Luke Mark And Matthew's Gospel Comparison

The Gospel of Luke was also written around eighty CE, written somewhere outside of Palestine (Tatum, 1999, p.34). The author may have been Luke the Gentile Christian, writing to another Gentile, Theophilus. Like Matthew, Luke is strongly believed to be written after Mark, with references from him, “Q” and “L” if following the Two (Four)-Document Hypothesis. The authors of Luke and Matthew are believed to be written during the same time without the knowledge of knowing. As mentioned before, Luke is about fifty percent longer than Mark is, making it important source since it contains more information about the historic life of Jesus. There is also a second part to Luke which is the book Acts, but is separate in Bible. Both include the beginnings

The Gospel of Mark has three different endings rather than one known ending like the other Gospels. The other Gospels are easily ended with an ending that fits. The Gospel of Mark is also much shorter than the other ones, but the most important difference is how he chose to begin and end it. There are many scholars giving reasons for how or why this one ended the way it did, and also where they think the correct ending appears. They too have different views, so they must leave it to the readers to decide what they each personally think. The two extra ending that were added have major differences from the original. But with more than one version of the correct ending, it shows there is a problem.

When looking in the Gospel of Matthew 15:21-28 and the Gospel of Mark 7:24-30 one can find that each of these pieces of their respective gospels have both some similarities and differences. There is evidence of overlap between these two which are quite easy to find whilst one is reading the sections of each. There also are points in which these two accounts diverge from one another by either telling a certain part of the other gospel in a different way, removing content from one of the other gospels, or adding something that may not have been referenced or described in the other. Either way these accounts from Matthew and Mark both have connections to each other even if not visible on the surface.

Throughout the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, it is apparent that there are similarities as well as differences when it comes to portraying the life and times of Jesus the Christ, the general descriptions of who Jesus was, and the sayings and deeds of Jesus during his short stay on this earth. Scripture scholars highlight that each Gospel writer viewed Jesus from a different perspective.

While both books of Mark and Matthew portray Peter as one of the most important followers of Jesus, Mark seems to emphasize Jesus' spiritual career unlike the broad, more in-depth pursuit of Jesus' life that Matthew embellishes on. As both Jesus' student and friend, Peter is the one disciple most commonly referred to in the stories. Yet the two passages seem to draw different pictures of Jesus' distinguished disciple. In Matthew, Peter seems to play a larger role in Jesus' teachings and seems more significant to Jesus throughout the book. In Mark, he is still important, but to a lesser extent in the eyes of the author. Mark leaves Peter out of a few of the stories altogether and only touches

When comparing how the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas view the kingdom of God, the writings have some similarities, but have two opposing main views are how you get to the kingdom. In the Gospel of Mark, it talks more about how one has to repent in order to enter the kingdom of God. It’s portrayed as more of a place one has to earn the right to enter through various doings. In the Gospel of Thomas, it has written that the kingdom is inside and all around. It’s not a specific place, but rather the kingdom is present at all times. However, both Gospels describe the actual kingdom in such a similar way, both comparing the kingdom to a mustard seed.

The Gospel according to Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. The story explains how the Messiah, Jesus, was refused by Israel and finally sent the disciples to preach the gospel around the whole world. As Matthew wrote for his fellow Jews, he wrote his Gospel in the language Jesus spoke, Aramaic, which led early Church Fathers to believe Matthew’s was the first Gospel. On the other hand, the Gospel of Mark teaches that Jesus is the Son of God who assumed human nature. Mark wrote the gospel in Greek for a Gentile-Christian audience, which was undergoing persecution, perhaps in Rome. A central theme is that following Jesus often means that a Christian must suffer like Jesus did. Mark’s Gospel points out that Jesus accepted this important title, but that he was reluctant to let people know his identity. (Matthew 26:26-30 and Mark 14:22-26 )

It can be argued that the similarities and differences of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke can cause the reader to either see both of these accounts to complement one another with their different perspectives or that they contradict one another by certain events being mentioned in one birth narrative but not the other. Different aspects of both of these birth narratives such as the way Matthew and Luke treat Mary, the extent to which they use the Old Testament and the audience to whom they are writing to reveals the authors’ agenda as they allow their culture and own personal beliefs to influence what they write. These factors could be argued to have an effect on the historical authenticity of these texts as it could be possible that they could have caused the authors to twist the truth to fit in with their own beliefs.

