The word 'gospel' stems from the Middle English godspel (god: good, spel: news) which itself comes from Greek and means the 'good news' of some important event (like a birth or a victory). The term gospel appears often in Paul’s letters in reference to the significance of the person, life, and ministry of Jesus. Justin Martyr was the first to refer to 'gospels' in the plural, around 150 CE, and today the term is limited almost entirely to the four canonical gospels that appear in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This online Bible study provides commentary on the gospels and their place in the Bible.
Everyone probably knows that the first written records of Jesus' life appear several decades after he would have died. Not everyone seems to understand what the implications of this are. Given such a long time span during which nothing more than oral transmission would have existed, just how reliable can we count on the gospels being? In any other context, people wouldn't trust them much.
Most Christians seem to place a lot of emphasis on the gospels as a basis for their religious beliefs. They appear to be convinced that these texts are reliable, accurate descriptions of things which occurred millennia ago and, therefore, they are rationally justified in adopting the supernatural, religious beliefs derived from these texts.
Who wrote the gospels of the New Testament? It's common for believers to act as though they were written by the disciples whose names appear at the top. To call such a state of affairs 'implausible' would be an understatement, however. The gospels were not written by illiterate fishermen from Galilee, nor were they written to be objective, historical accounts of events that really happened.
Because Christmas has traditionally been a Christian celebration of Jesus' birth, it's common during the Christmas season to see and hear depictions of wise men, shepherds, a star, a manger, and so forth. A closer investigation, however, reveals that the nativity story occurs in just two of the four gospels, Matthew and Luke, and that they hardly agree on any of the details. It's almost as if they are describing two entirely different people being born.
As a literary form, the gospels have a lot in common with biographies. They also have many similarities to martyrologies, lives of philosophers, and even the aretologies (stories of “virtue”) of heroic figures. Ultimately, though, the gospels seem to represent the introduction of a new type of literature.
One of the most prominent features of the four canonical gospels in the New Testament is the parables attributed to Jesus. Estimates usually place the number of parables somewhere between thirty and eighty, though if the definition of 'parable' is expanded to include any simile or proverb, then just about every statement attributed to Jesus can qualify.
Although apocalyptic writing constitutes its own independent literary genre, it still plays an important role within the gospels of the New Testament. In each of the four canonical gospels, a central story involves Jesus describing a coming apocalypse in a manner that is consistent with traditional apocalyptic literature.
The first three gospels - Mark, Matthew, and Luke - are very similar. So similar, in fact, that their parallels cannot be explained by mere coincidence. The problem here has been in figuring out what exactly their connections are. Which came first? Which served as a source for which others? Which is most reliable?
The belief that people can be inhabited or even possessed by evil spirits has been a common feature of many societies. Concomitant with this is the presence of people who can detect and drive the spirits away. Possession of one sort or another can be found in ancient Jewish scriptures, the concepts of possession and exorcism in the Bible are almost entirely limited to the synoptic gospels.
Today crucifixion is associated with Jesus and Christianity, but as a method of execution it enjoyed widespread popularity with tyrants and governments throughout the ancient world. It is generally considered one of the cruelest and most painful ways to kill someone, and ancient historians like Herodotus record its presence in one form or another among the Assyrians, Phoenicians, Persians, and more.
In the gospels Jesus is frequently depicted as referring himself as the 'Son of man.' What this label means has been the subject of a great deal of debate among theologians and biblical scholars, with no clear resolution in sight. There are many possible uses, all of which serve to complicate more than they resolve.
One would assume that Jesus wanted to be understood - after all, he was sent to be the savior of all mankind, right? The problem is, there is strong textual evidence that Jesus tried not to be understood. Thus, if the gospels are correct, then Jesus wanted to be misunderstood which is not very compatible with being the messiah. If the gospels aren't accurate, then what should we conclude?
List of major sources used in the various articles about the gospels in the New Testament
