"Matthew" was written for a Jewish audience which understood references to OT themes. The others were written for Greco-Roman audiences but at different times. "Mark" was first and "luke" was basically a fan-fic add on to fill in some of the obvious holes.
"John" was much later and depicts a significantly different tradition.
The other important point is geographical. There were far more than 4 gospels. 4 is simply the number that were successfully edited to conform to doctrinal realities at the time the bible was pieced together by a committee of scumbag bishops. It seems as if each xtian group had their own "gospel" and it was not until the group which Ehrman styles the proto-orthodox came to power - by backing the right horse at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge - that the proto-orthodox were able to start enforcing their particular version of bullshit on all other self-styled xtians.
I highly recommend Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It is a study of the various "heretical groups" (heretical because they disagreed with the proto-orthoox.) It's great reading.
"John" was much later and depicts a significantly different tradition.
The other important point is geographical. There were far more than 4 gospels. 4 is simply the number that were successfully edited to conform to doctrinal realities at the time the bible was pieced together by a committee of scumbag bishops. It seems as if each xtian group had their own "gospel" and it was not until the group which Ehrman styles the proto-orthodox came to power - by backing the right horse at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge - that the proto-orthodox were able to start enforcing their particular version of bullshit on all other self-styled xtians.
I highly recommend Ehrman's "Lost Christianities." It is a study of the various "heretical groups" (heretical because they disagreed with the proto-orthoox.) It's great reading.
