The contents of the Bible have dealt with controversy in regards to its inerrancy since publication, and will surely continue to. Historians progress to learn more about biblical stories in order to provide evidence for the reliability of information. Many believers today understand that not everything in the Bible has been factually proven. An outstanding topic many scholars pay attention to lies within the four gospels. The three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, replay essentially the same story with minor inconsistencies, while John portrays Jesus in an entirely different way. The differences in each gospel are due to how each gospel entertains different portrayals of the life and understanding of Jesus himself, in order to persuade …show more content…
This work is also said to be anonymous, and believed to have been produced in Syria within a large Jewish and Jewish-Christian community. It is apparent from a number of shared accounts, and overlapping stories of Jesus that the author of Matthew’s Gospel used Mark as a source. Although many of the stories are expanded upon, and carry different connotations, the same basic stories are found in all of the synoptic gospels, and because Mark was the first written, scholars assume it was a source used by both Matthew and Luke. It should also be noted that many of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew were not found in Mark. This led scholars to search for a second source, which resulted in the Q document. Although not available as a feasible document, Q designates a compilation of Jesus’ parables and sayings from about 50 to 70 CE, which are present in Matthew (Harris p.156). Throughout the gospel, Matthew uses formula quotations, meaning he quotes from the Old Testament. This strong relationship with the Hebrew Bible helps scholars determine that Matthew wanted to emphasize his Jewish position. This is important because his interpretations of Jesus throughout the gospel are not agreed upon by all Jews, in fact only a small fraction. Although it is obvious to the readers than John and Matthew carry very different stories of Jesus’ life, it is interesting to …show more content…
For example, John begins by introducing Jesus as the Word made flesh, who existed in heaven beside God until coming down to earth (John 1:1,14), immediately making this gospel stand aside from the synoptic gospels, which portray Jesus as a human figure who begins his life the moment he is born. The absence of the nativity scene in John supports the claim of Jesus being the divine Son of God who was sent down from heaven and transformed into the Word incarnate. Birth wouldn’t be important to someone who had previously existed (Harris, 253). The Gospel of Matthew does in fact include the nativity scene, because according to Matthew this is the very beginning of Jesus’ existence. Before the birth, Matthew maps out the genealogy of Jesus, all to support the claim that, “Jesus the Messiah, son of David, the son of Abraham,” (Matt. 1:1) is heir to the Davidic throne, and in fact the Jewish Messiah, King of the Jews. Right off the bat it is evident that John disregards the birth scene because it really isn’t relative to the divine being, and Matthew accentuates Jesus’ lineage, which would make Jesus appear to the audience very human, and rightful to the throne, something many Jews disagreed with during that time. Matthew does, however, also refer to Jesus as the Son of God multiple times similar to John. It is still true that John uses that title to express Jesus as being, “a father’s
The Gospel of John, the last of the four gospels in the Bible, is a radical departure from the simple style of the synoptic gospels. It is the only one that does not use parables as a way of showing how Jesus taught, and is the only account of several events, including the raising of Lazarus and Jesus turning water into wine. While essentially the gospel is written anonymously, many scholars believe that it was written by the apostle John sometime between the years 85 and 95 CE in Ephesus. The basic story is that of a testimonial of one of the Apostles and his version of Jesus' ministry. It begins by telling of the divine origins of the birth of Jesus, then goes on to prove that He is the Son of God because of the miracles he performs and finally describes Jesus' death and resurrection.
However, if any explanation other than historically accurate is accepted the disciples non- understanding might be explained. Overall, it is fair to say that scholarly opinion is divided on an explanation for the differences in the accounts; perhaps best explained by the writing perspective of the individual authors.
The four Gospels are considered to be four different accounts, from four different people, of how God wanted people to understand the meaning of his word. Within the four Gospels there are many similarities and differences. Through studies historians and Biblical scholars have found that the Gospels share some of the same information. It is believed that the reason for these similarities is that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John used information found in each of their Gospels to form their own, unique, Gospel.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the origin of nearly everything the Christian Church teaches about Jesus. The Gospels, in turn, serve as the scale or test of truth and authenticity of everything the church teaches about Jesus. It is said that the Gospels are the link between Jesus of Nazareth and the people of every age throughout history who have claimed to be his followers. Although the Gospels teach us about Jesus’ life they may not provide concrete evidence that what they speak of is true there are several other sources.
So it can be said that gnosis is secret knowledge revealed to man hat only get by someone or a
The author’s intent is Christological. Jesus is the Son of God. He is God amongst us. Recognized titles in Matthew include Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, King, Immanuel. In addition, “the allusions and actions of Jesus of Matthew’s Jesus also communicate his Messianic claims.”2 The Gospel functions as a teaching tool and can be used liturgically. The author of Matthew intended it to be read and for his audience to understand, be engaged in and appreciate the literary devices and references. He “did not write for bad or casual readers, but in stead for good and attentive listeners. The ancient audiences were “accustomed to retain minute textual details”.3
It is known to most that the gospels often differ from historical facts due to the writer of each gospel putting significant emphasis on particular actions and attributes of Jesus. Also a major part in this difference is the fact that the gospels were written 35-60 years after the death of Jesus and some of these memories have altered over time. Differences in conflicting evidence, writing to different communities, writing during a different time period, and with different intentions are all more reasons as to why these gospels conflict with historical facts. There is said to be six accounts that are subdivided into two separate traditions. These two traditions are those having to do with the appearance of Jesus in Galilee and the others are the appearances of Jesus to the eleven disciples in Jerusalem. These two traditions seem to not have any knowledge of one another and when the two were attempted to be combined into one tradition it was proven that this is not only impossible but it is unbeneficial.
