Much has been made of the differences between the four Gospels but few realize how the different focus and emphasis of each of the writers contribute to an overall portrait of Jesus.


Introduction: The underlying assumption of the liberal scholars who reject the historicity of the Gospels is their belief that these documents were composed over one hundred years after the events of Jesus' life and death. The scholars call the period between the death of Christ and the writing of the Gospels the formative period. The popular German Tubingen school of thought or theory is that the Gospels were edited by unknown Christian redactors to create new theological statements that Jesus never uttered. They suggest that these Gospel accounts were mainly myths or religious legends that developed during the lengthy interval between the lifetime of Jesus and the time these accounts were set down in writing. While this attitude is extremely widespread in liberal universities and seminaries, the evidence produced in the last fifty years provides powerful proof that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus of Nazareth.

If liberal scholars applied the same arbitrary standard of rejection of all historical evidence to other ancient historical personages, such as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great, they would be forced to reject all history as myth.



Authorship: Were the gospels written by the people they have been attributed to?

The most important testimony to the genuine authorship of the gospels comes from Papais, writing in about A.D. 125. He said that Mark accurately recorded Peterâ??s eyewitness observations and that â??Mark made no mistakeâ?? nor any â??false statementâ??. He also said that Mark had recorded the teaching of Jesus as well. This was confirmed by Irenaeus in about A.D. 180.

â??Matthew published his own the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark the disciple annd interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us writing the substance of Peterâ??s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asiaâ??.

The early church was unanimous in their belief that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector, Mark the companion of Paul, and Luke the physician wrote three of the Gospels. The only question ever raised was about the fourth Gospel. Papais referred to â??John the elderâ??, and â??John the apostleâ?? and it is not clear whether he is talking about one person or two. However the rest of the testimony is clear that John, the son of Zebedee was the author of John.

When the apocryphal gospels were written later on the authors picked names of exemplary and well-known figures like Mary, James, Philip etc, whose names carried a lot more weight than Matthew, Mark and Luke. This was not the case with the original four Gospels. Matthew in particular was a former hated tax collector and it is unlike that another author would have used his name as a pseudonym.



Authorship: Were the gospels written by the people they have been attributed to?

The most important testimony to the genuine authorship of the gospels comes from Papais, writing in about A.D. 125. He said that Mark accurately recorded Peterâ??s eyewitness observations and that â??Mark made no mistakeâ?? nor any â??false statementâ??. He also said that Mark had recorded the teaching of Jesus as well. This was confirmed by Irenaeus in about A.D. 180.

â??Matthew published his own the Hebrews in their own tongue, when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure, Mark the disciple annd interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us writing the substance of Peterâ??s preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast, himself produced his Gospel while he was living at Ephesus in Asiaâ??.

The early church was unanimous in their belief that Matthew (Levi) the tax collector, Mark the companion of Paul, and Luke the physician wrote three of the Gospels. The only question ever raised was about the fourth Gospel. Papais referred to â??John the elderâ??, and â??John the apostleâ?? and it is not clear whether he is talking about one person or two. However the rest of the testimony is clear that John, the son of Zebedee was the author of John.

When the apocryphal gospels were written later on the authors picked names of exemplary and well-known figures like Mary, James, Philip etc, whose names carried a lot more weight than Matthew, Mark and Luke. This was not the case with the original four Gospels. Matthew in particular was a former hated tax collector and it is unlike that another author would have used his name as a pseudonym

Archaeologists found a fragment of a copy of John 18 that has been dated to about A.D. 125, doing away with the theory that John was composed in the second century, too long after Jesusâ?? death to be reliable.

The continuing historical research provides overwhelming proof that the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written within forty years of the Cross. The importance of this fact cannot be overestimated. Archeologists had discovered numerous early papyri manuscript portions of the four Gospels in Egypt and Syria that were written between a.d. 32 and the beginning of the second century. These early manuscripts closed the gap between the time of the Cross and the previously known Gospel manuscripts from the second century. Professor William F. Albright, an outstanding biblical archaeologist, concluded in 1955, "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after circa a.d. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

In contrast, although the Gathas of Zoroaster, about 1000 B.C. are believed to be authentic, most of the Zoroastrian scriptures were not put into writing until after the 3rd century A.D.

Muhammad lived from A.D. 570 to 632 his biography was not written until 767, more than a century after his death.

