Hearing the Gospels as First-Century Hearers Heard Them

Bible readers who come to the four accounts of Jesus’ life typically have multiple questions about these different works. This essay seeks to address a few of the more pertinent questions that may be raised by readers based on the culturally relevant goals of this study Bible: How would the Gospels’ first audience have understood these writings, historically and theologically? How reliable are their sources? Are there any other gospels besides the four in the Bible? How were the Gospels first published? In this essay, we’ll examine the principles behind each of these foundational questions in turn.

The Gospels as Ancient Biographies About Jesus

As a category of literature, the Gospels are unique in the sense that they tell us the story of Someone unique. In many respects, however, they follow a form that ancient hearers and readers would have recognized. In the ancient world, a book about a recent historical person was called a bios, or in English, a “biography.”

Modern readers should keep in mind that ancient biographies differed from typical modern biographies. First, they were shorter than most modern biographies. They varied in length, but could easily be as short as Mark’s Gospel or expand to roughly double that length: as long as Matthew or Luke. Second, ancient biographies did not always start with the person’s childhood (as in Matthew and Luke), but sometimes opened with a person’s public activity or career (as in Mark and, after the prologue, John).

Moreover, whereas modern biographies are usually arranged chronologically, ancient biographers often arranged their material topically. Thus we should not be surprised when, for example, Matthew has some material in a different sequence than do Mark or Luke. That was expected in ancient biography, and the church fathers recognized this point. (Already in the early second century, Papias observed that Mark did not write everything in chronological order.)

Writers often paraphrased material in their own words. Thus, finding slightly different wording in different Gospels (e.g., Matthew’s usual “kingdom of heaven” versus Mark’s “kingdom of God”) should not surprise us. Presumably to increase understanding, Luke even adapts the style of roof mentioned in Mk 2:4 to fit the style of roofs in the northern Mediterranean world where his primary audience lived (Lk 5:19).

Nevertheless, then as today, biographies were a form of historical writing. Biographers liked to teach moral lessons through the accounts that they wrote, but like other historians, they did so in a special way that differed from fictional sorts of writing. They could offer lessons, but they were expected to make their points by using genuine information, not by composing fiction. When writing about characters of centuries past, sometimes historians and biographers admitted that some of the information available to them might be merely legendary. When writing about characters of the past two generations, however—within living memory of eyewitnesses—they generally had very substantial information. Comparing such “recent” biographies by different writers concerning the same characters quickly reveals that ancient biographers depended on information, not free imagination, when they wrote their works.

The Point of the Gospels

The Gospels communicate historical information, but this does not mean—as some modern readers have supposed—that the Gospels do not also teach theology. The modern contrast between history and theology misunderstands how history was written in the ancient world.

Ancient historians wrote with a sense of moral responsibility: they communicated the events of the past so that readers in the present could learn positive examples to follow and negative examples to avoid. Both historians and novelists sought to communicate their stories in an engaging way, but only the former sought to do so using genuine information, and only the former normally presented models to imitate. In this period, historians and biographers, rather than novelists, used the facts of history to communicate moral, political or theological ideas or emphases. This is true of the Gospels as well. If we read them only as a matter of historical interest and not to hear what we can learn for our lives today, we miss part of the purpose of the Gospels. At the same time, the Gospels do not merely teach us moral lessons. Most of all they teach us about who Jesus is—a theological message. This characteristic is also consistent with biographies, which were first and foremost about the individuals whose stories they recount.

Above all else, the Gospels are stories about Jesus. Jesus was both hero and Lord to his early followers, and his disciples would have been expected to tell and retell the stories about him as long as they lived. Most of what is significant about most founders of movements—whether Socrates, Muhammad, or Joseph Smith—is preserved by the movements themselves, by those initially most interested in the founders. For Christians, the Gospels are of prime importance, because they help us to know better the one we also honor as our Lord.

The Gospels’ Reliable Sources

Ancient tradition reports that two of the Gospels’ authors were eyewitnesses of the events: Matthew and the beloved disciple of John 19:35 and 21:24. Early tradition also reports that Mark’s Gospel relies heavily on Peter’s eyewitness accounts.

