Before I can talk about the Gospels individually, I need to say something about them as a group.
How would YOU summarize the most important things to say about the Gospels in a single sentence? Try it. See how you do.
There are roughly 34 million ways to put it. Here’s one of them.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the four Gospels of the New Testament, are our earliest surviving accounts of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the Son of God sent for the salvation of the world.
And now to unpack that in a single post:
The term “Gospel” translates a Greek word (EUANGELION; from which we get the word “evangelist”) that literally means “Good News.” Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Gospels because they narrate Jesus’ life not only to provide information about what he said and did, but also to proclaim the authors’ faith that he was the messiah sent from God to bring salvation to those who accept his message. Scholars have long realized these books are not merely descriptive “histories” of what, according to the authors, actually happened, but are also “statements of faith,” making theological claims about the importance of Jesus.
In many ways the Gospels are similar to Greek and Roman “biographies” of famous men, which are meant not only to provide historical details about their lives but also to encourage their readers to follow their fine examples. These ancient biographies differ in many ways from those produced in the modern world. For one thing, their authors could not undertake the kinds of sustained research of their subjects that are now possible, but only since the invention of printing, the multiplication of written sources, modern data bases, and electronic retrieval systems. These ancient accounts of ancient lives were, as a result, concerned not only with documented facticity and but also, at least as much, with showing how an important person’s life could influence the lives of others.
The Gospels are like that, but obviously with a profoundly “Christian twist.” They are meant both to teach readers how to live and to promote faith in Jesus as the unique son of God whose death and resurrection were part of God’s plan to redeem the world. They cannot, therefore, be treated like heavily-researched fact-based biographies available to us today.
The four Gospels come at the beginning of the New Testament not because they were the first books to be written (Paul’s letters were earlier), but because the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus are the foundation for the Christian faith and so provide the appropriate introduction to all the other books of the Christian Scripture. In Gospel authors’ own day (as Luke 1:1-4 explicitly indicates) other written accounts of Jesus had been written – either of just his teachings or of his miracles and death and resurrection as well – but these no longer survive. All the accounts were ultimately based on stories in circulation among Jesus’ followers I the years and decades after his death. Moreover, after these four accounts were produced, many more write written over the centuries. None of these, however, came to be accepted as authoritative by the majority of early Christians; and none of them provides as much historical information about Jesus as the canonical four – even though these later accounts are indeed highly important for showing how Jesus came to be understood and revered in later Christian circles.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (unlike most of the other surviving Gospels) share a similar narrative structure. In broad terms terms, they provide accounts of Jesus public ministry in Galilee, the northern part of Israel, starting with his association with John the Baptist, and focusing on his relationships with his twelve disciples, his many miraculous deeds, his authoritative teachings, and his confrontations with other Jewish leaders. In all four Gospels Jesus’ travels to Jerusalem in the southern region of Judea the last week of his life in order to celebrate the annual Passover feast and proclaim his message to the crowds gathered there. But he incurs the opposition of the Jewish leader, who decide to have him arrested and turned over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate on charges of insurrection for calling himself the king of the Jews. Pilate finds him guilty of the charge and orders him crucified. But on the third day after his death his tomb is found empty and he is declared to be raised from the dead.
All four Gospels portray these events as foreordained by God and proclaimed by the prophets of Scripture as part of God’s plan to bring salvation to the world.
Despite these broad similarities there are many differences among the Gospels. Not only does each have stories found in none of the others, but also they often tell the stories they share in different, sometimes contradictory, ways. Most striking are the differences between the fourth Gospel, John, and the other three, which are so much alike scholars call them the “Synoptic” Gospels. Synoptic comes from a Greek phrase that means “to be seen together.” Matthew, Mark, and Luke can easily be placed in parallel columns (“seen together”) to compare their stories carefully. John accounts of Jesus’ teachings and miracles are usually quite different; most of the overlaps between John and the others come in their “Passion narratives,” that is, the stories leading up to and through his execution and resurrection; but in these places of overlap the tales differ in many ways.
The many similarities among the Gospels – especially the Synoptics – have led scholars to realize their authors utilized the same written sources. The many differences – especially the contradictions – show that the accounts cannot be entirely accurate historically accurate.
Given these similarities and differences, the Gospels are best read in two different but sometimes complementary ways: literary and historical. Since they are “stories” told about Jesus’ words, deeds, and experiences, they can be analyzed like other narratives for their key themes and emphases, to see what each author is trying to say, in his own unique way, about the importance of Jesus and what he said and did. When doing so, it is important to read each one for its own message, and not assume that the message of one is the same as the message of another (just as no one would read two authors today and assume they necessarily have the same perspective).
In addition to being literary accounts trying to convey important religious lessons, the Gospels can also be read for historical information about what Jesus actually taught, did, and experienced. Their authors are, after all, passing along stories they have heard about Jesus’ life. Like every other ancient historical source the Gospels present problems for differentiating between historical reality and literary embellishment. The first step toward understanding the historical value of each account is to establish what we can know about its author, when he was writing, and in what historical context.
