A study of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John reveal a number of images of Jesus, a variety of historical contexts out of which the Gospels emerged, and differences in perspective between Christian and Jewish groups. Such diversity primarily stems from the differences between the three ôsynopticö Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) and the Gospel of John.
Historically speaking, theologians and other scholars have taken one of three positions regarding the historicity or historical accuracy of the Gospels. These are:
The Gospels are viable records of history, examined and approved by members of the apostolic body and received as such by leaders of the churches they founded;
The Gospels are a mixture of the historical and the unhistorical, the posture adopted by the nineteenth-century liberal scholars;
The Gospels are so slanted theologically and so much a product of the early Christian imagination that they should not be regarded as a source of information about the Christ but about the early Church
The synoptic Gospels share many similarities in both writing and depictions of Jesus. The authorship of First John, however, remains a matter of debate. Most Christian theologians agree that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was very much a guiding hand in the composition of these Gospels, which are dated sometime circa 100 A.D. (Hills 1996, 71). Christ as ôthe Heavenly One come down to earth, the eternal Son of the Father made flesh and tabernacling among menö (Pink 1975, 9). This is entirely different ground than that covered by the Synoptic Gospels, in which Matthew portrays Jesus as the Son of David and Heir of IsraelÆs throne, Mark depicts Him as the Servant of Jehovah and the perfect Workman of God, and Luke treats Him as the perfect Man and the Heavenly One come to earth to save man.
Pink (1975) notes as well that the entire scope of JohnÆs Gospel is quite different than the other
...