The gospel of Mark is a short recollection of Jesus life, it has many details but is missing pieces or additions to his life. The Gospel of mark was said to have lost pieces, and also the first account of Jesus life. Although it is not as detailed in some areas as it is in others, it tells many accounts of Jesus life on earth and what kind of a person he was, the life he lived, his struggles and his ending.

The gospel of Luke and John are gospels about Jesus and John the Baptist. They have several differences and similarities. The Gospel of Luke describes the conception and birth of John the Baptist and Jesus while the gospel of Luke describes their life after birth. Summaries, variances, and connections of these two gospels are discussed below.

All of the Gospels describe the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, but each author illustrates the stories differently. Scholars believe Mark is the first Gospel written and is symbolized by a lion to denote Christ as powerful and fast-paced. The Book of John, understood to be the last gospel composed, is perceived as an eagle because the story differs greatly and is often more developed than the other Gospels. Comparing John 2 to the Gospel of Mark will depict unique themes and characteristics of Jesus.

Bible Scholar David Garland points to two possibilities as to why Mark’s Gospel is written in a narrative style or form. Garland believes the Gospel of Mark either came from an oral story circulating in the Jerusalem church or it came from a firsthand account of the Apostle Peter. Some bible scholars point to the idea that the Gospel of Mark was narrativized, so it could be heard rather than be read silently. Bible scholar Robert Tannehill believes the Gospel of Mark may even have been collected and delivered orally before it was ever written down. Michael Licona believes if a certain text appears in all three Synoptics, the Gospel of Mark is the most likely source for Matthew and Luke’s accounts. Licona notes that this rule should not be held hard and fast, since Mark may also have been using an oral story while Matthew and Luke choose another source or omitted material where it differs in each of their Gospel’s. The Apostle Peter seems to be the eyewitness account which Mark narrates into a single unified story, which centers around a single central figure Jesus and a group of His closest companions. If the author of Mark was using an oral story to write his gospel from, this would definitely explain its narrative style.

The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the recounting of the teachings of Jesus and were preached in many regions that had been conquered by Rome. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the recounting of the teachings of Jesus and were preached in many regions that had been conquered by Rome. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the recounting of the teachings of Jesus and were preached in many regions that had been conquered by Rome. The gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which were written in Greek, were the recounting of the teachings of Jesus and were preached in many regions that had been conquered by Rome.

The books of Matthew and John though have many similarities, also have many differences due to the goals that they are trying to achieve and the importance of points/events they are trying to get across. The reason behind the initial portrayals of Jesus helps achieve the goals of each book; whereas Matthew’s book tries to ‘convince’ the educated readers and quarrelers (Pharisees), John’s book does not care much about reputation per se. For example, Jesus turns on the Jews who believe in him to generate a readers response to him as the definitive expression of God 's will or revelation as opposed to Matthew’s intentional readers response to God 's will as expressed in the Mosaic Law. While there are many qualities I could delve into regarding the difference in characters of Jesus, my essay in particular will look at what each book views is especially important with regard to Jesus and his intentions. Specifically, my main focus will be on the presentation of Jesus and reasons for doing so; setting in context what the book is basically about.

In Luke 23:1-15 and Mark 15:1-15 there are subtle differences that show the increased writing ability of Luke compared to Mark, and the overall structure of each of the gospels. Although both gospels are telling the story of Jesus’s verdict of crucifixion from Pilate they both come to the end of the story differently in historic details. Luke as a writer likes to convey his stories in the way history would have chronological laid out each of the events versus Mark who just abruptly tells the story. Ehrman 137 states, “Luke’s book is to be taken as a historical piece.” Luke shows this to the readers of his chapters with his writing style of “historiographic” (Ehrman 137). It is believe that Luke was able to form this historic timeline based