In this thread I will discuss each Gospel individually and in each case begin by providing two initial posts, one to explain the book’s literary, thematic emphases “in a nutshell”; the other to address the historical questions of Who, When, and Where — that is, what can be know about the author, the probable date of his composition, and the historical situation within which he appears to be producing his work.
In the next post, I start with Matthew.
The New Testament Gospels in one sentence:
“The New Testament Gospels are 4 biographies of Jesus, allegedly written by his disciples and first followers around 40 to 70 years after the alleged events they describe took place.”
Do you have any thoughts on sabine huebner’s 2019 suggested solution to Luke’s cencus?
If you’re asking me, the answer’s no — I haven’t read his book. But I may have heard his suggestion! If so, I didn’t find it compelling, since having looked at it a long time, I think the only plausible answer is that LUKE just got things confused.
Apologies Bart, yes it was for you – first time commenter!
Thanks for the answer 🙂
Sabine’s paper seems to be the go to response now for apologists, I saw Peter Williams share it at Xmas.
Andrew from Religion For Breakfast touched on it last year, his brief thoughts were along lines of; “it’s not convincing, but it is the most serious academic attempt to give Luke a historical census.”
It’s be interesting if he came up with someone no one had thought of before! But I don’t know his claim.
I would love this – someday when there is time for you to do it – in book form, paying extra for a signed copy.
“These books are not merely descriptive ‘HISTORIES’ of what, ACCORDING TO THE AUTHORS, ACTUALLY HAPPENED, BUT ARE ALSO ‘statements of faith,’ making THEOLOGICAL CLAIMS about the importance of Jesus.”
“Which are MEANT NOT ONLY TO PROVIDE HISTORICAL DETAILS about their lives but also to encourage their readers to follow their fine examples.”
Well, this is different from what is said in
https://ehrmanblog.org/finding-value-in-writings-you-dont-believe-in-in-response-to-my-newsweek-article-on-christmas/.
“The accounts of Jesus’ life in the New Testament have never been called ‘histories’; instead, they have always been known as ‘gospels’—that is, ‘proclamations of the good news.’ These are books THAT MEAN TO declare religious truths, NOT HISTORICAL FACTS.”
I think the difference is important. I personally agree with the statements in this very article.
Even when their intentions went beyond simple storytelling, the authors of the gospels presented their books as “HISTORIES OF WHAT … ACTUALLY HAPPENED.”
The authors must have been inspired to take the time to write about what they heard or notes from someone who witnessed the events of the life of Jesus. The historical events and day by day struggles of those times under the control of the Roman Empire are things I’ve never heard about in a church. To think that many of us still talk about the Golden rule in reference to Christ from over 2000 years ago is amazing. Wonderful post Dr Ehrman, thank you
Dr Bart Ehrman, Is it possible that Prisca (Paul’s acquaintance) could have written one of the books in the New Testament? Perhaps even one of the gospels.
If she was alive at the time and was literate and able to compose, then yes, it would be possible. I suppose it would be one of the many hundreds of possibilities. The issue is always: what would make us think so? In this particualr case, since so few women were trained to write (school was almost entirely for the boys), there’ have to be some kid of compelling case.
Now we say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but how should it go in terms of time written?
Mark, Matthew, Luke, John
Question for you, Dr. Ehrman:
I have seen that one of the evidences used to suggest that the original Mark had the longer ending is the Diatessaron, which some scholars believe clearly uses the longer ending, suggesting Tatian knew Mark 16:9-20 in the 2nd century.
Why do other scholars reject this evidence? Thanks for your time!
They reject it mainly because we don’t have the Diatessaron and so we don’t know exactly what was in it. If we had it and it had the last twelvce verses, that would certaily be interesting, though, of course, not probative for a variety of reasons, one being that it was written some 80 years after Mark and moreover, based on some of the quotations we have, the Diatessaron appears to have included some non-canonical material in it.
In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus conforms to classic Orthodox Judaism, acknowledging that the redemption (i.e., the Kingdom of God) would be facilitated by observing the Torah fully (Matthew 5:17-19) in accordance with the teachings of the Pharisees who sit upon the seat of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3).
Why do you always refer to post-AD70 believers as “early Christians”? They weren’t Christians at all. Christians were people who had been ‘dead’ under the law and its curse, had transitioned out of the old covenant and were restored to eternal life (a restored relationship with their god) via Christ’s new covenant (Rom 11:26-27, Heb 8:8). They were descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel who were being gathered into Christ before the end of the age of the old covenant religious system and temple community. That’s not anyone today.
Some were referred to as gentiles because they had stopped being Torah observant and had stopped practicing circumcision. Whether circumcised Jews or uncircumcised Israelites (gentiles), they were told to remain in the same condition they were called (1 Corinthians 7:18-20) because the time of the end of the age of the old covenant religious system and temple community was near. That in a nutshell is what the entire New Testament is about.
After the need for the gospel ended in AD70, Greek so-called ‘church fathers’ hijacked bits and pieces of ancient Israel’s redemptive narrative. It’s been a circus of error ever since.
I define Christian broadly as anyone who believes Jesus is the way to salvatoin.
