The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are referred to as “the four Gospels.” Actually, there are four different accounts of the life of Christ. The first three books are referred to as “the synoptic Gospels” The word “synoptic” means “to view at the same time,” because they are similar in content. All dates during the 50s and 60s.
The book of John is somewhat different in that it takes a different approach to the life of Christ. It is believed that John was the last of the gospels to be written. The question may be asked why four books about the life of Christ?
Four accounts authenticate the story of Jesus better than just one. Four different writers also give us a well-rounded picture of the nature of Jesus. Four accounts definitely show the importance of the story of Jesus to mankind.
Critics often refer to what they call the “synoptic problem.” They argue that the writers do not always agree, and in some cases, there are conflicts between the accounts they give.
The truth of the matter is, there are no conflicts. When we consider that each writer was different in personality and was allowed to use his own style of writing, then there will be differences in the way they record a subject or event.
All four writers tell the same story, but each is allowed to use their own writing style and vocabulary. In most cases, one account simply supplements another account.
We know that the Holy Spirit guided them as they wrote. Peter writes, “Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit,” 2 Peter 1:21. Thus, this would eliminate any mistakes.
If one has faith in the inspiration of the Scriptures, then there is no so-called “synoptic problem.” Ironically, if the gospels had been identical to each other, word for word, this would have raised charges that the authors had conspired among themselves to coordinate their stories in advance and would have cast doubt on them.
Four people might witness a wreck involving two cars on a busy street. A person approaching in a car from the north may have paid attention to the speed of one of the cars.
Another witness coming from the south may have noticed which car was in the wrong lane. A third person standing on the street east of the wreck may have noticed that one car swerved to miss the other.
A fourth observer on the west side of the street may have noticed a person being ejected from the impact. All four are credible witnesses, but each one will report the story from the angle he or she observed the wreck. When all four witnesses give their accounts, you have an accurate account of what happened.
The apostle Paul’s conversion is reported three times in the book Acts. Each account is stated differently, but each is true. In Acts 9, Luke is giving the account to his Greek readers. In Acts 22, it is Paul’s defence before the Jews in Jerusalem. In Acts 26, it was a part of Paul’s sermon to King Agrippa.
Paul wisely chose different words and emphasised different aspects to get his message over to his audience. There is no conflict between each account. It is delivered each time according to who he was speaking to.
In reference to the four Gospels, Matthew seems to be writing primarily to the Jews. He quotes over one hundred Old Testament passages and uses terms that were familiar to the Jews.
He presents Jesus as a King who came to set up His kingdom. The Jews looked for the Messiah (God’s anointed) to do this very thing, although they wanted an earthly kingdom.
Mark appears to have written for a non-Jewish audience. He eliminates matters that would be of little interest to the Gentiles. When he mentions Jewish traditions, he often adds an explanation since Gentiles were not always acquainted with the Jewish customs. Many believe Mark wrote primarily to a Roman audience.
Luke also appears to write to a non-Jewish audience. Luke’s account seems to be directed to a Greek audience. His gospel is addressed to a person with the Greek name Theophilus, Luke 1:1-4.
John’s gospel was written later than the others. Various false teachings had arisen concerning the nature of Jesus as to His body. John clearly represents Jesus as coming in the flesh.
He wrote, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” John 1:14. Thus, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, He was “the Son of God.” His deity is stressed along with His human nature, Philippians 2:4-8. He was both God and the “Son of Man.”
The four Gospels are not biographies even though they cover the life of Jesus. They are rather teaching narratives. There is no attempt to cover all the events in Jesus’ life. Also, Chronology was not always important to the writers. They often grouped events together to emphasise certain truths.
There is no attempt to describe the physical appearance of Jesus, which biographers usually do. John presents different information from the other three writers, with great emphasis on the last twenty-four hours of Jesus.
Other than the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, only a few events are mentioned in all four accounts. But when all four deal with an event, it is worth noting that the event must have special significance.
Seeming contradictions can be eliminated by careful study and proper knowledge. Contradictions may seem to exist simply because we do not always possess all the facts in the case being reported.
For example, we have the story of one or more blind men being healed near Jericho. Matthew says Jesus was leaving Jericho, Matthew 20:29, and that two men were healed, Matthew 20:29-34. Luke says Jesus was approaching Jericho, Luke 18:35, and mentions only one blind man being healed, Luke 18:35-43.
