1. All the Gospels tell the story of Jesus' death and crucifixion (cf. Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 18-19, available in various translations online at http://www.biblegateway.com).
Even though they basically tell the same story, however, they do so in slightly different ways. Are there any variants that seem particularly significant to you, and how do they change the way this particular Gospel author wants his readers to understand and interpret the story of Jesus' death?
2. Respond to two of your classmates' posts.
I noticed that in Matthew, after Jesus's death there is a supernatural occurrence mentioned, like an earthquake or something, but in the other gospels, they only recorded the burial of Jesus. This is interesting because Matthew thought this supernatural thing would make people believe in Jesus's powers and place as God's son more. I also was interested in the fact that some Gospels talked about the women that were important at the death of Jesus, like both Mary's and other women. However, not all of the Gospels even mentioned them, like Matthew. John talked a lot of about the events before and after the death of Jesus in relation to the scriptures that were about his death, in order to state that the sacred scriptures were fulfilled, and therefore proved that Jesus was the son of God. John seemed to be trying harder than the other Gospel writers to convince the reader of the validity of Jesus's claims, and his importance.
ReplyDeleteyeah, i found john 18 really enlightening because they described some key events such as peter's denials of jesus and jesus's initial arrest.
DeleteMatthew seemed to want to show just how powerful Jesus was and how significant his crucifixion was. Continuing with this idea, Matthew wanted to note that this "miracle" happened even when the people who wanted Jesus dead were around so that they could witness it. The earthquake was one last attempt to show how Jesus was divine and the son of God.
DeleteThe three-hour solar eclipse, the temple curtain splitting, and the earthquake (the last one only mentioned in Matth 27:51) are clearly signs that something extraordinary has happened. Why, do you think, does John leave all this out?
DeleteI definitely noticed a grimmer tone in John 18-19, but I am unsure whether that was simply because it was more detailed. I just noticed that John begins his account of the crucifixion in a garden with Jesus and his disciples, and then he ends his variation by establishing that where Jesus was crucified, a garden grew. I thought these additions to the basic story added a lot of depth, and if a film were to tell of the crucifixion, I personally would use John 18-19.
DeleteI think that John leaves out the the three-hour solar eclipse, the temple curtain splitting, and the earthquake because Matthew needed to show that Jesus was divine whereas John shows Jesus's divinity throughout the story. In the beginning Jesus gives himself up without fight and does not allow Simon Peter to fight. This leads to his disciples following Jesus to his death. John also glorifies Jesus when Pilate writes "JESUS OF NARARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS" on the sign and refuses to change it to to that Jesus claimed to be king of the jews.
DeleteMatthew 27 refers to a giant earthquake and the rebirth of many holy men following Jesus’s death, but Mark 15, John 18-19 and Luke 23 do not mention this phenomenon. I believe that this difference would make readers more likely to believe that supernatural forces were mourning and enraged over Jesus’s death.
ReplyDeleteMatthew also talks about how the Virgin Mary and Joseph the Disciple watched over Jesus’s tomb, but Mark 15 only says that Mary and Joseph saw where Jesus was laid. Luke 23 does not even mention Mary at the tomb, only Joseph. John also does not mention Mary, but says that Joseph was accompanied by Nicodermus at Jesus’s tomb. The primary difference between the versions is the mentioning of Mary. It’s indicative that the versions that do not mention Mary consider her role to be a minimal one.
Luke 23 goes into greater detail of how Jesus was tried and mentions Herod as opposed to just Pilate questioning Jesus.
Luke, Matthew and Mark all mention that two other men were crucified beside Jesus, but in Luke the men are referred to as criminals, one of whom insulted Jesus although the other did not. In the other two books, the men were followers of Jesus, not criminals.
John describes not only the trial, torture, crucifying and death of Jesus, but also Peter’s denials of Jesus and Jesus’s arrest.
Yeah, I also noticed that Luke and John talk more about the actual accusing and questioning of Jesus. I suppose the other authors did not think the events or reasoning that led up the his death were as important.
DeleteI also think it is interesting that in Matthew 27 as well as Mark 15, they say that the men crucified with him were rebels (criminals) who said little if anything at all to Jesus. However, Luke claims that one of the rebels threw insults at Jesus while the other rebel tried to sympathize with Jesus. Finally, in John 18-19, he neglects to mention anyone being crucified alongside Jesus at all.
