GORDON-CONWELL THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

FROM MORE THAN ONE TO FOUR-IN-ONE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE

FOURFOLD GOSPEL

A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. FAIRBAIRN

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE COMPLETION OF CH 501 CHURCH HISTORY TO THE

REFORMATION

BY

JONATHAN S. JONES

JACKSON, TENNESSEE

December 13, 2013

1

From more than one to four-in-one: The Development of the

Fourfold Gospel

Why does the Bible include four Gospels? Few questions sound so

simple yet can be as elusive as this one. Any new Christian

upon their first reading of the Scriptures promptly comes

face to face with this question, or some variation of it—if

these are all about the same person, Jesus of Nazareth, then why the different

accounts? It makes more sense to the modern mind that if the

purpose is relaying the life and deeds of one man, then one

account should be sufficient. But, that is not the Bible as

we have it today.

On the one hand, the question encompasses not just the

origin of the Gospels but the origin of the New Testament

itself with its decades of sifting by the early church. The

Gospel canon is a product of an historical process involving

scores of early church thinkers with their opinions about

what each Gospel means, how they relate to one another, and

what the church should do with them. On the other hand,

based on the practice of the early church, they are the

authoritative accounts of God on earth; therefore, their

2

origins transcend their historical process. The question

must include both how the early church arrived at such a

collection of Gospels as well as why it fought to defend its

collection despite ensuing attempts to change it.

To answer the question why four Gospels? this paper will

address two aspects. The first section will give an

overview of the early church’s consistent witness to

multiple Gospels up to the second century. Secondly, a

sample of arguments, again up to the second century, will be

surveyed from the early church’s internal consciousness and

struggle with retaining the four accounts of Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John.1

The Historical Witness and Development

The earliest development of writings to be collected

and stamped as ‘authoritative’ by the church is mysterious.2

A general sketch is possible, however, in spite of our lack 1 There is significant overlap between this topic and the commonly discussed ‘synoptic problem.’ However, it has been my hope to avoid getting caught in this spiraling discussion in order to focus primarily on what the early church had to say about her own sacred writings.2 Hengel refers to the first century as “this most obscure period in church history” in Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels (London: SCM, 2000), 61.

3

of knowledge,. This section will show that multiple Gospel

accounts were always present since the first century, but

specifically Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were quickly

recognized as authoritative. Also, through the rise of the

codex, the (eventually) canonical3 Gospels were joined

together to create the fourfold Gospel.4

From the New Testament there is evidence of various

Jesus accounts having been in existence. In the Gospel of

John one reads “Jesus performed many other signs in the

presence of His disciples that are not written in this book.

But these are written so that you may believe Jesus is the

Messiah, the Son of God, and by believing you may have life

in His name.”5 Goswell notes that the “self-reference to

“this book” can be taken as an implicit acknowledgment of

other books, namely the three preceding Gospels.”6

3 In this paper, “canonical” will be used to refer to those gospels which were formally adopted into the New Testament canon (i.e., Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John), while “synoptic gospels” will refer to only Matthew, Mark, and Luke.4 I am indebted for the overall shape of this section to Graham N. Stanton, "The Fourfold Gospel" in New Testament Studies 43, no. 3 (July 1, 1997): 317-346.5 Jn 20.30-31, HCSB, emphasis mine.6 Greg Goswell, “Order of the Books of the NT,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (Jun 1, 2010), 228. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2013).

4

The epistle of 1 Clement, another first century

document, is an early witness pointing specifically to

Matthew, Mark, and Luke as authoritative. Traditionally

dated between 95-97AD, Holmes extends this range to be

anywhere between 80 and 100 AD making its authorship

possibly much earlier.7 Commenting on 1 Clem. 46.7-88,

Hengel believes that “Clement has reshaped two sayings of

Jesus from different contexts in relation to the situation

in Corinth. There could be a knowledge of all three

Synoptics at precisely this point.”9 If Holmes is correct

in moving the date for 1 Clement forward to the 80s, and

Hengel is correct in seeing a connection to all three

Gospels in 1 Clem. 46.7-8, then this would set a very early

precedent for the use and authority of the synoptic Gospels.

