FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Gospel Audiences?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
       I recall hearing that the four different Gosples were directed to four different audiences? Is this true? If so, what audiences were the Gosples written to (ie: St. John's Gosple written to the Roman world?)? Thank-you.
St. Matthew's Gospel, by all accounts, was originally written in Hebrew and done so specifically to leave a written record of Jesus' teachings for the Jews in Jerusalem.
St. Mark's Gospel was probably written in Rome while he was there with St. Peter, who was undoubtedly his primary source.  It's hard to say who this gospel was intended for.  Maybe the Jews in Rome?  Maybe the Romans?  Maybe it was simply written to preserve, for anyone, the memories that St. Peter had of his discipleship under Jesus.
St. Luke's Gospel appears to have been written primarily for Gentiles.  He addresses it to a person with rather a Gentile name, but scholars argue whether this was a real person or just a figurative name (theophilus) that stood for all Christians - the name means "lover of God."  He did his homework, that's for sure.  It certainly stands to reason that the only way he could have known all the intimate details of Our Lord's infancy was to have interviewed the Blessed Virgin herself.
St. John's Gospel ... who can say?  It's so other-worldly that it's hard to pin down who the audience might have been.  However, since St. John seems to have centered his Gospel around a Jewish liturgical calendar, it could be argued it was written for Jews.
Most of the New Testament was directed to the Jews, and most, if not all of it, was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
lumengentleman Wrote:St. John's Gospel ... who can say?  It's so other-worldly that it's hard to pin down who the audience might have been.  However, since St. John seems to have centered his Gospel around a Jewish liturgical calendar, it could be argued it was written for Jews.

 
       I was under the impression that St. John's Gospel was written for the Greeks. People whose emphasis was on truth, and beauty and right. Folks who asked a lot of questions. Would not this help explain especially St. John's first chapter said after the end of every Low Mass?
Maybe they didn't just preach to different nations, maybe they meant to preach to people of different lines of thought.
Not to be rude, Credo, but the word refering to one of four books written by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is spelled "Gospel" not "Gosple".
Quote:Not to be rude, Credo, but the word refering to one of four books written by SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is spelled "Gospel" not "Gosple".

Who needs a spell checker with you around lol[Image: laff.gif]

Another interesting difference is that St. Luke, who is traditionally believed to have been a physician, never speaks ill of doctors.  For instance, where St. Matthew says that the woman with the issue of blood had "spent all her substance on physicians", St. Luke never mentions this.  Professional courtesy!
Credo Wrote:
lumengentleman Wrote:St. John's Gospel ... who can say?  It's so other-worldly that it's hard to pin down who the audience might have been.  However, since St. John seems to have centered his Gospel around a Jewish liturgical calendar, it could be argued it was written for Jews.

 
       I was under the impression that St. John's Gospel was written for the Greeks. People whose emphasis was on truth, and beauty and right. Folks who asked a lot of questions. Would not this help explain especially St. John's first chapter said after the end of every Low Mass?

I thought so as well. The first chapter of St. John seems to reach out to Greeks, especially Stoics, who had some concept of the Logos (the Word) in their philosophy.
 
On St. Mark's gospel, I read that it was addressed to Romans. The emphasis in Mark's gospel is, I think, the actions and deeds of Christ, as opposed to His teachings (like in Matthew) or Christology (in John). It's also the shortest of the four gospels. It's argued that the Romans were most interested in an account of Christ as a "man of action" and one that's brief and to the point.
spasiisochrani Wrote:Another interesting difference is that St. Luke, who is traditionally believed to have been a physician, never speaks ill of doctors. For instance, where St. Matthew says that the woman with the issue of blood had "spent all her substance on physicians", St. Luke never mentions this. Professional courtesy!
[Image: laff.gif] That's awesome.