary source It is believed that both Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their gospel. 91% of Mark appears in Matthew, Luke, or both. Mark s sequence is generally followed by Matthew and Luke, and when either departs from mark, the other usually does not. There is common language used in Matthew and Luke similar to Mark. Matthew and Luke often repeat the exact words of Mark
The most common belief is the Two-Source Theory. The other source used is a lost source, commonly referred to as the Q document. The existence of a Q source is suggested because there is very similar information contained in Matthew and Luke that is not contained in Mark.
Regardless of these similarities, there is no certain conclusion regarding the relationship between the Synoptic Gospels.
Whereas Form Criticism focuses on the materials used in the oral stage of Gospel transmission, and Source Criticism investigates the documents prominent during the writing stage of Gospel development, Redaction Criticism focuses on the activity of the author in the production of the Gospels.
Redaction critics insist that the Gospel writers changed and modified these writings to introduce their own viewpoints and special emphasis. However, since we don t possess exact copies of the documents that Matthew and Luke used, we cannot determine the certainty of what was changed, if anything. But, as Luke states (1:1-4), great effort was taken to ensure historical accuracy.
If questions regarding the authority of the Gospels held true, they would not be included in the canon. The Gospels received recognition as authoritative early in church history. Some Gospels did not (like the Gospel of Thomas). The Gospel writers arranged the material in order to communicate the life and teaching of Jesus to new converts.
The Gospel message produced the churches; the churches did not produce the Gospel message. We must also allow for the work of the Holy Spirit in guiding the preparation of the Gospels (John 14:26). As the Gospels circulated throughout the New Testament world, the Holy Spirit guided the members of the early church to accept them