Summary of Gospels & Source Theories

THE NEW TESTAMENT
THE FOUR GOSPELS

The four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—tell us about the life of Jesus. Yet they are not true biographies. They say little about Jesus' family background and youth, and nothing about His physical appearance. They concentrate almost totally on the three years of Jesus' ministry, but even here they do not give enough information to reconstruct a complete history of those years. Rather, attention is focused on the Person of Jesus and His teachings, and all four Gospels climax with Jesus' death and resurrection, and the events associated with them.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called the “Synoptic Gospels.” The term “Synoptic” means they view the life of Jesus from a common perspective. After introducing Jesus in different ways depending on their purpose, they record the ministry of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus, His ministries in Galilee and in Judea, His final week in Jerusalem, His death and resurrection. In the Synoptic record Jesus characteristically refers to Himself as the Son of Man, and He proclaims the kingdom of God.
Despite the similarities in the Synoptic accounts, these Gospels vary in what material they include and in the arrangement of specific events. Furthermore, each Gospel was written to emphasize certain aspects of Jesus' Person and work. Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is the true Messiah and the object of Old Testament prophecy and expectation. Mark's fast-moving account was written to appeal to Roman Christians, and Luke's Gospel is addressed to a cultured Gentile and stresses Jesus' concern for all kinds of people.
The Gospel of John differs from the Synoptics in a number of ways. It tells more about Jesus' early ministry in Judea. John also records long thematic discourses by Jesus instead of the shorter sayings typical of the Synoptic accounts. In John, Jesus refers to Himself as God's Son and speaks of salvation as eternal life. More than the Synoptics, John includes theological reflection on the meaning of Jesus' life and death.

The question of the literary relationship between the Synoptic Gospels is not easily answered. In general, the Synoptics follow the same general outline and record similar material. Sometimes the accounts are almost identical, but at other times important differences are observed. This phenomenon is called the “synoptic problem,” and a number of theories have been advanced to explain the literary relationship of these three Gospels.
1. Some suggest that the writers of the three Synoptic Gospels drew their material from an earlier Gospel which has not been preserved.
2. Others have argued that oral tradition regarding the deeds and teachings of Jesus became fixed very early and that the similarities we see in the Synoptic Gospels are due to their dependence upon oral tradition. This theory is, however, insufficient to account for the possible existence of early written sources (see Luk_1:1-4), and the evident variations in form and content.
3. The most popular current theory maintains that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke utilized Mark as well as other sources in composing their own works. Some scholars who affirm Marcan priority hold to a “two-source theory,” in which Matthew and Luke also utilize another source commonly called “Q,” from the German word Quelle, meaning “source.” This second source is said to account for about 250 verses (mostly teaching material) common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark.
Other theories of Marcan priority hold that Matthew and Luke utilized multiple sources in addition to Mark. In a “four-source theory,” an M-source is postulated to account for material unique to Matthew, and an L-source for material peculiar to Luke.
4. Following a view widely supported by the early church fathers, some argue that Matthew was the first of the Synoptics. Luke, which utilized Matthew, is usually viewed as second; and Mark is third, being an abbreviated combination of Matthew and Luke. The preaching of Peter is also seen as a significant influence on Mark's Gospel.


Harmonizing the Gospels
A precise historical chronology, both internal and external, for the events described in the Gospels is difficult to determine. There is some uncertainty with regard to both the external historical events and the relationships between some events depicted in the Gospels themselves. For this reason, the Harmony of the Gospels presented here, together with the historical dates assigned, should be regarded as approximate.
Such uncertainties should not surprise us, however, for the Gospels do not pretend to be complete biographies of Jesus. The Gospel writers do give some historical markers, but their primary intention is to present the saving Person and work of Jesus Christ. While we may have full confidence in the historical character of the events described, there is much that the Gospels do not tell us (cf. Joh_21:25).
Traditionally, the life of Jesus was dated from 1 B.C. to A.D. 33. More recently, the birth of Jesus has been reckoned by many scholars c. 5-6 B.C. Suggestions for the date of Jesus' death range from A.D. 27 to A.D. 33, with the Passover period of A.D. 30 being perhaps the most probable.
The birth of Jesus probably took place a year or two prior to the death of Herod the Great in 4 B.C. (cf. Mat_2:1-23). There is considerable uncertainty regarding the census under Quirinius (Luk_2:2), usually dated c. A.D. 7. Some have suggested that Quirinius may have governed Syria twice, or that the census which took place at the time of Jesus' birth was the initial registration stage of a census completed during the time of Quirinius.
Luk_3:1 dates the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry to the “fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,” a date of some uncertainty (either A.D. 26 or 29, depending on the system of reckoning). According to Luk_3:23, Jesus began His ministry when He was “about thirty years of age.” While the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' ministry could take as little as a year, the record in John of Jesus' Passover visits to Jerusalem indicates a ministry length of about three years (though some argue for a two-year period of ministry). Thus, if Jesus' ministry began in A.D. 27, a three-year ministry yields a date for the crucifixion and resurrection in A.D. 30.

