Gospel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Four Gospels" redirects here. For other uses, see The Four Gospels (disambiguation).

For other uses, see Gospel (disambiguation).

The first page of the Gospel of Mark inArmenian, by Sargis Pitsak, 14th century.

A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus ofNazareth. The most widely
known examples are the four canonical gospels ofMatthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but the term is also used to
refer to apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels.

Christianity traditionally places a high value on the four canonical gospels, which it considers to be a revelation
from God and central to its belief system.[1] Christians teach that the four canonical gospels are an accurate
and authoritative representation of the life of Jesus,[2] but many scholars believe that not everything contained
in the gospels is historically reliable.[3] For example, according to Linda Woodhead, "the gospels’ birth and
resurrection narratives can be explained as attempts to fit Jesus’ life into the logic of Jewish expectation". [4]

Contents

  [hide] 

 1 Etymology

 2 Usage
 3 Development and composition

 4 Synoptic gospels

 5 Canonical gospels

o 5.1 Origin

 5.1.1 Dating

 5.1.2 Location

 5.1.3 Oral tradition

o 5.2 Historicity

o 5.3 Content

o 5.4 Genre

 6 Non-canonical gospels

o 6.1 Jewish-Christian gospels

o 6.2 Gospel of Thomas

o 6.3 Gospel of Peter

o 6.4 Gospel of Judas

o 6.5 "Q" sayings collection

o 6.6 Infancy gospels

o 6.7 Harmonies

o 6.8 Marcion's Gospel of Luke

 7 Islamic view

 8 See also

 9 References

 10 Further references
 11 External links

Etymology[edit]

Part of a series on

Christianity

 Jesus
 Christ

[show]

 Bible
 Foundations

[show]

Theology[show]

 History
 Tradition

[show]

Related topics[show]

Denominations
Groups

[show]

 Christianity Portal

 V

 T

 E

Main article:  Good News (Christianity)

The word gospel derives from the Old English gōd-spell [5] (rarely godspel), meaning "good news" or "glad
tidings". The word comes from the Greek euangelion, or "good news".[6] The gospel was considered the "good
news" of the coming Kingdom ofMessiah, and of redemption through the life and death of Jesus, the central
Christian message.[7]

Gospel is a calque (word-for-word translation) of the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον,euangelion (eu- "good", -

angelion "message") or in Aramaic (‫ ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ‬ewang'eliyawn). The Greek word euangelion is also the source

(via Latinised evangelium) of the terms "evangelist" and "evangelism" in English. The authors of the four
canonical Christian gospels are known as the Four Evangelists.

Usage[edit]

Paul the Apostle used the term εὐαγγέλιον (gospel) when he reminded the people of the church at Corinth "of
the gospel I preached to you".[8] The earliest extant use of "gospel" to denote a
particular genre of literature dates to the 2nd century. Justin Martyr (c. 155) in the Apology wrote of "...the
apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels". [9]

More generally, gospels compose a genre of early Christian writings.[10] Gospels that did not become canonical
also circulated in Early Christianity. Many, such as the work known today as Gospel of Thomas, lack the
narrative framework typical of a gospel.[11]

The word in common usage refers specifically to the four books selected as canon by the early church (see
below).[citation needed]

Development and composition[edit]

John Riches states that, "Many scholars doubt that the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses as their
attributions seem to suggest: there is too much evidence of reworking oral traditions and of straight borrowing
from other Gospels to make this likely." [12]For example, the vast majority of material in Mark is also present in
either Luke or Matthew or both, suggesting that Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke.

The four canonical gospels "were probably all written by the end of the first century". [13] But they did not yet at
that time have a consistent narrative. "In 170 Tatian sought to find a solution by composing a single narrative
out of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, with some additional oral material." [14]

According to Linda Woodhead,

Christian gospels are also propaganda. They tell their readers (or hearers) that Jesus was something special,
and they expect them to respond accordingly. No neutral stance is possible in relation to a gospel. Depending
on your response, its message will turn out either to be good news for you – or bad. [15]
The gospel passages themselves can be unclear, and some of the messages within are "straightforwardly
ambiguous" and intended to be "metaphorical" or "poetic".[16]

Synoptic gospels[edit]

Main article:  synoptic gospels

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are considered synoptic gospels on the basis of many similarities
between them that are not shared by the Gospel of John. "Synoptic" means here that they can be "seen" or
"read together," indicating the many parallels that exist among the three. The synoptic gospels are the source
of many popular stories, parables, and sermons, such as Jesus' humble birth in Bethlehem, the Sermon on the
Mount, the Beatitudes, the Last Supper, and the Great Commission.