Buddha lived in the 6th century B.C. but his first biography was written after the advent of the Christian era.

Early Quotes By the Church Fathers

Irenaeus: (130 to 202 A.D.) He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He quotes from 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament. He makes over 1800 quotes from the New Testament alone.

Clement of Alexandria: (150 to 215 A.D.) He cites all the New Testament books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian: (160 to 220 A.D.) He makes over 7200 New Testament citations.

Origen: (185 to 254 A.D.) he succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. he makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations.



Fact or Fiction? Did legend turn Jesus from a wise man into the Son of God?

The two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great, written by Arrian and Plutarch date back to more than 400 years after the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. They are generally considered by historians to be accurate. The legendary stories about Alexander did not develop until centuries after these two authors.

Another fact to be considered is that all four of the Gospels were written after Paul wrote most of his letters, most of which appear in the early 50â??s. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30, Paul was converted in about A.D. 32 and met with the apostles in Jerusalem some three years later. At about this time Paul was given the early creed of the church, which was already in use. Two of these are Philippians 2:6-11 where Paul states that Jesus was â??in the form of Godâ?? and that â??every tongue should confess that Jesus is Lordâ??. In Colossians 1:15-20 he says, â??that by Jesus all things were created, both through and for Himâ??. In 1Corinthians 15 Paul uses technical language to pass along what had already become an oral tradition. This â??creedâ?? being used in the early church no more than five years after the event, centers on the Resurrection, which is the core belief of Christianity.



Motive. Did the Gospel writer intend to preserve history or did they have a hidden agenda?

The preface the Gospel of Luke reads very much like the prefaces of other ancient historical and biographical works, while John says that the things he wrote were so that people would believe that â??Jesus is the Christ, the Son of Godâ?¦â??. Matthew and Mark have no preface whatsoever but since they are very close to Lukeâ??s account in terms of content the intent to faithfully record history is not in question. In addition to this all four Gospels have been written with a marked lack of embellishment seen in a lot of ancient writing. While there is always the possibility of the four writers embroidering the facts to make the story sound better all they stood to gain was criticism, certainly there was no financial gain involved. Considering the state of affairs in Israel at the time and that they had just witnessed their beloved leader crucified, there was probably a lot of pressure on them to forget the last three years had ever happened. History tells us that they were willing to live out their beliefs to death. Ten of the eleven were hideously executed for what they believed in. It is hard to explain how a movement grew around a man who had died by crucifixion, which was the most horrible fate than anyone could conceive of and looked on by the Jews as a â??curseâ??.



Reliability: Did faulty memory and the development of legend change the accounts of Jesusâ?? life and sayings?

Anyone who has read â??Rootsâ?? is aware that in many ancient cultures there was a very strong oral tradition. Many of the rabbis had the entire Old Testament committed to memory. It therefore stands to reason that it was well within the ability of the disciples to consign to memory much more than appears in all four of the Gospels. In these ancient traditions there was some flexibility as to how much the re-telling of the stories could vary. There were certain core points that could not be changed and had they been so, the story- tellers would have been corrected by their audience many of whom had the same traditions memorized. In studies of this tradition in the ancient Middle East, ten to forty percent of the story varied from one telling to the other, which is exactly the same amount of differences between the Gospels. However the nucleus of the Gospel are identical. In fact the divergence of detail suggests credibility since fictitious accounts tend to be much more consistent and in accord with one another. Even in the modern world accounts, which are totally free of any discrepancy, are treated with skepticism. There is enough substantial agreement between the Gospels to show that they were all narrators of the same events.

It has been claimed that the early Christians believed that they received â??messagesâ?? or â??propheciesâ?? from the risen Lord and that, over a period of time, these messages blended in with the actual sayings of Jesus spoken while He was physically on earth. The early church had to deal with a number of controversies regarding the role of women, circumcision, speaking in tongues etc. None of these problems were dealt with by writing what Jesus said from beyond the grave into the Gospels. The controversies continued. Additionally Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 makes a clear distinction between â??A Word from the Lordâ?? and when he is quoting the gospels. John is equally clear in Revelation.



Belief: Did The Disciples Believe What They said and Wrote:

While many a man will die for what he believes in, no one will die for what he knows to be a lie. Although we can not verify every detail historically, the universal belief of the early Christian writers was that each of the apostles had faced martyrdom faithfully without denying their faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The details of the martyrdom of the disciples and apostles are found in traditional early church sources. These traditions were recounted in the writings of the church fathers and the first official church history, Ecclesiastical History, written by the historian Eusebius in A.D. 325. While ancient tradition is unreliable as to small details, it very seldom contains outright inventions.