Luke more directly tells us about potential sources for gospels in his day. Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry itself, but his work does imply that he traveled with Paul (see note on Ac 16:10) and spent up to two years near him in Judea (Ac 21:17; 24:27; 27:1). This would have given Luke ample time to check into sources such as those he mentions. By the time Luke wrote, “many” had written about Jesus (Lk 1:1), suggesting that written gospel accounts about Jesus were already circulating within the first generation.

Luke also cites oral tradition stemming from eyewitnesses (Lk 1:2). Some readers today, especially in technology-driven cultures, doubt that disciples would have remembered detailed information for decades. Nevertheless, even in Western cultures, many families once passed on family stories orally for generations. Memory skills were no less developed in Mediterranean antiquity. Thus, for example, elementary education throughout the Mediterranean world depended heavily on memorization. Rhetorical students—those preparing for public careers—learned to deliver from memory speeches that could even be two hours in length. Traveling storytellers, often illiterate with regard to written texts, could recite entire books by heart. Thus the disciples’ and others’ memories could easily have preserved the most striking sayings of and stories about Jesus for the few decades before these accounts began to be preserved in writing.

In the ancient world, the practice of oral memory was most developed among disciples, advanced students of teachers or adherents of schools. Greek philosophic schools passed on the teachers’ beliefs from one generation to the next. Students often rehearsed the previous day’s lectures so they could repeat back the main points. In Greek schools more generally, students often took notes on their teachers’ lectures and sometimes published them for the teachers. Teachers often expected their students to publish their teachings, and teachings of the founder of a school of thought often became foundational for that school’s beliefs.

The range of surviving Jewish sources is more limited, but the evidence here points in the same direction as all other surviving evidence from the period. If anything, Jewish disciples were even more meticulous about preserving and passing on the sayings of their teachers than were disciples of Gentile teachers. Moreover, throughout the Roman Empire, not all disciples agreed with everything their teachers taught, but even when they disagreed they would have respectfully represented their teacher accurately. Like other disciples, Jesus’ disciples would have told and retold the stories about Jesus, solidifying such accounts both in their memory and in the corporate memory of the early church.

Some scholars who grow up in societies with less-developed memory skills challenge this background, arguing that Jesus’ disciples were unlike all the other disciples we read about in the same period; these scholars protest that the disciples were uneducated and illiterate. Against this premise several observations may be offered. First, texts about the disciples being “unlearned” merely mean that they lacked the training available to the elite, not that they lacked all training. Fishermen made a better living, and probably had somewhat better education, than the majority of people in Galilee (most people were peasants). Second, in many cultures memory skills are inversely proportional to literacy—that is, sometimes people who are illiterate have even stronger memories because they cannot simply refer to other sources if they forget them. Finally, ancient sources are clear that memory skills were not limited to the highly educated. Traveling bards who recited all of Homer’s poetry by heart were generally not educated, yet few scholars in the modern West could compare with them in their capacity to memorize. This observation also holds true today; in some places even those who are illiterate can, for example, recite large sections of the Qur’an or other writings from memory.

The Gospel writers had a variety of memories, oral sources and written works on which they could draw. Normally memories and oral traditions remain most accurate in the first generation or two, within living memory of eyewitnesses who can communicate and confirm events. In antiquity, as today, writers of histories and biographies would consult eyewitnesses first and foremost. Throughout the first generation, when information about Jesus was becoming widespread, Jesus’ original disciples plus his brother James remained in positions of leadership in the church (Gal 1:18–19; 2:9; cf. 1Co 15:5–7). By the time Luke wrote, he could see his purpose as merely confirming information that was already widely known (Lk 1:3–4).

Some scholars protest that some lines of evidence for the accuracy of oral tradition come from only limited circles. Yet almost any claim about evidence we can identify from antiquity is limited; only a sample of sources have survived. The evidence we do have for accurate tradition, however, is undoubtedly a representative sample. It is widespread among varied settings and virtually all points in the same direction. No responsible scholar would dismiss virtually all the contemporary evidence we do have and then argue the opposite conclusion based on silence.