One writer may have paid more attention to one of the blind men, while another writer may have put the spotlight on the fact that there were two blind men. Also, we know there were two Jerichos. One was the old site of Jericho, and the other was the new city of Jericho.
Therefore, one man could have been healed as he left one and a second as he entered the new Jericho. We don’t always have all the facts to properly separate what might appear to be a conflict between writers.
Critics have made much of the argument that Mark wrote the first gospel and that Matthew and Luke merely copied from him. This does not make sense since Mark’s gospel is shorter than the others. We know that Matthew was an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, Matthew 9:9.
It is more likely he would know more than Mark since we have no indication that Mark was a witness to Jesus’ ministry. Mark was associated closely with Peter, and this may have been His source of information.
In either case, both men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, thus eliminating any possibility of mistakes being made. Paul reminds us that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God,” 2 Timothy 3:16.
If one believes the gospels are the inspired Word of God, then he or she will have no problem with their authenticity. Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s, and John’s accounts of the life of Jesus have been considered part of the inspired New Testament since the early days of the church.
Those who oppose these books as true records are in the minority of Biblical scholarship. There is both internal and external evidence that conclusively proves that the gospels are part of God’s inspired word.
Gospel writers stand out as credible witnesses. A great American lawyer, Simon Greenleaf, wrote a book entitled A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. This book has run through sixteen editions.
He used the same laws of evidence that are employed in our courts of justice to show that the gospels are absolutely trustworthy. The evidence presented by these writers can be proven true in any court of the land, as it measures up to the qualities that must exist in a witness in order for him to qualify as a credible witness in a court of law.
Many Greek manuscripts date back very early. Sceptical German theologians in the 1800s argued that John’s gospel was not composed until at least the year 160, too distant from the events of Jesus’ life to be of much historical use. (Thus, John was not the author.)
They were able to influence later generations of scholars, who scoffed at the gospel’s reliability. Yet in more recent years, manuscripts have been found that date back very close to the time of the gospel writers.
We have copies made from the original manuscripts that date within two generations. The earliest fragment of the gospel of John, containing material from chapter eighteen, has five verses. It was purchased in Egypt around 1920 and sat unnoticed for many years. It has been proven that it originated between A.D. 100 and 150.
F. F. Bruce, author of The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, says, “There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”
Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director of the British Museum, said, “In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.”
He goes ahead to state that “The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.” We have more than five thousand Greek manuscripts now.
From the 1700s, liberal religious scholars have argued that the gospels were written so far after the events in the life of Christ that legend developed and distortion was finally written down, turning Jesus into a mythological Son of God.
Thus, the term “demythtising the gospels” came into use. As an example, in recent years, the news media have heralded reports about a group known as the Jesus Seminar.
This self-selected group of seventy-five scholars has taken it upon themselves to determine which words of the gospels were spoken and which were not spoken and are only parts of myths.
They concluded that eighty-two per cent of the words of Jesus were not actually spoken. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, the only thing in that prayer that He actually said was “Our Father,” Matthew 6:9. The rest of the prayer was not actually spoken by Him but is a mere myth.
The remaining eighteen per cent they consider somewhat doubtful, with only two per cent being authentic. If such liberal scholars applied the same rules they use in rejecting Christ and the gospels to other historical people like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, they would be forced to reject all history as myth.
Unfortunately, people will read about such groups and come to the conclusion that what they say is true. Liberal scholars represent a very small percentage of New Testament scholars.
Basically, they’ve discovered what they set out to find: a Jesus who was a religious fanatic who performed no miracles. For the most part, what we read about Jesus in the gospels is nothing more than myths.
Myths do not arise in a short period of time. When people begin religious movements, it is often not until many generations later that the myths develop and still later that people record the myths. Present-day scholarship has established that the gospels were all written within thirty to forty years after the time Jesus lived.
Contrary to the claims of some, the gospels were not written a hundred to two hundred years after Jesus’ death, thus allowing time for myths to develop about Jesus. Peter must have already encountered the myth arguments when he wrote his first epistle. He said the following.
Peter is writing as an eyewitness. Luke prefaced his gospel with these words.
Luke does not sound like someone repeating some myth, but rather someone who has carefully checked out everything to be sure what he wrote about. Then we have John’s statement concerning Christ.