Matthew suffered martyrdom in Ethiopia, killed by a sword wound.

Mark died in Alexandria, Egypt, after being dragged by horses through the streets until dead.

Luke was hanged in Greece as a result of his tremendous preaching to the lost.

John faced martyrdom when he was boiled in a huge basin of boiling oil during a wave of persecution in Rome. However, he was miraculously delivered from death. John was then sentenced to the mines on the prison island of Patmos. He wrote his prophetic Book of Revelation on Patmos. The apostle John was later freed and returned to serve as Bishop of Edessa in modern Turkey. He died as an old man, the only apostle to die peacefully.

Peter was crucified upside down on an x-shaped cross, according to church tradition because he told his tormentors that he felt unworthy to die in the same way that Jesus Christ had died. The tradition of the early Church recorded that as Peter was being led to his crucifixion he was heard to say, "None but Christ, none but Christ."

James the Just, the leader of the church in Jerusalem, was thrown over a hundred feet down from the southeast pinnacle of the Temple when he refused to deny his faith in Christ. When they discovered that he survived the fall, his enemies beat James to death with a fuller's club. This was the same pinnacle where Satan had taken Jesus during the Temptation.

James the Greater, a son of Zebedee, was a fisherman by trade when Jesus called him to a lifetime of ministry. As a strong leader of the church, James was ultimately beheaded at Jerusalem. The Roman officer who guarded James watched amazed as James defended his faith at his trial. Later, the officer walked beside James to the place of execution. Overcome by conviction, he declared his new faith to the judge and knelt beside James to accept beheading as a Christian.

Bartholomew, also known as Nathanael, was a missionary to Asia, in present day Turkey. Bartholomew was martyred for his preaching in Armenia when he was flayed to death by a whip.

Andrew was crucified on an x-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. After being whipped severely by seven soldiers they tied his body to the cross with cords to prolong his agony. His followers reported that, when he was led toward the cross, Andrew saluted it in these words: "I have long desired and expected this happy hour. The cross has been consecrated by the body of Christ hanging on it." He continued to preach to his tormentors for two days until he expired.

The apostle Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India during one of his missionary trips to establish the church in the sub-continent.

Jude, the brother of Jesus, was killed with arrows when he refused to deny his faith in Christ.

Matthias, the apostle chosen to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot, was stoned and then beheaded.

Barnabas, one of the group of seventy disciples, wrote the Epistle of Barnabas. He preached throughout Italy and Cyprus. Barnabas was stoned to death at Salonica.

The apostle Paul was tortured and then beheaded by the Emperor Nero at Rome in A.D. 67. Paul endured a lengthy imprisonment which allowed him to write his many epistles to the churches he had formed throughout the Roman Empire.

Another great leader of the early Church was Polycarp who was martyred at the age of 86 by being burned alive before an audience of thousands in the amphitheatre in the city of Smyrna. When the Roman governor demanded that the aged bishop deny his faith in Jesus and worship the emperor to save his life. Polycarp refused the invitation to save his life by blaspheming Christ and denying his faith in these timeless words, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me wrong; and how can I now blaspheme my King who has saved me?"



Discrepancies: There are numerous points on which the Gospels disagree however what many critics of both the Old and New Testament fail to see is none of the authors were secretary to the Holy Spirit and used different sources, literary styles or wrote from different perspectives.



Historical Corroboration? Were any of the gospel accounts substantiated by non-Christian sources?

Although ancient Jewish writers disputed the source of Jesusâ?? power they called Him a sorcerer who led Israel astray in the Talmud. In other words they acknowledged that He performed miracles, an interesting affirmation of the Gospels. The fledgling church started in Jerusalem just a few days after Jesus was crucified which would have made it impossible for them to exaggerate the things He said or did.

Josephus a Jew and a Pharisee who was a very important historian of the day completed The Antiquities (a history of the Jewish people) about A.D. 93. One of Josephusâ?? writings about Jesus has been hotly contested through the ages. Called the Testimonium Flavianum it says,

â??About this time there lived a Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christâ?¦When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, has condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to then restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe if Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappearedâ??.

