Session 2: The Gospel and the Evidence

Objectives:

• List the four gospels
• Identify the gospels as eye-witness testimonies and enter them into evidence
• Apply typical legal standards of eyewitness testimony to the gospel authors
• Decide whether these gospels can be counted as trustworthy evidence

• Who were the four writers of the gospels? How do we know?
• What type of document is a gospel, what is its purpose?
• On what basis was each gospel writer able to say the things they did? What sources did they have?
• How does a gospel stand up as a form of eyewitness testimony?

• Matthew: also known as Levi, he was one of the 12 disciples closest to Christ. His intimate knowledge of Jewish tradition informs his gospel with authenticity.
• Mark: also known as John Mark, he was a follower of Peter, who was his main source, and may have been part of the larger circle of followers of Christ (he was younger). His gospel was written earliest of the four and may have been used as source material for later evangelists. A document from 125 AD testifies to the authenticity of Mark as preserving faithfully Peter’s testimony.
• Luke: known as Paul’s beloved physician, he traveled with Paul and also knew intimate details about the life of Christ and His Mother. He was also a direct witness of the Resurrection with Cleopas on the road to Emmaus.
• John: also known as the disciple whom Jesus loved, he was the youngest of the twelve disciples and lived the longest. He may have had an editor or a scribe taking dictation to help him in his gospel, but it was his material.

• Literary: in ancient times, biographies were written to describe the active life of the person, when they made their impact. There were not theories of personal formation rooted in psychology that we find today. Basically, those years were not considered that significant to history.
• Theological: The gospels give the most attention in their later chapters to the short period of time leading up to the Crucifixion and Resurrection. These, for the Christian are the most relevant because these are the basis of our salvation.

• Most scholarly dating puts Mark in the 70’s, Matthew and Luke in the 80’s, and John in the 90’s. This is all within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses or shortly after their martyrdoms, and within 50 or so years of the life of Christ.
• It is actually like that these materials were present in some written form even before these dates for several reasons. The book of Acts written by Luke ends abruptly with Paul in prison. We know that we was killed in Rome around AD 62. If the book was written after that fact, why wasn’t it included? If Acts, the sequel to Luke, was written before AD 62, then so must have been Luke, Mark and Matthew. That means the gospels were possibly written as early as the 50’s. For ancient history, that’s as close as you’ll find!
• Compare our history of Alexander the Great. His biography was written nearly 400 years after his death, yet historians still consider the biography trustworthy.
• Paul’s epistles were written even earlier and they support the basic facts of the gospels. Consider 1 Corinthians 15: 3-8: 3For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. This corroborates much of the earliest gospels main events and was written around AD 55—but the time at which Paul “received” this early creed would have been as early as AD 35!

• The Gospel of Q is a hypothetical body of sayings or teachings attributed to Christ which are found in Matthew and Luke but not so much in Mark. Some scholars have theorized that Matthew and Luke constructed their gospel out of Mark’s basic outline and then added the Q sayings to fill out the teaching aspect. It is not really another gospel per se, but a set of source materials and oral traditions that would have naturally existed at the time.
• The Q materials do not contradict the Mark materials, or change the picture of Christ. They are in harmony.
• It only makes sense that the other evangelists would check their story line against Mark’s gospel, considered by them as faithful to Peter’s witness. Peter was the leader and one of the most intimate disciples to Christ.

• The Synoptic Gospels are Matthew, Mark, and Luke, because they all follow the basic pattern and very similar. John does not use the same structure and often relates entirely different material. Some scholars have argued over whether this means they contradict one another. They do not. Ideas that are explicit in John, such as the divinity of Jesus Christ, can also be found in the other Gospels.
• One way to think about the differing structures is to compare them like any other form of literature. It is as if the Synoptics were poetry written in Iambic Pentameter, while John is written in the form of a Haiku. Both are poetry, but both sound and look very different.

• How have your opinions been influenced by people who have shared eyewitness accounts?
• What are some ways that you test the reliability of whether someone is being honest or accurate?
• How do you think the gospels would stand up to those tests?