Jesus’ Teachings

Various ancient Jewish sages had their own distinctive teaching traits, but other forms of teaching were common among them. They commonly taught in parables very similar to those of Jesus (see the article “Parables”); they used riddles to provoke thought; they used proverbs that often made a particular point without covering all possible exceptions or circumstances (cf. Pr 26:4–5); and they often used graphic hyperbole (rhetorical overstatement) to reinforce their points. Although Jesus often used the teaching techniques that were common in his day, other traits are distinctive to him, such as the phrase “truly I say to you.” Most distinctive, of course, are passages where Jesus hints at his deity (e.g., Mt 18:20; Jn 8:58).

Because Jesus addressed especially crowds of poor Galilean farmers as he traveled from place to place, his teachings are not systematic; instead, they are often meant to provoke thought and make a point, sometimes in a graphic way that holds an audience’s attention. For a modern reader to directly convert Jesus’ words into rules or statements of systematic theology therefore sometimes misses their point. For example, Jesus requires caring for parents in their old age (Mk 7:9–13), but summons people to abandon their family responsibilities if need be to follow him (Mt 8:21–22 parallel to Lk 9:59–62; Mt 10:37 parallel to Lk 14:26). Is Jesus pro-family, or is he a home-wrecker? In fact, Jesus should come before everything else, but “hating” one’s family (Lk 14:26) is hyperbole, merely a graphic way of making his point.

Hyperbole is common in Jesus’ teaching. We recognize it in the most obvious cases: for example, ripping out one’s eye as a solution to lust (Mt 5:28–29), swallowing a camel whole (Mt 23:24), or squeezing a camel through a needle’s eye (Mk 10:25). Some suggest that it would be consistent to view some other sayings in the same way—for example, giving up one’s only cloak (Mt 5:40 parallel to Lk 6:29) or treating all remarriage as adultery (Mk 10:11–12, the literal point being found in 10:9). Such observations and cautions are very important, but we should also be careful not to miss the purpose of hyperbole: to graphically underline the point being made. Thus, for example, we should not downplay Jesus’ commands to give all to those in need (Mk 10:21; Lk 12:33; 14:33). Even if we do not all relinquish literally all our possessions to follow Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57; Lk 10:38; Ac 2:44–45; 12:12–13), we surrender our ownership of them. If Jesus is genuinely Lord of our lives, then he is Lord also of our possessions, and we must use them as wisely and as generously as he would desire. Likewise, even if we believe that treating all remarriage as adultery may go too far (Mt 5:32, 19:19), we must work hard to preserve and nurture marriages, viewing as sacred what God has joined together.

Understanding how Jesus spoke can help us understand how best to obey and apply his teachings today.

Miracle Stories

In the West, skepticism about the Gospels started especially because some Western philosophers had pronounced miracles impossible. For such scholars, the Gospels were not trustworthy because they included miracle accounts; one nineteenth-century scholar, David Strauss, thus regarded the Gospels as late and their miracle accounts as legends and myths. Strauss did so because of his philosophic assumptions, not because of evidence: in fact, one of his own friends was healed when a German Lutheran pastor prayed for him.

Historically, the argument against the Gospels’ miracle reports followed this logic: miracles are not believable because respectable eyewitnesses (those known to the upper-class, elite people who made this argument) do not report them happening. Therefore if some otherwise reputable eyewitnesses do claim miracles happening, they are not to be believed. This is, of course, a circular argument, but it influenced many scholars who were or became skeptics in reference to the Bible. They assumed that miracle reports cannot come from eyewitnesses, because miracles cannot happen. Therefore, in their view, any reports of significant miracles do not reflect early testimony, but rather a process of legendary growth over generations (or at least decades).

Today, however, one can easily demonstrate that these assumptions about eyewitnesses are false, even in the West. Worldwide, literally hundreds of millions of people, from a wide range of denominations and church traditions, claim to have witnessed or experienced divine healing. Sources in China attribute to healing experiences millions of new Christian conversions over the course of two decades. In a survey conducted several decades ago in one large city in India, more than 10 percent of non-Christians claimed to have been cured when Christians prayed for them in Jesus’ name.

