Similarities And Differences Of The Gospels Of Matthew And Luke

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.

The foundation of the Christian faith is cradled within truth of the virgin birth, life, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As diverse as the world-wide Christian culture is, the truth in the birth and life of Jesus stands without border and language limitations. Just as each individual life story can be adapted to be relevant for a variety of audiences, the birth story of the Messiah was also. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are an example of the well-rounded and diverse narration of the birth story of Jesus—Matthew’s narration spoke to the history of the Jewish people and Luke presented to the citizen of Rome.

In Matthew 1-2, the infant stories are used to prepare the ground for the theme of Jesus; the new and perfect Moses, the great teacher and interpreter of God’s ways. A parallel can be drawn between the experiences of the infant Jesus and the experience of Moses. This can be seen in Matthew 2:16-18, where the slaying of innocent male Hebrew children occurred around the time of the birth of Jesus, and in Exodus 1:15-22, where Hebrew children were also murdered at the time of Moses’ birth. Just as Moses came out of Egypt, leading the people of God, so does Jesus. Following the infancy stories, the rest of Matthew’s Gospel is structured around five long discourses where Jesus teaches. On each occasion, the evangelist indicates that a great teacher has been at work (Maloney, 1988, p. 133-34).

It is possible to write on the life of Jesus from the information gathered from the bible. I will be dividing my essay into three parts. In the first part of the paper, I will talk about the nature of the gospels, John’s views vs. the Synoptic, discuss if the authors of the gospels are eyewitnesses and how they used written sources. Also I will talk about the Q source. Then I will elaborate on the topic of how Matthew and Luke were similar. Then I will continue on by discussing how the Old Testament uses Moses, Samuel and Elijah to interpret Jesus, and finally whether or not the Sermon on the Mount happened. In the second part of my paper, I will talk about Jesus’s birth and childhood, his miracles, his resurrection, and what Jesus did to cure people, spirits and how they are interpreted to the prophet, magician and the mad man compared to Saul and Elijah. The final part of the paper I will talk about what Jesus talked about as regards to the Kingdom of God vs. the Kingdom of the Romans and what he intended by speaking of the end of the world. I will also speak of the reasons behind the Romans executing him. My sources for this paper will be the New Jerusalem Bible Readers edition as my primary source and lecture notes from Professor Trumbach.

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

There are many different gospels that tell a similar story. Matthew and Mark are two Gospels written in a similar way but have different audiences. The story is the Last Supper and is about the last meal that Jesus experienced with his Apostles before his Sacrifice. There are many similarities, but not very many differences. Overall, the same story is told, but from two different perspectives.

In many ways, the ministry of Jesus Christ can be understood through his interactions with other people. In particular, Jesus’ interactions with others while sharing a meal often reveal the heart of his ministry. The simple act of eating with another is mentioned in all four of the Gospels, especially in the gospels of Luke and John. Luke and John’s Gospels use stories of Jesus eating with others to highlight the most important aspect of his ministry, sacrificial and radical love for the other.

In the Gospel of Matthew, the infancy narrative contributes a large sum of background information of Jesus that contributes to the development of Matthew’s Christology. In order to analyze how Matthew develops the Christology, we have to cut the infancy narrative into sections. This paper will discuss background information of the writing of this Gospel, literary elements of Jesus’ miraculous conception that reinforce his Jewishness, how Magi and literary devices help to understand Matthew’s Christology, what important biblical hero the infancy narrative parallels, and what foreshadowing is caused from this infancy narrative. Comparatively, the use of divine intervention in dreams to fulfill prophecy has been a key focus of the infancy narrative in order to create an unusual birth narrative and develop the unique Christology that Matthew envisioned specifically for the Jewish Messiah.

The juxtaposition of any two writings is a formidable task. The content of each, even if they seem alike, is a small part in determining similarities and differences. One must also look at the styles, authors, themes, supposed audiences and authorial intent. This front becomes even more difficult while exegeting and deciphering ancient texts because of how far removed the writings are from modern understanding and scholarship. It is also further complicated when one lacks the factual knowledge of which piece was written first and/or if both texts were using a third source at the time of their creation. These difficulties find their apex at the study of Christian history and all of its subsequent writings. In particular, the gospels according to Thomas and Luke, while they have similarities and at times identical phraseology are vastly different when one considers their theological understandings, themes, format and style.

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.

Coincidences are a funny thing. They may seem completely uncalled for and uncommon; and many may say that the similarities between the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are just this: uncalled for and uncommon. This plagiarism issue is summed up at “the Synoptic Problem”, making the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke the synoptic gospels. The problem shows how many passages of the three gospels have the same wording, sometimes in the same order. However, the similarities balance out with the vast differences between what is included and what is not.

The two books of the Bible, Matthew and Mark are alike in many ways, they do tell some of the same stories. On the other hand, if one takes a closer look there are small changes to the stories that bring a whole new meaning to the way that the story is told. I will focus on the stories of Jesus walking on water and the transfiguration of Jesus. In this paper, I will review the changes that Matthew made to the Gospel according to Mark. I will also explain the reasons why he may have made those changes and to what purpose those changes served.

The story of the hemorrhaging woman appears in all three of the Synoptic Gospels and serves to show that faith can exist in and is rewarded for those in desperate circumstances, regardless of social status. This story indicates a clear intent to show Jesus as an equalizer, a Jewish Messiah who rewards faithful followers of Jewish law, no matter if the follower is a respected leader or an ostracized and impure commoner. The redactions found in Matthew reflect his desire to present the story the story to a largely Jewish community; it can be assumed that issues of social class and who Jesus was a Messiah for were prominent concerns in the Matthean community. The changes, however, do not take away from the overarching intent of the earlier version

The Gospels of Matthew and Luke are almost identical at times to each other, as well as the Gospel of Mark. Interestingly enough, it is believed that Mark was written significantly earlier than the other two Gospels mentioned. This means that it is very plausible that Mark was used as a source for the authors of Matthew and Luke. That being said, there are stories included in both Matthew and Luke that are almost identical to each other, but are not found in Mark. How could this be? This question has led scholars to believe that there existed a document, in which they named “Q”, that both authors of Matthew and Luke used as a source, other than Mark, when writing their books. In this analysis, I will try and answer why “Q” is believed to have

Jesus is known as the Son of God, the Messiah or the savior of all. Who was the first person to see Jesus as the Messiah? Peter was the first who called him, “Christ, Son of the living God.” There are different versions to this story that can be found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. I am going to discuss the similarities and differences of how these books relate to each other.