Perex: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not present Jesus in identical ways, but rather create four specific theological portraits. Discover what the original Greek text reveals and how the historical-critical method transforms our understanding of New Testament writings.

Introduction: Is there one Jesus in the Bible, or four theological portraits?

When a person opens the New Testament, they often assume that the four Gospels are simply four different reports about one and the same Jesus. In a certain sense, this is of course true. All four Gospels tell the story of Jesus‘ ministry, death, and resurrection, and all place him at the center of their message.

However, upon a closer reading of the Greek text, something much more interesting emerges. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John do not present Jesus in identical ways.

This is not merely a matter of different literary styles. Each evangelist selects different traditions, emphasizes different events, arranges the material differently, uses different vocabulary, and above all, creates their own theological portrait of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholarship therefore routinely works with the concept of Gospel Christology – that is, the question of how a specific Gospel itself presents the identity, mission, authority, and relationship of Jesus to God. The study of the Synoptic Gospels has long been concerned with both their literary relationships and precisely these differences in their conception of Jesus‘ identity. (OUP Academic)

And this is exactly where the Bible becomes truly interesting. Not when we read it as one perfectly harmonized voice. But when we let Matthew be Matthew, Mark be Mark, Luke be Luke, and John be John.

1. First, a fundamental methodological note

This article is not an attempt to prove that one Gospel is „true“ and the others „false.“ Its goal is something else: To let each Gospel speak for itself. This is the fundamental principle of historical-critical work with the text.

The reader should first discover what a specific Gospel says, and only then ask how its testimony harmonizes – or does not harmonize – with the others. This is also important because Matthew, Mark, and Luke are highly interconnected in a literary sense. Their shared material is one of the foundations of the so-called Synoptic problem. John, on the other hand, is substantially different both literarily and theologically. (Royal Statistical Society)

The four-Gospel tradition is therefore not simply „the same text copied four times.“ It is a fourfold testimony in which continuity and tension exist simultaneously. This fact was captured very well by Irenaeus of Lyons in the 2nd century. Defending the four Gospels, he wrote: „It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are.“ Irenaeus then explained this fourfold nature using the four corners of the earth, the four winds, and the four cherubic beings. His argument is not a modern historical proof of the origin of the four Gospels, but it is a significant testimony that around the year 180, the four-Gospel structure was already firmly established. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Here we arrive at one of the most important insights: The early Church itself knew very well that it was dealing with four different Gospel texts.

2. Mark: Jesus as the suffering Messiah 2.1 Mark’s Gospel as the starting point

Most contemporary New Testament scholarship considers Mark to be the oldest of the canonical Gospels, even though the question of its exact date and literary relationships remains a subject of academic debate. Mark’s Gospel begins without a genealogy and without a narrative of Jesus‘ birth:

• Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]
• „The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ [the Son of God].“

The very first verse thus sets up two fundamental designations: Χριστός – Christ/Messiah and υἱὸς θεοῦ – Son of God. Contemporary literary Christological analysis of Mark correctly points out that these two designations serve as guideposts that gradually develop throughout the entire narrative. (DOI)

Greek text probe: Mark’s Christology in the original

• Mk 1:1
  • Greek text: Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ [υἱοῦ θεοῦ]
  • Transliteration: Archē tou euangeliou Iēsou Christou [huiou theou]
  • Literal translation: The beginning of the good news of Jesus the Messiah [the Son of God]
  • Christological significance: A fundamental Christological thesis. The title „Son of God“ is omitted in some of the oldest manuscripts (textual criticism retains it in brackets based on strict philological rules). However, it establishes the narrative framework of the entire work.
• Mk 8:29
  • Greek text: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός.
  • Transliteration: Sy ei ho Christos.
  • Literal translation: You are the Messiah.
  • Christological significance: Peter identifies Jesus. However, the Matthean expansion „the Son of the living God“ is missing here. Mark keeps the Christology strictly tied to the immediately following proclamation about suffering (Mk 8:31).
• Mk 15:39
  • Greek text: Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν.
  • Transliteration: Alēthōs houtos ho anthrōpos huios theou ēn.
  • Literal translation: Truly this man was the Son of God.
  • Christological significance: The climax of Mark’s Gospel. The title proclaimed by the narrator at the beginning (Mk 1:1) is confessed here by a pagan centurion – paradoxically at the very moment Jesus is dying on the cross.