The vast majority of scholars familiar with the works of Josephus have agreed than the passage, as a whole, is authentic but that there are certain phrases which Josephus would probably not have used. For example â??if indeed one ought to call him a manâ?? has probably been inserted by Christian copyists. It is also unlikely that Josephus would have flatly stated that Jesus was â??The Christâ??. However Josephus corroborates that Jesus was the martyred leader of the Jerusalem church and that He had an ample and durable following.

In The Anitiquities Josephus says,

â??He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stonedâ??.

No scholar has successfully disputed this passage.

Tacitus a Roman historian and governor of Asia [Turkey] in A.D. 112. He was a personal friend of the historian Pliny the Younger. He is generally considered a reliable historian, explicitly states that Nero persecuted Christians to draw attention away from himself as the cause of the great fire, which devastated Rome. He states

â??To suppress therefore the common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishments upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known as Christians. They had their denomination from Christus [Christ], who in the reign of Tiberius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached the city [Rome] alsoâ??. (Annals of Imperial Rome, XV 44).â??.

In this account Tacitus unwittingly gave credence to the belief of the early church that Jesus had been crucified then rose from the grave. He also confirms that the Christians were despised, hated, and falsely accused of crimes, yet they rapidly grew to become a "vast multitude" in Rome itself (Annals XV 44). The hatred of the Christians by the Romans arose form their refusal to worship the pagan gods, and the Emperor Nero himself

Thallus, writing in A.D. 52 was quoted by Julius Africanus in about A.D. 221. Africanus says, (in reference to the Biblical claim that the earth went dark when Jesus hung on the cross)

â??Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to meâ??.

For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Saviour falls on the day before the passover; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun." (Thallus (Samaritan, 1st century) -Julius Africanus, Extant Writings 18, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 6).

Julius Africanus explained that Thallus' theory was unreasonable because an eclipse of the sun cannot occur at the same time there is a full moon. The moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun during full moon which would make a solar eclipse impossible at that time. This historical reference by the pagan historian Thallus confirmed the Gospel account regarding the miraculous darkness that covered the earth when Jesus was dying on the cross.

Tertullian said, "At the same time at noonday there was a great darkness. They thought it to be an eclipse, who did not know that this also was foretold concerning Christ. And some have denied it, not knowing the cause of such darkness. And yet you have that remarkable event recorded in your archives." (Roman archives that could still be consulted)

Eusebius..the Christian historian (A.D. 300) in his Chronicle quoted from Phlegon's sixteen volume Collection of Olympiads and Chronicles as follows:

â??All which things agree with what happened at the time of our Saviour's passion. And so writes Phlegon, and excellent compiler of the Olympiads in his thirteenth book, saying: â??In the fourth year of the two hundred and second Olympiad there was a great and extraordinary eclipse of the sun, distinguished among all that had happened before. At the sixth hour the day was turned into dark night, so that the stars in the heavens were seen, and there was an earthquake in Bithynia which overthrew many houses in the city of Nicaea.â?? So writes the above named author.

Had the Gospels never existed, secular sources would still have provided an outline of the life of Christ including what His followers believed about Him.



Scientific Corroboration? Does Archaeology Undermine the New Testament?

Luke is generally considered to be a reliable and accurate historian. Apart from the fact that he wrote as an educated and eloquent man with an almost classical knowledge of Greek, archaeology has supported many of the details he penned.

Luke 3:1 â??Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod being tetrarch of Galileeâ?¦ and Lysanias tetrarch of Abileneâ?? Everyone KNEW that Lysanias was not a tetrarch but rather the ruler of Chalcis some fifty year earlier. However, an inscription was later found from the time of Tiberius (A.D. 14 to 37) naming Lysanias as tetrarch in Abila near Damascusâ?¦. just as Luke had recorded. There had been two government officials named Lysanias.

Acts 17:6â?¦ â??They dragged Jason and some brethren to the politarchs of the cityâ?? (Politarchs has been translated as â??rulers of the city in the new King Jamesâ??). No evidence of the term â??politarchsâ?? has ever been found in any ancient Roman documents. However, since then archaeologists have found more than thirty-five inscriptions that mention politarchs, several of these in Thessalonsea from the same period Luke was referring to.

