5. Why Two, Three, Four Written Gospels?

5.1 Why Two Written Gospels?

In the last paragraphs above I think I have explained why there are written Gospels at all. Now we have to explain why there are more than one written Gospels. Firstly, we have to ask why there are two basically different written Gospels. These two Gospels are those according to Matthew and Luke. The reason why the early Church produced these two different Gospels was that the early Church was composed of two totally different kinds of people, namely Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. These two kinds of people had very different sensibilities, customs, frames of mind, ways of thinking and behaving. The two Gospels according to Matthew and Luke reflect the two great families that made up the early Church. Matthew wrote down the One Gospel primarily for Jewish Christians, drawing upon the oral tradition stemming from the primitive Jerusalem Church. Luke wrote down the One Gospel for Gentile readers, relying on Jewish traditions with an eye to the needs of the Gentile world. Different readers, different written Gospels. But all readers were, at least potentially, Christians. Hence different written Gospels, but containing the same One Gospel of tradition.

The Gospel according to Matthew, or at least part of it, is said by the early Church tradition to have been written originally in Aramaic. The Matthew now we have in hand is written in Greek, and very good Greek at that. The content, though, is still very Jewish. It is reasonable to hold that our Matthew is a very good Greek translation or even re-edition of the original Aramaic Matthew. Be that as it may, one fact is evidenced by the vigour of the Jewish concerns present in this Gospel and by the frequent hints at an oppressed Jewish Christian community: while Greek Matthew may originate in Antioch of Syria, the material contained in this Gospel originates from the primitive Jerusalem Church. Whether Matthew is the Matthew-Levi called by Jesus to be an apostle is disputed but possible. In any case, the designation of a Jewish scribe (publicans were all too secular scribes!) as the author of this Gospel is extremely apt. Matthew, therefore, is the Gospel of Jewish Christianity. Whatever the date of its final edition, this Gospel preserves the Gospel tradition of the Jerusalem Mother-Church which was led first by Peter and then by James the brother of the Lord.

The Gospel according to Luke can be said to be a Pauline reading of the One Gospel, that is, it is a recording of the Gospel traditions (originally stemming from the Jerusalem and Palestinian communities) done in a non-Jewish context (but not necessarily non-Semitic context!). Luke is the Gospel of the non-Jewish Gentile Church. When compared with Matthew, we can see that Luke has added a lot of traditional material which he had painstakingly collected and which is not present in Matthew. It is probable that the Church behind the Gospel of Luke is the Church of Antioch of Syria, the first not-exclusively-Jewish Christian Church. Luke himself may well have been an Antiochean Syrian. This would explain both his mastery of Greek and his deeply Semitic thinking. Luke's Greek is better than that of the other three Gospels, but at the same time he shows an appreciation for semitisms which only a Semite would be capable of. Syrians are Semites and Syriac is a Semitic language very close to Aramaic. The author of the Gospel of Luke is certainly also the author of Acts. Is this author the Luke mentioned by Paul? It is very possible. The "we passages" in Acts confirm this possibility.

By now I think I have explained why there are two different written Gospels, namely, the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Luke.

5.3 Why Three Written Gospels?

The Gospels according to Matthew and Luke reflect the two great sections of the primitive Church. Then why should not two written Gospels suffice? Why should there be also Mark? The reason is that the relationship between the two great sections of the primitive Church was far from easy. This relationship was actually the single greatest problem met by the primitive Church. The twofold Gospel according to Matthew-Luke just shows how distinctive these two forms of Christianity were. The problem consisted precisely in how to preserve the unity of two so distinct groups. Each group having its own written Gospel only compounded the problem. Would there not be the danger that each group insist on the differences in their Gospels, instead of highlighting the fundamental unity? How to prevent schisms from happening? These hypothetical questions were not necessarily formulated like this by the 1st century Christians. However, these questions bring out some crucial concerns of 1st century Christians.

The Gospel of Mark fulfills the extremely important and urgent function of grounding the unity of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christianity. How does it fulfil this function? By providing the witness of Peter, the eye-witness par excellence, the Rock on which Jesus founded his Church. The witness of Peter in Mark is preeminently a witness to hard facts. Compared with the witness of Peter, Matthew is proved a very faithful transmitter of the apostolic tradition. Compared with the same witness of Peter, Luke also is revealed as an equally faithful recorder of the One Gospel. In this way, the two apparently so different Gospels are reconciled into a deep underlying unity. But this reconciliation is achieved only through common reference to a third Gospel, the Gospel according to Mark, Peter's Gospel, written in Rome. It is Rome that keeps Jerusalem and Antioch united! It is Peter's witness, as recorded by Mark, that reconciles Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity!

Whether Mark precedes Matthew and Luke or whether Mark is preceded by them, is still a disputed question. A majority of contemporary exegetes agree that Mark precedes Matthew and Luke and is used by them. But there is still a minority of exegetes whose arguments against the priority of Mark have never been really adequately answered. They hold that Matthew and Luke precede Mark who uses them. Personally, I think that for our present purpose whether Mark is first or not is not so important. What is important is that Mark acted as the touchstone of authenticity both for Matthew and for Luke. This holds true whether Matthew and Luke had Mark under their eyes while compiling their Gospels, thus recognizing Mark as the common standard reference for a Gospel writer. This also holds true if Mark came after Matthew and Luke and was written with the express purpose of providing a confirmation for the historical and theological accuracy of them both. It is clear, therefore, that whether Mark preceded or followed Matthew and Luke, Mark in any case fulfilled the function of grounding their unity upon the universally recognized witness of the apostle Peter.

It seems to me that we have here a profound answer to the question: why three similar written Gospels and not one only? The answer outlined above can be summarized as follows: these three Gospels arose out of three very specific needs of the primitive Church: 1) the Gospel of Matthew met the needs of Jewish Christianity; 2) the Gospel of Luke met the needs of Gentile Christianity; 3) the Gospel of Mark met the need of keeping these two wings of the primitive Church together. Please notice that all three Gospels met these needs by offering a reliable account of the One Gospel announced by Peter, by the Twelve, by Paul, and by the other apostles.

5.4 Why Four Written Gospels?

We have explained the multiplicity of the Synoptic Gospels. But why should there be a fourth written Gospel besides the Synoptics? What is the purpose of the Gospel according to John?

The Gospel according to John is the testimony of a second universally recognized eye-witness. In some sense, for all their differences, the three Synoptic Gospels constitute one single witness, ultimately Peter's witness. But "a single witness shall not suffice [...]. Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained." (Deut 19:15) The requirement of at least two independent witnesses is basic to all court proceedings and to all historical research. The primitive Church responded to this concern by placing beside the written witness of Peter (Mark-Matthew-Luke) the written witness of John. The historical dimension of the One Gospel demanded such a double written attestation, Synoptic and Johannine.

Besides such a fundamental historical function, the Gospel of John fulfills also a fundamental theological function. The witness of Peter, as I have already mentioned, stresses the factual-historical dimension of the Christ event. The witness of John, on the contrary, stresses the mysteric-theological dimension of the Christ event. In the Synoptic-Johannine duality we have a reflection of the most fundamental twofold dimension of the One Gospel as reflected already in the faith formula of 1 Cor 15:3b-5: history and theology, outward fact and inner mystery. This twofold dimension, on the one hand, is the basic characteristic of each written Gospel. On the other hand, it is also the reason for John's Gospel standing besides the Synoptics. Each of the four Gospels bears witness to the totality of the Good News that is Jesus Christ. But the Synoptics do so stressing the empirical facts in which the mystery of Christ is revealed. John does so, instead, by stressing the mystery revealed in the empirical facts.