Four Gospels. Four accounts of the same events. The first three — Matthew, Mark, and Luke — are so similar in structure, wording, and order that they are called the Synoptic Gospels, from the Greek word for “seeing together.” The fourth, John, is different in style and emphasis.
Understanding what the Gospels are — and what they are not — is the first step in reading them historically.
What Genre Are the Gospels?
The Gospels are not modern biographies. They are ancient biographies — a recognizable genre in the Greco-Roman world, with its own conventions. Ancient biographies were not neutral chronicles. They selected, arranged, and interpreted their material to make a point about their subject. They were written to persuade as well as to inform.
This does not make them fiction. Ancient biography was expected to be based on real events, even when it arranged and interpreted them. The Gospels present themselves as accounts of what actually happened — “the things which are most surely believed among us,” in Luke’s words (Luke 1:1–4) — and the earliest Christian readers treated them as such.
The Synoptic Problem
Matthew, Mark, and Luke share so much material, in such similar wording, that they must be literarily related. The evidence is cumulative:
The Evidence
The dominant scholarly view is Markan priority: Mark was written first, and Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source. The material Matthew and Luke share that is not in Mark comes from a lost collection of Jesus’ sayings, called “Q” (from the German Quelle, “source”). Matthew and Luke also had their own independent material, called “M” and “L” respectively.
This view is not held by all scholars. Some argue for Matthean priority. Some argue that the relationships are more complex. But Markan priority is the dominant position, and it is what most critical editions and commentaries assume.
What the Differences Mean
If Matthew and Luke used Mark, why do they differ from him? Because they were writing for different audiences, with different emphases, and they adapted their material accordingly.
Matthew, writing for a Jewish-Christian audience, emphasizes Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. He quotes the Hebrew Scriptures more than any other Gospel. He arranges Jesus’ teaching into five great discourses, echoing the five books of Moses.
Luke, writing for a Gentile audience, emphasizes Jesus as the Savior of all people, including Gentiles, women, the poor, and outsiders. He gives more attention to parables of mercy, to women, and to the Holy Spirit.
Mark, writing for a Roman audience, emphasizes Jesus as the powerful Son of God who suffers. His Gospel is the shortest and the most fast-paced. He explains Jewish customs that his Gentile readers would not understand.
John, writing last, emphasizes Jesus as the eternal Word made flesh. His Gospel is more theological and less narrative. He records long discourses that the Synoptics do not, and he organizes his material around seven signs rather than around the Galilean ministry.
How to Read a Gospel
Three practical suggestions for the reader who wants to read the Gospels historically.
Reading Suggestions
What to Look For
When reading the Gospels historically, look for:
- EmbarrassmentDetails that are embarrassing to the author’s case — Peter’s denial, the flight of the disciples, the women as first witnesses — are unlikely to have been invented.
- AramaicPreserved Aramaic words (like Abba, Talitha koum, Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani) point to early tradition.
- ConcretenessSpecific names, places, and details that serve no theological purpose are more likely to be historical.
- ConsistencyDetails that appear in multiple independent sources carry more weight than details that appear in only one.
- DivergenceWhere the Gospels differ, do not assume one is right and the others wrong. Each may be preserving an independent tradition.
Why Reading the Gospels Well Matters
The Gospels are the primary source for the life and teaching of Jesus. If they are read carelessly, they will be misunderstood. If they are read with attention to their genre, their sources, and their audiences, they become an extraordinarily rich window into the events they describe.
Understanding the Gospels as literature does not undermine their historical value. It makes their historical value accessible. The reader who knows what kind of book he is reading is the reader who can hear what it actually says.
