Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Similarities and differences of gospels
The proffered solution to the synoptic problem
Historical Jesus and Jesus the savior
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Similarities and differences of gospels
Introduction
Throughout history scholars and theologians have sought to determine the chronological order regarding the synoptic Gospels of the New Testament canon. They have often utilized both the internal sources, found within the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and external evidence to critically analyze the literary and historical relations.
The two-Gospel hypothesis provides an effective response regarding these literary and historical similarities with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke through a balanced approach utilizing both internal and external resources to address the long standing debate regarding the synoptic problem.
The Synoptic Problem
The synoptic problem is a debate in regards to the literary relationship among the first three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, found in the New Testament and their account of the life, death, resurrection, and teachings of Christ. The very word “synoptic” carries the Greek meaning of “seeing the whole together” or “taking a comprehensive view” (Warfield, 1980). This question of literary relationship is raised do to the vast similarities found among the three gospels. The Gospel of Mark contains 678 verses with only approximately 50 of those being unique to just Mark. “He shares about 480 with both Matthew and Luke, and another 120 with Matthew only, and another 20 with Luke only. Thus Mark demonstrates differences only 7% while showing agreements 93% of the time” (López, 2011). The Gospel of John is not included in the synoptic problem discussion as it agrees with only 8% of all three, disagreeing with 92% (López, 2011).
The primary sources of evidence utilized in discussing the synoptic problem are found internally in studying the pattern of correlations a...
... middle of paper ...
... AND FARRER-GOULDER HYPOTHESIS." Journal For The Study Of The New Testament no. 78 (June 2000): 23-48. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 2, 2012).
Farmer, William R. The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis. Dillsboro, NC: Mercer University Press, 1981.
Farmer, William R. “The Import of the Two-Gospel Hypothesis.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 48, no. 1 (January 1984): 55-60.
Griesbach, J.J. Synoptic and Text-critical Studies 1776-1976. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. 103-135.
López, René A. "New Testament Theology: The Synoptic Problem in the Gospels." Journal Of Dispensational Theology 15, no. 44 (April 2011): 41-48. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 1, 2012).
Warfield, Benjamin Breckinridge, and Warfield. Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 2 ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1980.
Morgan, G. Campbell. Studies in the Four Gospels. 3rd ed. Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1931.
Metzger, B. (1997). The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. New York.
Stanton, Graham. Gospel Truth?: New Light on Jesus and the Gospels. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995. Paperback.
Damrosch, David, and David L. Pike, eds. "The Gospel According to Luke." The Longman Anothology of World Literature. Compact ed. New York: Pearson, 2008. 822-33. Print.
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.
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.
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.
"EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 & 2." EXPLORING THEOLOGY 1 2. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 May 2014.
Baptist Publication Society, 1886). Clarke, Adam; ed. ; pp. 63-63. Clarke's Commentary (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 2003). no date. Criswell, W. A. & Co., W. A. Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).
New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Osborne, Grant R. Revelation. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Bromiley, Geoffrey William, Fredrich, Gerhard, Kittel, Gerhard. “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” Struttgart, Germany. W. Kohlhammer Verlag. 1995. Print.
Wenham, G.J., Moyter, J.A., Carson, D.A. and France, R.T., eds. New Bible Commentary. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1998.
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
The first three gospels are sometimes called the 'synoptic' (same view) gospels. This is because they each cover teaching and miracles by Jesus that are also covered in another account. John, writing later, recounts Jesus' other words and miracles that have a particular spiritual meaning.
Thiselton, A. C. (1980). The two horizons: New Testament hermeneutics and philosophical description. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, xix.