DeleteActually, John 19:18 does mention that Jesus wasn't crucified alone: "Here they crucified him, and with him two others – one on each side and Jesus in the middle." It is interesting, however, that John, who knew, of course, the accounts of the other Gospels, keeps silent on the identity of the others and, for example, chooses not to repeat the fact that the men executed with Jesus insulted him (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27: 44; expanded in Luke 23:39-43).
DeleteIf you were a film director and were filming a movie about the crucifixion, would you leave this episode out, like John, or include it, like the three other Gospels? Would you choose Luke's version or Mark and Matthew's? What would be the reasons for your choice?
To answer Dr. Knorr's question, I think it would definitely depend on the mood within the movie that you wished to create. When John does not specify the crimes of the men crucified besides Jesus, he is disregarded their significance. Perhaps he believes that the crime of robbery is "below" what Jesus was condemned of, being the "King of the Jews."
DeleteTo expand on what Alyssa said, I think that John staying quiet about the taunting criminals is because it doesn't seem to fit with the tone of the story John is trying to weave. John paints a very personal and human story of Jesus, adding details to make Jesus more relatable. There are moments such as "25 Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to her, “Woman, here is your son,” 27 and to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” From that time on, this disciple took her into his home." Jesus is basically telling someone to take care of his Mom after he's dead.
DeleteInterrupting such a personal moment with taunts from the other people being crucified just doesn't seem to fit the tone.
It is very interesting that you mentioned the men that died next to Jesus. I had not noticed those subtle differences. Myself being raised in a catholic family, we always read Johns version during Christmas, so I didn't really pay any attention to what others had to say about those men.
DeleteDo you ever sleep, Nikolas? ;-)
DeleteThe differences between the accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion matter because it is hard to tell what is truth. There are many similarities especially between Matthew 27 and Mark 15, however there are extreme differences too. For example Matthew 27 is the only one that comments about how Judas felt remorse about turning Jesus over. It also is the only one where Pilate’s wife has a voice. She tells Pilate that Jesus is an innocent man and not to harm him. This gives a lot more sympathy to Judas, and gives a faceless and nameless woman a role. The role of Pilate is also different in every account. In Mark 15 the story starts very quickly and Pilate is ignorant to Jesus neither helping nor hindering his trial before the people. In John 18-19 Pilate does not charge Jesus after questioning him, and further more tries to do everything he can to free Jesus. Pilate takes on a role of righteousness when he writes “THE KING OF THE JEWS” instead of that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. In Luke 23 Pilate sent Jesus to Herod and tried to release Jesus, but otherwise is similar to the other accounts. I think that the role of Pilate is very important because he is the person to paint a picture of Jesus’s death. The story of Mark 15 Pilate makes Jesus look like a criminal because he says and does nothing to stop the crucifixion of an innocent man. This is the opposite of John 18-19 where Pilate does everything in his power to free Jesus. From a religious view where people are to worship Jesus we want to see the goodness in humanity, that people wanted to save Jesus. However in the end of all the stories Pilate releases Jesus’s body to Joseph for a proper burial.
ReplyDeleteFrom the film accounts of the crucifixion that I’ve seen Jesus always carries his own cross, however that is only true in John’s account. In the other accounts Simon carries the cross to Golgotha. This difference although subtle marks a difference in the attitude of Jesus. Was Jesus portrayed as a strong or weak character until the end? I also think that it was interesting that in Matthew 27 the soldiers put a scarlet robe on Jesus instead of a purple robe. Purple is generally the color of kings and to make Jesus wear a purple robe is much more mocking than a scarlet robe. Also the account of John is much different from the other accounts in the fact that it starts earlier and Jesus’s disciples follow him to his crucifixion. I like this account because it shows Jesus as more likable and noble since he gave himself over with no struggle to Judas.
I definitely noticed that John's account was very different from the other three gospels, as it seemed to provide a lot more personal details from the standpoint of a disciple rather then that of a scholar or historian. Matthew, Mark, and to some extent Luke, all seemed to focus more on recounting the facts as well as giving a very unbiased account of the crucifixion whereas John seemed much more emotional, including himself in several of the stories earlier on in the book.
DeleteI agree with the comment above, John's rendition was a lot more emotional, although Matthew's was done in a narrative oratorical style, which i appreciated. i feel like john's account made it easier for a reader to feel as john did and relate more due to the emotion in his story.
DeleteI would definitely agree that the story goes very quickly in Mark. That whole gospel account seems very rushed, whereas the later accounts, such as John, go into a lot more detail.
