John K. McVay
Those who come to believe in Jesus as Savior will be delighted to find in the Bible many documents about Him. The New Testament includes four Gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—and twenty-three other documents that bear witness to Jesus. Within these documents are the earliest stories about Jesus’ earthly ministry (e.g., 1 Cor 11:23-26; 15:1-11), profound reflections on His identity (Phil 2:1-11; Col 1:15-20; Heb 1:1-4), prophecies of His return (e.g., 1 Thess 4:13-18; Rev 19:11-16), visions and messages from the risen and resurrected Christ (e.g., Acts 18:9, 10; Rev 1:9–3:22), and much more. Moreover, read from a Christian point of view, the Old Testament documents also bear witness to Jesus (John 5:39). Believers will learn to treasure this complete witness of the Bible to Jesus.
Only four Gospels – Christians will always come back to the Gospels as the most complete accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry. And, in studying them, an important question will emerge: Why are there four Gospels? The question, interestingly, takes two divergent forms: 1) Why are there only four Gospels and not many more? 2) Why are there four Gospels and not just one?
Especially in recent years, the question has been asked, Why are there only four Gospels and not many more? Many recent writers argue that a considerable diversity of thinking about Jesus existed among early Christians, which resulted in a wide variety of “Gospels.” In the process of forming the canon of the New Testament, these other “Gospels” were inappropriately screened out, leaving a bland orthodoxy. This type of thinking has been popularized by Dan Brown’s novel, The Da Vinci Code.1
Indeed, there are many documents that lay claim to the title “Gospel.” Most of these were written long after the four canonical Gospels and bear little resemblance to them. The list of works that claim to recount at least part of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry and that may have been composed in the first two centuries after Christ is much smaller.
The Gospel of Judas – One of these, the Gospel of Judas, was written in the Coptic language. The manuscript was discovered in Egypt in the 1970s and is currently in over one thousand pieces with many gaps. The document itself is dated to around AD 300, though it may be a translation of a mid-second century document. If so, that still places it well beyond the time frame of the four canonical Gospels, with which it contrasts sharply in content. The Gospel of Judas is laced with false teaching about God, Creation, and the relationship of the body and soul. The idea that such a document could provide Christians a valid, alternative source for understanding the life and ministry of Jesus is simply wrong.
The Gospel of Thomas – In fact, of all these “Gospels,” there is only one document commonly regarded by scholars as possibly preserving authentic information about Jesus not contained in the canonical Gospels: The Gospel of Thomas, another Coptic document, discovered in Egypt in 1945. It consists of a collection of some 114 sayings attributed to Jesus, most of which have parallels in the canonical Gospels. These are offered with little narrative framework. Like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas is clearly a Gnostic document, presenting Jesus as a revealer of secret wisdom and advocating distinctive, Gnostic theology (which regarded the material world as evil and taught secret knowledge as the path to salvation). It was likely composed well into the second century and is dependent upon the canonical documents of the New Testament.2
Christopher Tuckett offers a restrained assessment:
For the most part, the Gospels provide our main source of any knowledge about Jesus. The value of the noncanonical Gospels in this respect is probably mostly negligible. Rather than giving any information about Jesus himself, these texts witness to the ideas of their writers and the communities that preserved them. Many are gnostic texts from a period after the time of Jesus and reflect gnostic ideas read back onto the lips of Jesus.3
So why should we not add to the four Gospels? Because only in these four do we possess authentic testimony to the life and ministry of Jesus.
Why not just one Gospel? – Down through the centuries of Christian history, the more usual way to ask our title question has been, So why are there four Gospels and not just one? Early on, Christians felt some strain in the fact that four authoritative Gospels were circulating. After all, the four versions of the story of Jesus do not wholly agree on the details of His life. Some of these differences are relatively minor. For example, each Gospel gives a different version of the inscription attached to Jesus’ cross (Matt 27:37, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews”; Mark 15:26, “The King of the Jews”; Luke 23:38, “This is the King of the Jews”; John 19:19, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews”). And Mark and Luke contain a story about Jesus’ healing of a single demoniac (Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:26-39), while Matthew has Jesus restoring two demoniacs to sanity (Matt 8:28–9:1). An extreme position would require absolute agreement, discounting the testimony of the Gospels because they do not agree in such cases. Such a standard may be dismissed as too stringent and failing to discern the underlying unity of the fourfold testimony to Jesus.
Other differences, though, are more complex. One only need read the accounts of the post-Resurrection appearances of Jesus (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20–21) to understand that often the four accounts are not easily harmonized. While there is everywhere a unity in basic convictions about Jesus, there is also a rich diversity in the way His life, ministry, and death are treated.
