What the Gospels Meant

by Garry Wills

“A remarkable achievement—a learned yet eminently readable and provocative exploration of the four small books that reveal most of what’s known about the life and death of Jesus.” ( Los Angeles Times )
 
In his New York Times bestsellers What Jesus Meant and What Paul Meant, Garry Wills offers tour-de-force interpretations of Jesus and the Apostle Paul. Here Wills turns his remarkable gift for biblical analysis to the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Wills examines the goals, methods, and styles of the evangelists and how these shaped the gospels' messages. Hailed as "one of the most intellectually interesting and doctrinally heterodox Christians writing today" (The New York Times Book Review), Wills guides readers through the maze of meanings within these foundational texts, revealing their essential Christian truths.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Theology, Christian, History, Christianity, Spirituality

209 pages, Paperback

First published February 14, 2008

About the author

Garry Wills is an American author, journalist, political philosopher, and historian, specializing in American history, politics, and religion, especially the history of the Catholic Church. He won a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993.
Wills has written over fifty books and, since 1973, has been a frequent reviewer for The New York Review of Books. He became a faculty member of the history department at Northwestern University in 1980, where he is an Emeritus Professor of History.

Reviews

[Brian Griffith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wills gives a patient, scholarly exploration of what the Gospels meant to contemporary Jews and Christians. At each turn of the story he explores the meanings people of that time drew, from associations they made with the whole Hebrew Bible. And being a Greek scholar, Wills does his own translations of the New Testament, often giving the lines fresh force. The writing is more careful than dramatic, being devout and scrupulous at the same time. With deepest respect for the Gospel writers', Wills shows how variant copies of the text sometimes tried to correct its message. Some copyists deleted the lines "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do," because they assumed it wrong to promote forgiveness for such terrible deeds.

Basically, the book focuses on how Hebrew heritage informed the Gospel accounts, but it neglects other influences, such as how Greek culture influenced the probably Greek authors of Luke and John.

[Kirsti · Rating 4 out of 5]

Discussion of the similarities and discrepancies in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

I enjoyed Wills's translations, which he did not prettify in the way that many translators do--he kept the sometimes awkward constructions and tense shifts that others smooth out. I especially liked that he translates "the valley of the shadow of death" as simply "the breaking point."

I was always taught that, in the book of John, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" referred to John himself, who was too modest to use his own name. Wills presents evidence that the beloved disciple may have been a young follower of Jesus and that the description may have been an affectionate nickname.

Also, Wills says that just about every theologist now agrees that Jesus had four brothers and two sisters, and that none of them believed He was the Messiah.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a quick read about a difficult and broad subject. Wills is a prolific writer, covering subjects as diverse as Lincoln, the Catholic Church and theology. Most of what Wills has to say about Jesus and the Gospels he gleaned from the theologian Raymond Brown, therefore feels condensed and watered down. Still it is a good starting point to understanding the focus of each gospel, but I felt like wanted to know more. I guess I have to read more Brown for myself.

[Miles Nilsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must comment on the frequent typos in Gary Wills’ otherwise excellent (if quibble-worthy) commentary on the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. The typos seem to get worse as the book goes along. At first it is just things like the missing “to” before what is obviously meant to be an infinitive of a verb, or an “s” at the end of a noun that should not be plural or a verb that should not be third-person singular in the present tense (or a missing “s” where one should be). But then more glaring typos appear such as a transposition of words: “more than other any” instead of “more than any other” (page 148). Then there is this howler: “without him nothing that exits existed” instead of “without him nothing that exists existed” (page 157). And in a section where Wills explains his analysis of the opening verses of the Gospel of John, and how they constitute a hymn, which, although in poetic form, is broken up by four passages in prose, he muddies an already complex explanation by getting his own notation wrong:

He designates four small groups of verses (some as short as one verse) as w, x, y, and z. Each is a little block of explanatory prose inserted between the poetic lines of the hymn, but in presenting the insertions, he gives the “y” designation twice. By comparing Wills’ analysis to the text of the Gospel itself, I realized that the second of the two passages, which Wills labeled “y,” should have been labeled “x” (pages 160-161). I suppose that all of the other typos could have been Wills’ own fault in his original manuscript, but this last one is a candidate for being an editor’s mistake. I can imagine an editor becoming confused by Wills presenting the lettered passages out of order: w, y, x, z: I would be confused by it too, except that Wills does say that “w” and “y” both have to do with John the Baptist, whereas x and z have more to do with the Lord; so, that explains why he deals with the two passages that have to do with the Baptist together even though this puts the “y” before the “x.”