DeleteI think that few people realize that only in John does it mention Jesus carrying the cross to Golgotha. Due to the film industry's use of that scene, it has become a cornerstone of the story. Personally I think John tries a lot harder to get the audience to connect with Jesus on a human level, as opposed to in Mark and Matthew in which he is less accessible due to his God-ness. The carrying of the cross reveals a very human struggle, which is why Hollywood is so attracted to the scene. It makes for a lot more powerful/impactful scene to watch a bleeding, weary Jesus haul a huge cross to the top of a hill only to be crucified on it once he gets there.
I agree with these posts about John being different. In a sense it seemed to me that he gave Jesus a more divine appearance and that John was surely more emotional about the topic then the rest.
DeleteThe differences from story to story are important because they show how each author had a different view of the crucifixion of Jesus. All of the stories except for John noted that the curtain in the temple had been torn in two, but only Matthew noted that there had been an earthquake. Many of the events before and during the crucifixion are similar throughout the stories which allows for a certain degree of continuity between the stories. However, the differences allow us to see and compare how Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all perceived the events through their own eyes. Some of the stories were more detailed such as John's which explained how Peter had denied being a disciple of Jesus, while Mark 15 only went from "Jesus Before Pilate" to "The Burial of Jesus". The extended introduction allows the reader to see what Jesus was doing earlier before the crucifixion as well as who was with him. In all the stories, Pilate seems to not want to crucify Jesus by reminding the people twice that he has done nothing wrong and in Matthew 27, Pilate claims that the death of Jesus is not his responsibility and that it is the fault of the people that he will be crucified.
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was really interesting that only Matthew writes about how Pilate literally washes his hands in order to rid himself of all blame associated with Jesus' crucifixion. All four clearly demonstrate that Pilate is a coward, as he gives in to the cries of the masses, but they also show that he is genuinely afraid of the consequences of killing "the king of the jews", this fear even more pronounced in this passage of Matthew.
DeleteSomething else regarding Pilate that was in Luke struck me just like the things Jill mentioned: Luke recounts that Pilate did not even ask the crowd in the first place if they wanted to set Jesus or the other prisoner free. He tells them that he's going to set Jesus free, and then the crowd defies him and shouts for Jesus without him even suggesting that. This puts much more blame on the crowd and makes Pilate look more favorable.
DeleteExactly, Olivia. Now we only need to remember that Pilate represents the Roman government and the crowd Jesus' fellow Jews. Luke's account squarely blames the Jews for Jesus' execution and frees the Romans from all responsibility even though no one could be executed in a Roman province without the explicit approval of the governor!
DeleteMatthew and Luke make Pilate look more favorable, while the other two make him look weak and much worse of a person. I think that the important thing in these gospels are the slight changes of wording. I don't think that Pilate is much of a coward in Matthew and Luke, but he still doesn't show the strength to stop what happened.
DeleteI agree with Alec in the sense that both Mathew and Luke make Pilate seem more favorable than Mark, but I must say that to me Johns discription of Pilate is the best. Here you can see a man that is clearly torn between his duty and his sympathy. He says time and time again that he sees no just charges against this man, and he tries many a times to set Jesus free, but in the end he must do what his office requires him to do.
DeleteThe four gospels all relate the same basic account of the crucifixion of Jesus, although they do contain slight differences, such as Jesus' interaction with Pilate. The book of John provides the most variation, as it recounts dialogue between the two that is not present in the other three gospels, this conversation focusing on whether or not Jesus was truly the king of the Jews. However, despite this difference, all of the dialogue between the two recorded in the gospels centers around this same topic, which implies that John had either witnessed some of this first account or had an inside source. Matthew also provides an interesting addition that is not present in the other three gospels, going into detail about how Pilate washed his hands in front of the crowd screaming for Jesus execution, in order to cleanse himself of all blame. None of the other three gospels specifically refer to this event, although they do emphasize Pilate's fear of the masses and his eventual surrender to their request despite his belief in Jesus' innocence.
ReplyDeleteThe variations between the individual gospels are clearly evident and provide a shift in meaning from one to the other, although it is important to note that the same basic story is retold throughout each book. This is an incredibly impressive feat taking in to consideration that they were each written at different times and were written independently of one another. The differences between each do more to strengthen the legitimacy of Jesus' crucifixion then detract from it, as they emphasize despite the fact that each gospel was written from a different perspective, the overall message and the essential details remained unchanged.
I agree that the essential message, namely that Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah, is the same throughout the four Gospels, even though they were written over the course of 50 or more years and, as you'll see maybe most clearly with John, who constantly explains Jewish customs, were also adapted for the needs of different kinds of audiences.