The fourth gospel, the Gospel of John, presents a very different picture of Jesus and his ministry from the
synoptics.[17] In differentiating history from invention, some historians interpret the gospel accounts
skeptically[18] but generally regard the synoptic gospels as including significant amounts of historically reliable
information about Jesus.[18]

Canonical gospels[edit]

Main article:  Development of the New Testament canon

Events in the

Life of Jesus
according to the Gospels

Early life[show]

Ministry[show]

Passion[show]

Resurrection[show]
 In rest of the NT[show]

Portals:   Christianity   Bible

 V

 T

 E

Of the many gospels written in antiquity, only four gospels came to be accepted as part of theNew Testament,
or canonical. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme
of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various early
Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Marcionism which used only Marcion's version of Luke, or
the Ebionites which seem to have used an Aramaic version of Matthew as well as groups that embraced the
texts of newer writings, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11).

Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four "Pillars of the Church": "it is not possible that there
can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic theanalogy of the four corners of the earth
and the four winds (3.11.8). His image, taken fromEzekiel 1, or Revelation 4:6–10, of God's throne borne by
four creatures with four faces—"the four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and the
four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle"—equivalent to the "four-
formed" gospel, is the origin of the conventional symbols of the Evangelists: lion, bull, eagle, man. Irenaeus
was ultimately successful in declaring that the four gospels collectively, and exclusively these four, contained
the truth. He also supported reading each gospel in light of the others.

By the turn of the 5th century, the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical
canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at
a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of
Carthage (397 and 419).[19] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in
the Vulgate, an early 5th-century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[20] under the commission of Pope
Damasus I in 382.

1. Gospel of Matthew

2. Gospel of Mark

3. Gospel of Luke

4. Gospel of John
There was also another order, the "western order of the gospels", so called because it is typical for the
manuscripts which are usually a representative of the Western text-type.

1. Gospel of Matthew

2. Gospel of John

3. Gospel of Luke

4. Gospel of Mark

This order is found in the following manuscripts: Bezae, Monacensis, Washingtonianus, Tischendorfianus

IV, Uncial 0234. Although there is no set order of the four gospels in patristic lists or discussions, [21] D. Moody
Smith suggests that the standard order of Matthew-Mark-Luke-John "projects a kind of intention that can
scarcely be ignored".[22]

In what he calls a "mild form of reader criticism", Greg Goswell suggests a possible rationale that
"the commission at the end of Matthew (28:20) is in part fulfilled by the subsequent gospels (and letters)" while
for Luke,

The preface to Luke (1:1–4) is a possible explanation for that Gospel’s canonical placement after Matthew and
Mark, for its non-pejorative reference to previous "attempts" (επεχειρησαν) at writing an account of what Jesus
said and did can be understood in canonical context as referring to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. [21]

Goswell concludes by suggesting that the self-reference to "this book" in John 20:30, "can be taken as an
implicit acknowledgment of other books, namely the three preceding Gospels".[21]

Medieval copies of the four canonical gospels are known as Gospel Books or also simply as Gospels (in Greek
as Tetraevangelia). Notable examples include the Lindisfarne Gospels (c. 700), the Barberini Gospels, Lichfield
Gospels and the Vienna Coronation Gospels (8th century), the Book of Kells and the Ada Gospels (c. 800) or
the Ebbo Gospels (9th century).