7 Michael Holmes, “First Clement: Introduction” in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts with English Translations. 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), 36.8 “Why do we tear and rip apart the members of Christ, and rebel againstour own body, and reach such a level of insanity that we forget that we are members of one another? Remember the words of Jesus our Lord, for he said: “Woe to that person! Rather than cause one of my elect to sin, it would have been good for that one not to have been born. It would have been better for that person to have been tied to a millstone and case into the sea, rather than pervert one of my elect.” In The Apostolic Fathers, 107-109.9 Darrell D. Hannah, “The four-gospel ‘canon’ in the Epistula Apostolorum” inJournal of Theological Studies 59, no.2 (October 1, 2008), 129. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2013).

5

The Epistula Apostolorum, or The Epistle of the Apostles,

also acknowledges the existence and authority of the

canonical Gospels. The Epistula is a second century

apocryphal writing supposedly with recorded conversations

between the eleven apostles and the risen Christ.10 Hannah

has shown that the text dates back to the first half of the

second century, probably the 140s.11 All four canonical

Gospels, and most likely only these, are referenced as

authoritative in the document, signifying “the Epistula’s

author made use of a Gospel canon which functionally was

identical to our own…”12

In spite of lack of information from this early period,

we know that a variety of Gospel accounts was known among

the earliest of the Christian writers, going all the way

back to the Apostle John himself. The Gospels eventually to

be adopted had risen quickly to the top, and by the year 140

AD, the estimated date of the Epistula, all four of the

canonical Gospels were being seen as authoritative at the

10 “Testament of Our Lord in Galilee,” in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church(Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997), 1592.11 Hannah, 628-632.12 Ibid., 633.

6

exclusion of other alternatives. Thus, one can agree with

Hengel when he writes “the decisive years for the

composition, the dissemination and the establishment of the

four Gospels lie between 70 and around 140, a period in

which we have little information about the church and from

which not many writings have been preserved either.”13

The joining together of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

as the church’s one Gospel grew out of their use in

Christian worship and coincided with the introduction of the

codex as a viable substitute for the Jewish scroll. Codices

were first used during Christian worship between 84 and 86

AD, and the new form quickly caught on.14 Using the codex

instead of the scroll became popular for two reasons: 1) the

codex provided a means for easily distinguishing Christian

worship from Jewish synagogue worship; and 2) itinerant

teachers and preachers could handle a codex much easier than

a scroll as they traveled.15 It was also possible to bind

together larger documents, or more of them, while

13 Hengel, 135.14 Stanton, 340; cf. Hengel, 118.15 Hengel, The Four Gospels, 120.

7

maintaining its portability. With the joint use of all four

Gospels in many Christian circles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and

John were quickly joined together into one massive codex,

and by 150AD the four-gospel codex had become standard

practice.16

Finally, the Muratorian Fragment demonstrates the

culmination of the Church’s first two centuries of choosing

her authoritative documents.17 Stanton states “[t]he

Fragment confirms that the fourfold Gospel was well

established towards the end of the second century.”18 By the

year 200 AD, the majority of the process for forming the

Gospel canon was complete.

The Early Church’s Struggle and Defense

If the previous section can be described as viewing the

Gospel canon’s formation from the outside, then this section

will examine its development within. The Church was aware

of the tension caused by retaining multiple accounts, but

refused to reduce them into one. Writers from the first

16 Stanton, 338-339.17 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: HarperOne, 1978), 60.18 Stanton, 325.

8

two centuries will be noted who defended the fourfold canon.

Early attempts at resolving the tension went in two

directions, either choosing one Gospel over the others

(Marcion), or by recasting the collection altogether into

one unit as a ‘harmony’ (Tatian). These alternatives will

provide the context for examining more closely arguments of

the apologists Tertullian and Irenaues.

Marcion was an early leader expelled from Rome in 144

AD. He taught that the God of the Old Testament was a

different God from the one revealed by Jesus Christ, and

tried to rid all Jewish characteristics from the scriptures.

His treatment of the Gospels “was not that of synthesis but

of rigorous reduction: he wanted to purge the Gospel of Luke

of all Old Testament Jewish leaven, claiming this refined

version as the only true one, which according to Gal. 1.12

Paul had received personally through a revelation of Jesus

Christ…”19 Marcion represents an alternative to accepting

the fourfold Gospel by choosing one particular Gospel to the

exclusion of the rest.