(Here I would indict the mindset of modern editors who will overlook “exits” where it should be “exists” and then intervene to turn an “x” into a “y” when they should have left it alone. These editors are reminiscent of the spiritually blind guides of Matthew 23:24 whom Jesus accuses of straining out a gnat while swallowing a camel whole.)

Editorial objections aside, as an amateur Bible scholar, I am fascinated by Wills’ book. Wills closely follows Father Raymond E. Brown (1928-1998), a Sulpician priest and scholar who is the most frequently cited source in this book. Indeed, the dedication reads “To Raymond Brown, devout scholar.” It might be fair to say that Wills is a popular interpreter of Brown’s work on the Gospels, although Wills might say that Brown does not need an interpreter, that he is clear enough. But Wills’ book is only 209 pages, and he distills four books by Brown (two of which are two volumes each). If you want to know what Brown thinks but don’t have time to read six volumes, Wills’ book might be your better bet.

Though a devout Christian, Wills has nevertheless read the New Testament carefully and is far from ignorant of the fact that the Gospels are written my men with agendas and idiosyncrasies, but while recognizing the evangelists’ personal quirks, Wills regards them as inspired and is unperturbed by the obvious discrepancies among the Gospel accounts. (By the way, Wills capitalizes “Gospel” consistently whether he refers to a particular gospel or not; I ordinarily do not capitalize the word when using it generically, but here I will defer to Wills.)

It is instructive to see the operation of Wills mind as he sifts through the data of the Gospels. He would like to believe that the Gospels reflect historical events, but when Matthew and Luke each give genealogies of Jesus, he knows they don’t jibe. Wills, like Brown, dismisses the importance of such discrepancies to faith in Jesus. He thus analyzes the genealogies in terms of what message about Jesus each evangelist is trying to put forward. For instance, Matthew’s genealogy traces his bloodline to Adam, while Luke traces it back to God. Matthew and Luke also give different accounts of Jesus’ nativity. Christmas celebrations have long gloried in mashing these two traditions together into one, ignoring the differences amid the pageantry. But it is difficult to reconcile the contradiction that, in Matthew, the Holy Family flees to Egypt to escape King Herod’s murderous rage, but Luke, while relating no such story, has the Holy Family go home to Nazareth, but also has Jesus visit the Temple in Jerusalem at eight days of age. (Only Luke tells that story or the subsequent one about Jesus returning to the Temple at age twelve.)

Wills is aware that extra-canonical traditions have grown up around the Gospels despite the lack of evidence for them in the books of the New Testament itself. For example—and I know this will come as a surprise to many Christians—although each Gospel is attributed to a named author, there is no internal evidence to identify any author by name. The Gospels were all written anonymously and originally published without attribution. So were other books such as the Acts of the Apostles, although analysis of the Greek writing style of Acts has long persuaded scholars that whoever wrote the Gospel of Luke is the same person who wrote Acts. The names associated with most New Testament writings are a matter of tradition originating in the second century, well after these books were written, and these attributions depend entirely on pious guesses made by the early Church Fathers. The exceptions, of course, are the thirteen letters attributed to Paul, all of which bear his name, and seven of which he is genuinely believed to have written.

Wills goes through the Gospels in the order in which they are now generally accepted to have been written: Mark, Matthew, Luke (see quibble below), and John. The traditional order, still maintained in most copies of the New Testament, puts Matthew first. While pointing out their similarities, Wills also goes into detail about what makes each Gospel unique. The first three Gospels are called the Synoptics which means that they “see together (syn-optic)” or view the Gospel narrative similarly. They are more alike on many points than they are like John, although there are points of similarity between all four Gospels.

