8. Why Gospel Origins Matter

No one knows for sure how, when, or by whom[1] the Gospels were written. There's tradition about it. And there are plenty of theories and opinions about it.

In my boyhood, I was told that God gave them by inspiration and that the so-called "human authors" didn't matter. That was good enough for me.

Origins

When I became an adult, I learned—not only in school, but from detailed study of the Gospels—that the questions around them speak directly to two important questions:

1. What kind of books are we reading?
2. And what difference does this make
   for how we read them?

It's simply not enough to say "God wrote them!" as if that solves the problem, and then deny or ignore all human processes. No theory of inspiration makes any sense at all if God is not somehow working through human beings. Since those writers and processes were apparently important to God, what and how they wrote should make a difference to us.

For example, whether (a) the traditions are correct or (b) we never discover their true identity, we can learn a great deal about the authors just by reading their books and listening to their distinctive voices. Even more, (c) we can directly track and test the interrelationships of those individual Gospels.

Theories

I previously gave a general walk-through for how the Gospels likely came into being.[2] Biblical scholars have worked on such difficult questions for centuries assessing details and testing theories. Several highly technical theories have gained traction. Here is a bare-bones summary:

1. A majority of Gospel scholars think Mark was written first (##1-3 below), with Mark being interpreted and edited by Matthew and/or Luke, and perhaps one of these the other.
2. A minor and receding view (#4 below) is that Matthew came first.[3]

Here are few more details about four major views:

1. Mark + Q (Source) ⟹ Matthew/Luke:
   Dominant view. Plus M and L, whether written or oral.
   (See the video at the top of this blog post for this view)
2. Mark → Matthew ⟹ Luke:
   The strongest major no-Q alternative. 
3. Mark →Luke ⟹ Matthew: Still a minority view, but one receiving increased scholarly attention: Luke used Mark, and both were used by Matthew.
4. Matthew →Luke ⟹ Mark:
   Called the Griesbach / Two-Gospel Theory. A serious minority alternative, but one that has receded in current academic representation.

In addition to these, there is a growing interest that focuses less on a single literary sequence (e.g., Mk/Mt/Lk) and more on the transmission process itself. This approach emphasizes the continuing interaction of oral tradition, memory, and performance, as well as written sources.

So What?

The problem with all of this detail (and I gave only a smattering of it) is that too often readers (including scholars) get lost in the details and never get back to why this matters.

So now, I'll offer seven (7) reasons this type of study is valuable and needed today; namely, what this tells us about the kind of books we are reading, and what difference it makes for how we choose to read them.

1. It helps us see that these books are shaped, not merely recorded. No matter how we end up thinking about the exact source relationships, the Gospel writers inherited oral and/or written material, selected from it, arranged it, and interpreted and edited it. They are not giving different details so we can create a 5th Gospel.
2. It helps us understand that differences between the Gospels are therefore meaningful. When Matthew edits Mark, or Luke arranges material differently, those differences can help us see what each writer wants to emphasize. Merely combining them can destroy the unique voices.
3. It helps us read each Gospel first as a whole. If we immediately blend parallel passages together, we can erase the very editorial choices that reveal each Gospel’s distinctive message. Think of it this way: get to know each as a personal friend.
4. It helps us keep in mind that historical and theological concerns are very much intertwined. The writers are dealing with Jesus-events that are remembered and passed along, but they are also interpreting those events for particular communities and purposes.
5. It helps us recognize that the Gospels are in conversation with each other. Especially where one Gospel knows and reshapes another, the later writer is not simply copying; he is responding, reframing, emphasizing, and sometimes altering the direction of the earlier telling. Reading them this way lets us hear not four isolated voices, but an ongoing biblical conversation about Jesus and discipleship.
6. It helps us pay attention to the fact that the Gospel writers preserve tradition with both continuity and freedom. They receive earlier material (oral or written) faithfully enough that we can trace it, yet freely enough to reshape it. They are not just note-takers! That combination tells us something important about how early Christians understood faithful transmission.
7. It helps us see the value of having four Gospels instead of just one:  namely, how we too might apply the Jesus story differently in different circumstances. Because we value these books as "canon," then taking the differences seriously (rather than always trying to explain them away) is a step of faithfulness. By tracking their distinctive voices, we can see how early Christians carried the same Jesus tradition into different communities, locations, questions, and needs without simply repeating it in identical form.

So the larger lesson is: understanding something of how the Gospels came into existence and how they relate to one another helps us know what kind of books they are—and therefore how to read them as living documents for living communities. And this would seem vital in our desire to get more from Bible study.

https://www.biblicalconversation.com/more

Questions to Consider

1. If the Gospel writers inherited earlier oral and written traditions, what does that tell us about the kind of books the Gospels actually are?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. Why do the relationships among Mark, Matthew, and Luke matter if our primary concern is learning to hear each Gospel’s distinctive voice?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. If a Gospel writer can preserve earlier tradition faithfully while also reshaping it, what does that suggest about the nature of faithful transmission?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4. How might understanding Gospel origins change the way we read differences—not as problems to eliminate, but as clues to how the Jesus story was interpreted for different communities and needs?
   __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Next Week: 

9. "The Gospels as Ancient Biographies"
What changes when we read the Gospels as ancient biographies rather than flat historical records?

Series Note

This is Study Session #7 of the free, online, ten-session Bible study series: Beyond the 5th Gospel. It is best to begin with Study Session 1 and follow the entire study in the proper order, on a week-by-week schedule.

Because this is copyrighted material intended for personal or group study, you are granted the right to freely use this material in Bible classes, small groups, private study, or similar settings—as long as you keep the material unchanged and intact, including this series note.

If you have come to this study session out of sequence, please go here for the beginning of the series:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/blog/5th-gospel-prelude

Go here for all available PDF downloads:
https://www.biblicalconversation.com/studiesbc#section-1788376027032

Thank you.
Gary D. Collier

Footnotes

[1] I already commented on authorship in post 2 of this series. I said that tradition might have a basis that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote, or had something to do with, all of the Gospels that now bear their names. But none of the Gospels name their authors. Authorship is not the point of this essay.

[2] See "2—From Sacred Stories to Gospel Texts."

[3] Single arrow (→) means "used by." Double arrow ⟹ means used both.