19 Hengel, 31-329

Tertullian, writing from the second half of the second

century, responded to Marcion’s erroneous views. In his

work Against Marcion, he wrote:

We lay it down as our first position, that the evangelical Testament has apostles for its authors, to whom was assigned by the Lord Himself this office of publishing the gospel…Of the apostles, therefore, John and Matthew first instil faith into us; whilst of apostolic men, Luke and Mark renew it afterwards. These all start with the same principles of the faith, so far as relates to the one only God the Creator and His Christ, how that He was born of the Virgin, and came to fulfil the law and the prophets. Never mind if there does occur some variation in the order of their narratives, provided that there be agreement in the essential matter of the faith…Then, at last, having conferredwith the (primitive) authors, and having agreed with them touching the rule of faith, they joined their hands in fellowship, and divided their labours thenceforth in the office of preaching the gospel, so that they were to go to the Jews, and St. Paul to the Jews and the Gentiles. (Book 4 ch.2)20

Tertullian’s response builds on two arguments: apostolic

origin, and inherent unity based on the apostolic faith.

Tertullian grounds his approach to the scriptures in placing

a high value on their apostolic origin and, therefore, does

not have the right to change them. His response to the 20 Tertullian, Against Marcion, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donadlson, andA. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes. Ante-Nicene Fathers 3 (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 347-348. Emphasis mine. Hereafter, Against Marcion and Against Heresies will be documented ‘AM’ and ‘AH’ with book.chapter.paragraph.

10

tension is to adjust his own approach rather than the

scriptures. This response based on apostolic origin and

trust in the inherent unity of the faith provided the church

with her first major response to the threat of logical

reductionism.

If Marcion’s approach of picking one Gospel was

rejected, then a second alternative was to combine them into

one account, to harmonize them. Nearly 25 years after

Marcion was expelled from Rome, Tatian produced his

Diatessaron, a harmony of the four Gospels pieced together

“like a mosaic into the framework of John with scrupulous

accuracy, beginning with the prologue and ending with

chapter 21.”21 Neither was this alternative to be accepted.

Irenaeus, the second century bishop from Gaul, gave his

defense of the fourfold Gospel in Against Heresies. 22 Irenaeus

defends the Gospels in a much broader manner than Tertullian

and builds on arguments that he received from his 21 Hengel, 24-2522 Irenaeus, Against Heresies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donadlson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes. Ante-Nicene Fathers 1 (Peabody,MA: Hendrickson, 2012), 428-429. The principal passage (book 3 ch.11 par.7-9) is too extensive to quote in full here, so only selections willbe given. Hereafter, Against Marcion and Against Heresies will be cited ‘AM’ and ‘AH’ respectively with bk.ch. par.

11

predecessors. Not only did he view the four Gospels as

worth preserving in their own right, but Irenaeus also saw

the number four as necessary for its cosmic significance.

He wrote:

“It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world,and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospeland the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh…He who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit.”23

Irenaeus draws an analogy from creation justifying the

plurality of the Gospels while demonstrating their internal

unity. Just as wind carries breath to the four “zones” of

the earth, the fourfold Gospel carries with it the breath of

immortality to the four corners of the world. Because he

considers each Gospel account to be various aspects rather

than separate, individual accounts, Irenaeus provides the

23AH 3.11.8, emphasis mine; cf. 1 Tim. 3.15.12

church with a consistent argument for the Gospels being one,

fourfold (or “quadriform”24) Gospel.

In the same passage, Irenaeus continues his defense by

linking the Gospels with the four ‘living creatures’

mentioned in Revelation 4.6-7.25 First, he interprets each

‘creature’ as revealing something about the Incarnate Son:

For the cherubim, too, were four-faced, and their faceswere images of the dispensation of the Son of God. For, [as the Scripture] says, “The first living creature was like a lion,” symbolizing His effectual working, His leadership, and royal power; the second [living creature] was like a calf, signifying [His] sacrificial and sacerdotal order; but “the third had, as it were, the face as of a man,”—an evident description of His advent as a human being; “the fourthwas like a flying eagle,” pointing out the gift of the Spirit hovering with His wings over the Church.26

Furthermore, Irenaeus attaches to each Gospel one of the

living creatures. These then serve as interpretive keys for

24 “For the living creatures are quadriform, and the Gospel is quadriform…” AH 3.11.8.25 “Something like a sea of glass, similar to crystal, was also before the throne. Four living creatures covered with eyes in front and back were in the middle and around the throne. The first living creature waslike a lion; the second living creature was like a calf; the third living creature had a face like a man; and the fourth living creature was like a flying eagle.”26 AH 3.11.8

