Loading...
So far in this thread on “The New Testament in a Nutshell” I’ve covered the four Gospels, each in four posts. The first always begins with a 50-sentence summary of the major themes and emphases of the book. In this post I want to make things easily accessible for anyone interested in the broad similarities and contrasts of the Gospels, by putting all four sentences in one place.
But before that, it would be useful to have a fifty-word summary of all four Gospels as a whole.
Give it a try yourself. What can you come up with? A statement that is accurate, informative, and concise? Accuracy is particularly difficult, since a lot of general statements wold not apply to all four Gospels: for example, if your summary was to include a brief comment on the miracles and you included Jesus’ exorcisms, that wouldn’t be right, since Jesus never casts out a demon in the Gospel of John. And you can’t say that in all four Jesus died (as an atonement) for the sake of others, because Luke doesn’t actually say that. Tricky!
In any event, here is my attempt at it, the first time in lo all these many years I’ve ever tried:
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are our oldest narrative accounts of Jesus, the Son of God who fulfilled Scripture in his life, death, and resurrection, who taught the way of salvation, performed miraculous deeds, was rejected by his own people, crucified by the Romans, and then raised from the dead.
This is necessarily a bit bland, but I think it’s adequate and accurate, given the space limit. But maybe you’ve done better.
Now I can repeat the four summaries of the Gospels. You will notice there broad similarities among the summaries, but I tried to word each one carefully to show its distinctive take on Jesus. All of this can be improved upon. If you think so too, improve them!!
Matthew:
Matthew portrays Jesus as the miracle-working messiah who fulfilled the predictions of Scripture, taught the correct understanding of the Law of Moses, insisted his followers keep it by living lives of love, came to be rejected by his own people, but died for others before being raised from the dead.
Mark:
The Gospel of Mark reveals Jesus as the authoritative, miracle-working Son of God, the messiah, who tried to keep his identity secret and was misunderstood by nearly everyone, including his disciples, who could not believe that the messiah would have to be rejected by his people and then be crucified.
Luke:
The Gospel of Luke portrays Jesus both as a Greco-Roman “divine man” – shown by his supernatural birth, astounding miracles, death, and exaltation – and as the final prophet sent by God to the Jewish people, who rejected him, fulfilling God’s plan for salvation to go to all the peoples of earth
John:
Unlike the other Gospels, John portrays Jesus as a pre-existent divine being who was with God in the beginning, created the world, and then became a human to provide eternal life to all who believe he was sent by God for salvation, doing miraculous signs to prove his divine claims.
I will now move the thread into the book of Acts, followed by the letters of Paul. I hope you’re finding this useful!
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
29 Comments
Leave A Comment
I am finding this very useful.
Thanks, Professor
I may be late to this, but surprised that “Kingdom of God” didn’t show up in the Matthew summary.
Now that you mention it, so am I! (Though in Matthew it’s the Kingdom of Heaven)
39 words:
The four gospels provide a somewhat translucent window into the life, death, and teachings of the first century figure known as Jesus of Nazareth. They present him as the Son of God who was resurrected soon after his death.
Your posts have been very helpful Dr Ehrman. Finally I’m learning about ancient people and the Bible in a deep and accurate manner. Unfortunately, as I learn I’m also disheartened by the oppression and suffering that is still taking place, it seems mankind hasn’t learned how to treat each other. My journey started 40 years ago when I was judged by a fellow Christian because I was going through a divorce. A good friend of my father who was a missionary guided me through that process and explained to me the history and culture of the time of Christ on the matter of marriage and divorce. It’s amazing to me how folks take sayings or stories in the Bible way out of context at times. Thanks for all that you do.
RD
Hi Dr Ehrman, this question is not related to the post so I greatly appreciate your clarification to it. Regarding 2 Peter 1:16-18, do the ‘cleverly devised stories’ suggest that the opponents of Peter denied Jesus existed? As on a surface reading it seems to suggest this. Are there any clues on what they were attacking?
Furthermore, if it that was not their case, then would it be Peter defending Jesus’ first coming (as the powerful Messiah), or His second coming (in the parousia sense)? What are the details in the letter that supports it? Thank you.
No, they aren’t referring to “mythicism” (the idea Jesus never existed) at all. We have no record of anyone denying that Jesus existed until the late 18th century. The author is saying that he and the other disciples did NOT follow myths in their understandings of Jesus and his second coming. In other words, they were not telling fairy tales but actual historical realities, even though their non-believing enemies maintained they were just makin’ stuff up — not about Jesus existing but about what they were *saying* about Jesus.
Can you post a link or point us to a PDF which has an accurate and scholarly timeline of when the Old and New Testament books were written. I’d like to see the gospels in the context of when other books were written in the Scriptures.
If Mark was written first, followed by Matthew, then Luke, and John… which I think is the scholarly POV, correct? Why is it that John paints his portrait of Jesus in such grand terms? Why is the oldest book written about Jesus -the oldest account of Jesus that is furthest away from Jesus’s earthly ministry, death, and resurrection -the only book that exalts Jesus to a God status? Shouldn’t we take that into consideration when we ask ourselves: “Who was Jesus?”
In my mind, Mark is a better picture due to its proximity to the person. Whereas John seems to embellish the story of Jesus and exalt Jesus in ways not found in the previous gospels.
Isn’t there a phenomena out there about the penchant people have to embellish the memories of those who have passed?
YOu can find a timeline n my textook, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (in the 8th ed its on ppl xxv-xxvii). Yes, the order is almost certainly Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, and yes, John is far more obviously theologically focused in its portrayal of Jesus, and we definitely have to take that into account when trying to figure out what Jesus actually said, did, and experienced. I talk about all those issues in that textbook, and in a lot of other places, including my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.
Mel Gibson gives us a great summary of the Gospels in his film The Passion of the Christ. I jest.
Yikes.
It is very useful. Thanks
Throughout the scripture, cosmic apocalyptic language such as the stars dissolving, the earth being destroyed, and all creatures perishing is frequently used to describe God’s judgment on ruling nations and kings. Why was this language used? How can Americans today relate to its use?
It shows the cosmic nature of what seems to be mundane realities in the power struggles at the macro (human) level. My sense is that many Americans are relating to the cataclysmic potentials increasingly these days.
Great summary of the NT gospels. I have some off-topic questions. Question 1: when do you think the “Testament of Solomon” was written? Some online sources say it was written toward the end of the first century, others say it was written in the Middle Ages. Question 2: who do you think wrote it? Some online sources say it was written by Jewish people, others by Christian authors. Question 3: How old were its sources? Again, online information gives conflicting claims. It seems to be a compilation from sources ranging from the first century BCE onward and cataloging demons from many civilizations, religions, and cultures. From what investigating of this I have been able to do, it seems to be a tale about King Solomon obtaining a magic ring that allowed him to control demons and Solomon used demons to help build his temple in Jerusalem. Question 4: do you think it, or its sources, could have influenced the gospels accounts, like Matthew 12:42-45 for example? Thanks for any and all help on these issues.
I’m afraid it’s not an area of my expertise. It’s written in koine Greek and definitely has Christian elements; I think it’s normally thought to be first-century CE, either a Jewish conmposition with a later Christian editor or a Christian editor. I’m not familiar with theories that it is from the middle ages. The fact that its manuscripts come from the 15th and 16th centuries does not give any evidence for when it was written (that is, they aren’t evidence that it was a medieval composition. And no, I’d say there’s no way it influenced the Gospels. And since we don’t really know what its sources were, we can’t tell if they did either.
Jesus, a humble peasant, believing the world would soon end, told people to prepare by loving God and neighbors. He fed, healed, cared for many.
Jesus went to the city to confront corrupt preachers. Jealous of his popularity, they had him killed. Afterwards, Jesus’s friends shared his message of love.
Very pithy and extremely interesting to get a grip of the different approaches.
Very useful, thank you.
My shot: “The gospels are narrative accounts of Jesus by unknown Christian authors. They tell, in various ways, of Jesus: Being the Son of God; Fulfilling Scripture; Teaching the way of salvation; Performing miracles; Being rejected by his own people; Being crucified by the Romans; Rising from the dead. “
Two sentences. 🙂
Were these actual differences from each author, or do you suspect scribes and others over the many years made these changes to fit an ever changing narrative?
Scribal changes almost always work to harmonize the Gospels rather than to make them more at odds. My sense is that even though scribes made lots of changes, in the vast majority of cases we can get a pretty good idea what htey authors originally wrote, and so I think these differences go back to the authors.
I’m not so sure that John’s Christology really differs that much from the view of the Synoptics. John does use the trope of Jesus as the Lamb prominently, in addition to the other differences you note – and it affects the chronology of his Passion narrative. And he does, as you note, describe him as having a divine existence (as the “Word”) prior to his birth, and having a heavenly home and some kind of equivalence to the Father (qua his status as the Christ). The trick is figuring out the ontology. ‘Christ’ is a social status – a personage – whereas ‘Jesus’ is the proper name of a human being, a person. The two aren’t identical; nor identical to ‘Father’ – another social role. Jesus’ use of the preposition (“is in”) in John 14 is polysemous (but note the apparently equivalent ‘ dwells in’ (14: 10 et passim), and then to get the Holy Spirit and indeed the disciples themselves entangled in this web, while noting that the Father is greater than he. All these, except the last, are symmetric verbs. But Peter addresses him as Lord, not Jesus.
(cont’d from above) All this is perplexing if you try to figure out the metaphysics. My best guess is that the operative relation is *embodiment*, though this is an anti-symmetric relation. How that goes takes a fair bit of explaining. But to the present point: if Jesus is a distinct being from the Son, or Word, then sense can be made of the view that the latter can exist in heaven before the human Jesus was born, and becomes embodied when he is. And can exist (“in heaven”) when he dies as well. This does dovetail with similar tropes in the Psalms, Jeremiah, and elsewhere when a king or prophet claims that Yahweh “knew him” before he was born (i.e. became a nephesh). What thinkest thou, Bart?
I’d say an incarnation Christology in which Christ is a pre-existent divine being who created the universe and then became a human who spoke of himself as in some sense equal with God is very different from anything in the Synoptics, precisely on the metaphysical level.
Good idea and effort, however the synoptic summaries need some mention of the apocalyptic Jesus preaching the imminent Kingdom of God.
good stuff and very well done!
‘brevity is the soul of wit’
Alexander Pope
Do any of these four writers omit any mention of Jesus rising from the dead?
Nope.