Origin[edit]
Main article:  Synoptic problem

Main article:  Oral gospel traditions

Biblical scholars generally agree that early oral traditions about Jesus, along with collections of accounts,
preceded the canonical gospels.[citation needed] The dedicatory preface of the Gospel of Luke testifies to the
existence of several accounts of the life of Jesus by the time of its composition. [23] The term Luke uses
(διήγησις diēgēsis) is a term used in classical Greek for any historical narrative.[24]
The term "gospel" is not used in the New Testament text for any of the canonical Gospels, although in later
centuries a traditional reading of 2 Corinthians 8:18, "the brother, whose praise is the Gospel", was to
sometimes identify this with Luke, and consequently the Gospel of Luke. [25] The majority view today is that Mark
is the first gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that gospel and from at least one
other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q' (from German:Quelle, meaning "source"). This
view is known as the "two-source hypothesis".[26] The two-gospel hypothesis, in contrast, says that Matthew
was written first (by Matthew the Apostle), and then Luke the Evangelist wrote his gospel (using Matthew as his
main source) before Mark the Evangelist wrote his gospel (using Peter's testimony). John was written last and
shares little with the synoptic gospels.

The gospels were apparently composed in stages. Mark's traditional ending (Mark 16:9–20, see Mark 16) was
most likely composed early in the 2nd century and appended to Mark in the middle of that century. [27] The birth
and infancy narratives apparently developed late in the tradition. [28] Luke and Matthew may have originally
appeared without their first two chapters.[28]

The consensus among biblical scholars is that all four canonical gospels were originally written in Greek,
the lingua franca of the Roman Orient.[29][30][31][32][33]

Dating[edit]

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence
for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th
century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose
likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the
consensus [34]) view as follows:


Mark: c. 68–73,[35] c. 65–70.[36]


Matthew: c. 70–100,[35] c. 80–85.[36]


Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, [35] c. 80–85.[36]

 John: c. 90–100,[36] c. 90–110,[37] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one
date of composition.

Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the
end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts mentions neither the death
of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles and who, according to the ecclesiastical
tradition transmitted by Eusebius, was put to death by the Romans shortly before AD 68,[38] nor any other event
post AD 62, notably the Neronian persecution of AD 64–65 that had such impact on the early church. [39]

Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, which is believed to have been written before Acts, and
therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50s. Here are the
dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible:

 Matthew: c. 50 to 70s

 Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s

 Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s

 John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In Redating the New Testament John A. T. Robinson,
a prominent liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem in
AD 70. Few academic scholars, however, take Robinson's work seriously. For example, Raymond Brown of the
Union Theological Seminary specifically rejects "Bishop John A.T. Robinson's maverick attempt." [40] J.V.M.
Sturdy said regarding Robinson's work that he "one sidedly ignores difficulties for his views, steamrollers the
evidence, again and again advances from an improbable possibility to a certainty." [41]

Location[edit]

Matthew was probably written in Syria, perhaps in Antioch,[36] an ancient Christian center. Mark has traditionally
been associated with Peter's preaching in Rome, and it is well-suited to a Roman audience.[36] Various cities
have been proposed for the origin of Luke, but there is no consensus on the matter. Ephesus, in Western
Anatolia, is a popular scholarly choice for the place of origin for the Gospel of John. [36]

Following Raymond Brown's postulation of a Johannine community having been responsible for John's gospel
and letters,[42] other scholars have identified localized communities behind each of the other gospels and Q.
This assumes the relative isolation of early Christian communities in which distinctive traditions concerning
Jesus throve. Other scholars have questioned this hypothesis and have stressed the constant communication
between early Christian communities.[43][44][45][46]

Oral tradition[edit]
Main article:  Oral gospel traditions

One of the most important concerns in accurately accounting for an oral Jesus tradition is the model of
transmission used. Form criticism (Formgeschichte) was developed primarily by the German scholars Karl
Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann.[47][48][49] The oral model developed by the form critics
drew heavily on contemporary theory of folkloric transmission of oral material, and partly as a result of this form
criticism posited that the Jesus tradition was transmitted informally, added to freely, and was uncontrolled.
[50]
 However, "Today it is no exaggeration to claim that a whole spectrum of main assumptions underlying
Bultmann's Synoptic Tradition must be considered suspect." [51]