13

understanding each Gospel’s unique portrait of the person of

Jesus. Irenaeus explains this connection:

And therefore the Gospels are in accord with these things, among which Christ Jesus is seated. For that according to John relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from the Father, thus declaring, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Also, “all things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” For this reason, too, is that Gospel full of all confidence, for such is His person. But that accordingto Luke, taking up [His] priestly character, commenced with Zacharias the priest offering sacrifice to God. For now was made ready the fatted calf, about to be immolated for the finding again of the younger son. Matthew, again, relates His generation as a man, saying, “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham;” and also, “The birth of Jesus Christ was on the wise.” This, then, isthe Gospel of His humanity; for which reason it is, too, that [the character of] a humble and meek man is kept up through the whole Gospel. Mark, on the other hand, commences with [a reference to] the prophetical spirit coming down from on high to men, saying , “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as it is written in Esaias the prophet,”—pointing to the winged aspect of the Gospel and on this account he made a compendious and cursory narrative, for such is the prophetical character.27

As Skeat has shown, this connection between the Gospels and

the four living creatures is one that precedes Irenaeus.28

27 Ibid., emphasis mine.28 Skeat determines that these arguments predate 170AD. T.C. Skeat, “Irenaeus and the Four-Gospel Canon” in Novum Testamentum 34, no.2 (April

14

Irenaeus affirms the same arguments as Tertullian29 in

defense of the plural nature of the Gospels, but he goes

much further in his defense by incorporating broader

arguments used throughout the church.

To summarize, the early church’s arguments for

defending the fourfold Gospel are four. First, they are

apostolic in their origin and have been handed down in their

particular form which should not be altered. Second, they

contain an internal unity that surpasses any discrepancies.

Third, they are analogous in their life-giving message for

God’s people to the wind carrying breath for all mankind to

the four corners of the world. Finally, each Gospel reveals

a particular aspect of Jesus that is not as clearly revealed

in the others. As Stanton states, “the [Muratorian]

Fragment and Irenaeus make similar points concerning the

fourfold Gospel: in spite of what critics may say about the

different beginnings of the gospels, there is one Gospel in

fourfold form, held together by one Spirit.”30

1, 1992), 198.29 Cf. AH 3.11.7 for Irenaeus arguing based on their agreed unity in the faith.30 Stanton, 325.

15

Conclusion

I suspect that if one surveyed the rest of church

history up to today, one would find that the question why

four Gospels? has never left. How can ancient responses to

current questions help us to today? The core to Tertullian

and Irenaeus’ arguments is the centrality of Christ, and is

the key to today’s answer. Keeping the Gospels connected

with the One whom they portray and the community that

gathers around Him is imperative. Christ is whom the

Gospels portray, around Christ the church is formed, and

handed down from the church come the Scriptures. This

Christo-centric approach is the consistent response linking

today’s answers to this perpetual question.

In the preface to his book Jesus of Nazareth, Joseph

Ratzinger31 outlines his approach to the Gospels with which

I believe many evangelicals would heartily agree. He

acknowledges his debt to historical criticism, but not as 31 Currently known as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. It is worthy of noting that the book is published under Ratzinger’s birth name (and not “Pope Benedict XVI” despite the cover’s printing) demonstrating that thebook is a personal statement, rather than an authoritative work of the Roman Catholic Church’s magisterium; cf. Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration (New York City, NY: Doubleday, 2007), xxiii-xxiv.

16

the definitive mode of interpretation. Rather, historical

exegesis serves the greater purpose of God’s self-revelation

through Jesus Christ which is observed and continually re-

discovered in the worship of His church through the use of

the Scriptures. He writes

Modern exegesis has brought to light the process of constant rereading that forged the words transmitted inthe Bible into Scripture: Older texts are reappropriated, reinterpreted, and read with new eyes in new contexts. They become Scripture by being read anew, evolving in continuity with their original sense,tacitly corrected and given added depth and breadth of meaning. This is a process in which the word gradually unfolds its inner potentialities, already somehow present like seeds, but needing the challenge of new situations, new experiences and new sufferings, in order to open up.32

The Scriptures must be interpreted in view of their

composition and development within the church’s worship. It

is this foundation which allows differences among plurality

without sacrificing unity. Because all Scripture,

especially the Gospels, is interpreted through Christ,

correct interpretation assumes a believing interpreter who

32 Ibid., xviii-xix.17

discerns the unity of the whole Bible relative to Christ.

