Compare and Contrast John and Matthew's Passion Narratives

My thanks to Sam who contributed this essay to the site.

The Webmistress

(a) Consider the similarities and differences in the treatment of Jesus’ crucifixion and death in Matthew and John.

(b) How might these similarities and differences be explained?

The Wemistress comments:

For Part A not only must you list similarities and difference within the texts, but you must give possible explanations for them.

(a) Matthew and John present clearly different portrayals of the death and crucifixion of Jesus, not only in presentation but also in the events and features themselves. However, despite these distinctions, which are important in discovering the evangelist's understanding of the death and crucifixion, the accounts also possess, in contrast to other parts of the Gospels, many important similarities which can be used to comment on biblical reliability and the tradition in the Early Church.

Unusual - an introduction that has a point. We are prepared for what both the similarities and the differences could tell us if we were to examine them in the context of the evangelists' sources, communities and theology.

There are many similarities between the two accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, most noticeably the basic order of events. In both, Jesus is crucified with two others, one on either side, with the written charge: “King of the Jews” (Mt 27;37, Jn 19;19). The division of Jesus’ clothes by casting lots is present in John and Matthew, as is the removal of Jesus to the tomb before Shabbat by Joseph of Arimathea, watched by the women.

The question stipulates that you must treat only the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Sam has noticed this - make sure you always read the question properly, looking for such limits on the extent of text.

What are the implications of this similarity in events and their order?

Both John and Matthew include references to the Old Testament in their accounts, either alluding or specifically refering to Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 (the suffering servant). The division of the clothes is an allusion to Psalm 22, verse 18: “they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.” John makes this reference more explicit than Matthew does, quoting directly from the Psalm (Jn 19;24). This direct reference to “scripture” is exhibited several times in John’s narrative; he mentions the fulfilling of scripture as Jesus says “I am thirsty”, at the piercing of Jesus’ side (an episode unique to John) and when Jesus is spared the crucifragium (possibly referring to Exodus 12;46 which states of the Paschal lamb that “you shall not break any of its bones”).

However, this is not to say that Matthew does not include references to the Old Testament; in fact, his account possesses many. The mocking of Jesus on the cross, not included by John, evokes verses 7-8 of Psalm 22: “All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads; “Commit your cause to the Lords; let him deliver – let him rescue the one in whom he delights.” The desolate cry of 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27;46), a direct quote from the first verse of Psalm 22, is not included in John’s account. Matthew is also alone in his inclusion of the powerful images taken from Old Testament eschatalogical prophecy: “the curtain of the temple was torn in two…The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened…” (Mt 27;51-2)

The question asks you to 'consider' the similarities and differences. So here we have a similarity in method, contrasted with difference in content.

Good explanation of this important point.

So both want to demonstrate that the method of Jesus' death was foretold in Scripture.

I'd like to know the wider significance of eschatological images in Matthew at this point.

Other events recorded by Matthew but not by John are the acclamation of the centurion (27;54) and the guard at the tomb (27; 62ff). Whilst not including many things which are present in Matthew, John's account has some unique details and incidents. Where Matthew only refers to Jesus’ clothes collectively, John emphasises Jesus’ seamless robe.

Here is the place to explain the significance of the seamless robe - it is the type worn by the High Priest - christology.

The declaration that Jesus is “King of the Jews” is written in three languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and, unique to John, the Jewish leaders are involved in a dispute with Pilate about the wording of the accusation: “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews’ but ‘This man said, I am the King of the Jews’.” The general impression of the account is more triumphal than Matthew’s as Jesus knowingly fulfils scripture (19; 28), disposes of his mother and, instead of the desolate quote from Psalm 22, says: “It is finished” or “It is accomplished”.

Why? Possibly the source John used had access to this information. Possibly Johannine irony - Pilate 'sees' the truth, when the High Prie. st doesn't. You CAN mention these details here.

This particular quote from Psalm 22 is known as the 'Cry of Dereliction'.

