My thanks to Rachel, who submitted this informative and well written essay to the site.
It has been pointed out to me that one of Rachel's sources particularly for her first paragraph was Fr Donald Senior's Introduction to the Passion Narratives to be found at the following URL http://www.cptryon.org/xpipassio/passio/comment.html
The Webmistress
a) Consider the similarities and differences in the treatment of Jesus' crucifixion and death in Matthew and John (15)
b) How might these similarities and differences be explained? (10)
The passion narratives provide the climax for each of the four gospels, drawing together the themes that are characteristic of each evangelist in their portrayal of Jesus' life. Due to the centrality of the passion narratives to the message of the evangelists each has a unique and distinctive emphasis reflecting the concerns of the evangelists and the audience for which they were writing, thus leading to differences in the portrayal of the events. Throughout his gospel Mathew follows his primary source Mark very closely but still colours it with his characteristic themes. The same is true of the passion narrative where Mathew's account absorbs virtually Mark's entire story. By contrast John's gospel has been called the "maverick" gospel because its portrayal of Jesus is done in a manner quite distinctive from that of the other evangelists. Despite this, the passion narratives are rooted in history and consequently there is a certain similarity between the gospels.
Firstly the main order of the events of Jesus' crucifixion and death are the same in both Matthew and John's gospel, in addition to many details of the events. Both evangelists write of Jesus' having to carry his own cross, although Matthew adds the detail that he was helped by Simon of Cyrene. The evangelists both record the fact that Jesus was crucified with two other people. "They also crucified two other men, one on each side with Jesus' in between them"(Jn. 19:18) and in Matthew "then they crucified two bandits with Jesus one on his right and one on his left". This is a clear example of meticulous recording of detail by both Matthew and John. Not content with simply observing that Jesus was crucified with others they also both record the precise number of two other men and the fact that Jesus was placed in between them.
Further similarities include the writing of a notice to pin above the cross bearing the accusation of "king of the Jews". John dwells a little more on this incident recording that the notice was written in "Hebrew Latin and Greek" (Jn 19:20) and that it was read by many people. Furthermore John writes of a dispute between Pilate and the chief priests over this title, the chief priests demanded that the title should read that Jesus said he was the King of the Jews, rather then just the statement reading "King of the Jews". However this dispute cumulated in Pilate displaying his authority with the words "What I have written will stay written".
It is also interesting that in a society in which men were unquestionably dominant, both of the evangelists write of women who were there with Jesus during his crucifixion. In particular Jesus' mother Mary is mentioned as well as Mary Magdalene. However, there are several differences regarding details of events between those who watched Jesus' crucifixion. John includes an episode where Jesus instructs his beloved disciple to take care of his mother Mary "He is your son…and She is now your Mother" (Jn. 19:26-27).
Further agreement between the overall order of events can be found in Matthew and John as both record that Jesus was removed to the tomb of Joseph of Aramethea. However Matthew also writes of the tomb being closely guarded. Both evangelists make references to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. For instance Matthew ensures that it is made clear that Joseph of Arimathea was "a rich man" (Mt27:57) in order to link with Isaiah 53:9 "He was buried with the rich". Both also Quote from Psalm 22, in Matthew Jesus last words were "My God my God why hast thou forsaken me" which is a direct quote from the opening verse of psalm 22. Similarly John describes how the guards cast dice in order to determine who kept Jesus' clothes, an event which he said happened in order to fulfil the scripture: "They gamble for my clothes and divide them among themselves" (Ps. 22: 18).
However despite the use of similar Old Testament literature, the points mentioned above also expose some major differences in the two accounts. For instance the anguished cry of desolation and abandonment recorded in Matthew as the last words of Jesus could not be more different to the triumphal ending "It is finished" in John. The Greek verb used here, teleo has connotations of "completion" and "arriving at the intended goal", and the Johannine Jesus then bows his head in a graceful and composed manner and with a sense of serenity and strength he meets his death. Similarly it is important to note John's reference to the fact that Jesus robe had no seams: "They also took the robe, which was made of one piece of woven cloth without any seams in it" (Jn19:23). This is a point which Matthew omits to mention.
The small differences discussed so far with the overall similarities between Matthew and John's passion accounts are not the only discrepancies, in addition there are some quite major points which are unique to either Matthew or John. These events render important differences in the overall portrayal of Jesus during his crucifixion. The climax of Matthew's passion narrative is filled with drama and apocalyptic imagery which is distinctive of his gospel, for instance the earthquake and opening of the tombs, (27:52-54). These events when added to the dream of Pilate's wife, the darkness (27:45) give the impression that in the death and resurrection of Jesus the last things have essentially happened as all of theses events are usually associated with Jewish eschatology. The Jewishness of Matthew's gospel is reinforced by numerous other Old Testament influences in the account. He includes the offer of wine mixed with gall which echoes psalm 69:21 "They gave me poison for food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink".