A number of other models have been proposed which posit greater control over the tradition, to varying
degrees. For example, largely in response to form critical scholarship, Birger Gerhardsson examined oral
transmission in early rabbinic circles, and proposed that a more controlled and formal model of orality would
more accurately reflect the transmission of the Jesus tradition inearly Christian circles, and therefore that the
oral traditions present in the gospels have been fairly reliably and faithfully transmitted. [52] However, other
scholars contend that early rabbinic transmissions were not all that concerned with historicity and were not
"controlled" until 70 CE.[53] Kenneth E. Bailey (Asia Journal of Theology 5, 1991), after spending a great deal of
time in remote and illiterate villages in the Middle East, used his experience with orality in such places to
formulate a similar model of controlled transmission within the early Christian communities, but posited an
informal mechanism of control.[50]

Controlled models of the Jesus tradition, and with them an evaluation of the gospels as possessing greater
historical reliability, have been accepted by some scholars in recent years. [54][55][56] However Thomas R. Yoder
Neufeld (2007) adds that the early followers of Jesus were not interested in simply preserving the past but were
also interested in fitting the narratives to suit urgent information, audience interest and creativity in
communication and believed that they were in direct communication with Jesus though the Holy Spirit, thus
making it still difficult for historians to assess the historical reliability of the oral tradition. [57] With regards to
Kenneth E. Bailey's studies, Maurice Casey (2010) writes that they cannot be applied to 1st century Jews as
they were about a different culture at a different time. [58]

Historicity[edit]
Main article:  Historical reliability of the Gospels

The historicity of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four canonical New Testament
gospels as historical documents. Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate
authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations. Some
Christian scholars maintain that the gospels are inerrantdescriptions of the life of Jesus,[59] and some authors
assert that all four of the Gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability. [18] On the other extreme, some
scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus' life since the first
gospel account (Mark) may have appeared as much as forty years after Jesus' death. [60]

There are positions between these extremes. Some biblical scholars consider the synoptic gospels to contain
much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher [61][62] and of the religious
movement he founded, but not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable.
[63]
 Reza Aslan asserts that "the gospels are not, nor were they ever meant to be, a historical documentation of
Jesus’s life. These are not eyewitness accounts of Jesus’s words and deeds recorded by people who knew
him. They are testimonies of faith composed by communities of faith written many years after the events they
describe. Simply put, the gospels tell us about Jesus the Christ, not Jesus the man.” [64]

The baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus are deemed to be historically authentic.[citation
needed]
 Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as
well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection. [65][66][67][68][69][70] The fourth gospel, John, includes
a number of historically reliable details, but it differs greatly from the first three gospels, and historians largely
discount it.[citation needed]

Content[edit]
The four gospels present different narratives, reflecting different intents on the parts of their authors. [71]

All four gospels portray Jesus as leading a group of disciples, performing miracles, preaching in Jerusalem,
being crucified, andrising from the dead.

The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the
coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He
states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke). [72] In Mark,
apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions,
including agony.[36] In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the
fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.[36]

In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor. [36] Luke emphasizes the
importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.[73] Jesus
appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion. [71] Like Matthew, Luke insists that
salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only. [73][74]

The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables,
talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming.[36] Jesus preaches in
Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple. He performs several miracles as signs, most
of them not found in the synoptics. The Gospel of John ends:(21:25) "And there are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not
contain the books that should be written. Amen."

Genre[edit]
One important aspect of the study of the gospels is the genre under which they fall. Genre "is a key convention
guiding both the composition and the interpretation of writings. [75] " Whether the gospel authors set out to write
novels, myths, histories, or biographies has a tremendous impact on how they ought to be interpreted. If, for
example, Rudolf Bultmann was correct, and the gospel authors had no interest in history or in a historical
Jesus,[49] then the gospels must be read and interpreted in this light. However, some recent studies suggest
that the genre of the gospels ought to be situated within the realm of ancient biography. [76][77][78][79][80] Although
not without critics,[81] the position that the gospels are a type of ancient biography is the consensus among
scholars today.[82]

Non-canonical gospels[edit]

Main article:  New Testament apocrypha

In addition to the four canonical gospels, early Christians wrote other gospels that were not accepted into the
canon, some of which are discussed below.

