October 1 - Do we need Four Gospels?

My Segment Survey for Inductive Bible Study on Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 is due tonight.  I had to get the draft posted yesterday, but the final piece of that will show up in the professor's box at some point tomorrow.  I'll post those insights to you tomorrow.  There is some really cool stuff!  Take a few moments and read through the passage if you can and then walk with me through it.  Such fun!  Although it totally kicked my butt this week to work through it all.

In my Introduction to New Testament class, the question posed to us this week was: What do you think is the benefit of having four gospels tell the story, instead of just one?

This is my response.  Everyone has read the book and is to consider thoughts from this book, another book and a written lecture from the professor (which actually had nothing to do with the topic).  My response is probably a little short and not too terribly in-depth, but take some time to think about the impact of four gospels versus a single gospel.  How would that change things?

The book by Theissen is INCREDIBLE!!  It's a wonderful, fictional account of a young man who experienced the ministry of Jesus Christ from the outside. If you can find it or purchase it, you will get a lot of insight into the world surrounding Jesus' ministry.  So much explanation of the various sects and interactions with the Romans.

The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest for the Historical Jesus by Gerd Theissen.


As I read the Appendix to Theissen’s book, I enjoyed reading his thoughts on the differences of each of the four gospels.  I have always looked at each differently, absorbing the varying ways in which the authors tell the story of Jesus’ life. 

Theissen points out the differences quite clearly, showing that Mark wrote his Gospel to an audience with a large non-Jewish population because of the way he describes the Jewish festivals and the fact that he points out that a Gentile was the first to confess the “Son of God”  (Kindle loc. 2408-24)

Matthew writes to a Jewish-Christian audience, while Luke’s gospel is written to Gentile-Christians to remind them of their Jewish origin (Loc. 2425-44).

John’s Gospel seems to be written for a community describing Jesus as preexisting and coming from the Father and then returning to Him. (Loc. 2445-65).

Each of these Gospels offers such a different look at the story of Jesus that it brings a completeness to the story.  For the incarnation, we are exposed to the Wise Men and Herod as well as the dreams that send Joseph and his young family traveling back and forth to Egypt.  In Luke, we meet the shepherds and hear the Angelic proclamation of Jesus’ birth.  We meet Mary’s family and come to know them as the family that will produce John, the one who proclaims the coming of the Messiah.  Mark’s gospel is filled with action and focuses on the work that Jesus does as He travels while John’s gospel begins with the identification of Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh.

If any of these gospels were eliminated, we would lose a significant portion of the narrative and the basis for theological beliefs regarding the Messiah.

My father loved reading biographies of Abraham Lincoln.  His favorite was by Carl Sandburg, but he knew that Sandburg didn’t tell the entire story.  The multitude of biographies written about Lincoln fleshed out the story in such a way that Dad was able to see a very large picture of that man’s life.  If he had read only Sandburg’s biography, he would have only gotten one picture of that President. 

Relying on one account or one perspective of Jesus’ life would never give us the understanding that we have by reading all four.