The sorts of miracles reported by eyewitnesses today include the same range as in the Gospels. A skeptic may find other explanations for many of the cures, but it is simply impossible empirically to deny that eyewitnesses otherwise known to be reliable do claim the sorts of cures reported in the Gospels. In other words, the miracle accounts in the Gospels can reflect information from eyewitnesses, exactly as can any of the other accounts in the Gospels.

How would ancient hearers have learned from the miracle stories in the Gospels? Presumably they would have learned from them the way that ancients believed they learned from accounts of cures in Greek temples, or the way that Christians in many cultures hear the Gospels’ miracle stories today: they would have experienced these accounts as invitations to faith in the power and love of Jesus, whom we as Christians believe has risen and remains alive and active today.

Lost “Gospels”?

Many people today speculate about the influence of “lost Gospels.” Although this is mostly sensationalism, some early accounts of Jesus’ life were undoubtedly lost. Luke mentions that “many” wrote accounts about Jesus before Luke did, but the majority of scholars believe that only one of these that he has in mind (Mark) survived intact. A majority of scholars also believe that Matthew and Luke drew on another shared source that often follows the same sequence present in these two Gospels; this document has not survived and is reconstructed merely based on where Matthew and Luke overlap. Some scholars believe that this lost document was an early collection by Matthew, focusing especially on sayings, used by Mark, Luke, and our current version of Matthew’s Gospel (which incorporates also most of Mark’s narrative). Other scholars reconstruct differently the sequence in which our Gospels were written, but the point remains: most of Luke’s “many” sources did not survive.

Some later works have also been sometimes called gospels. Unlike the four Gospels preserved in the Bible, however, these other works date to a later timeframe for writing, no longer within living memory of the eyewitnesses. The earliest of them, often referred to as the “Gospel of Thomas,” is usually dated more than 100 years after Jesus’s death and resurrection and some 70 years after Mark’s Gospel. (Some scholars date it even later, to 100 years after Mark.) Of all the later gospels, Thomas is the earliest and the likeliest to contain some sayings about Jesus, but scholars have not agreed on any way to discover which sayings, if any, are authentic (besides the ones already recorded in our first-century Gospels).

Thomas is usually classified as belonging to the group called “gnostic gospels,” although later ones are generally far more gnostic than Thomas. These works are not really “gospels” at all, for they are not narratives about Jesus. (Comparing them with the canonical Gospels, then, is like comparing apples and oranges; they are completely different categories.) The “gnostic gospels” are usually collections of sayings that their authors claim were passed on “secretly.” As most ancient Christians recognized, those who had to claim information passed on “secretly” were admitting that they had no real evidence that any of the information went back to anyone who knew Jesus. Moreover, the amorphous group of beliefs we define as Gnosticism, and thus clearly gnostic elements, do not clearly predate the second century; these works are all much later—many of them many centuries later. Mostly they were accepted as authoritative only in their own, small gnostic groups. In the wider church’s canon lists over the next few centuries, none of them appear, with only a single exception (one reference to Thomas), whereas the canonical Gospels always appear.

Other late “gospels” are called “apocryphal gospels.” These works come from the heyday of novels, in the late second and early third centuries (with many written later still). They are entertaining and sometimes edifying novels. They are not, however, true accounts about Jesus. Whereas the first-century Gospels assume ancient Galilean customs, Jewish figures of speech, and the like, these later gospels betray their own time period. Apocryphal gospels and acts contain stories of talking dogs, walking crosses, obedient bed bugs and the like; in one of them Jesus strikes dead a boy who offends him and strikes blind the boy’s parents for complaining. Some ancient Christians read them, but the churches never viewed them as Scripture.

