Whyfour?
June 30, 2008
Why do you suppose we have four gospels? More specifically, why do we have three “synoptic” gospels? But this question really applies to all four.
Believing that God inspired the Scriptures what was his purpose in four canonical gospels? Why not just give us the one definitive one? Why not add the stories of Jesus’ birth and Mary’s Magnificat from Luke, the prodigal son, the boy with a demon in Mark 9, etc. to Matthew’s gospel and just have one? Why give us varying accounts of the same events? Why not give us one “God’s eye” view of the whole of Jesus’ earthly life and ministry? Why give us accounts that need to be “reconciled?”
These questions are why I cannot subscribe to some sort of “dictation” theory of the Bible’s inspiration. It makes God look a little schizophrenic. Or at least like he might have MPD. It is much easier to account for the differences when we maintain the human nature of the documents alongside their Divine inspiration. Men wrote with particular (and different) perspectives and agendas.
But why should God inspire four of them? Why not inspire one of them and make it the “definitive” one? I’m not suggesting that the gospels are competing against one another. I am saying that if all we need is one perspective on things - God’s perspective - then surely God could have given us one gospel that speaks clearly from that one perspective. Yet he’s given us four gospels that speak from four different perspectives and when commentators and theologians speak to those perspectives they do not speak of God’s purpose or agenda, but of Matthew’s purpose and agenda, Luke’s purpose and agenda, Mark’s purpose and agenda and John’s very different purpose and very different agenda.
Why do you think we have four gospels?
Good question. Maybe it goes with the different personality styles. Each Gospel tells the stories in unique, yet similar ways. Maybe this is the reason?
Camel Rider,
Don’t take this as being belligerent. I just want to push harder. Why would God desire to reveal his message through different personality styles? Why not simply have one who used either his own unique style (for instance, we don’t have Moses’ version of the law and then Aaron’s version and Caleb’s version) or one distinctly from God’s own style and perspective. Yes, the Gospels are God’s style from an inspirational sense, but I mean one in which the human element is minimized to the point of insignificance (which is clearly not what we do have).
In other words, I’m taking the response you’ve given for granted and I’m asking a question that goes down one more level.