DeleteAs a film director making a film about the crucifixion, however, you'd be faced with the question which one of these Gospel accounts you should follow. Would you chose just one, or would you combine different accounts, choosing and picking episodes from all four and thus create, basically, a new account with different emphases?
^ In response: I feel like every time I've seen or heard an account of the crucifixion of Jesus it is always John's account. I feel that it is the most sympathetic towards Jesus and the details lend a hand to the theatrical process. However there are some things that could be added for instance I would add the part of Pilate washing his hands of the crowd's sin and Matthew's account of how Pilate felt the need to put guards at the entrance of the tomb.
DeleteI agree with you when you stated that the differences in each story do more to strengthen Jesus' crucifixion, then to detract from it. I also have a similar viewpoint. I thought that all the accounts of what happened helped paint the readers a picure of what happened at Jesus' crucifixion.
DeleteTo answer Professors question, depending on my movie I would probably combine different accounts to create a new account for different reasons. One, who am I to pick one account and say that they are the most valid and so they deserve recognition for it. Second, to make the message to the audience clearer. If they haven't read all the different accounts of the crucifixion they can develop a general idea of what happened.
I agree with you that every account tells the same basic story, with different interpretation in each account. It was very interesting noting the differences in each passage.
DeleteFor Professor's question, I would probably utilize John's account. His passages were written much like a story, including dialogue. From that, I would also pick other elements from the remaining three passages.
I definitely noticed a lot of similarities when it came to the basic plots in all four of the Gospels. In each recollection, the crucifixion of Jesus is blamed somewhat or entirely on the chief priests and other individuals surrounding the event, rather than Pilate. Pilate could release one prisoner at Passover, but in each variation of the crucifixion, the chief priests declared that they would much rather have Barabbas released, who was being held for murder and insurrection (seemingly more horrific crimes, at least to me personally).
ReplyDeleteOne variation that I noticed in Matthew 27 was the fact that Judas, Jesus's betrayor, suffered so much guilt that he cast thirty pieces of silver into the sanctuary and then went and hanged himself. Another contrast to the other versions was the declaration by Pilate's wife that she was suffering due to Jesus's possibly crucifixion. Also, Jesus is clothed by the people in a scarlet robe in Matthew 27 rather than a purple one.
Mark 15 was similiar to Matthew 27, but I saw it as slightly more basic. As in Matthew 27, when Jesus is asked whether he is the King of the Jews, Jesus merely answers, "Thou sayest." Like in Matthew 27, Jesus is said to have been crucified between two robbers. In both, Jesus cries out in the ninth hour, asking how his God has forsaken him.
In Luke 23, people actually accuse Jesus of "perverting [their] nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, and saying that he himself is Christ a king." Some of the other Gospels did not name his crimes so specifically. Luke 23 also describes that Jesus is sent to Herod, where Jesus is accused and mocked. Later, Jesus actually speaks to women in the town of Jerusalem, which gives Luke 23 a twist that the other crucifixion tales did not contain. The end also describes that the women prepared spices and ointments.
John 18-19 started at a different place than Luke 23, Mark 15, or Matthew 27. Jesus and his disciples are in a garden when Judas and his followers came with lanterns and weapons. When Jesus is captured, they bring him to Pilate, who inquires why Jesus is here. The officers state that of course they wouldn't have brought Jesus if he wasn't an evildoer. As in the other stories, people seem to question how he can be the "King of the Jews" without his God saving him and he saving himself. In John 18-19, Jesus's response is, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom was of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from home." In this variation, when Pilate asks why the crowd wants to crucify Jesus, they make references to Caesar that the other Gospels did not contain. John 18-19 also describes that after Jesus's death, a soldier stabs his body, and water and blood flowed out. I thought that John 18-19 was the most disturbing, but also the most interesting.
I thought John 18-19 was interesting as well. Compared to the 3 other accounts, it seemed as if he were writing a story. The other accounts felt like simple narratives compared to John 18-19
DeleteThe basic plot of the crucifixion is layed out in pretty much the same order for each gospel, so there aren't really any large structural differences between them. However, the details are what stuck out to me. I think even the tiny differences in language are worth looking at, because it says something about the tone the author is trying to set to tell the story. I found it interesting that the first two written Gospels, Mark and Matthew, mention the "curtain in the temple" tearing in half upon Jesus' death. Since the curtain is what covered the area of the temple that had at one point contained the ark of the covenant, I believe the implication is that the old covenant is being broken and that the new covenant is established with Jesus' death. The two later written gospels, Luke and John, do not mention any kind of symbolic supernatural event taking place upon Jesus' death, but rather a solemn tone of mourning. This might suggest that these gospels were directed at a different type of audience, perhaps one not used to grand "acts of God" like the ones portrayed on a regular basis in the old testament.