Only Matthew, Mark, Luke and John survive from the first century. Unlike the other works, they include abundant Judean and Galilean traits. By the late second century, mainstream churches from one end of the Roman Empire to the other accepted these four, and only these four, Gospels as genuine apostolic memories of Jesus. If one wishes to learn more about Jesus than what one reads in the surviving first-century Gospels, later fictions are not the best place to start. One would do better to read works that genuinely shed light on Jesus’ milieu, even if they do not talk about Jesus himself. These would include, for example, collections of Jewish ideas circulating in Jesus’ day, such as the book of Sirach, probably 1 Enoch, or undisputed Biblical works that are actually cited in the Gospels such as Deuteronomy, Psalms, Isaiah and Daniel.

How the Gospels First Circulated

The ancient world was vastly different from our modern world of printing presses, copy machines and electronic publishing. Most books were copied by hand, one at a time, although very popular books could be dictated to multiple scribes at once. Books were normally written on scrolls in the first century, though in the second century Christians appear to be among the first adopters (or possibly innovators) of the sort of bound volumes we use for hard-copy books today. Christians found useful this bound version, called a codex, because it allowed for more material to be included in one volume without making it too cumbersome.

Writing material was expensive; for example, a copy of the Gospel of Mark may have required the equivalent early twenty-first-century buying power of $1000–$2000 U.S. Most people thus could not own their own copies of books. In fact, most would not have needed these copies anyway, since most people were either illiterate or only semiliterate. Although inscriptions were posted in cities with the assumption that many people could understand at least some writing, illiteracy was high. It was highest among women (due to the practices of ancient education) and in rural areas, but even many urban-dwelling men could not read, especially a work as long and detailed as a Gospel.

Most people thus heard the Gospels rather than read them for themselves. (That is why this study Bible’s notes usually speak of the Gospels’ first audience or hearers rather than their first readers.) They might hear an entire Gospel read during a church meeting, which was typically an intimate gathering in the home of one of the believers. Because many were accustomed to listening intently to stories or speeches, they would be able to follow the stories carefully. Hearing the accounts over and over, they would quickly learn much of the material by heart. Additionally, most people could not unroll multiple scrolls trying to find related passages; rather, they often quoted from memory from many different Biblical books.

Some books in antiquity were sold in book markets, but books achieved their greatest circulation when given public readings or especially when read at banquets. Persons of means who liked a book they heard could have a scribe write out a new copy for them. Because early Christians met around the Lord’s Supper, they also had a banquet setting for the reading of the Gospels. The most familiar form of public reading for them, however, would have been the use of Scripture in the synagogues. Already in the second century, Christians read apostolic works as Scripture alongside the Old Testament.

Authorship of the Gospels

By the standards used to evaluate ancient works’ authorship, the traditions of the Gospels’ authorship are very early. This is not surprising, given the amount of work represented by each of the Gospels. Works such as the Gospels normally would require careful writing and revision, then oral presentation and further revision based on feedback.

Works as large as these were major literary undertakings, requiring so much papyrus that in terms of early twenty-first-century buying power the larger Gospels may have been worth thousands of U.S. dollars, as suggested earlier. They were not as large as elite, multivolume historical works, but were nevertheless larger works than the vast majority of people could hope to afford.

Normally in antiquity readers knew who produced such major works, whether by information on the outside of the scroll or by knowledge circulated only by word of mouth. In a work this size, authorship would be one of the last details forgotten.

Moreover, had the church in fact forgotten the authorship of the Gospels, the traditions about their authorship would likely look very different. Second-century churches in different parts of the Roman Empire would likely have come up with different speculations about authorship, probably often preferring the names of apostles favored by their own locales. Instead, the early churches throughout the Empire settled on the same authors for the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Moreover, if the church were inventing names for authors, non-apostles such as Mark and Luke make little sense.

These observations suggest that the traditions about the different Gospels’ authorship are very early, as Martin Hengel argued. These traditions may offer more compelling evidence for some Gospels (such as Luke) than for others (such as Matthew), but on the whole they are stronger than many critics recognize. For Christians, of course, what matters most is not the tradition of human authorship, but our confidence that God speaks to us through these texts, and that they preserve the voice of our Lord Jesus Christ. ◆