John 5:1-15 records an invalid healed by Jesus by the Pool of Bethesda and describes the pool as having five porticoes. No such place had ever been found until recently. The Pool of Bethesda lies about 40 feet below ground and has five porticoes. Also discovered were the Pool of Siloam from John 9:7, Jacobâ??s well from John 4:12 and a possible location of the Stone Pavement near the Jaffa Gate where Jesus had appeared before Pilate in John 19:13.

Luke 2:2 â??this census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syriaâ?? And official government order dated A.D. 104 states, â??Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt: seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their own homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the censusâ?¦â?? However it was believed that Herod died in 4 B.C. and Quirinius did not start ruling Syria until A.D. 6 until a coin was found with the name of Quirinius on it placing him as proconsul of Syria from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod. There were either two people by the same name or the one person ruled Syria on two separate occasions.

Nazareth. Is not mentioned in the Old Testament, by Paul, the Talmud or by Josephus, which has lead critics to believe that Nazareth did not exist in the first century. However, a list in Aramaic has been found of the priests who were relocated after Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70. One priest was registered as having been moved to Nazareth, which could not have been more than sixty acres. John 1:46 quotes Nathaniel as saying, â??Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?â??

Matthew 11:3-5 the imprisoned John the Baptist sent his followers to ask Jesus if He was â??The Coming One, or do we look for another?â?? Jesusâ?? enigmatic answer was, â??Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk: the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear: the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to themâ?? Jesus was quoting the words of Isaiah 61, with the addition of the phrase, â??the dead are raisedâ?? which is not in Isaiah 61. Interestingly, among The Dead Sea Scrolls a non-biblical manuscript written in Hebrew and dating back to thirty years before Jesus was born, contains a version of Isaiah 61 that does include the phrase â??the dead are raisedâ??. This would have been a very clear indication to John that Jesusâ?? appeal to Isaiah 61 is a confirmation that He indeed was the Messiah.



The Cohesive Whole

Much has been made of the differences between the four Gospels but few realize how the different focus and emphasis of each of the writers contribute to an overall portrait of Jesus. Each of the Gospel writers presents a different; yet equally significant â??sideâ?? of the Messiah, which, when brought together, form the sum total of who He was... The Messiah, A Human, A Servant and God Himself.

The Gospel of Matthew primarily focuses on Jesus as the Messiah who historically fulfilled the prophetic predictions and promises mentioned throughout the Old Testament Scriptures. This gospel was doubtless intended for the Jewish community.

The Gospel of Luke portrays Christ as the "Son of Man," that is, with an emphasis on the humanity of Christ, and it was written primarily to the Gentile world.

The Gospel of John has yet a different focus. John clearly identified that his primary purpose was to prove that Jesus was God Himself. When John wrote his gospel near the end of the first century, Gnostics and other sects were beginning to question the divine nature of Christ, and John's major intent in his Gospel was to answer these critics.

The Gospel of Mark was written to demonstrate Christ as the Servant: "For the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45).

(Which is why only Matthew and Luke give us both the genealogy of Christ and the Nativity account. It only made sense for them to do so as it would be important to establish both Messianic and human lineage. However the lineage of a "slave" or a "servant" is unimportant and it would have been irrelevant for Mark to {considering the servant perspective of Markâ??s gospel} mention the genealogy, Nativity or even the virgin birth.)



Johnâ??s Gospel

Critics contend that both the language and the events in the gospel of John are too different from the other three to be a description of the same man, forgetting that John deals largely with the early and late parts of Christâ??s ministry while the other Gospels focus on the middle and Galilean part of His ministry. However there is no substantial difference between Johnâ??s version of the crucifixion and the resurrection, Jesus walking on water, the feeding of the five thousand Etc., He also reports some of Jesusâ?? statements in exactly the same words as the Synoptics. (Mark 2:11 and John 5:8). At many point Johnâ??s recording of the substance of what Jesus said is unchanged from the other Gospels.

Matthewâ??s Jewish emphasis was on the long-awaited Messiah, Mark stressed that Jesus was a humble servant, Luke stressed Jesusâ?? humility and the focus of Johnâ??s Gospel was Jesusâ?? Deity. However Johnâ??s â??I Amâ?? statements is implied in the other Gospels... (See Matt 11:25-27, Luke 10:21-22, Mark 14:62).

Additionally the â??light versus darknessâ?? so well developed by John was common in Qumran thinking. There is little reason why John should not have chosen not to repeat material already available but to supplement the other three Gospels. (He noted, however, that Jesus did so much more that â??the world itself could not containâ??.