So here I am, parked in Mark, and I started wondering about the Gospels in general. Obviously they had different writers at different times, and were written with different emphases. A quick look at my handy-dandy Study Bible tells me that:

•  Matthew presents Jesus as King;
• Mark presents Jesus as Servant;
• Luke presents Jesus as the Son of Man;
• John presents Jesus as the Son of God.

Which probably seems a bit contradictory if you’re completely new to Bible study, but believe me it all starts to make sense after a while.

A couple of moments’ more research tells me that the Gospels were written in around AD 50, AD 68, AD 60, and AD 85-90 respectively, so they’re sorta kinda in chronological order (the church fathers who sorted the various books into the shape we know today probably weren’t quite sure about Mark and Luke, I suppose). And that the first three Gospels contain pretty much the same material, so they’re known as the Synoptic Gospels (synoptic = taking a common view).

Wowee. I now know about 50% more about the Gospels than I did five minutes ago. And this teaches me, dear Reader, that a study Bible is a good investment.

Parenthetically, my study Bible is a red-letter Bible, which means the words of Jesus are printed in red. The huge amount of red strewn across the pages of the Gospels tells me that what Jesus said was very important to the writers. And in fact, it was the words of Jesus that finally convinced me that the whole Christian thing was true – I’ve read an awful lot of fiction, and it’s clear to me that you couldn’t make this character up. Quite apart from the things He says, which are extremely impressive once you actually sit down and think about them, He’s obviously way, way smarter and more knowledgeable than the people who are actually writing the books. A genius writer will create genius characters; a writer of ordinary intelligence will create maybe slightly smarter characters, but only to a point; a very ordinary person could NOT come up with a fictional Jesus.

I also remember that in at least one place the writers make it clear that they are only really selecting a part of what Jesus said and did, and that there was much, much more. So what we’re actually getting here is a kind of Cliff Notes instead of the full version. I remember seeing somewhere that Bible experts believe there was another document (called Q, isn’t it?) that was used as a reference by some of the Gospel writers – do they think it was the full version?

So anyway Tonja, here’s this week’s question to confront you when you emerge from your finals: should we read the Gospels in the order they’re presented, or is there a better way to do it? Why are so many evangelicals all over the Gospel of John? Is it better than the others? Do tell.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS