Some Differences Between the Synoptic Gospels and the Gospel of John

Should one fully read the opening four Gospels of the New Testament, he or she can find many similar patterns of literature and themes affording much attention to detail and study. This is what someone such as Merriam Webster would define as the ?Synoptic Gospels?. So, what are and how can we explain the differences and similarities among synoptic authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and the gospel, John? Which Book was written first? To what extent did the Evangelists depend on oral tradition, written sources, or each other? The phenomenon and mystery of these similar but unique Synoptic Gospels has for centuries challenged some of the best minds of academia and the church, stirring up much scholarly

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.

All stories explained in the gospels have similar results and main ideas, like Mark, Matthew and Luke as to the Gospel of John is a little more different. The stories of Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as synoptic because

The Synoptic Gospels are composed of the gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. These three gospels covered many of the same stories; yet, they disagree with each other on various details within certain stories. Also, numerous events that are in Mark, is not in Matthew or Luke and vice versa. Many historians have concluded that Mark was the first of the three gospels written and that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source to their own gospels. The Synoptic Gospels were first written in Greek, which would suggest to some ambiguity within Mark, Matthew, and Luke due to certain perceptions and translations within the Greek language. One ambiguity that is shown within the Synoptic Gospels dealt with Jesus’s view on marriage and divorce. Using

The books of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; where written over 2000 years ago. These books excluding the Gospel of John are often called the synoptic Gospels. The term synoptic is derived from the Greek word meaning “seeing together.” These three books are comparable in their recording of the existence and ministry of Jesus. The wording of the synoptic Gospels is similar as well. For example, the account of the healing of the leaper occurs in all three books and the

The first three Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke is called “synoptic”, because they have a mutual interpretation (the word synoptic means “together in sight”). Matthew, Mark, and Luke cover several of the equivalent happenings of Jesus’ life. A greater part of them from Jesus’ ministry in Galilee. Approximately 90 percent of Mark’s evens of Christ are found in Matthew, and about 50 percent of Mark is noted in Luke’s gospel. All of the parables of Christ are established in the Synoptics.

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.

Part one introduces the most perplexing of the Johannine riddles. After an outline of the Gospel of John, Anderson presents the threefold riddles: theological, historical, and literary. Anderson considers familiarity with the points of contention a requisite for engaging, addressing, and interpreting them. Chapter one exposes the central features of the Fourth Gospel; which effectively reveals the dissimilarities between John and the Synoptic Gospels. Chapter two uncovers the theological riddles of the Fourth Gospel, both “incidental” and “highly significant.” For the twelve theological riddles presented in chapter 2, Anderson conveys the work of Johannine scholarship as well as presents his own incisive exegesis. Anderson does likewise in his presentation of the historical and literary riddles in chapters 3 and 4. The first part successfully establishes the

A lot about the gospels remains unknown to scholars. But the similarities help understand what texts were available to who. The “two-source hypothesis” already depicts and early Christianity where some gospels, such as the Gospel of Mark and the ‘Q’ scroll were easily accessible to enough people that the other synoptic gospels could be based on them. There may be many similarities in the gospels that help pin together the life and death of Jesus, but many of the differences prevent a crystal clear

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the first books of the New Testament within the Bible, The Gospels as they are so called. The words of the Gospels tell of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and they bring the word of God to others through the land. Now, the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called synoptic gospels as they are all very similar as to the way the stories are structured, worded, and similarity in context. As for the book of John, this book differs a bit with its structure being different than the 3 before and also its perception, or depiction, of Christ.

Johannine literature truly portrays Jesus as God, with the theme of His deity interwoven throughout numerous passages. In this respect, John’s style differs from the other four gospels, as Bickel & Jantz (1998) point out that the other three had been written prior to John’s gospel, therefore, “he wasn’t interested in just retelling the events” (p. 222). Since Jesus is the focal point of Scripture, a scholar of the New Testament with uncertainty concerning Jesus’ oneness with God will fail to perceive the crux of Christianity. Therefore, in spite of its importance, John does not focus on Jesus’ entrance into the

The Gospel of John differs in many key areas to the Synoptics,and I will address some differing lines of thought.

One thing I find very unique about this weeks reading about the Gospel of John is that it is told in a quite differently matter than the other three possible. And accounts are the crucifixion it includes three words from the cross and these three words were not reported the used conversely throughout the other three Gospels. Thus I find this questionable about Johns gospel could be so different compared to the other three even though they all have had the same experiences especially with some stories where for example the changing of water into the wine, encounter with the Samaritan woman, and healing of a man born blind. These are all stories that have been unique to the Gospel of John and far different than

The gospel of John does not have the birth story of Jesus as it is documented in the Synoptic gospels instead refers Christ as eternal word which became flesh. Gospel of John lacks records of Jesus’ Baptism by John the Baptist but instead records his baptism activities hence contradicting role of John the Baptist in Jesus’ Baptism. Another difference of gospel of John from the synoptic gospels is that there is no indication of temptation of Jesus by Satan but records that Jesus could not be tempted because of his unity with the Father. John indicates that Jesus taught without parables something contradicts synoptic gospels. There is no accounts of apocalypse in the gospel of John but instead indicates that Jesus completed his messianic role (Harris, 2014).

The word "gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news. The first three books in the New Testament (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos, "seen together") They bear greater similarity to each other than any of the other gospels in the New Testament. Along with these similarities come some differences among the gospels, suggesting that each gospel was written for a specific audience and for a specific purpose. This paper will examine the resurrection of Jesus, while identifying the significant differences between Mark, Matthew and Luke. This paper will also analyze the differences to suggest the prominent theological perspective each gospel author