(It can be seen that,) whilst there are noticeable differences between the two accounts, both share the same essential order of events. This is important in considering the tradition evident in the Early Church prior to the writing of the Gospels and also, through study of the redactions made, in establishing the perspectives and purposes of the two evangelists.

Style. Try to avoid 'it can be seen'. You can start with 'Whilst' perfectly well.

Good points made to lead us into part B though.

(b) How might these similarities and differences be explained?

Now, having considered similarities and differences in a 'micro' context (about individual incidents/themes) you must now consider the four important aspects of compare and contrast:

1. Sources; 2. Possible Sitz in Kirche; 3. Readership; 4. Evangelist's theological perspective

(b) In the final part of their stories, the two evangelists, Matthew and John, agree much more closely on the content and order of events than they do earlier in their Gospels. This, together with the account in Paul of the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus (1Cor.11), has led several form critics to suggest that behind the four Gospels lies an early account of the last days of Jesus. Unlike in the rest of the Gospels, some form critics accept that during the “oral period” there was a strong and reliable early church tradition in which the Passion Narratives were passed on as a single pericopae. This would explain the similarities evident when comparing the two Gospel accounts.

Good section on tradition - I'd have mentioned the possibility of the accounts having been written down early. Also, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us that the death of Jesus formed part of the early tradition passed to him. Clearly, the early Church thought it central to their message.

However, even if an early passion narrative does lie behind the gospels, the evangelists both developed their own distinctive emphases by their choice of extra details and by their adaption of the narrative. John claims to have an eyewitness account, hence his distinctive details, whilst it is likely that Matthew used material from his “M” source as well as a large reliance on Mark’s account (according to the Four-source theory).

Sources. Sam needs to say more about both the eyewitness claims of John, and the use of Mark and M by Matthew. Also the implications should the 4-source theory be wrong.

It is unsurprising that both Matthew and John use Old Testament references and allusions as part of their accounts, as S Binz suggests: “The Christian communities looked to the Old Testament scriptures as prophecies of Christ's suffering, and to understand the meaning of his death.” This is particularly true for Matthew since his was an extremely Jewish gospel, suggesting that his church was a profoundly Jewish one. Clearly, a church such as Matthew’s would be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures hence the lack of direct quotes from the Old Testament in Matthew’s gospel. It seems that John was addressing a far wider audience, shown by the proclamation of Jesus’ kingship in three languages (which also shows Jesus’ universal kingship), and this would explain the inclusion of direct Old Testament references. This use of straight quotations can also suggest that John was in serious dispute with a local synagogue and he was using the crucifixion and death narrative for polemic purposes. This is likely since the references all demonstrate that in death Jesus was established as the Messiah.

Good

Readership. Although Matthew considers direct quote necessary for his Birth Narrative. He follows Mark closely

Theology. True. Although this could be a reference to the fulfillment by Jesus of the promise to Abraham in Gen 12:3, OR by the eyewitness 'temple' source that some scholars believe John had.

Sitz in Kirche. Good.

Matthew emphasises the negative, blameworthy rôle of the Jews and, at the crucifixion, portrays a moment of judgement on the Jews. He alludes to the darkness that covered the earth, a common prophetic and apocalyptic image symbolising judgement. In his narrative, Matthew’s stress on the rending of the veil of the temple makes it clear that Jesus is bringing an end to the ‘old order’ which is centred on the temple. Binz links this to contemporary events at the time of Matthew writing his gospel: “Matthew saw the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as a visible result of their fatal choice.” The more far-reaching consequence identified by Binz is that “Israel has lost the exclusive claim to be God’s people; now that privilege would be given to a people that will produce its fruit”. Matthew demonstrates this in the recognition of the nature of Jesus by the Gentile centurion. The polemic use of these images is clear and his inclusion of the guard on the tomb seems also to be as a result of dispute with the Jews, possibly countering rumours that the disciples stole Jesus’ body.

Matthew's theological perspective. I'd demonstrate, perhaps by a reference to the Matthaen 'Great Feast', that this is a theme pursued by Matthew throughout the Gospel.

And by the rending of the veil of the Temple.

Sam needs to explain explicitly that, like John, Matthew's community may have been in dispute with the local synagogue

For Matthew, the crucifixion is clearly an eschatological event, the events of Jesus; death signalling the dawning of a new age. It is clearly a decisive act of God in human history. This explains his use of ‘supernatural’, apocalyptic images such as earthquakes, splitting rocks, opening tombs and the rising of the dead. John’s gospel account put particular emphasis on the theological and christological significance of Jesus’ life, as V Taylor suggests: “His [John’s] attitude to the narrative tradition is that of one whose main interest is not the details as they actually happened, but the abiding significance of the Gospel story.” Jesus’ death is portrayed as a glorious event, leading CH Dodd to make the claim that through John’s account it can be seen that it is the manifestation of God’s glory. With no account of Simon of Cyrene, it is clear that Jesus is in control of his own destiny. The seamless tunic, similar to that worn by the High Priest, demonstrates Jesus dying as a priest whilst he is proclaimed in the three main languages to be King of the Jews, showing his universal rôle as King. His last words, “It is finished” are the triumphal words of completion in contrast to Matthew’s use of words of desolation. Even when on the cross Jesus instructs his disciples and mother. Throughout the account, John portrays Jesus’ death as the high point of his mission; his triumphant return to the Father.

Again, refer briefly to other places where Matthew uses apocalyptic imagery to make his christological points, eg, his version of the transfiguration, or the Birth Narratives.

Ah, but are the differences in John's account really just due to his theology? After all, it comes down to John v Mark. Couldn't John be using a more accurate source?

The 'Cry of dereliction'.

Again, this Johannine theme needs to be set briefly in the context of the whole gospel.

Despite this image of glory, John is clear in his demonstration of the humanity of Jesus, possibly in reaction to the Docetist heresy prevalent in Gnostics with whom John’s church had contact, which suggested that Jesus was not a man. It has been suggested that Jesus carrying his own cross was intended by John to humanise Jesus. The piercing of Jesus’ side also emphasises this humanity being the only physical description of Jesus’ sufferings in the Gospel accounts. However, it can also be seen that this episode was used by John’s church for teaching on the Eucharist.

Good reference to possible Sitz in Kirche.

Reference to prologue could support this point.

Liturgical aspects of the account - again, sitz in kirche.

Jewish Passover imagery is very important in John’s narrative. The hyssop on which the sponge of wine is offered to Jesus appears to be a reference to the Passover passage in Exodus 12; 22 where Moses directs the Israelites to use hyssop to put lamb’s blood on their doorposts. This Passover symbolism is continued as Jesus is spared the crucifragium, referring to the statement about the Paschal lamb in Exodus 12; 46: “and you shall not break any of its bones”. This links Jesus to the sacrificial lamb that dies to establish the new covenant between God and his people.

Why? Probably has to do with John's READERSHIP - may well have included Jews or gentile proselytes. Or perhaps reflects the polemic in which the community was engaged with heretics and the local synagogue.

The two Gospel accounts of the death and crucifixion of Jesus have many similarities which suggest early church accuracy and, possibly, the existence of a pre-gospel account of the events. However, there are differences between the two and these can be used to reveal contrasting emphases. This is attributed by form critics to the adaption of the narrative by the early church, identifying the Sitz im Kirche. Redaction critics expand this by considering the purposes of the evangelists themselves and the audience to which they were writing. These considerations can explain these differences and enable a reader to learn more about the significance of the two gospel accounts of Jesus’death and crucifixion.

Good summary.

(a) Consider the similarities and differences in the treatment of Jesus’ crucifixion and death in Matthew and John. (b) How might these similarities and differences be explained?	The Wemistress comments: For Part A not only must you list similarities and difference within the texts, but you must give possible explanations for them.
(a) Matthew and John present clearly different portrayals of the death and crucifixion of Jesus, not only in presentation but also in the events and features themselves. However, despite these distinctions, which are important in discovering the evangelist's understanding of the death and crucifixion, the accounts also possess, in contrast to other parts of the Gospels, many important similarities which can be used to comment on biblical reliability and the tradition in the Early Church.	Unusual - an introduction that has a point. We are prepared for what both the similarities and the differences could tell us if we were to examine them in the context of the evangelists' sources, communities and theology.
There are many similarities between the two accounts of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, most noticeably the basic order of events. In both, Jesus is crucified with two others, one on either side, with the written charge: “King of the Jews” (Mt 27;37, Jn 19;19). The division of Jesus’ clothes by casting lots is present in John and Matthew, as is the removal of Jesus to the tomb before Shabbat by Joseph of Arimathea, watched by the women.	The question stipulates that you must treat only the crucifixion and death of Jesus. Sam has noticed this - make sure you always read the question properly, looking for such limits on the extent of text. What are the implications of this similarity in events and their order?
Both John and Matthew include references to the Old Testament in their accounts, either alluding or specifically refering to Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 (the suffering servant). The division of the clothes is an allusion to Psalm 22, verse 18: “they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.” John makes this reference more explicit than Matthew does, quoting directly from the Psalm (Jn 19;24). This direct reference to “scripture” is exhibited several times in John’s narrative; he mentions the fulfilling of scripture as Jesus says “I am thirsty”, at the piercing of Jesus’ side (an episode unique to John) and when Jesus is spared the crucifragium (possibly referring to Exodus 12;46 which states of the Paschal lamb that “you shall not break any of its bones”). However, this is not to say that Matthew does not include references to the Old Testament; in fact, his account possesses many. The mocking of Jesus on the cross, not included by John, evokes verses 7-8 of Psalm 22: “All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me, they shake their heads; “Commit your cause to the Lords; let him deliver – let him rescue the one in whom he delights.” The desolate cry of 'My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27;46), a direct quote from the first verse of Psalm 22, is not included in John’s account. Matthew is also alone in his inclusion of the powerful images taken from Old Testament eschatalogical prophecy: “the curtain of the temple was torn in two…The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened…” (Mt 27;51-2)	The question asks you to 'consider' the similarities and differences. So here we have a similarity in method, contrasted with difference in content. Good explanation of this important point. So both want to demonstrate that the method of Jesus' death was foretold in Scripture. I'd like to know the wider significance of eschatological images in Matthew at this point.
Other events recorded by Matthew but not by John are the acclamation of the centurion (27;54) and the guard at the tomb (27; 62ff). Whilst not including many things which are present in Matthew, John's account has some unique details and incidents. Where Matthew only refers to Jesus’ clothes collectively, John emphasises Jesus’ seamless robe.	Here is the place to explain the significance of the seamless robe - it is the type worn by the High Priest - christology.
The declaration that Jesus is “King of the Jews” is written in three languages, Hebrew, Latin and Greek, and, unique to John, the Jewish leaders are involved in a dispute with Pilate about the wording of the accusation: “Do not write ‘The King of the Jews’ but ‘This man said, I am the King of the Jews’.” The general impression of the account is more triumphal than Matthew’s as Jesus knowingly fulfils scripture (19; 28), disposes of his mother and, instead of the desolate quote from Psalm 22, says: “It is finished” or “It is accomplished”.	Why? Possibly the source John used had access to this information. Possibly Johannine irony - Pilate 'sees' the truth, when the High Prie. st doesn't. You CAN mention these details here. This particular quote from Psalm 22 is known as the 'Cry of Dereliction'.