The Herodian Dynasty
Herod was the family name of several Roman rulers who served as provincial governors of Palestine and surrounding regions during New Testament times.
The first Herod, known as Herod the Great, was the Roman ruler of Palestine during the days of the Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus when Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Mat_2:1; Luk_3:1). All the other different Herods mentioned in the New Testament were the sons or grandsons of this Herod.
Herod the Great (ruled 37-4 B.C.), was known as a master builder, organizer, and developer, although his policies were considered cruel and ruthless by the Jewish people. His most notable achievement was the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem—a project that required almost fifty years. He also rebuilt and enlarged the city of Caesarea into a port city on the Mediterranean Sea. Caesarea served as the Roman provincial capital for Palestine during the New Testament era. The magnificent aqueducts that he built at this city are still visible today.
Herod's son Antipas succeeded him as Roman governor of Galilee and Perea (Mat_14:1). Antipas was responsible for the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (Luk_3:19, Luk_3:20; Mat_14:1-12).
Herod the Great's grandson Agrippa was named ruler over all of Palestine by the Roman emperor Caligula. Agrippa is known as a persecutor of early Christians. He had James put to death and had Peter arrested. Because of his cruelty and blasphemy, Agrippa was slain by an angel of the Lord (Acts 12).
In A.D. 50, Agrippa's son, known as Agrippa II, was made ruler of the king of Chalcis's territory. Later he was given Abilene, Trachonitis, Acra, and important parts of Galilee and Perea. The only reference to this Herod in the New Testament occurs in Act. 25:13-26:32, which deals with Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea. Agrippa listened to Paul's defense, but the apostle appealed to Rome. Agrippa had no power to set him free.
The other two Herods mentioned in the New Testament are Herod Archelaus (Mat_2:22) and Herod Philip (Luk_3:1). Both of these rulers were sons of Herod the Great; they ruled parts of the territory previously administered by their father.

On Luke & Matthew & Mark

Luke
INTRODUCTION TO LUKE.

THE THIRD GOSPEL is assigned by the common voice of the primitive Church to Luke, "the beloved physician" and companion of Paul. Of his earlier history nothing is recorded. There is no proof that he ever saw the Lord or that he became a believer until some time after his death. He was not a Jew, his name is Greek, his style and modes of thought point to Greek training, and it has been generally believed that he was one of "the Grecians who turned to the Lord" in the great commercial city of Antioch where the first Gentile church beyond Palestine was founded. From the incidental references to himself in the Acts we learn that he was the constant companion of the later ministry of the great apostle to the Gentiles, and this is confirmed by the allusions to him in the Epistles. From Col_4:14; Phm_1:24; 2Ti_4:11, we learn that he was a Gentile, a physician, that he remained with Paul in his imprisonment at Cæsarea and attended him to Rome, where he was his companion during his long sufferings

THE GOSPEL of Luke differs from the other three in its sources of information. Matthew wrote as an eye witness; Mark probably recalled the recollections of Peter; John recalled his own personal memories of the life and words of the Lord, but Luke draws from the authentic sources of information then accessible, and he carefully presents the results in an orderly narrative. There are reasons for believing that during the period when Paul was a prisoner at Cæsarea, Luke, under his direction, set in order the facts of the Life of Christ in order to furnish an account fitted for the use of Gentile converts, and Gentiles who desired to learn of the Lord. "As Paul was the apostle, so in a faint degree Gentile Luke was the evangelist, of the Gentiles. He traces the genealogy up, not merely to Abraham, but Adam, the son of God. He makes Christ's first teachings at Nazareth commemorate the extension of God's mercy beyond the limits of Israel. Luk_4:16-30. He shows how the sinner is forgiven upon condition of obedient faith. Luk_7:36-50. The publican is, in Paul's favorite term, justified. Evidently their narrative of the Lord's supper is the same tradition. Luk_24:34; 1Co_15:5."

Luke's two books, his Gospels and the Acts, are properly two successive parts of one Christian history; and as the latter terminates at the point where Paul has lived two years at Rome, in the year 64, so the Gospel must have been written before that period, namely during the 27 years after Christ's death. For as Luke terminates his Acts abruptly with the close of Paul's two years' imprisonment, without adding a syllable of that apostle's later history, it is very certain that the Acts was published at that time. Yet, we know from the preface to Acts that the Gospel had been already written. Thus, it is evident, that it was written 27 years after the crucifixion.

Matthew
INTRODUCTION TO MATTHEW.

