How the Gospels Became “the Gospels” (summary)

This past week we began our investigation of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, by noting that people in our world are saying all sorts of things about Jesus. C. S. Lewis once famously wrote that we have to consider Jesus “Lord, a liar, or a lunatic,” but we’ve proven to be much more creative and diverse! To us Jesus has become everything from a good moral teacher to “my homeboy” to a legendary reincarnation of ancient pagan myths.

This variety begs one very important question: Who gets to determine who Jesus really is? The traditional answer to this question would be the four “canonical” Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But many today balk at such a response. Our goal is to dig into these controversial issues, and we started by examining the process by which these four books became part of the Bible. We learned that this process can be divided into five sections or “stages.”

Stage 1 – Eyewitnesses tell the story / stories of Jesus (AD 30-95)

This stage is really fairly simple – the people who witnessed things that Jesus said and did went around telling others about them. We see this happening within Scripture in both spoken (Acts 10.36-43) and written (1 Corinthians 11.23-26; compare with Luke 22.17-20) form. Sometimes people told the whole Jesus narrative, as in the example from Acts, and other times people told an individual story from Jesus’ life. It is crucial to remember that during this period, most of the characters in these stories would still be alive and available to verify or correct these reports. In fact, it is likely that the people who are mentioned by name in the Gospels’ stories (like Cleopas in Luke 24, for example) are official “tradition police” who have the job of making sure the story doesn’t get too far away from the facts. We also learned that despite what we might at first assume, recent studies in oral cultures have shown that oral tradition (passing on stories by word of mouth) was and is a reliable process.

Stage 2 – Editors collect testimony and compose Gospels (AD 50-90)

Relying on eyewitness reports has one obvious problem: even eyewitnesses don’t live forever. As these people began to pass away, the Jesus movement took active and careful steps to commit these stories to writing. Mark probably wrote his Gospel first and based it on Peter’s teaching (between AD 50 and 70). In addition to early testimony from a guy named Papias who tells us this, Peter is the first and last person named in Mark’s Gospel (if you don’t count the last eight verses, which most likely were not in the original version), and in the ancient world that was one way of indicating the main source of your information. Through a long process of research, fact-finding, etc, Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels soon after, and John wrote his last of all (around AD 90). Luke begins his Gospel with a helpful description of this process (1.1-4).

Stage 3 – Gospels circulate through churches for use in worship (AD 80-125)

From very early on, the writings of the apostles were passed back and forth between churches and read during worship (see 1 Thessalonians 5.27-28; Colossians 4.16; and 2 Peter 3.15-16). This includes our Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. (Paul even seems to quote Luke 10.7 alongside the OT as “Scripture” – see 1 Timothy 5.18.) To use these writings in this way – reading them in gathered worship – must not be underestimated. It shows us that these books enjoyed “sacred” status from very early indeed – within fifty years of Jesus’ life. We also find many allusions to and quotes of NT writings in Christian and heretical literature from the late first and early second century, which proves that these writings were composed and respected earlier.

Stage 4 – External factors demand official recognition (AD 125-312)

As time passed it became more important to make things official. Two main problems pushed the church in this direction. First, the problem of heresy. Certain teachers within the church, such as Marcion, Montanus, and Valentinus, began teaching things that did not line up with the message of Jesus’ earliest followers. Sometimes they would make a short list of books they considered sacred, which forced the church to make official lists of which books the church had normally considered sacred. But don’t get a picture in your head of the big bad powerful church stamping out weak little heretics. This popular but misinformed picture ignores the other major factor of this period – persecution. Whether by sporadic attacks, informal social pressure, or outright assault and murder, Christians were never in a position of social power. They were at the bottom of the ladder, and many people lost their lives for what they believed. So the question of which books are “Scripture” was not theoretical for them – it was literally a question of life and death: “Which books should we die for?” You can see why it was important for them to find out which teachings actually went back to the real Jesus!

Stage 5 – New Testament is exclusively canonized once and for all (AD 325-367)

There are a few basic things you need to know about this period. First, Constantine had little role in this process. He did call for “church councils” so the church could determine some things, but he played a very little role in the actual decisions. Second, Jesus’ divinity was not up for debate. The questions were how to talk about Christ’s divinity while differentiating him from the Father, and while also maintaining his humanity. Third and most importantly, in “canonizing” the books of the New Testament, the church of this period did not decide but rather acknowledged which books the church had considered sacred Scripture for a long time. Some books were disputed – such as Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 Thessalonians, James – but the four Gospels were never in question.

Wow, what a mouthful! So in conclusion, we can choose to reject Jesus, but not flippantly! The Gospels may not be popular but they are not as flimsy or fabled as some may think. I know I haven’t proven anything yet – I haven’t yet tried! But I hope it is helpful to get an overview of how they even came to be.

2 responses to “How the Gospels Became “the Gospels” (summary)

  1. Great stuff Michael!

    What are your thoughts on the credibility of the Gospel of John? There are of course skeptics who dismiss the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, & Luke), as well as John, but there are many who are willing to accept the Synoptics while rejecting John. Why does John seem to be discredited far more often?

  2. Thanks bro!

    Great question. I’m going to post on that topic after week four when I deal with differences (i.e. contradictions) between the Gospels. For now I’ll just make a few quick points.

    I think one of the reasons John gets picked on is just that his is the most different within the four we have. It’s the whole “one of these things is not like the other” effect. His Gospel also seems more theological or creative, though I’m not so sure it is. And of course it is later.

    I’ve always found it ironic that most people’s favorite Gospel is the one that gets the most flack in “scholarly” circles.

    If I forget to deal more with this during that week, be sure to remind me!

Leave a comment