2.2 Mark’s „secret“ Messiah

Mark’s Jesus, however, is not immediately presented as a triumphant ruler. Quite the opposite. Jesus heals, forgives sins, casts out demons, teaches with authority, and at the same time repeatedly prevents his identity from being publicly proclaimed. This motif is referred to as the messianic secret.

The climax comes in Mark 8:29: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. („You are the Christ/Messiah.“) Peter thus identifies Jesus as the Messiah. But an essential turn immediately follows. Jesus begins to explain that the Son of Man must suffer, be rejected, be killed, and rise after three days (Mk 8:31). Here, two images of the Messiah collide. Peter expects a certain form of messianic victory. Jesus presents a Messiah whose path leads through suffering.

3. The warrior Messiah and the disciples‘ expectations Certain precision is necessary here. It is not possible to simply say that all of Jesus‘ disciples expected a warrior Messiah in the modern sense of the word. However, the historical Jewish environment of the 1st century did indeed contain various messianic, royal, and liberationist expectations, and Roman occupation was a fundamental political reality. Therefore, a tension between Jesus‘ conception of the Kingdom of God and the expectations of his followers repeatedly appears in the Gospels.

An exceptionally important motif, for example, is the dispute over greatness among the disciples. In Mark 10, Jesus says: οὐχ οὕτως δέ ἐστιν ἐν ὑμῖν („But it is not so among you.“) He then defines greatness not by power, but by service: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου … ἦλθεν … διακονῆσαι („The Son of Man … came … to serve.“) And precisely here lies one of the keys to Mark’s Christology. Jesus‘ messiahship in Mark is not simply political triumphalism. It is supremely interpreted through suffering and service.

4. The Cross as the paradox of Mark’s Christology

Mark’s Gospel builds toward a paradoxical climax. Jesus is crowned as king – but the crown is made of thorns. He is designated the King of the Jews – but this very designation becomes part of his condemnation. And finally, the Roman centurion beneath the cross says: Ἀληθῶς οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος υἱὸς θεοῦ ἦν. („Truly this man was God’s Son.“)

Mark’s narrative thus creates a remarkable paradox: Jesus reveals himself as the Messiah in a way that contradicts the expectation of a triumphant Messiah. This is one of the most characteristic features of Mark’s Christology.

5. Matthew: Jesus as the Messiah of Israel and the new Moses

Matthew begins completely differently. Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ. („An account of the genealogy [origin] of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.“)

This is no random genealogy. It is a Christological statement. Matthew immediately places Jesus within the history of Israel. Jesus is the son of David, the son of Abraham, the Messiah, the fulfillment of the Israelite story. Contemporary literary analysis of Matthew therefore rightfully emphasizes his connection to Israelite history and continuity with Israel. (DOI)

Greek text probe: Matthew’s Christology in the original

• Mt 1:1
  • Greek text: Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ.
  • Transliteration: Biblos geneseōs Iēsou Christou huiou Dauid huiou Abraam.
  • Literal translation: The book of the origin/genesis of Jesus the Messiah, son of David, son of Abraham.
  • Christological significance: Matthew firmly anchors Jesus in Jewish history. The term geneseōs directly references the Book of Genesis. Jesus is the fulfillment of the promises made to the patriarchs.
• Mt 16:16
  • Greek text: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος.
  • Transliteration: Sy ei ho Christos, ho huios tou theou tou zōntos.
  • Literal translation: You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
  • Christological significance: Compared to Mark (8:29), Matthew expands the text. The Christology here is more explicit, connecting Davidic messiahship with ontological sonship.
• Mt 28:18
  • Greek text: Ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς.
  • Transliteration: Edothē moi pasa exousia en ouranō kai epi gēs.
  • Literal translation: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
  • Christological significance: The so-called Great Commission. Matthew’s Jesus rejects the role of a warrior Messiah. Instead of a localized political campaign, he receives universal, cosmic authority.

6. Matthew’s Jesus as the new Moses

One of the strongest Matthean motifs is the parallel with Moses. Jesus comes after dramatic events involving a king, passes through water, ascends a mountain, teaches God’s people, and interprets the Law. The ultimate example is the Sermon on the Mount. Here, Matthew uses a recurring formula: Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη … ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν („You have heard that it was said … but I say to you.“) Jesus here is not just another rabbi. Matthew creates an image of a teacher who steps forward with extraordinary interpretive authority.

7. Matthew and the question of Jesus‘ identity

In Matthew 16, we find a parallel to Mark: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. („You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.“) Compared to Mark, the Christological designation is expanded here. Matthew formulates Jesus‘ identity more explicitly. Jesus is simultaneously: the Messiah of Israel, the Son of David, the Son of God, and the authoritative interpreter of the Law.

8. Matthew and the problem of the „royal“ Messiah

However, Matthew also rejects the simplistic notion of Jesus as a political liberator. The conclusion of the Gospel is very important. After the resurrection, Jesus says: ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς. („All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.“) And yet, the result is not a call for an armed uprising against Rome. It is a mission: πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη („Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.“) Matthew thus transforms the royal concept: Jesus indeed gains universal authority, but its realization is not a military revolt.

9. Luke: Jesus as prophet, savior, and liberator

Luke begins differently once again. His prologue uses highly characteristic language: ἔδοξεν κἀμοὶ … παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς („I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first…“) Luke thus creates the impression of an orderly narrative based on tradition and testimony. His Christology subsequently develops through motifs of: a prophetic mission, the Holy Spirit, the Kingdom of God, the poor, the marginalized, forgiveness, and universal salvation. The Cambridge synthesis characterizes Luke’s Jesus as a Lord and prophet who brings redemption and places a strong emphasis on the poor. (Cambridge)

Greek text probe: Luke’s Christology in the original

• Lk 4:18
  • Greek text: Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ… εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς…
  • Transliteration: Pneuma kyriou ep‘ eme… euangelisasthai ptōchois…
  • Literal translation: The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me… to bring good news to the poor…
  • Christological significance: The programmatic text of Luke’s Gospel. Jesus identifies himself through the prophetic tradition of Isaiah. Messiahship here is closely tied to the Spirit and social/spiritual liberation.
• Lk 9:20
  • Greek text: Τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.
  • Transliteration: Ton Christon tou theou.
  • Literal translation: The Messiah of God.
  • Christological significance: The third version of Peter’s confession. Luke uses a specific formulation that emphasizes Jesus as God’s anointed instrument of salvation.
• Lk 23:46
  • Greek text: Πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου.
  • Transliteration: Pater, eis cheiras sou paratithemai to pneuma mou.
  • Literal translation: Father, into your hands I commend my spirit.
  • Christological significance: Unlike Mark and Matthew, where Jesus cries out a cry of dereliction from the cross, Luke’s Jesus dies with the intimate address Pater (Father) on his lips. He embodies perfect surrender.

10. The Nazareth synagogue: Luke’s programmatic text

Luke 4 is crucial for understanding Luke’s Christology. Jesus reads Isaiah: Πνεῦμα κυρίου ἐπ’ ἐμέ („The Spirit of the Lord is upon me.“) And continues: εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς („to bring good news to the poor“), ἄφεσιν αἰχμαλώτοις („release to the captives“), ἀνάβλεψιν τυφλοῖς („recovery of sight to the blind“). Luke thus presents Jesus‘ mission as liberating and restorative. This is a very different emphasis than, for example, John’s lengthy dialogical and metaphysical mode of expression.

11. Luke and the Kingdom of God

At the same time, Luke works very intensively with the concept of: βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ („the Kingdom of God.“) But even here, it is not simply a program of political uprising. In Luke 17, Jesus says: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν. This verse is complex in terms of translation and interpretation; ἐντός can be understood as „among you“ or „within you.“ It is therefore methodologically incorrect to deduce a complete theory of Jesus‘ teaching on the Kingdom of God from a single formulation. It is clear, however, that Luke’s Kingdom of God cannot be reduced to a military program.

12. Luke’s Jesus and violence

Luke provides very strong material regarding the question of violence. When Jesus‘ disciples attempt to respond to his arrest with violence, Jesus stops their actions. This is important precisely for the question of the expectation of a political or military Messiah. Jesus‘ kingdom is not realized here by armed coup. But beware: This does not mean that all historical Jewish messianic expectations were simply „martial.“ A more accurate formulation is: The Gospels demonstrate a tension between the expectation of messianic restoration and the way in which Jesus interprets his messianic identity.

13. John: A completely different Christological world

And now comes the biggest change. John does not begin with a birth. He does not begin with a genealogy. He does not even begin with Jesus‘ baptism. He begins with cosmological Christology: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος („In the beginning was the Word.“) And: καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος („and the Word was God.“) And finally: καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο („and the Word became flesh.“) Here we enter a fundamentally different theological language. The Cambridge synthesis therefore rightly characterizes John’s Jesus as the pre-existent Word and the glorified Son of the Father. (Cambridge)

Greek text probe: John’s Christology in the original

• John 1:1
  • Greek text: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
  • Transliteration: En archē ēn ho logos, kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon, kai theos ēn ho logos.
  • Literal translation: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.
  • Christological significance: The absolute pinnacle of high Christology in the New Testament. The Word (Logos) is not just an instrument; it shares directly in the divine identity, yet remains in a relational position (pros ton theon) toward God.
• John 8:58
  • Greek text: Πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι.
  • Transliteration: Prin Abraam genesthai egō eimi.
  • Literal translation: Before Abraham came to be, I am.
  • Christological significance: A crucial „I am“ (egō eimi) statement. Jesus does not merely claim pre-existence (existence before Abraham), but appropriates the divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14.
• John 18:36
  • Greek text: Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου.
  • Transliteration: Hē basileia hē emē ouk estin ek tou kosmou toutou.
  • Literal translation: My kingdom is not of this world.
  • Christological significance: A definitive rejection of the „warrior Messiah.“ The origin (ek) of Jesus‘ authority does not lie in the power structures of the fallen cosmos.

14. John’s Jesus speaks differently about himself John’s Gospel contains a series of so-called ἐγώ εἰμι – „I am“ statements:

• ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς („I am the bread of life.“)
• ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου („I am the light of the world.“)
• ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα („I am the door/gate.“)
• ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός („I am the good shepherd.“)
• ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή („I am the resurrection and the life.“) And climaxing in: πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγώ εἰμι („Before Abraham was, I am.“) This is no longer just a messianic identification. John creates a significantly higher Christological profile.

15. John and Jesus‘ unity with the Father

John 10:30 contains one of the most striking formulations: ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν („The Father and I are one.“) At the same time, however, it is necessary to read John in its entire context. John’s Jesus also repeatedly speaks of the Father as the one who sent him, entrusted him with a mission, and to whom he returns. Johannine Christology is therefore not simply „Jesus = Father.“ It is a complex relational Christology: Father – Son – mission – Word – life – glory.

16. John and Pilate: a definitive rejection of a military kingdom?

John 18 is exceptionally important for our topic. Pilate asks: Σὺ εἶ ὁ βασιλεὺς τῶν Ἰουδαίων; („Are you the King of the Jews?“) Jesus answers: Ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου. („My kingdom is not from this world.“) This is one of the strongest texts regarding the question we have posed in this article. Jesus‘ kingdom is not presented in John’s narrative as just another armed empire competing with Rome. However, this does not mean that „not of this world“ means „completely outside this world.“ John’s Christology, on the contrary, is deeply incarnational: the Word becomes flesh. This is an important paradox: John’s Christ is simultaneously transcendent and corporeal, heavenly and crucified.

17. Nicodemus: what does John 3 actually say?

Here it is appropriate to correct a commonly used shortcut. John 3 indeed speaks of the Kingdom of God: ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ. („No one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above / born again.“) The Greek ἄνωθεν is ambiguous: it can mean „again,“ but also „from above.“ This very ambiguity is literarily significant. Jesus is not guiding Nicodemus toward a political program here. He is leading him toward a fundamental transformation of his mode of existence. Therefore, it is more precise to say: John interprets entry into the Kingdom of God through a new birth from the Spirit, not through a political takeover of power.

18. The four Gospels therefore truly create four Christological portraits

We can now summarize the individual portraits without forcibly merging them together.

• Mark: Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God, whose messiahship is paradoxically revealed through suffering and the cross.
• Matthew: Jesus is the Messiah of Israel, the Son of David, the new Moses, and the authoritative interpreter of the Law, whose rule ultimately extends to all nations.
• Luke: Jesus is the prophetic and saving Lord who brings the Kingdom of God, liberation, mercy, and hope, especially to the marginalized.
• John: Jesus is the Logos who existed with God, became flesh, and reveals the Father, while his identity is formulated in a much more explicit cosmological and metaphysical language.

These are not four different gods. But neither are they four perfectly identical theological texts. It is a fourfold interpretation of Jesus.

19. And this is exactly where Greek becomes important

A reader of a translation can very easily overlook that the evangelists operate with different lexical and syntactic tools. For example: Χριστός (Christos – Messiah/Christ), υἱὸς θεοῦ (Son of God), υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (Son of Man), κύριος (Lord), σωτήρ (Savior), λόγος (Word), βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Kingdom of God), ζωή (life), φῶς (light), δόξα (glory), πνεῦμα (spirit).

In John, for example, ζωή – life – acquires an exceptionally strong Christological significance. In Mark, Jesus‘ dramatic journey toward suffering is much more prominent. In Matthew, the language of the fulfillment of Scripture is heavily utilized. In Luke, the Spirit, prophetic mission, mercy, and salvation are repeatedly intertwined. Such differences are not just a matter of translation. They are part of the very literary and theological construction of the Gospels.

20. So what about parallel passages?

We should not use parallels merely to prove that „the Bible does not contradict itself.“ That is too simplistic an approach. A much more productive question is: What did the evangelist do with the tradition? Let us take Peter’s confession as an example. Mark 8:29: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός. Matthew 16:16: Σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ζῶντος. Luke 9:20: Τὸν Χριστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ. Three Gospels work with the same tradition. But each formulates it slightly differently. And it is precisely this small difference that is the subject of biblical study. Not something we must automatically eliminate through harmonization.

21. The most important difference: the Gospels are not modern stenographic records

This is crucial for the Bible student. Evangelists are not modern journalists who would record the same event with the precision of a police report. They are authors who: select material, arrange it, interpret it, emphasize certain motifs, connect events with Scripture, and create a literary composition. Therefore, the same tradition can acquire a different theological coloring with different evangelists. And this is exactly why it makes sense to read each Gospel individually first.

22. What did the early Church see in this?

Interestingly, early Christian authors did not solve this problem by simply merging the Gospels into a single text. Irenaeus in the 2nd century defends precisely the fourfold Gospel. His famous formulation states: „The Gospel is fourfold, and the Spirit is one.“ Although his theological interpretation uses the symbolism of the four living creatures from Ezekiel and Revelation, historically the most important thing is that the four Gospels were understood as four legitimate forms of one Gospel testimony. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

The Orthodox tradition has preserved this principle very prominently. The Orthodox Church even highlights the four-Gospel corpus in a special way within the liturgical space: the Gospel book is permanently present on the altar, and the four Gospels are understood as the center of the Church’s life. (Orthodox Church in America) This is important for the Western reader as well, because it shows that the Orthodox tradition does not perceive the diversity of the four Gospels as a problem to be eliminated. On the contrary: their fourfold nature is part of the tradition itself.

23. And the Bible truly did not „fall from the sky“

Here we return to the broader theme of our forthcoming article. The four-Gospel canon was not a finished book that simply landed on a desk one day. By the 2nd century, we already have the four-Gospel structure well documented. Irenaeus defends it. Eusebius in the 4th century still distinguishes between different degrees of acceptance of New Testament writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, for example, he writes that among the recognized writings are the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 John, and 1 Peter. Regarding Revelation, however, he adds a significant caveat: „if it really seems proper“ and states that some reject it, while others classify it among the recognized books. (New Advent)

This is an exceptionally important testimony. Eusebius does not describe the New Testament canon as an absolutely unproblematic given. On the contrary, he distinguishes between: recognized books, disputed books, and rejected or pseudonymous works. And his classification shows that the boundaries of the canon were still the subject of an ongoing historical process. (Cambridge)

24. The Revelation of John as an example of a long struggle

Revelation is particularly interesting. Today, for many Christians, it is simply „the last book of the Bible.“ Historically, however, its position was not always equally stable. Eusebius ranks it among the books whose acceptance is problematic. Later tradition eventually accepted it, but in some Eastern traditions, its liturgical and interpretive status remained different. This means that a Bible student should distinguish between: „today this is part of my Bible“ and „it was always and everywhere accepted in the same way.“ Historically, that is simply not the same thing.

25. Athanasius and the list of 27 books

A significant point in this development is Athanasius’s 39th Festal Letter from the year 367. Here we find a list of 27 New Testament books corresponding to today’s common Protestant and Catholic New Testament canon: four Gospels, Acts, the seven Catholic epistles, the fourteen epistles of Paul, and Revelation. (pillbuys.com) But even here it is important to understand the chronology. Athanasius did not create the Christian Bible out of nothing. He came after several centuries of using, copying, accepting, rejecting, and debating various texts. Likewise, it is not historically accurate to claim that Constantine simply „compiled the Bible.“

26. Constantine and Eusebius: what do we actually know?

Here we need to be particularly precise. We have very important testimony that Constantine asked Eusebius to prepare fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures for the needs of the new church institutions in Constantinople. But: we do not have a preserved copy for which we could safely say: this is one of Constantine’s fifty copies. Therefore, we cannot scientifically reconstruct their exact composition based solely on the existence of this order. And even more importantly: we have no direct document proving that Constantine personally decided which individual books were to be included in these copies. This is exactly where historical fact must be separated from hypothesis. We can document Constantine’s order. We cannot automatically turn it into proof of Constantine’s personal editorial control over the canon. That is the difference between historical reconstruction and speculation.

27. The Bible is therefore not just a „book“, but also a history of reading

This is perhaps the most important pedagogical conclusion of the whole article. When we open a Bible today, we hold in our hands the result of a long process: the origin of texts → their copying → their use by communities → citation by authors → disputes over authority → the emergence of collections → manuscript traditions → canon → translations → further interpretation. And this process did not end in the 4th century. It continues to this day. Modern textual criticism shows, for instance, that the very manuscript transmission of the Gospels led to harmonizing changes. Studies of Greek manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels demonstrate that scribes sometimes altered the text to make it more closely resemble a parallel Gospel. (ecommons.luc.edu) This means: even after the creation of the canon, work with the biblical text was not finished.

28. And this is where the work of the 21st century begins Modern biblical scholarship does not exist to „destroy“ the Bible. Its task is to read it more accurately.

• Textual criticism asks: What exactly is written in the oldest available form of the text?
• Literary criticism asks: How did the author construct the text?
• Redaction criticism asks: How did the author edit his sources?
• Historical criticism asks: What historical context might have produced the text?
• Linguistics asks: What do the Greek words used mean in their contemporary context?
• And narrative criticism asks: In what way does the story itself create an image of Jesus? These are not attacks on the Bible. They are tools that allow us to truly read the Bible.

29. The four Gospels are not a problem we need to eliminate

Perhaps right here lies the greatest pedagogical value of the four-Gospel canon. The reader does not always have to start with the question: „How do I explain things so that all four texts say exactly the same thing?“ They can start with the question: „What is each evangelist trying to tell me?“ And only then: „How do these statements relate to each other?“ This is a fundamental change in the way we read.

30. What do Christian theologians take from the individual Gospels?

It is no coincidence that different theologians in different eras found special value in different Gospels. Irenaeus, for example, utilizes John very heavily in his polemic against gnostic and other movements, because John’s Prologue and his high Christology allowed for argumentation in favor of continuity between Jesus and the eternal Logos. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) Matthew became exceptionally important for Christian ethics thanks to the Sermon on the Mount. Mark fascinated with its dramatic pacing, brevity, and the paradox of the crucified Messiah. Luke gained extraordinary importance due to themes of mercy, the poor, women, outsiders, and the universal nature of salvation. And John became one of the main foundations for later Christian dogmatic Christology. But this is not a reason to favor one Gospel. On the contrary. It is a reason to read all four.

31. The Orthodox perspective: four Gospels as one Christ in four testimonies

The Orthodox tradition is very interesting in this regard. The Orthodox church tradition does not eliminate the four Gospels through harmonization, but understands them as a shared testimony about Christ. The official catechetical exposition of the Orthodox Church in America emphasizes that the Synoptic Gospels share a basic structure, but at the same time, each preserves its own style and form. The Gospels are collectively understood as the center of the Church’s life. (Orthodox Church in America) This is an important corrective to the notion that differences between the Gospels automatically mean they are mutually incompatible. They do not have to. They can mean: multiple perspectives on a single tradition.

32. So what do the Gospels actually tell us about the „warrior Messiah“?

Here I would be very careful in the article, because this is precisely where a good question easily turns into an inaccurate assertion. We can say: Jesus operates in an environment of Roman occupation. The concept of the Messiah had multiple layers in Judaism and lacked a single universal meaning. The Gospels show that the disciples had trouble understanding Jesus‘ conception of messiahship. Jesus repeatedly links his messiahship with suffering. The Gospels do not depict Jesus‘ mission as an armed uprising against Rome. At the moment of his arrest, he rejects the violent reaction of his disciples. John explicitly distinguishes Jesus‘ kingdom from the political kingdoms of this world. But at the same time, we should not claim that all the disciples held an identical conception of a „warrior Messiah.“ It is historically more accurate to speak of a tension between various expectations of the messianic restoration of Israel and Jesus‘ reinterpretation of messiahship.