John was not only an eyewitness; he was one of the inner circle, the one whom the Lord loved, John 13:23. So here we have three men who were very careful in what they wrote about Jesus.
They had nothing to gain by their preaching and writing except criticism, ostracism, and martyrdom. There were no financial gains to be made, no fringe benefits of any kind. Why endanger their lives if what they preached and wrote was myth?
There are proofs from non-Christian sources. A famous Jewish historian by the name of Flavius Josephus was born in AD 37. He wrote four books of history. One of his books, The Antiquities of the Jews, is a history of the Jewish people from creation until his time.
In the book, he describes how a high priest named Ananias convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ and certain others.
He accused them of having “transgressed the law and delivered them to be stoned.” He also mentions Pilate and John the Baptist. In a controversial passage which some deny he wrote, he mentions the trial of Jesus before Pilate, that He was condemned to be crucified, and that He arose from the grave.
Tacitus, a Roman historian, recorded something that is very interesting. In AD 115, he states that Nero persecuted the Christians as scapegoats to divert suspicion away from himself in AD 64.
He says these people derived the name Christian from Christos, which would be his spelling of the name Christ. Pliny, governor of Bithynia, wrote in a letter to the Emperor Trajan about Christian worship and how Christians honoured Christ as if he were a god.
Then there are the seven letters of Ignatius. He was martyred during the reign of Trajan before AD 117. In his writings, he emphasised both the deity of Jesus and the humanity of Jesus.
He wrote one letter as he was on his way to being executed, that Jesus was persecuted under Pilate, was crucified and raised from the dead, and that those who believe in Him would be raised too.
Thallus, who in AD 52 wrote a history of the eastern Mediterranean world, made reference to the darkness that the gospels speak of as taking place on the day Jesus was crucified. Tertullian, another historian, said it was a world event, evidently visible in Rome, Athens and other Mediterranean cities.
Phlegon, a Greek author around AD 137, reported that around AD 33 there was a “great eclipse of the sun,” and that “it became night in the sixth hour of the day (noon) so that stars even appeared in the heavens. There was a great earthquake in Bithynia, and many things were overturned in Nicaea”. So here we have non-biblical historians reporting things which are in harmony with what the gospel writers reported.
It is important to remember that the books of the New Testament were not written in chronological order. For a fact, we know that Paul had written most of his letters before any of the gospels were written. If the crucifixion of Jesus took place in or around AD 30, then Paul’s conversion took place about three years later, around AD 33.
Paul was taken to Damascus, where he met with a Christian named Ananias and was baptised, Acts 9:10-19. He then went into exclusion for a short period of time.
It would be around AD 36 that he would have had his first meeting with Peter and James, Galatians 1:18-20, where he would have acquired additional knowledge about the life of Jesus.
Since he wrote most of his letters before the gospels, you have him setting forth some of the most basic and fundamental doctrines of Christianity within twenty-five years after the death of Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 15, he gives the key facts of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, plus a detailed list of those to whom Jesus appeared after His resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.
In his letter to the Philippians, Philippians 2:6-11, and his letter to the Colossians, Colossians 1:15-20, he gives his readers clear information about the divine nature of Jesus. All of his writings give information about Jesus.
Information was being proclaimed and circulated throughout the Roman Empire within a very few years of the death of Jesus because men like Phillip, Barnabas and the apostles were preaching the gospel before Paul preached it.
These full-blown doctrines do not fit the mould of a myth. Again, religious myths take many years to develop and even more years before they are written down. Paul reasons as follows.
It is interesting that Paul brings up the very things that liberal critics say did not happen and are only myths. Why would Paul travel thousands of miles around the Roman Empire just to tell myths? He suffered greatly for his preaching.
Look at the list of things he suffered in 2 Corinthians 11:23-27. No one would keep on enduring such if what he was teaching was not true. Some would say Paul was a religious fanatic, but a fanatic is not capable of writing a masterpiece on love as found in 1 Corinthians 13.
In conclusion, there is no “synoptic problem.” Matthew, Mark and Luke did not have to quote from each other, or in any way make use of each other’s gospels. The events of Jesus’ life and His sayings were repeated orally for years by the apostles and others and were in common circulation among Christians. They were the substance of the daily preaching of the apostles as they were guided by the Holy Spirit, 2 Peter 1:21.