The mocking of Jesus is also unique to Matthew since his "Son of God" Christology is reinforced in the words "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross". The final words of mocking are also significant: "He trusted in God, let God deliver him now if God wants him. For he said "I am the Son of God" These words combine two scriptural quotations, the first half is a citation from psalm 22:9 whilst the whole quote is reminiscent of 2:18-20 in which the just one claims to be God's son and so is put to death.
John's gospel concludes with two brutal acts in the ritual of crucifixion, not recorded in any other gospel. Firstly the executioners come to break the legs of the criminals in order to hasten the death before the Sabbath begins, but they do not break Jesus' legs and in doing so unwittingly fulfil the words of the scriptures in reference to the Passover lambs; "do not break any of the bones" (Exodus 12:446).To make sure that Jesus is dead the soldiers then drive a lance into his side from which blood and water flows, again which is linked to the Old Testament scriptures (Zechariah 12:10) that speaks of the inhabitants of Jerusalem repenting and receiving God's forgiveness when they look on "him whom they pierced" (Jn19:37) This again is another difference between the two passion narratives, as John makes extensive use of Old Testament quotes.
Matthew on the other hand does allude to texts but never emphasizes the way in which Jesus' death is a fulfilment of them, unlike John, who repeatedly writes: "This happened in order to fulfil the scripture" (Jn 19:24, 19:36 and 19:28). In conclusion the broad details of Matthew and John's gospel are the same, the overall order of events could not logically be changed, but in addition some very specific details are carefully reinforced in both gospels. Nevertheless the gospels written by the two evangelists are unique to them. Each evangelist has certain reoccurring themes throughout the gospels, and the passion narratives are no exception. The many details in the passion narratives, which are unique to the evangelist, result overall in very different portrayals of Jesus' crucifixion and death. The triumphant conclusion of Jesus' ministry and fulfilment of God's purpose in John being vastly different from the portrayal of real human anguish displayed by Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew.
b) How might the similarities and differences be explained? (10)
The explanations for the similarities in the two gospel accounts are varied, although the most immediately obvious is that the events are based on history and therefore the two records of the events must have a certain degree of similarity. From this premise it is mainly the differences between the two passion narratives for which explanation must be sought, as the basic order of events of the narratives must be fairly similar if the evangelists wish to preserve historically accurate records. Despite the fact that preservation of historical accuracy is one of the aims recorded in the prologue of Luke, and the fact that the evangelists record many geographical locations some scholars have disputed the fact that the evangelists wished to preserve historically accurate records. If this was accurate then there must be other reasons as to why there should be similarities between the gospel accounts.
Form critics would offer the following explanations for similarities between the passion narratives: Both are the same type of literature, that is they are both written not as biographies but in order to tell people of the significance which Christ's death holds for them. In addition form critics believe that the passion narrative unlike much of the rest of the gospels was preserved and transmitted as one whole pericopae, thus accounting for the similarity between the accounts.
However, it is clear that Matthew and John have access to different sources, which explains some of the differences between the accounts. Matthew relies heavily on the Markan prototype, it is however characterized by small but highly significant modifications. These include elements typical of the M source, for instance the apocalyptic details. John however claims his own eyewitness accounts hence both evangelists have their own distinctive material that they can use. The use to which they put their source material is a reflection of the evangelists' purpose. This is another reason why the passion accounts differ, as each evangelist has their unique purpose for writing. For example Matthew wishes to establish Jesus' crucifixion as the decisive act of God in human history, hence the apocalyptic imagery. There is also a heightening of the Christology by Mark by means of titles which emphasize the majesty and divinity of Jesus. Increasingly stress is placed on the responsibility of the Jews for the death of Jesus, in Matthew, it is possible that there may have been some particular cause in Matthew's community for antagonism against the Pharisees. The words of mocking used in Matthew have no parallel in John, as they are unique to Matthew's purpose - to place the responsibility for Jesus' death on the Jews. The words "He trusts in God, let God deliver him now if he desires him for he said 'I am the son of God'" (27:43) also serve to make the response of the Roman centurion all the more poignant "Truly this was the son of God" (27:54). Furthermore Matthew wishes to persuade his readers that a new Israel is to be established due to the rejection of Jesus by the Jews. The fact that this new Israel is to be extended in order to include Gentiles is shown by the fact that it is a Roman Centurion who proclaims the divinity of Jesus, rather than the Jews who mock and ridicule him.
The words of mocking are omitted in John as his purpose for writing was slightly different. The aim pursued by the author of John is expressed by him in the conclusion (20:30) "These signs are written that you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God". He did not intend to write a biographical, historical account of the life of Jesus rather he intended to emphasize his own view of the theological and christological significance of Jesus' life, especially his death and resurrection. V. Taylor expresses this: "His (John's) attitude to the narrative tradition is that of one whose main interest is not he details as they actually happened but the abiding significance of the gospel story" According to John the purpose of Jesus' death was a means by which evil could be defeated and sins forgiven. Therefore Jesus vindicated for the whole world by symbolically taking up His cross and carrying it - this was the symbol of the victory of God. It is for this reason that John does not include Simon of Cyrene carrying the cross for Jesus to Golgotha, because the theological significance of the Via Dolorosa (way of the cross) is of Jesus carrying his own cross - both symbolically and literally.
In John's gospel Jesus' death is glorified, not only does he take up his own cross, but unlike the Matthean Jesus he is not mocked and even manages to dispense instructions to his Mother and beloved disciple before he dies. Jesus' is portrayed as being in control of events in order that the cross may be a place of enthronement, and fulfilment of God's purpose. CH Dodd explains; "God's glory has already been manifest in the ministry of Jesus; it is now to be conclusively manifest in His death and resurrection". Furthermore, the final words of Jesus recorded by John reinforce the fact that Jesus death is a triumph. John also seeks to portray Jesus as both priest and victim in his passion account, hence the detail of the seamless robe, reminiscent of the high priestly garments, and the eucharistic allusions when blood and water flows from his pierced side. The Eucharistic reference is also part of the theological purpose of John who wants to portray Jesus as the giver of eternal life, whose body and blood has become the nourishment for humanity.
As the form critics identified, the evangelists were also influenced by their own "Sitz im Kirche (Church situation), although the extent to which this influence was exerted is debatable. Some form critics such as Debelibus went so far as to suggest that there was a group of workers within the early church known as "storytellers" whose job was to create stories about Jesus from Old testament literature in order to suit the needs of the church. Whilst this is by no means the only accepted view it is certainly clear that the evangelists were, as N. Stanton explains, to some extent influenced by their sitz im kirche: "Their [the form critics] fundamental insight that the traditions behind the gospels, reflect at least in part, the theological convictions of the post-Easter period is both undeniable and valuable" (N. Stanton - The Gospels and Jesus)
For instance it is quite likely that within Matthew's local synagogue there were rumours circulating that the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus. This would explain the emphasis on the guards stationed outside the tomb - in order to dispel the rumours. It is also possible that the author of Mark wished to link the rejection of his own community by the local synagogue with Jesus, by easing his rejection by all on the cross. Thus the passion could also be used within the community as encouragement that the rejection and persecution being suffered was less than the Messiah had to endure, or to teach that suffering is an intrinsic part of being a disciple of Christ.
The Johannine passion narrative makes extensive use of old testament quotes which is an indication that John too may have been in serious dispute with some Jews, and so wanted to demonstrate that in death Jesus was established as Messiah. There may also have been the need for John to combat Docetist heresy - which was widespread among many Christians who found it difficult to reconcile the idea of Jesus' divinity with the fact that he was also fully human. This lead to the idea that the divine Christ only came into the human Jesus at his baptism and left before his crucifixion - thus avoiding the concept of a divine being enduring suffering. These heretical beliefs would have been combated by the demonstration of the reality of Jesus' physical nature and death in the Johannine passion narrative. In fact the blood and water flowing form Jesus' side is the only physical description of Jesus' suffering in the gospel accounts.
It is also possible that the account of blood flowing form the pierced Messiah was needed by John's community for teachings on the Eucharist, or in order to explain Jesus' words: "whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him to life on the last day". (Jn. 6:54) In the same way as they wrote with a certain Sitz im Kirche in mind, the evangelists also wrote for a specific readership, a fact which is reflected throughout their gospels.
Matthew clearly was writing for Jews and hence can refer to the veil of the temple without further explanation. Furthermore the tearing of the veil establishes Jesus as a replacement for the temple. Similarly the apocalyptic details of tombs opening and the dead being raised would have been understood in the terms of traditional Jewish eschatological thought. Therefore Matthew's readers would have interpreted the death of Jesus as a decisive intervention by God in history, the beginning of the "last things" and the start of a new era.
It is possible that the readership of John's gospel were not familiar with Jewish scriptures hence the direct quotations from the Old Testament, however the "seamless robe" detail is not explained. This robe identifies Jesus as the high priest, and this reference would only have been understood if the readers were familiar with Jewish scriptures and the traditional clothes of the High Priest. This indicates that the explicit quotes were for polemic purposes, to demonstrate that Jesus was Messiah, rather than as explanations. However the use of three languages by Pilate to proclaim Jesus' kingship does suggest that John was trying to reach a mixed readership.
In conclusion the stark basic facts of Jesus' final hours are the same in both gospels as the evangelist are interested in recording history and use the same types of literature to record their message. However far more important than this to the gospel writers was the significance of this story, allowing for changes in emphasis according to their own perceptions of real meaning of Christ's death and crucifixion. Therefore because each evangelist wrote for a different Christian community who had different needs, and because each of them was gifted with a unique style of narration and a particular point of view with access to different sources, the two accounts are unique but nevertheless still tell of the same event.