33. And now the most important part: ten questions for the Bible student. These questions are not a test for the correct answer. They are meant to compel the reader to pick up a Bible and actually compare the texts.

1. Who is Jesus according to the Gospel itself?
2. How does Jesus himself speak about his identity? (How many times does he use the title: Son of Man, Messiah, Son of God, Lord, Word?)
3. How does the Gospel understand the Kingdom of God? (Is it political, spiritual, future, present, social, eschatological?)
4. What do Jesus‘ disciples expect?
5. How does each Gospel deal with violence? (Compare Mk 10, Mk 14, Mt 5, Mt 26, Lk 22, John 18.)
6. What is Jesus‘ relationship to Moses and the Law?
7. How does Christological language change between the Synoptics and John? (Compare Mk 8:29, Mt 16:16, Lk 9:20 with John 1:1 and John 8:58.)
8. What does the evangelist do with the same event? (Find a parallel story, ask: „What did each author change?“)
9. Which Gospel most closely matches the image of Jesus you had before reading it?
10. If you were allowed to read only one Gospel, what kind of Jesus would you come to know? (And what would you miss?)

Conclusion: The Bible becomes interesting the moment we stop reading it superficially

To read the Bible critically does not mean to hate the Bible. And to read it uncritically does not mean to love the Bible. Real study begins somewhere between these two extremes. When the reader allows the text to surprise them. When they accept that Mark does not have to sound like John. That Matthew does not have to place the same emphases as Luke. That the evangelists can process the same tradition differently. And that these differences are not an obstacle to study. They are the subject of it.

The four Gospels do not give us four simple copies of Jesus. They give us four literary and theological perspectives. Mark leads us to the cross. Matthew to Israel, the Law, and the messianic kingdom. Luke to God’s mercy, the Spirit, and liberation. John to the Logos, life, light, and the relationship of the Son with the Father.

And this is precisely why it makes sense to read each one separately, from beginning to end. First Mark. Then Matthew. Then Luke. Then John. And only then attempt to create your own synthesis. Because if there is one thing that every serious Bible student should take away, it is this: First discover what the text actually says. Only then decide what it means.

And one more thing is important. The history of the formation of the biblical canon shows that not even early Christians approached all texts in the same way. Eusebius in the 4th century still distinguished between recognized, disputed, and rejected writings, and explicitly noted differing attitudes toward Revelation. (New Advent) This means that a critical reading of the Bible is not an invention of the 21st century. It is a continuation of very old Christian work with the text. And that is exactly why the task of today’s reader is not merely to inherit the Bible. Their task is also to learn how to read it.

Sources and Recommended Literature

• Primary sources
  • Athanasius of Alexandria. (367). Festal Letter 39. (pillbuys.com)
  • Eusebius of Caesarea. (c. 325–330). Ecclesiastical History, III.25. (New Advent)
  • Irenaeus of Lyons. (c. 180). Against Heresies, III.11. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)
  • The Greek New Testament. (2012). Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.). Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft.
• Modern academic literature
  • Gathercole, S. J. (2015). The Christ of the canonical Gospels and the Christs of the apocryphal Gospels. In F. A. Murphy & T. C. Oden (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Christology. Oxford University Press. (OUP Academic)
  • Meldrum, B. (2025). Who do you say that I am? Christology in the Synoptic Gospels. Religions, 16(2), 170. (DOI)
  • Riches, J., Telford, W. R., & Tuckett, C. M. (2001). The Synoptic Gospels. Sheffield Academic Press. (Biblia)
  • Hannah, D. (2008). The four-Gospel ‚canon‘ in the Epistula Apostolorum. Journal of Theological Studies, 59(2), 598–633. (ResearchGate)
  • Pardee, C. (2016). Scribal harmonization in Greek manuscripts of the Synoptic Gospels from the second to the fifth century [Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago]. (ecommons.luc.edu)
  • Resch, J. (2009). The fittingness and harmony of Scripture: Toward an Irenaean hermeneutic. The Heythrop Journal. (Wiley Online Library)
  • Catechesis and Liturgy. Orthodox Church in America. (Orthodox Church in America)
  • The Synoptic Problem and Canonization. (Cambridge)