ReplyDeleteI also found it interesting that the two earlier gospels seemed to make Pilate seem like a humble arbiter of conflict rather than... something else, such as in Luke and John. In Luke it even says "That day Herod and Pilate became friends—before this they had been enemies" (Luke 23:12) which is to suggest that Pilate was biased against Jesus, as he was on Herod's side. It just seems like in Luke and John the author's trying to imply that Pilate had his own agenda and wanted Jesus dead, whereas in Mark and Matthew he is made out to be a glorified middle man.
Overall I think it is most important to recognize the changes in the gospel story in the order that the gospel accounts were written (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), because the author had the previous account(s) to go off of. This would suggest that the differences are not necessarily only due to perspective. Some changes were purposeful "edits" of the gospel story, perhaps so it would more easily fit a certain audience, or due to the author's personal opinion.
I like how you took into account the order in which the gospels wrote their accounts. I feel as if that is a major point to look at when determining if differences are true or if, like you said, there were "purposeful edits", to fit an audience or a personal opinion.
DeleteI also agree with you when you said that the different perspectives on Pilate are interesting. That was another detail that made the details a little fuzzy. Each gospel had a different viewpoint of him. Some were cowardice and crucifying Jesus because the public wanted it and others he stepped away from it and told them it was there responsibility. In one account he actually washed his hands, in order to wash the blame off.
Evan brings up the potential meaning of the tearing of the temple curtain. This curtain divided the temple's inner sanctum, the "holy of holies" that no one could enter, from the rest of the temple. Only the High Priest ever entered it, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, when he would first make a sacrifice to atone for his own sins and then make another one to atone for the sins of the entire Jewish people (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, 51).
DeleteEhrman, by the way, claims that the tearing of the temple curtain means something different in Mark than in Luke. In Mark 15:38, it happens AFTER Jesus' death, showing that from now on God communicates directly with his people and not through the High Priest's sacrifices, which are no longer necessary. I think that's basically the same as what Evan said, the temple curtain's ripping signifies the end of the old covenant and the start of a new.
In Luke 23:45 the curtain rips BEFORE Jesus speaks his last words, during the solar eclipse, and it shows that Jesus' death is the "hour of darkness" and symbolizes Gods' rejection of Jewish worship and his judgement against the Jewish people in general (Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, p. 68), not just a statement against temple Judaism.
Of the four accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion, most have the same underlying plot, but with a few minor details that make Matthew, Mark, Luke and John’s story different. All the differences that take place in the stories seem so minor to me that I do not believe they matter. They were written at different times and so they all have different sources and beliefs on what happened. Each story builds on what happened at Jesus’ crucifixion and paints a clearer picture to what might have happened. Each difference in the stories seems to be backed up by at least one other person. The ones that do not have another source shouldn’t necessarily be ruled out of what happened at Jesus’ crucifixion but those details seem more distant in what actually happened. The more accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion there is, the better we can shape what happened. All of the accounts seemed pretty much the same except for John’s account. He seemed to provide more emotion and detail into what happened at Jesus’ crucifixion. He starts his account from when Jesus was initially arrested, giving us more information that the others did not. Another detail that I found questioning was that Judas was only brought up in two stories and both had very different accounts of him. In Matthews 27, he kills himself because he felt so guilty that he had betrayed Jesus. In John 18-19, Judas is leading soldiers and officials to Jesus. He had no remorse what so ever in John’s account. Details like these make deciding what actually happened in the accounts true or false.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the first of this post. I think that most of the differences in these stories are very slight. I also think that these slight differences are the qualities that make telling the same old story okay. With a slight shift on one tiny detail, you can make something vastly different. I also found that John had a different story to tell that stuck out to me a little more. I feel like I am copy and pasting Malia's post, but I do agree with Malia's comments. I just found that the differences of Pilate were the most noticeable. I couldn't find a lot of other differences between the stories that actually mattered to me.
DeleteI find hard to make an idea on what kind of person Pilate was. Because he was shown as a different person in all four gospels, its hard to tell if he thought Jesus should be crucified or if he thought he was innocent and deserved to live.