The first of the Gospels has been assigned by the Church, from the earliest times, to Matthew, one of the Twelve Apostles, and in all ages has been given the first place in the New Testament. He was the son of Alphæus, as we learn from Luke, who also calls him Levi (Luk_5:27-29). He calls himself "Matthew the publican," refusing to conceal in his own history the despised calling that had engaged him before he entered the service of Christ. He was a Jew, but had so far lost the national feeling that he was a collector of the hateful Roman tribute at Capernaum, and was sitting at the receipt of custom when called by our Lord to leave all and to follow him. His history of the Savior shows, however, that he was more dominated by Jewish ideas than the writers of the other three gospels. Of the life of Matthew, after the death of the Savior, we have no information, for no reliance can be placed upon the traditions concerning his later history.

The Gospel of Matthew shows the methodical habits of a business man, for of all the writers he is most systematic in his arrangement. He gives by far the fullest accounts of the Sermon on the Mount, the charge to the Apostles (Matt. ch. 10), the Discourse on Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the Arraignment of the Scribes and Pharisees, of the Parables, and of the Prophecies concerning the Overthrow of the Jewish State. It has always been held that Matthew wrote before the other New Testament writers, and wrote especially for Jewish Christians. It is therefore supposed that he wrote first either in the common language of Judea at that time, the Aramaic, which was spoken by the Savior and his Apostles, or else in the pure Hebrew, which was then generally understood. This, however, is an unsettled question, and the Greek which we now possess, was, it is almost certain, written in Matthew's lifetime. There are no data for determining the exact time and place where it was written, but it was probably composed about the middle of the first century, within twenty years of the crucifixion.

Whether written originally in Hebrew or not, it can hardly be doubted that Matthew wrote for Jewish readers. He takes for granted a familiarity with Jewish customs, laws, and localities, to a far greater extent than the other writers. Dean Alford says: "The whole narrative proceeds more upon a Jewish view of matters, and is concerned more to establish that point, which to a Jewish convert would be most important, namely, that Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. Hence the commencement of his genealogy from Abraham and David; hence the frequent notice of the necessity of this or that event happening, because it was foretold by the prophets; hence the constant opposition of our Lord's spiritually ethical teaching to the carnal formalistic ethics of the Scribes and Pharisees."

Mark
INTRODUCTION TO MARK.

The Second Gospel was written by Mark, the kinsman of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul in his first missionary journey. When and where it was written is uncertain. Of its author the following facts are gathered from the New Testament: He is first named in Act_12:12. His mother's name was Mary, and we learn from Col_4:10, that she was a sister of Barnabas. She dwelt in Jerusalem, and this city was probably Mark's early home. He was converted by Peter (1Pe_5:13), it has been supposed, at the great ingathering on the day of Pentecost. He became a minister (Act_12:25), attended Paul and Barnabas on their first missionary journey did not prove satisfactory to Paul (Act_15:38), and as Barnabas insisted on taking him, he and Paul parted company on the second missionary journey. That Paul and Mark were afterwards intimate is shown by the subsequent history. We find him by Paul's side during his first imprisonment at Rome, A. D. 61-63; and he is acknowledged by him as one of his few fellow-laborers who had been a "comfort" to him during the weary hours of his imprisonment (Col_4:10-11; Phm_1:24). We next have traces of him in 1Pe_5:13. "The church that is in Babylon . . . saluteth you, and so doth Marcus, my son". From this we infer that he joined the spiritual father, the friend of his mother, at Babylon, then and for some hundred years afterwards returned one of the chief seats of Jewish culture. From Babylon he would seem to have returned to Asia Minor; for during his second imprisonment, A. D. 68, Paul, writing to Timothy, charges him to bring Mark with him to Rome, on the ground that he was "profitable unto him for the ministry" (2Ti_4:11). From this point we gain no further information from the New Testament respecting the Evangelist. It is most probable, however, that he did join the Apostle at Rome, whither also Peter would seem to have proceeded, and suffered martyrdom along with Paul. After the death of these two great pillars of the Church, ecclesiastical tradition affirms that Mark visited Egypt, founded the Church of Alexandria, and died by martyrdom. This tradition is, however, very uncertain.

Mark was not one of the twelve, and there is no reason to believe that he was an eye and ear witness of the events which he has recorded; but an almost unanimous testimony of the early fathers indicates Peter as the source of his information. The most important of these testimonies is that of Papias, who says, "He, the presbyter (John) said: Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote exactly whatever he remembered; but he did not write in order the things which were spoken or done by Christ. For he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but, as I said, afterward followed Peter, who made his discourses to suit what was required, without the view of giving a connected digest of the discourses of our Lord. Mark, therefore, made no mistakes when he wrote down circumstances as he recollected them; for he was very careful of one thing, to omit nothing of what he heard, and to say nothing false in what he related." Thus Papias writes of Mark. This testimony is confirmed by other witnesses.

Tradition affirms that Mark wrote for the benefit of Gentile Christians, and this view is confirmed by the fact that he often explains Jewish customs, where Matthew, writing for Jews, omits the explanation as if well understood. In the comments on Mark references will be found to the parallel passages in Matthew, where full explanatory notes will be found.

The Case for Christ

There are 11 more parts but let's see if we need more before I post.