The New Testament contains 27 books which comprise what is often referred to as the canon of Scripture.  The word canon is formal word for a list of literary works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.[1]  In the case of our New Testament it is permanently established within the boundaries of accepted orthodox Christian thought. The word “orthodox” simply means the straight truth   

Within the content list of the New Testament there are four books we refer to as Gospels. The English word “gospel” comes from the original Greek “euaggelion” (SW 2098) which means “a good message”[2].  Christian theologians and pastors refer to the word as the good news of Jesus Christ that is proclaimed in the New Testament text.

In New Testament times the word Gospel was not always used in a religious or spiritual context.   It was a commonly used word in the Roman culture. In Roman literature and rhetoric, the latest imperial edict, or an announcement of Roman troops having won a battle on their frontiers might be called “gospel” - “good news”.[3] Almost every subject of the Roman Empire knew the word’s connection to Caesar Augustus. His birthday is celebrated as the beginning of good news – the beginning of “euaggelion” – because he was a savior for all the world.[4]       

The four books that are categorized as the New Testament Gospels are Matthew, Mark Luke and John. Matthew, Mark and Luke are often somewhat separated from John’s Gospel because of how they were composed. Matthew, Mark and Luke share so much in common and read so much alike. Scholars often refer to them as the synoptic Gospels. That is “syn-optic” which is to “see alike”. That is because they are very closely related literarily.[5]

Mark was actually the first of the three synoptic Gospels to be written. Most Biblical scholars agree that both Matthew and Luke used Mark’s Gospel account as a storyline to work from in composing their Gospels. Mark’s storyline is fast paced and gets to the point promptly. Mark seems to be very interested in what Jesus did and where he went. What Jesus said and His spiritual identity as the Son of God, are not in the forefront as often as the other three Gospels.

About 90% of Mark’s material is found in both Matthew and Luke, whereas about 10% of Mark is not found in either Matthew nor Luke.[6] Mark’s Gospel is also the shortest Gospel of the three synoptic Gospels. This is why Mark’s Gospel works very well as a storyline for Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.

Matthew is good at approaching the ministry of Jesus from an Old Testament Messianic prophecy fulfillment objective. Matthew often uses prophetic references from the Old Testament to show his readers how Jesus has directly fulfilled them. More than likely the original recipients of Matthew’s Gospel were Jewish and were familiar with the Messianic prophecies that were written in the Old Testament.

Luke writes a carefully researched Gospel account from a Gentile mentality, because He was a Gentile. He not only portrayed the redeeming deity of Jesus, but also the Lord’s humanity. Using the storyline of Mark, Luke writes the longest of the four New Testament Gospels.        

It is interesting to note that Mark includes very little of the sayings of Jesus Christ. However Matthew and Luke quote Jesus readily and many of their quotations are identical in both Gospels in the original Greek. This has led the scholars to believe that Matthew and Luke shared a common source of these sayings of Jesus.

This source of Jesus sayings has never been discovered in the writings of antiquity. However, it can be reconstructed from the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke. Post Reformation Biblical scholars in Germany did that and called the document “Quella” which is German for the English word “source”. This document is often referred to as “Q” or the “Q Gospel”.

The Gospel of John takes a much different approach to the presentation of Jesus in its text. John was much more interested in explaining who Jesus is rather than what He did. This is made immediately evident by the prologue to the Gospel.[7] The opening Chapter of John’s Gospel identifies Jesus as the living Word of God and the light of mankind’s life. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was in the beginning with God.  All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.” (John 1:1-4)

In the other three Gospels the main scene of the ministry is Galilee. In John the main scene of the ministry is Jerusalem and Judea.[8] While the miraculous works of Jesus are described in all four New Testament Gospels, John avoids the rehearsal of any of the parables found in the three synoptic gospels. Despite these differences in approach and presentation of the person and ministry of Jesus, the same truths prevail in the text of John’s Gospel as do the other three. Jesus Christ was the promised messiah not only to the Jews but also to entire world.  Jesus did not come to deliver a Gospel, but to be Himself that Gospel.[9]

The four Gospels are followed by the Book of Acts, which is sometimes referred to as the “Acts of the Apostles”. There were other pseudo historical accounts which showed up on the platform of canonical formation for the first three centuries. Writings as “The Acts of Peter” and the “The Acts of John” were just a few of the documents that were not included in the official canon of the New Testament. This was because the content of these writings did not harmonize theologically with the four Gospel messages that told the story of Jesus Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles tells the story of the earliest Church’s birth and growth.[10] As the new Christian Church took form we see its trials, its decisions, its growth and its empowerment by the Holy Spirit to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ beyond the boundaries of Palestine and into the uttermost parts of the Earth. It is a historical account of the early Christian faith that encourages the reader.   

Acts in itself is not a unit, for it is obviously designed as a sequel to Luke.[11] In the very first verse of Acts Luke not only mentions his “first account” (The Gospel According to Luke) but also the identical same recipient named Theophilus. “The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach.” (Acts 1:1)  “It seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus. (Luke 1:3) This is why Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles can be so easily read in tandem. 

Following the Acts of the Apostles in the canon are 21 epistles written by various apostles. The Apostle Paul is credited with writing as many as 13 of those. Paul’s letters were all written to speak to situations in the churches he was addressing. But at the heart of every letter, in one way or another, is his fundamental Gospel message.[12]

By a conservative consensus, Paul’s letters Paul’s letters include Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and Philemon. There are some theologians that question the genuine authorship of Paul’s pastoral epistles which include 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus and large portions of Ephesians. Regardless of who authored these epistles, the theological harmony and consistent pattern of Christian thought remains intact with the other Pauline epistles.

The remaining epistles include Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1,2 &3 John, Jude. Of these, Biblical scholars will question the authorship of Hebrews and 2 Peter. For centuries Hebrews was generally thought to be from the pen of Paul. During the 20^th century, with the increased archeological evidence and additional manuscript copies being made available to the various scholars and theologians, it is almost certain that Paul was not the author.

The final book in the New Testament is the Book of Revelation. Most theologians place John the Gospel writer as the author of this book. The Book of Revelation would have been perfectly well understood by its first-century readers, and is therefore not a detailed blueprint of the plan of God for the second coming.[13] In that statement we can find a functional key to unraveling this seemly complex apocalyptic literature of the Book of Revelation.