Would it not be better—in service of a clear, coherent witness to Jesus—to have a single, authoritative Gospel rather than four accounts that exhibit so many differences? Two notable early Christians thought so. Marcion, who died around AD 160, wished to distinguish between the God of the Christian faith and the Creator, the God of Judaism and the Old Testament. So Marcion rejected Matthew, Mark, and John as too Jewish. He preferred Luke, but only in a highly-edited form in which material he regarded as tainted was removed in order to restore the original Gospel. Relying on a faulty understanding of Romans 2:15-16, Marcion argued that there should be only one Gospel, his condensed version of Luke. Another early Christian, Tatian, around AD 170 compiled a single narrative or Gospel harmony out of the four. The resulting document, known as the Diatessaron (“through [the] four”), was widely popular and even supplanted the four Gospels in some geographical areas.
The witness to one Gospel – In spite of the differences among the four Gospels, Christians have come to acknowledge their inspiration and unity. While separate accounts, they bear witness to one gospel; so they were labeled, “The Gospel According to …” Two valuable, biblical statements concerning the composition of the Gospels help us understand why early Christians reached these conclusions. The first is Luke 1:1-4:
Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed (NKJV).
Luke tells us that in his time there were in circulation multiple, written accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus (“those things which have been fulfilled among us”) that sought to preserve the testimony of “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” These were people who had experienced the ministry of Jesus and had come to an inspired understanding of it. The writers of these accounts had done their work faithfully since they had performed it in the same spirit and motivation (“just as,” v. 2) demonstrated by the “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.”4
While others have faithfully recorded their accounts, Luke feels impelled to craft his own narrative based on his careful investigation and motivated by his desire to write an “orderly account.” He hopes that his narrative will have a specific impact on Theophilus and his other readers—that they will “know the certainty” (v. 4) about Jesus. Luke is not interested in his readers simply knowing the historical facts (Theophilus seems to already have been “instructed” about these). His desire is that they will understand the profound meaning of them.
The purpose of the Gospels – Luke’s desire for his readers is in harmony with that expressed in a second, important biblical statement about the composition of the Gospels, John 20:30, 31:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (NKJV).
Christians acknowledge the inspiration and unity of all four Gospels included in the Bible, in spite of the differences among them.
John, too, is interested that his readers move beyond a simple understanding of historical facts. He wishes them to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus, to “believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.”
John’s statement contains another important point: He acknowledges that he has left much out in the writing of his Gospel, that he operated on a principle of selectivity in crafting his account. The point is expanded in John 21:25, “And there are also many other things that Jesus did; which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the whole world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen” (NKJV).
Principles for the study of the Gospels – These important, biblical statements (Luke 1:1-4; John 20:30, 31; 21:25) suggest four significant principles that should guide our study of the Gospels: (1) They are historically reliable witnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus, though we should not read the Gospels with an expectation that we will find exact uniformity in matters of detail and implied chronology. (2) Because the Gospels were written to witness to the fact that Jesus is the Messiah, rather than as detailed biographies of Jesus, our emphasis should be on appreciating the distinctive witness each Gospel offers to a broad, shared understanding of the meaning of the events of Jesus’ life and ministry. (3) Similarly, since the Gospel authors—motivated by their desire to communicate the meanings they saw in the history—selected from a much larger body of materials in composing their accounts, we should not expect them all to record exactly the same events. These biblical statements, then, prepare us for a good deal of variety in the canonical Gospels and to appreciate the unique witness of each to the one, true gospel message about Jesus (Gal 1:6-9; Eph 4:4-6). (4) In line with their stated purpose, as we read the Gospels, we should expect to be drawn to faith in Jesus as Savior.
As we read the Gospels, we should expect to be drawn to faith in Jesus as Savior.
Summary – These biblical statements and the principles that we may deduce from them suggest a most profound answer to the question, “Why do we have four Gospels and not just one?”: We have four not just one because they provide an independent historical witness to Jesus’ life which would not be as well substantiated if we had just one. For example, were it not for John’s Gospel we might suppose that Jesus’ ministry lasted only about a year rather than three and a half years. Also, they offer different perspectives on Jesus, offered to different audiences (Jews and Gentiles). Four different historical portraits of Jesus provide a fuller understanding of Him than just one. According to Scripture “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (Deut 19:15; Matt 18:16). We have a better opportunity for a complete and well-rounded understanding of Jesus by reading and treasuring all four Gospels.
In reflecting on the complexities of our question, “Why do we have four Gospels?”, Christians should feel blessed that we possess four different and authoritative narratives of the life and teachings of Jesus, each written from a different perspective and with a different audience in view. While some may wish for more “Gospels” and others still desire a single narrative, we would do well to study the four great inspired witnesses to Jesus, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in the context of the wider biblical revelation.
1 Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code: A Novel (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 233, 234.
2 See the helpful analysis by Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace, Dethroning Jesus: Exposing Popular Culture’s Quest to Unseat the Biblical Christ (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007), 105-130.
3 Christopher Tuckett, “Gospel, Gospels,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 523.
4 Luke knows only of accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus that reflect the gospel message that he discloses in his own account, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, became a human being and died to save humankind. He seems unaware of the existence of any alternative accounts that would offer a radically different understanding of Jesus’ life and ministry.