Salvation for the disciples meant [Jews] being rescued from sin (violation of the law, Mat 1:21, 1 Jn 3:4), the curse of the law (which only Israelites had and were under (Gal 4:5), their enemies (Luke 1:69-71), their perverse generation (Acts 2:40) and the wrath of God (Rom 5:9). Non-Israelites weren’t under ancient Israel’s law or its curse . The god of the bible didn’t save non-Israelites from their enemies and the ‘wrath of God’ was the end of the age judgment on the twelve tribes of Israel in AD70.
What were 1st century non-Israelites saved from?
It depends on what you mean by “saved” and to whom you are asking the question!
I just described what New Testament salvation was. My question is.. What were 1st century non-Israelites saved from?
Again it depends whom you’re asking. Someone like Paul would say that they were saved from teh coming wrath of God to be brought by Jesus from heaven when he annilates all gods enemies.; someone like the author of Revelation would say they were saved from the lake of fire; someone like Tertullian would say they were saved from the pits of hell. In all these traditions all non-Israelites have sinned against the God of Israel and they to be delivered from punishment by Jesus just as much as Jews do.
Dr. Bart, what about us agnostic Christians
who have devotional love for all that has been Created
(stars, planet Earth, Nature, human life, conscious mind)
and a deep respect for the historical Jesus?
Salvation:
”The LORD hath shown thee what is Good
And what does Good require?
Act justly, Love with Mercy
And Walk Humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8)
My view is that anyone can identify as a Christian who chooses to. It sounds like my views are very similar to yours, and sometimes I do identify myself as a Christian atheist. But I never call myself a Christian. Probably just a personal preference.
How would YOU summarize the most important things to say about the Gospels in a single sentence? I LOVE THIS
The Gospels are the declaration of war (the war that Josephus connected to John the Baptist in his “Antiquities of the Jews” Chp 5) seeking to unseat the Herodian dynasty via JESUS, the son of a handmaiden to a Lord —think Governor Schwarzenegger’s secret son—using the customary Soft Power tactics that this Lord, Aretas IV’s hyperspiritual kingdom was very famous for: feeding, healing, and educating the population, taking in peaceful Jewish refugees, seeking a brutal Jewish figure for questioning regarding his crimes against a peaceful group of Jews, ethical subterfuge, (and of course, the ultimate soft power leverage of having a deified human patriarch, Obodas the God) — to place JESUS as a middle-man theocrat like adopted prince Moses or (best example) Melchizedek, who collected revenue for the Living God of the 14th Dynasty of Avaris, Egypt (artifacts confirm that this Semetic-speaking dynasty – who are not Pharaohs – adopted deification via the title of the Living Horus, and there are two artifacts also giving them the title of “Ruler of Retjenu” — Ruler of Syrio-Palestine.)
Paul’s converts weren’t enemies of God, and there is no scripture anywhere that says or implies that all non-Israelites were enemies of God. Paul’s converts were people whom Paul believed were lost sheep being gathered at the end of the age, both Jews and non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel, some called GK ethnos. Paul’s concept of wrath had to do with a future judgement on those Judaists who had been persecuting his converts.
Tetullian wasn’t a real Christian so his opinion isn’t worth considering. He was a product of the faux, Greek version of Christianity that followed the authentic Israelite version. Tertullian argued that ‘Christians’ were the new ‘people of God’ that had replaced the Jews. He was the preeminent replacement theologian and a very religious and confused individual.
The lake of fire was the symbolic, fiery end of the old covenant religious system and temple community. Notably, the beast and false prophet are thrown into the lake. Jesus only warned Jews about the judgement to come. In Matt 25:41, eternal fire is said to be prepared for the devil and his angels (human messengers). They were Judaists.
Hell was very different between Tertullian and Jesus. Tertullian’s hell was the later invention of an otherworldly place of eternal torment. Jesus’s hell was Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom located just outside of Jerusalem that tourists visit every day. It was a metaphor for judgement on unrepentant first century Jews. Every time Jesus used the word “hell” (Gehenna), it’s associated with and directed to Jews.
The point here is, your interpretations are affected by presentism and group-think, which is why you’re repeating the same interpretive errors scholars have been making for nearly two thousand years.
What I’m showing you is that New Testament salvation had an exclusively Israelite context and audience relevance because New Testament wrath and judgement had an exclusively Israelite context and audience relevance.
Non-Israelites didn’t need Jesus and salvation because they weren’t under the law and its curse. Only Israel had and was under the law of Moses. Jesus didn’t come to save all people everywhere. He came to save his people, Israel (Mat 1:21, 2:6), which is why he only warned his people, Israelites, about the judgement to come. New Testament salvation had a specific Israelite context, not a universal context.
what would people define USA Christian as for the last decade?
Over 20 years ago. SF government defined China’s Falungong as a political group, not a religious group, so the organization COULD NOT participate in the annual Chinese New Year Parade.
Admittedly there are tens of thousands of churches with different faiths, but USA Christian churches is an entity AKA body.
Key words: STORY, ASSOCIATIONS, CULTURAL IDENTITY
beagoAi: In the early 1990s, about 90% of US adults identified as Christians, but today, that number has dropped to about two-thirds. This decline is accompanied by a rise in the number of Americans claiming no religious affiliation.