Jewish-Christian gospels[edit]
Main articles: Jewish-Christian gospels,  Gospel of the Nazarenes,  Gospel of the Ebionites, and Gospel of the
Hebrews

Epiphanius, Jerome and other early church fathers preserve in their writings citations from Jewish-Christian
gospels. Most modern critical scholars consider that the extant citations suggest at least two and probably
three distinct works.[83]

Gospel of Thomas[edit]
Main article:  Gospel of Thomas

The gospel attributed to Thomas is mostly wisdom without narrating Jesus' life. The Oxford Dictionary of the
Christian Church says that the original may date from c. 150.[84] It may represent a tradition independent from
the canonical gospels, but that developed over a long time and was influenced by Matthew and Luke. [84]

While it can be understood in Gnostic terms, it lacks the characteristic features of Gnostic doctrine. [84] The
Jesus Seminar identified two of its unique parables, the parable of the empty jar and the parable of the
assassin.[85] It had been lost but was discovered, in a Coptic version dating from c. 350, at Nag Hammadi in
1945–46, and three papyri, dated to c. 200, which contain fragments of a Greek text similar to but not identical
with that in the Coptic language, have also been found. [84]

Gospel of Peter[edit]
Main article:  Gospel of Peter

The gospel of Peter was likely written in the first half of the 2nd century. [86][87] It seems to be largely legendary,
hostile toward Jews, and including docetic elements.[86] It had been lost but was rediscovered in the 19th
century.[86]
Gospel of Judas[edit]
Main article:  Gospel of Judas

The Gospel of Judas is another controversial and ancient text that purports to tell the story of the gospel from
the perspective of Judas, the disciple who is usually said to have betrayed Jesus. It paints an unusual picture of
the relationship between Jesus and Judas, in that it appears to interpret Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather
as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. The text was recovered from a cave in Egypt by a thief and
thereafter sold on the black market until it was finally discovered by a collector who, with the help of academics
from Yale and Princeton, was able to verify its authenticity. The document itself does not claim to have been
authored by Judas (it is, rather, a gospel about Judas), and is known to date to at least 180 AD. [88]

"Q" sayings collection[edit]

Main article:  Q document

According to scholars proposing the existence of a hypothetical sayings-source, a Redensquelle, "Q" (following
the terminology ofJohannes Weiss) at some time there existed a document composed mostly of sayings of
Jesus with little narrative. It is presumed the source for many of Jesus' sayings in Matthew and Luke, and
accordingly must have preceded these gospels. It is believed that the earliest form of the sayings were written
c. 50–60.[89] However Mark Goodacre and other scholars have questioned the existence of a Q document. [90]

Infancy gospels[edit]
Main article:  Infancy gospel

A genre of "Infancy gospels" (Greek: protoevangelion) arose in the 2nd century, such as the Gospel of James,
which introduces the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be
confused with the absolutely different sayings Gospel of Thomas), both of which related many miraculous
incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels.

Harmonies[edit]
Main article:  gospel harmony

Another genre is that of gospel harmonies, in which the four canonical gospels were selectively recast as a
single narrative to present a consistent text. Very few fragments of harmonies have survived.
The Diatessaron was such a harmonization, compiled byTatian around 175. It was popular for at least two
centuries in Syria, but eventually it fell into disuse.

Marcion's Gospel of Luke[edit]

Main article:  Gospel of Marcion

Marcion of Sinope, c. 150, had a version of the gospel of Luke which differed substantially from that which has
now become the standard text. Marcion's version was far less Jewish than the now canonical text, and his
critics alleged that he had edited out the portions he didn't like from the canonical version, though Marcion
argued that his text was the more genuinely original one. Marcion also rejected all the other gospels, including
Matthew, Mark and especially John, which he alleged had been forged by Irenaeus.

Islamic view[edit]

Main article:  Injil

The Injil (Arabic: ‫ )إنجيل‬is the Arabic name for what Muslims believe to be the original gospel of Jesus.
This Injil is one of the fourIslamic Holy Books the Qur'an records as revealed by God, the others being
the Zabur (the Psalms), the Tawrat (the Torah, or Tanakh), and the Qur'an.

Muslims believe this original gospel to have been corrupted over time, and the teachings of Jesus lost and
replaced with false teachings, often believed to be at the instigation of the Apostle Paul. Muslims believe that
the four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and lost gospels, such as that of Saint Peter,
contain fragments of Jesus' message, but that the majority of the original teaching has been corrupted or lost.