Introduction to the New Testament

Although I have been exposed to the New Testament for as long as I can remember, reading this article taught me a lot about the origins and nature of the four Gospels. First, I learned the nature of the word “Gospel”, I previously thought this word was not used for anything outside of the writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I came to find out that this word is used to refer to non canonical works in an attempt to dismiss the authority of the canon. Are the authors of these non canonical works Christian? Are they trying to use the word Gospel in a demeaning way to promote their own non-Catholic religious beliefs? In addition, I was not aware of the two categories of writing in the New Testament which are the “Jesus materials” and the “gospels.” The Gospels were written after the life of Jesus, following some oral tradition. From the article, I came to understand how likely it is that the writing in Mark’s Gospel, and therefore the other three Gospels, is factual. I did not know that a larger number of scholars believed Mark’s account to be factual. These scholars believe, “Jesus himself would have supplied the material that ultimately went into the Gospels.” This brings me to my next point; it was very interesting to me to read that the evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. The argument made to justify this point is very valid; because the evangelists were not eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus Christ, there are differences among the four Gospels detailing the life of Jesus. The source mentioned that the similarities between the Gospels, especially between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, suggests that the evangelists could have drawn from a common source or received accounts from eyewitnesses. What makes John’s Gospel so different than the other three Gospels? I also was not aware of the amount of time that has been spent trying to resolve this issue, which would require harmonizing Gospel differences. As the article states, I believe trying to combine these narratives would ultimately just distort the message of the writings. I believe that each Gospel has a different purpose, and that each narrative works with the others to leave a unique impact on the reader. Finally, before reading this article I had never heard of the existence of “Q”. “Q” is the hypothetical common source which results in the many similarities between Matthew and Luke. Could the similarities simply result from them being written at similar times?