DeleteAfter reading the seperate ways this specific story was told, I found that one of the most important differences was the way Pilate was portrayed. There were some slight differences that made Pilate a very different person in each of the stories. For example, in Luke 23, Pilate was said to have never even flogged Jesus and simply sumbitted him to the will of the crowd. In John 19, Pilate allowed Jesus to be slapped and crowned with the thorn crown. In Mark 15, Pilate fell under the influences of "peer pressure" and carried on the punishment under influence of the mob. And lastly, in Matthew 27, he has the part where he cleanses his hands and declares his innocence from the crucifixion. There are very different views in all 4 of these stories. In both Matthew and Luke, he is a better person. He wanted to remain innocent and felt like it was wrong. In Mark and John, he sumbits to the influences of the crowd and is even the person to enact the punishment. I just found that it is a crucial part to someone who is trying to retell the story. Anyone who wants to tell the story of Pilate has to pick the good story of Pilate or the bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Pilate is shown in a different way every time the story was retold. I think its interesting that in two of the gospels, he is someone who almost makes an attempt to prevent the crucifixion, but not in the other two. To me it seems that none of the authors were very clear on what role Pilate played in the crucifixion or what he wanted to happen.
DeleteOne of the most significant changes I noticed was the earthquake. Matthew 27 mentioned it, but Mark, Luke, and John did not. I think that the earthquake in Matthews was there to show how momentous his death was. In John 18-19 I thought it was interesting how there was more detail about the events leading up to Jesus' death. I One particular thing I noticed in John 18-19 was that Jesus carried his own cross. In the three other accounts, Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross. I think John wrote this to show how Jesus carried it on his own, just like the sins of mankind.
ReplyDeleteFor me the earthquake is just one more response of nature to Jesus' death, not much different from the solar eclipse. On film, however, it makes for some very dramatic scenes, and so you'll see that both "Ben Hur" versions have included the earthquake even though it is mentioned only in one of the four Gospel accounts.
DeleteCarrying the cross without help clearly emphasizes that Jesus is able and strong enough to do it himself, and it makes sense if we, with Bea, read it as a symbol of him shouldering all of mankind's sins.
DeleteThough the story remains the same through all the accounts of the Jesus' crucifixion, there were some details that differed that may change the way we picture certain people or how some things happened. For example surround Jesus' death most of the gospels just tell how it became stormy, whereas in Matthew 27 there was an earthquake. Though the latter is an obviously much more dramatic account they all end with everyone present during the time of his death agreeing that he truly was the son of god. Also in Matthew 27 tells of how Judas not tried to return his reward for leading them to jesus, but actually hung himself. I believe this shows Judas in a somewhat more sympathetic light compared to the account given by John 18-19 . Even though he did a horrible thing, he regretted it to the point of taking his own life. I find it interesting each account differs in subtle ways when they were all written about the same events in roughly the same time period.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to draw peoples attention to the mention of Jesus being the one who carried his cross instead of Simon. I saw this as one of the major differences between Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. In John 18 he specifically says that Jesus carried his own cross to the place where he was crucified. On the other hand, the other gospels referred to a man by the name of Simon having to carry the cross. I think that the fact that Jesus had to carry his own cross made him seem all that more vulnerable. Also the other major difference that I saw was that Matthew really did make Judas seem so much more human and not just purely evil. No other gospel did this. They all villanized Judas the second they mentioned him. This I'm sure helped to create that awful reputation Judas has in today's society. The final main distinction I saw was in Johns Gospel. In this one, he really shows Pontius trying to help Jesus. He tries time and time again to set him free, but finally he must take the pleas of the people.
ReplyDeleteI actually didnt notice that Jesus carried his own cross in John 18 until I read your post. This to me is a very important difference because the carrying of the cross is an important event. As for making him seem more vulnerable I dont know if I would agree with that because in my opinion I think it kind of gave him strength, i interpret it to be him more human like and it gave him more strength because he did it for us. Now I am probably wrong because I see your point too.
DeleteThere were actually a few differences in the writings. The first that I really noticed was the mention of some kind of event after Jesus died in Matthew 27. I think this is an important point because it shows evidence toward his divinity and him actually being something more than just a man, the messiah. In John 18 I noticed the great mass of people in mourning, now I could be wrong when I say this but I dont notice that crowd in the other Passages. Now that I looked at some of the comments on here and I looked back to the passages I noticed things like how Jesus carried his own cross in john 18. This I know to be a very important symbol and it is really only described as that in John 18.
ReplyDelete