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
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are considered to be Synoptic Gospels because they have overlapping content with parallel information. The Synoptic Puzzle, according to Powell, “shows us that the Gospel of Matthew is twice as long and contains 90 percent of the material that is in the Gospel of Mark.” To help us understand this even further Powell uses the “Two-Source Hypothesis.” He states that, “Mark’s gospel was written first, Matthew and Luke use Mark as a source, Matthew and Luke used copies of Q, and Matthew and Luke used copies of M and L sources to form their own opinion.” ...
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.
It is stated in the New Jerusalem Bible that “the Gospels don’t reflect the biography or the life of Jesus but are the four versions of the preaching from Jesus and are full of wonders and mysteries regarding the life of Jesus.” (New J Bible 1147). All the stories in gospels share similar outcomes and main ideas. They are very similar mainly that of Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke while Gospel of John is a little different from the rest three. The stories from Matthew, Mark and Luke are known as the synoptic. It is because they have the same synopsis and are simil...
Stanton, Graham. Gospel Truth?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Paperback.
One of the main characteristics of the gospel of Mark is it’s length. Mark is much shorter than Matthew and Luke, but what it lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. The author of Mark does not slow down the gospel story and makes sure that only important and relevant details are included. When Mark is compared with Matthew and Luke, it becomes obvious to see what Mark has eliminated. The author’s omission of Jesus’ birth, lineage, resurrection, and ascension denote careful planning and purpose in the gospel of Mark.
The reason that the Gospel of Matthew is in the first place among the four Gospels is due to the early church tradition that Matthew was the earliest one who recorded Lord’s word and Jesus stories. In the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo claimed that "the canonical order of the four Gospels was the chronological order." In the late-eighteenth century, J. J. Griesbach stated that The Gospel of Mark was a short version of the combination of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. In the nineteenth century, German scholars concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was preceded by the Gospel of Mark and Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as his primary source. No matter which theory that most New Testament scholars accept, Matthew did not simply copy sources from other Gospels, but also included his own ideas and quoted verses from the Old Testament. So the question of readers should rise is "How strong relationship did the Gospel of Matthew have with the Old Testament?" or "How accurately did Matthew use the Old Testament?
Although the Gospel of Mark is presented second in the New Testament, scholars typically agree it was the first Gospel written; therefore, it set an example for other writers. Throughout the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Luke, influences of Mark are easily recognized in wording, structure, and the sequence of narrative events. While Mark is believed to have been recorded first, it is more condensed and simpler than Matthew and Luke; how...
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
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.
A curious thing that Mark never mentions throughout the entirety of the gospel is Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father. The beginning of Mark continuously reiterates that Jesus is the Son of God, the gospel’s first verse is a clear example, “the beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Again towards the end of the gospel in verse 15:39 Jesus is clearly declared as the Son of God, “and when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’” The beginning of Mark does not have a nativity story and the end does not continue to the resurrection story, so in beginning and ending the gospels with the proclaiming of Jesus as the Son of God the author is saying that Jesus was the promised savior and he was perfect rather than being seen as a simply son of a
Do Matthew and Mark record two events or is it a doublet? Scholars generally agree Mark’s gospel was first and Matthew and Luke used, it with ‘Q’ ‘M’ & ‘L’, as their source. Mark was not an eye-witness but relied on oral and other sources. Matthew is generally seen as an update of Mark; so, perhaps, not surprising Matthew also records the second feeding. Luke and John may have had access to Mark’s Gospel, but neither record two separate events.
The study of the Gospel of John can be viewed as distinct and separate from the study of any of the previous three synoptic gospels. The Fourth Gospel contains language and conceptions so distinct from the synoptics that scholars are often faced with the question of its historical origins. Originally, scholars believed the main source for the Gospel of John to be Jewish wisdom literature, Philo, the Hermetic books and the Mandaean writings, leading to the idea that John was the most Greek of the Gospels. However, with the discovery of the scrolls, scholars were now faced with source materials, remarkably similar to the concepts and language found in John, illuminating the literature as not only Jewish but Palestinian in origin. The discovery of the manuscripts opened up an entirely new interpretation of the gospel of John and a progressive understanding of its proper place within biblical scripture.
Mark’s gospel and John’s gospel contain many differences from the beginning, but both end with Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The gospels of John and Mark represent Jesus as two different people. The disparity is that Mark represents Jesus as a servant while John portrays Jesus as a divine being. However, one must realize the two texts are meant to read by different audiences during different time periods. Each description presents a particular aspect of the life of Historical Jesus.
Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.
Most Christian scholars agree that Mark was written before Matthew and Luke. Over half the material in Matthew and Luke is common to material in Mark, suggesting that Matthew and Luke used Mark to write their gospels. Matthew and Luke each have about 100 verses in common, most of them sayings; to explain this agreement, scholars assume that they used a primitive document, which they call Q. It consisted largely of sayings of Jesus. Matthew and Luke also contain unique material not present in Mark. This apparently came from two different sources, of which each author had access to only one. These differences and similarities can be seen in the story of the resurrection of Jesus. The resurrection of Jesus can be broken down into 5 sections: the approaching of the tomb, the removal of the stone, looking in the tomb, the response and the reaction.