Without preliminary matter, the Gospel of Mark begins with John the Baptist acknowledging Jesus. Matthew begins with his own preliminary matter, consisting of a genealogy for Jesus and a nativity story, but then he turns to John the Baptist. Luke begins by addressing an apparent patron, praising his own authorial process and research and a nativity story that differs from Matthews on significant points, but he also turns next to John the Baptist. (Luke saves his genealogy for a later chapter.) The Gospel of John begins with a hymn (interrupted by little blocks of prose) that likely belonged to a first-century Christian liturgy, but after that comes a vaguely familiar scene featuring John the Baptist who acknowledges Jesus. Despite their differences, then, the four Gospels have some narrative features in common: They agree that Jesus encountered John the Baptist, who vouched for Jesus having a special relationship with God; that he traveled in Galilee, a region of northern Palestine; and to Syria, a region outside of Israel; and that he went to Jerusalem where he scandalized the Jewish authorities to the extent that they turned him over to Rome’s Prefect Pontius Pilate, who ordered Jesus’ crucifixion. All four Gospels suggest that Jesus rose from the dead and that he is divine, most explicitly in John’s Gospel.

Wills, following Brown, shows that each Gospel seems to be expressing the teachings needed by a particular community in the diverse early Christian Church. For example, Mark presumably speaks to a persecuted church located in first-century Syria. The odd thing about the way that Mark originally ended his Gospel (in the oldest manuscripts that have been found) is that the women who come to the tomb on Easter Sunday are said to flee the empty tomb and to tell no one what they have seen and heard. Had that been the last word, how would Christianity have come into existence let alone spread? So, additional lines, in a different writing style, were added to later editions of Mark to show that Jesus did, indeed, contact his followers and let them know that he had risen. But why did the original version show so much fear and faithlessness among the disciples? Wills suggests that many among Mark’s persecuted audience were falling away, yielding to intimidation and temptation to forsake their faith. Perhaps Mark meant to shame these apostates, or by portraying as many acts of betrayal as he could, among the disciples of Jesus, he may have wanted to inspire them to return to the fold by suggesting that even those disciples who knew Jesus intimately were tempted to fall away.

The author of Luke and Acts, for another example, may have been writing furthest away from Jerusalem, and yet he idealizes the Holy City and favors it as a setting. Luke’s disciples make Jerusalem their permanent home base, while the other Gospels insist that the disciples go back to Galilee after the crucifixion.
Matthew and Luke both follow Mark’s narrative enough that some passages are almost word for word the same as in Mark, except that Matthew and Luke each write in more polished Greek than Mark, and generally clean up Mark’s homely style. (This led scholars in the nineteenth century to conclude that Matthew and Luke copied Mark, otherwise, if Mark copied Matthew or Luke, why would he turn their more literate style into less polished prose?) Matthew and Luke also add material not included in Mark. Notably, their Great Sermons contain numerous sayings attributed to Jesus but which appear nowhere in Mark.

Although Matthew and Luke are similar to each other, as well as to Mark, Luke never rewrites Mark in the same way that Matthew does, and Luke does not phrase the non-Markan sayings of Jesus in the same way as Matthew. Additionally, Matthew has some non-Markan sayings that Luke does not have, and Luke has some non-Markan sayings that Matthew does not have. From this, scholars long ago realized that both Matthew and Luke were aware of Mark and were aware of a number of the same non-Markan sayings attributed to Jesus, but Matthew and Luke did not copy each other, and most likely were not even aware of each other. As to who was first, Matthew or Luke, scholars generally agree that the order in which the four canonical Gospels were written is: Mark first, John last, and it is anyone’s guess whether Matthew came before Luke or vice versa.

Matthew and Luke also include other material, essentially sayings, parables and narrative episodes (pericopes is the technical term for all of these) that do not appear in Mark or John. Wills does not mention this, but Matthew includes a saying about a “city on a hill” (5:14) in his Sermon on the Mount that does not appear in Luke’s Sermon on the Plain (yes, the settings of the two otherwise similar sermons are different geographically, as Wills notes). Otherwise, all of the sayings near the-city-on-the-hill saying in Matthew are similar to sayings used by Luke. My hypothesis is that Matthew took the hill-city saying from an early version of the Gospel of Thomas, the only other source we know of that has a similar saying. (Another possibility, though, is that the saying about the hill-city was in oral circulation and that it came to Matthew and Thomas independently.)
Wills says at one point that Brown once believed that the author of the Gospel of John was the Apostle John, son of Zebedee, but his scholarship convinced him that the book is best understood as the work of three men, the first being an unidentified disciple (known as the Beloved Disciple) who established a community or school (or both), the second being a sophisticated student of the school, who wrote the first version of the narrative Gospel, and the third was a later redactor or editor, who added material and comments, including the final passage of the Gospel that speaks of the Beloved Disciple as the author of the book and speaks of him in the third person, thereby plainly admitting that there are, at least, two authors (page 154).

Knowing that the Christian books of the Bible are not inerrant, Brown and Wills nevertheless try to attenuate folly wherever possible. Consider this sentence, for example:

“[Luke] says that Paul was trained in Jerusalem and returned there more often than his [Paul’s] own letters can verify” (page 149).

This mitigates the impact of Paul’s flat contradiction of Luke who, in Acts, says that the first thing that Paul did after his conversion was to go to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26), while Paul maintains that he waited 3 yrs. before going back to Jerusalem (Galatians 1:15-18) and did not go back again after that for fourteen years (Galatians 2:1).

On the other hand, Wills’ (and presumably Brown’s) analyses of the Biblical texts are astute. For example, the first chapter of the Gospel of John is often published as if it were a piece of continuous prose, but Wills shows the first eighteen verses to be alternating poetry and prose, presumably part of a hymn used by the community that produced the Gospel. Even those, like the Jesus Seminar, who recognize that this passage is a mixture of poetry and prose, erroneously differ from Wills as to which parts are prose and which are poetry (and how many prose insertions there are). For example, they include verse nine as poetry, whereas Wills classifies it as prose, which appears to be right. If the text immediately preceding verse nine is prose, as the Jesus Seminar agrees, then verse nine belongs with it and not with the block of poetry that follows it. Wills shows that there are a number of passages in Luke, John and the letters of Paul (i.e., Philippians and Galatians) that are poetic and presumably reflect hymns that were sung in primitive Christian churches. In the case of John, these hymns may have been peculiar to that community or else were created by and spread from that community. (This hypothetical community was of great interest to Father Brown, who wrote about what could be discovered about it from the Gospel itself.)

Wills says, “Some think that a study of the way the Gospels were built up, their symbolism, their dependence on the Jewish Sacred Writings, will make people less devout” (page 207). Wills disagrees and holds up, as an example, none other than Father Raymond Brown, who authored many books and articles analyzing the New Testament. Wills shares Brown’s view that the differences between the four Gospel accounts are different aspects of one truth, viewed by four different men. “It’s as if one walks around a large diamond to look at it from three different angles,” Wills quotes Brown as saying (page 208). (Brown says “three” instead of “four” here because, for some reason that Wills does not explain to us, Brown was momentarily leaving Matthew out of his consideration.)

The counter argument would be that Wills and Brown are extraordinarily capable of what George Orwell called “doublethink,” whereby one holds two contradictory thoughts in mind. They know that some differences between the Gospels cannot be reconciled, yet they maintain their faith that the Gospels are still able to present ultimate truth. Perhaps many people in the pews who are blissful in their ignorance of these discrepancies would not digest them as well as Wills/Brown. Living with ambiguity does not settle as well with most human beings as it does with some.
Brown abandoned his original belief in the tradition that the Beloved Disciple, who is described in the third person throughout the Gospel of John, is necessarily named John. The price of doublethink is that one occasionally lapses into the tradition. So it is that Wills quotes Brown as referring to the Beloved Disciple as “young John” at one point (page 199).

Wills, channeling Brown, raises objections to the thesis (to which I happen to subscribe) that Lazarus is the Beloved Disciple. In his book on the Gospel of John, “Brown rightly asks,” says Wills, why it is that if Lazarus is the same as the Beloved Disciple, they are given two different designations (page 185). Brown (and Wills) may be expecting too much transparency from the text here, which they seem not to require elsewhere, as when they argue that the figure designated as “another disciple” who accompanies Peter to the house of Annas (John 18:15-16) is Nicodemus. I might “rightly ask,” why the Gospel does not say that his name is Nicodemus if that is his name. (My view is that, at this point in the Gospel of John, all figures with no-name descriptors such as “the one that Jesus loved” or “another disciple” are the Beloved Disciple.) It is amusing that Wills/Brown note that the Beloved Disciple is commonly seen as Peter’s companion, but not, apparently, when Wills/Brown would temporarily prefer to make Peter’s companion into Nicodemus.

Note: it is curious that most writers on Jesus and his early movement tacitly acknowledge but rarely state explicitly that the terms “disciple” and “apostle” are not interchangeable, but are overlapping categories. The twelve apostles are disciples, but they have been raised from among the other disciples to a special status. In the first chapter of Acts, it says that there were 120 active disciples subsequent to the crucifixion. Therefore, Nicodemus and Lazarus (or, for that matter, Mary Magdalen and Martha, the sister of Lazarus) are close followers of Jesus and therefore among his disciples.

[Matthew Briggs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Beautiful! Although Wills wrote "What Jesus Meant" before "What the Gospels Meant", one could easily read 'Gospels' before 'Jesus'. 'Gospels' focuses more on what I wanted to know: who might have written what, when and why. 'Jesus', on the other hand, draws from the four gospels, irrespective of their 'DNA', and draws together a theology.

Moving on to 'Paul' next, looking forward to it.

[Patty · Rating 3 out of 5]

”What, then, is a Gospel? The genre has often been debated. The Gospels are not biographies, or history books, or treatises. Their shape is determined by their uses, by their place in the lives and memories and prayers of the early believers. They are themselves a form of prayer.”

I have tried to read books by Willis before but never made much headway. He is a scholar, educated to be a priest. I am guessing that whatever I tried before was just above my head and understanding.

This was somewhat beyond me, but I worked at it and feel like I understood what Willis is trying to do. By giving his readers his own translations of the Gospels, he is expanding our knowledge of what the church has given us. Willis strongly believes that each Gospel has a purpose. Mark stresses Jesus's role as sufferer which for his audience was important and Matthew carefully presents Jesus’s teachings. For Luke the healings that Jesus did are important; and Jesus’s divinity is the centerpiece of John’s Gospel. Once I understood all of that the book came together for me.

I wish I had been reading this with some other people. A discussion of what Willis has to say would have helped me to see some things more clearly, I think. Also, if I had someone with background in New Testament studies to talk to, they might have helped me see what else I could learn from Willis.

I see that Willis has written other books in this series. I may have to find more of them now that I know I can understand his writing.

[Joel Wentz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not quite as good as "What Jesus Meant," but certainly stronger than "What Paul Meant," Wills provides a thoroughly-readable overview of the 4 gospels. He clearly respects the source material immensely, and discusses his own faith with a sharp historical, academic edge, which is something I love to find in theological writing. As a believer myself, I found his portrayals of the gospel stories very compelling, and I was drawn into the differences between the evangelists. I found myself reflecting on very familiar stories in new ways, and actually desiring to reread several of those documents. In particular, I enjoyed Wills exposition of the birth narratives (in Matthew and Luke) and his general respect for the historicity of John (something that seems lacking in much gospel-scholarship). Especially if you are familiar with the gospels, this is a great little read. But first, make sure you read "What Jesus Meant." Seriously, it's really good.

[marcus miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyable and thought provoking review of the four gospels in the New Testament. Wills explains the differing motives and emphases for writing and also explores some of the differences between the four books. For those who claim to take their Bible "literally" Wills approach may be irritating or maybe even heretical. On the other hand, if you are interested in some differing ways people look at the Gospels, and acknowledge the differences and similarities in the Gospels, Wills provides a useful overview which is readable. I think the book would be helpful both to those who are new to Christianity, and to those who have been Christians for some time.

[Rachael · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good though I get the feeling that it is simply a redaction of Raymond Brown's which since he quotes it so often. I'd also like to see more acknowledgment over areas of debate, such as, where the community of Mark was located- Wills takes the position it was in Syria though the scholarly majority would place him in Rome. But in terms of outlining basic features of the gospels that set them apart this does a good overview.

[Gordon Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book for someone curious about the New Testament. I have always wondered about how the Bible was influenced over time. This series by Garry Wills really answers a lot of my questions. I would recommend it to anyone curious about the gospels and how they came to be. The author has done a fantastic job in putting together the work of many historians and scholars into any easy to read and understand book. I really enjoyed it.

[Jeanne Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential to Understanding the Gospels

I found myself pondering Jesus's messages and meaning while doing mundane tasks and as I fell asleep and woke up. The book helped me to be among the disciples as they pondered and meditated on Jesus's mission. The author uses great thinkers as references. His own translations of key passages from the Greek gave me fresh perspective on what I know in the King James verses. I underlined much and will return again in my study to this book.

[Sharon Bender · Rating 4 out of 5]

This description of the Gospels seemed honest, open, and informative. I was able to use its accounting to work through my own faith and Christianity as an individual. I found it refreshing and most helpful to be trusted with this kind of view. I will be sure to consult the writings of Raymond E. Brown, which Wills consistently praised and heavily relied upon for this book.

[Garry · Rating 4 out of 5]

In keeping with the other theological books by Wills: clear, concise, well reasoned, and authoritative without being authoritarian. Wills makes clear the radicalism of what Jesus preached. He also discusses the differences between the Gospels -- their whys and wherefores -- with each offering a different facet, each offering a different perspective, and together a more complete narrative.

[J. Ewbank · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good, short book, but a good read. The book brims with scholarship but it is extremely readable and well handled.

I enjoyed reading it and will keep it.

J. Robert Ewbank author "John Wesley, Natural Man, and the 'Isms'"

[Mary Ellin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another of the books I recommend to help you understand the Bible - not that the Gospels are that complex (compare to: Isaiah, Ezekiel). But this book will increase your understanding and your appreciation of the four great New Testament accounts of Jesus and his ministry.

[Amy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I learned a lot here. Fascinating info about the historicity of the different books. I liked his insights about the birth narratives and the book of John especially.

[Craig Barner · Rating 3 out of 5]

In What the Gospels Meant, biblical scholar Garry Wills searches for the core ideas of each of the four Gospels. He takes a look at the similarities and differences among them and provides key historical perspective. It's a great work because Wills is accessible to the layman, due in part to his clear and concise writing, but his penetrating analyses and deep understanding of the Bible would challenge the Gospel specialist, too. Well worth reading, What the Gospels Meant should deepen the reader's understanding of these foundational texts of Christianity.

I enjoyed reading about the differences among the Gospels. Sometimes, writers tailored their text to a specific community or to emphasize a theme.

For instance, all the Gospel writers depict what is usually called Jesus's Cleansing of the Temple. Disgusted by money changers, who switched Roman and Greek money into Jewish money to pay for animals to be used for Temple sacrifice as part of religious rites, Jesus overturned tables and expelled merchants from the holy site. This scene occurs near the end of Jesus's ministry in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke. In the Gospel of John, however, the Cleansing of the Temple occurs near the beginning of Jesus's ministry. Why is John different?

John puts the scene near the beginning of his Gospel to present a background theme for all that follows, as Wills sees it. His Gospel underlines a key point about Jesus: He often rejected the ceremonial and external observances of religion to stress that religion is an inward matter of the heart, of the direct encounter with the Father through Jesus himself.

For me, it's a key teaching, regardless if someone is Christian, Jewish or another faith. I've known very pious individuals, in terms of public observance, but people who are nonetheless a universe removed from goodness, warmth, humanity and humility. Indeed, very religiously observant people can be among the most destructive.

For Wills the Gospel of Luke was written for outcasts. A Jew, Jesus was sympathetic to Gentiles, who were unclean, according to the tradition of his time, as well as other outsiders, including the neglected, despised and outcast. Jesus, a rebel, was often seen with prostitutes, tax collectors, criminals and others on the fringes. As a result, the stories of Jesus or parables he tells--the Good Samaritan, the Woman with a Menstrual Disorder, the Prodigal Son and others--in Luke are colorful, detailed and meant to indicate that anyone is worthy of paradise, regardless of his or her situation in this world, if that person is good, faithful and moral. Turns 0ut, the Parable of the Prodigal Son appears only in Luke.

Wills includes some interesting Bible history and ideas. For example, the raising of Lazarus or the cleansing of the temple, depending on one's point of view, was the trigger that led directly to Jesus's arrest and execution. Another is it's often thought that Saint Paul, who wrote most of the epistles, contributed more material to the New Testament than any other writer. Turns out, Luke, who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, actually contributed more text than Paul. Finally, the Jewish Zealots, who seized the Temple in 67 CE, prompting a war with Rome that led to the holy site's destruction three years later, might have persecuted the Markan community, which was among the first Christians. Josephus, the Jewish historian from antiquity, was sympathetic to Jewish liberation movements, but even he called the Zealots "outlaws."