Ratzinger continues:

This Christological hermeneutic, which sees Jesus Christ as the key to the whole and learns from him how to understand the Bible as a unity, presupposes a prioract of faith. It cannot be the conclusion of a purely historical method. But this act of faith is based uponreason—historical reason—and so makes it possible to see the internal unity of Scripture.33

Far from making short shrift of historical exegesis, this

approach gives historical exegesis its direction and

meaning.34 The centrality of Christ and his work on the

cross has been the passion of my life thanks to my

evangelical heritage. In this approach outlined by

Ratzinger, I find a hermeneutic which is consistent with

that of the early church and compatible with contemporary

evangelicalism, making all fields of exegetical research

fertile soil for the believing interpretation of the Church.

At a personal level, maintaining the fourfold Gospel

implies that we read each one with the others in view. As

Goswell has said, we need to read the Gospels “side by

33 Ibid., xix.34 Ibid.

18

side”: “The Four Gospels have been placed side by side in

the canon, inviting comparison, but not harmonization, given

the retention of the fourfold form.”35 Reading ‘side by

side’ allows for the different temperaments of Jesus to come

through each Gospel, as Burridge has wonderfully

demonstrated in his book Four Gospels, One Jesus?36

At a congregational level, one way to incorporate a

balanced emphasis on reading each Gospel with its unique

insight is to implement the 3-year cycle of Lectionary

readings for Sunday worship. Using the Revised Common

Lectionary, each Sunday a Gospel passage is read aloud with

each year focusing on a specific Gospel (Year A—Matthew;

Year B—Mark; Year C—Luke, with John being read during Easter

season). This can be a great way to allow a congregation

time to meditate on aspects of Jesus’ teaching and ministry

uniquely emphasized in each Gospel.

It is of great benefit that early leaders fought for a

plurality of Gospels, and we should not be alarmed at their

35 Goswell, 230-231.36 Richard Burridge. Four Gospels, One Jesus? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 178.

19

differences. Instead, we need to be thankful for the wisdom

of the early church in accepting variation of the Gospels

while affirming their internal unity. I agree completely

with Jonathan Pennington when he states

there is a richness in the four that one Gospel alone could not provide…If it is indeed true that Jesus was God’s Son incarnate, the Creator of the universe, and the consummation of all knowledge and wisdom, then it stands to reason that no one account—or a million—couldbegin to describe and plumb the depths of his person, teaching, and actions.37

37 Jonathan Pennington, Reading the Gospels Wisely (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), 70.

20

Bibliography

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Ed. Michael W.Holmes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

Burridge, R. A. Four Gospels, One Jesus? A Symbolic Reading. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005.

Goswell, Greg. "The order of the books of the New Testament." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society (June 1,2010): 225-241. Christian Periodical Index, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2013).

Hannah, Darrell D. "The four-gospel 'canon' in the Epistula Apostolorum." Journal Of Theological Studies 59, no. 2 (October 1, 2008): 598-633. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed December 2, 2013).

Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: an Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Trans. John Stephen Bowden. London: SCM, 2000.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Alexander Roberts and William Rambaut. Ante-Nicene Fathers 1, 309-567. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines. Rev. ed. New York: HarperOne, 1978.

Pennington, Jonathan T. Reading the Gospels wisely: a narrative and theological introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.

Ratzinger, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. New York City, NY: Doubleday, 2007.

Skeat, T. C. "Irenaeus and the four-gospel canon." Novum Testamentum 34, no. 2 (April 1, 1992): 194-199. ATLA

21

Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessedDecember 4, 2013).

Stanton, Graham N. "The Fourfold Gospel." New Testament Studies43, no. 3 (July 1, 1997): 317-346.

Tertullian. Against Marcion. Ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes. Ante-Nicene Fathers 3, 269-428. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012.

“Testament of our Lord in Galilee,” in The Oxford Dictionary of theChristian Church. 3rd ed. Ed. E.A. Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997), 1592.

22