In the beginning of Mark, the author does not include Jesus’ genealogy or his birth story like Matthew and Luke do. Instead, the gospel begins with John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus. Interestingly, unlike Matthew and Luke, Mark’s author also does not mention or allude to Jesus’ earthly father, Joseph. An example of the intentional omission of Joseph is when Jesus is rejected at Nazareth. In Matthew, Joseph is alluded to when people ask, “Is not this the carpenter’s son?” (English Standard Version, Matt. 13.55a). In contrast, in Mark people ask, “Is not this the carpenter…”(Mark 6.3a). When compared with Matthew, it’s
he Bible teaches us regarding the incredible mystery of Jesus Christ that arrived on earth to convey immense ‘beloved knowledge’ concerning God and among this conceivably exists our Godly sexual presence within humanity. The following occurs as an “attempt” to describe the greatest happening the world has ever experienced; appropriately, I profess this endeavor has instigated a humbling, for there are no words on earth that could ever come close to the power that Jesus Christ engulfed humanity with. Truthfully, it grieves me to think of how the majority of people, lack the intelligence and clarity (including myself) to accomplish such a feat; for no amount of terminology, vocabulary, or skills expressing His true existence could ever come
All four gospels present Jesus as both the Son of God and son of man. They all record His baptism, the feeding of the 5,000 from five loaves and two fishes, Mary's anointing of the Lord Jesus, His prayer in the garden of Gethsemane, His betrayal, trial, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection. However, each writer does so in a slightly different way, recording additional details or emphasizing one aspect more than the others.
At the very beginning of the gospels the authors make their representation of Jesus known to the reader, but they rely upon different methods. Mark focuses on Jesus’ role as a servant is apparent as he quotes the prophet Isaiah: “Here is my messenger, whom I send on ahead of you!” (Mark 1:2) This is a rather simple statement, and the use of the word “messenger” connotes a sense of being under another’s command; Jesus is seen as an intermediary between God and man. John’s introduction to Jesus is much more majestic and poetic, devoting many verses to explaining his divine relationship with God: “In the beginning there was the divine word and wisdom. The divine word and wisdom was there with God, and it was what God was. It was there with God from the beginning. Everything came to be by means of it” (John 1:1-3).
The Gospel according to Matthew, although being the first book of the New Testament canon, it was not considered the first gospel genre to be written. Matthew’s gospel gives an account of the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. In this essay, I intend to look at how the exegesis and interpretation of this gospel may be affected by our understanding of the authorship, its intended readership, and where and when it was written. Although all these categories are important in their own right, I will focus more on the intended audience and readership of this gospel. Authorship Mitch & Sri suggest that early in biblical history, everyone from Irenaeus in the second century to Origen and Tertullian in the third century, through to Augustine in the fifth century declared that Matthew the apostle was the author.
The historical reliability of the Bible is the first matter that needs to be discussed. There are three criteria that the military historian C. Sanders lists as principles for documentary historical proof: the bibliographical test, internal evidence test, and the external evidence test (McDowell 43). The bibliographical test is the examination of text from the documents that have reached us. The reliability of the copies of the New Testament is tested by the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time intervals between the time in which the piece of literature was written and our earliest copy. There are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament and 10,000 Latin vulgate manuscripts, not to mention the other various translations.
This essay will show contrasts in views on the Gospel of John regarding authorship,dates, and the relationship between John's Gospel and the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Some comparison of thought, concerning composition and life setting, will also be presented.
The book of Matthew is a Gospel Narrative. The purpose of Matthew has numerous aspects of importance. It is here to tell that Jesus is the promised Messiah of the Old Testament prophecy. Because the gospels , (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are narratives (like the Old testament histories), we should emphasize the broader context when reading them. We should always think about the broader sweep of the narratives, constantly relating the various events and teachings to those that precede and follow them. The heart of the narrative lies in the interrelation of the various events and teachings to one another. To ignore this interrelation is to miss the basic meaning of the narrative. The gospels demand some background information regarding history and culture1. It is more relevant to understand the culture, values and worldview of the people on the pages of the Gospel, than to know the specific author or recipients. All of that interaction comes to full light when we understand those important historical and cultural aspects of the gospels. The focus on the gospels is on Jesus, not on us! The Gospels were primarily written to tell us about who Jesus is, what he did for us, and why He is the only true object of our faith. If we change this focus1, we distort the very essence of the Gospels. We will think of Him as the God-man who walked the earth and now sits resurrected and glorified at the right hand of our Father. With four different Gospels, we should do comparisons of the various Gospel accounts when appropriate. When you blend the different Gospels together, you loose something unique and precious. We need to understand the centrality of the Kingdom of God in the Gospel.