This is the fifth book by Wills I've read. I recommend any of his works, whether on religion or history.

[Jill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned quite a bit in this one, but there were some pieces of misinformation that I really disliked. I audiobooked it, so maybe the author misread? There's one part where he's talking about women in the Old Testament, their lineage connection with Jesus, and how they're not reputable characters. He mentions Ruth, and mistakenly identifies her as helping with the conquest of Jericho instead of Rahab. ?? That really threw me for a loop. I listened to it a couple more times to be sure he said what I thought he said. Yep. Then there's another portion where he said John doesn't baptize Jesus. Huh? I hope he meant only that in a particular gospel it's not specifically mentioned that John baptizes Jesus, but that's not what it sounded like to me. After a few of these incidents, it's hard to credit the rest of what you're hearing. Regardless, I did appreciate how he explains what each Gospel brings to the table, how they differ, and why there's not one recognized authoritative Gospel, though several have tried to make it so.

[Jackie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting compare and contrast for the four gospels. This includes faults by the writers of those four epistles: inconsistencies, order of chronology, author identification, and issues with language such as consistency of style and grammar. The analysis of content in general is followed by individual book analysis: Mark, Matthew, Luke and the beloved John.

Beware of the difficult words: for me to get more than one new word per sentence makes for dismissal of them, or in other words: light reading. However, I enjoy the compilation of levels of meaning, and the interaction with history and what I like most: ART.

Mr Wills often cites Mr Raymond Brown as a reliable source: he builds on scholarships of others, and his writings meet the approval of religious organization.

When interested, this book would be an excellent candidate for a hardcopy, in order to study it in more detail.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't read much religious commentary, but I needed a little something while waiting for books on hold to arrive and saw this volume, and Wills is a good, respected historian (though he shifted from early American history to religious history). I enjoyed it and learned quite a bit; questioned some of my beliefs (hardly solidly grounded in the first place). I was surprised by how much I knew though, as there was very little mentioned (in the way of the stories and such) that I had not heard. I guess I WAS listening at mass. I am sure there will be those who will quibble with his conclusions, but I think he presents his case pretty well, at least for a nonspecialist like myself.

[Wil Roese · Rating 3 out of 5]

For centuries Mathew was thought to be the first Gospel but now Mark is thought to be the first. Mathew and Luke used Mark and a common source called Q for their Gospels. The Gospels show Christ from different perspectives. John focuses on the divinity, Mark on the suffering and Mathew on the teachings.

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

What the Gospels Meant delivers just what its title promises ... at least the Gospels according to Gary Wills, and that's good enough for me. I suppose a passing acquaintance with the New Testament is helpful, as Wills presupposes some familiarity. I doubt that a reader without knowledge of the Gospels would be particularly interested anyway.

[Lynecia · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really don't know how to rate this book as I'm still pretty "new" to biblical scholarship though I did notice that it was very Catholic leaning. I really don't know how to rate this book, but I will give it the default 2 stars because I didn't hate it, but for the most part I have to keep studying.

[Holly Quinn · Rating 3 out of 5]

More than other things this book gave me a sense of the importance of Raymond Brown in modern Catholic theological thinking. Very concise, well written and documented, with many Gospel examples clearly elucidated. There are more in the What the ______ Meant series written by Brown but I doubt I'll read them though I confidently recommend them to people this sort of writing appeals to.

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

Being trained in the seminary, Willis does his own translations of select gospel passages and writes about the historical background and intended audience for each of the gospels, which were written 30-70 years after Christ's life.

[Betsy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting comparison and contrast of the 4 gospels. Heard as book on tape so I was not able to digest comments and think more about the different topics. Would probably be useful listening to it again.

[Audrey Babkirk Wellons · Rating 3 out of 5]

A good book to read to get a sense of the tone of each of the gospels and how they differ from one another thematically.

[Sabrine Cutting · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book was slightly academic for my taste, I was looking for something with more depth into the spiritual meaning of the gospels.

[Rick Brookens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not recommended. A distortion of the Gospels in my opinion.

[Dona · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wills' reliance on the work of Raymond Brown left me elongated that I wish I'd read Brown's books instead. I found this work a bit shallow and the author's style ratherpendantic. Disappointing.