Introduction to the Gospels and Acts
Herod had granted the provinces of Galilee (where Jesus spent most of his life and ministry) and Perea to another son, Herod Antipas, who is mentioned briefly in the Gospels (e.g., Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 23:6-15). Antipas' reign was lengthy, but in A.D. 39 a grandson of Herod the Great named Herod Agrippa succeeded in having Antipas banished and took over Galilee and Perea. Two years later his childhood friend Claudius, then the Roman Emperor, made him king of Judea and Samaria as well. Agrippa was well loved by the Jews, but his reign was short. Having persecuted some of the apostles, and after receiving adulation as though he were a god, he died in A.D. 44 (Acts 12:1-4, 19-23).
At that time, the land reverted back to Roman governors, though Agrippa II was given rule over a small portion (Acts 25:13-26:32). The tensions between Jews and Romans became severe during this period and led eventually to a revolt in A.D. 66. This war proved disastrous for the Jewish nation, and Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70.
When reading New Testament narratives, therefore, we should make a special effort to determine why events were included, described and arranged they were. Details that may seem insignificant at first sight (e.g., Paul's vow recorded in Acts 18:18) may subsequently prove quite important (Acts 21:20-24). Similarly, when an event in Jesus' life is recounted by more than one Gospel, we can discern more of its significance by reading the perspective of each account.
Even a quick reading of the four Gospels reveals that three of them (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are very much alike, especially when contrasted with John. With a few important exceptions, the events included in John (e.g., John 3, 9, 11, 14) do not appear in the first three Gospels. For these reasons, the first three Gospels are often referred to as the "Synoptics" (having one point of view).
A more detailed comparison, however, reveals differences as well as similarities among the Synoptics. Sometimes the material recorded is exactly the same; other times there are verbal differences. In some cases the order of events is the same, but often it is not. From a literary point of view, these facts create a problem. How did these Gospels originate? Did their authors make use of each other's work? Did they draw on other materials?
The most common answer to these questions is that Mark was the first Gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke followed its basic outline (Mark 2:1-22; cf. Matt. 9:2-17; Luke 5:18-38). But Matthew and Luke have in common some important material not found at all in Mark (e.g., Matt. 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49), so scholars suppose that a second document, no longer extant, was used by these two writers. This solution is known as the "Two Source Theory." In addition, Matthew and Luke clearly each had access to much information found only in their respective Gospels.
This proposal cannot account for all the facts, and so alternate theories have been suggested. Some argue for the priority of Matthew rather than Mark; a few suggest instead that Luke was written first. A number of scholars place much emphasis on the oral tradition that must have preceded the writing of these documents and downplay their literary interdependence. Most New Testament specialists continue to use the Two Source approach as a working hypothesis but recognize that many questions remain unanswered.
Although many questions remain unresolved in the study of the gospels, our confidence in the truth of the gospels should not rest on the ability of specialists to sort out literary developments, but on divine inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16-17). See WCF 1.5, BC 5.
Notes from the NIV Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible, Dr. Richard Pratt, ed. (Zondervan, 2003).
Articles on Gospels and Acts
Q&A on Gospels and Acts
Sermons on Gospels and Acts
Dr. Richard L. Pratt, Jr. is Co-Founder and President of Third Millennium Ministries who served as Professor of Old Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary and has authored numerous books.