(It can be seen that,) whilst there are noticeable differences between the two accounts, both share the same essential order of events. This is important in considering the tradition evident in the Early Church prior to the writing of the Gospels and also, through study of the redactions made, in establishing the perspectives and purposes of the two evangelists.	Style. Try to avoid 'it can be seen'. You can start with 'Whilst' perfectly well. Good points made to lead us into part B though.
(b) How might these similarities and differences be explained?	Now, having considered similarities and differences in a 'micro' context (about individual incidents/themes) you must now consider the four important aspects of compare and contrast: 1. Sources; 2. Possible Sitz in Kirche; 3. Readership; 4. Evangelist's theological perspective
(b) In the final part of their stories, the two evangelists, Matthew and John, agree much more closely on the content and order of events than they do earlier in their Gospels. This, together with the account in Paul of the institution of the Eucharist by Jesus (1Cor.11), has led several form critics to suggest that behind the four Gospels lies an early account of the last days of Jesus. Unlike in the rest of the Gospels, some form critics accept that during the “oral period” there was a strong and reliable early church tradition in which the Passion Narratives were passed on as a single pericopae. This would explain the similarities evident when comparing the two Gospel accounts.	Good section on tradition - I'd have mentioned the possibility of the accounts having been written down early. Also, in 1 Cor. 15, Paul tells us that the death of Jesus formed part of the early tradition passed to him. Clearly, the early Church thought it central to their message.
However, even if an early passion narrative does lie behind the gospels, the evangelists both developed their own distinctive emphases by their choice of extra details and by their adaption of the narrative. John claims to have an eyewitness account, hence his distinctive details, whilst it is likely that Matthew used material from his “M” source as well as a large reliance on Mark’s account (according to the Four-source theory).	Sources. Sam needs to say more about both the eyewitness claims of John, and the use of Mark and M by Matthew. Also the implications should the 4-source theory be wrong.
It is unsurprising that both Matthew and John use Old Testament references and allusions as part of their accounts, as S Binz suggests: “The Christian communities looked to the Old Testament scriptures as prophecies of Christ's suffering, and to understand the meaning of his death.” This is particularly true for Matthew since his was an extremely Jewish gospel, suggesting that his church was a profoundly Jewish one. Clearly, a church such as Matthew’s would be familiar with the Jewish Scriptures hence the lack of direct quotes from the Old Testament in Matthew’s gospel. It seems that John was addressing a far wider audience, shown by the proclamation of Jesus’ kingship in three languages (which also shows Jesus’ universal kingship), and this would explain the inclusion of direct Old Testament references. This use of straight quotations can also suggest that John was in serious dispute with a local synagogue and he was using the crucifixion and death narrative for polemic purposes. This is likely since the references all demonstrate that in death Jesus was established as the Messiah.	Good Readership. Although Matthew considers direct quote necessary for his Birth Narrative. He follows Mark closely Theology. True. Although this could be a reference to the fulfillment by Jesus of the promise to Abraham in Gen 12:3, OR by the eyewitness 'temple' source that some scholars believe John had. Sitz in Kirche. Good.
Matthew emphasises the negative, blameworthy rôle of the Jews and, at the crucifixion, portrays a moment of judgement on the Jews. He alludes to the darkness that covered the earth, a common prophetic and apocalyptic image symbolising judgement. In his narrative, Matthew’s stress on the rending of the veil of the temple makes it clear that Jesus is bringing an end to the ‘old order’ which is centred on the temple. Binz links this to contemporary events at the time of Matthew writing his gospel: “Matthew saw the Jewish war and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as a visible result of their fatal choice.” The more far-reaching consequence identified by Binz is that “Israel has lost the exclusive claim to be God’s people; now that privilege would be given to a people that will produce its fruit”. Matthew demonstrates this in the recognition of the nature of Jesus by the Gentile centurion. The polemic use of these images is clear and his inclusion of the guard on the tomb seems also to be as a result of dispute with the Jews, possibly countering rumours that the disciples stole Jesus’ body.	Matthew's theological perspective. I'd demonstrate, perhaps by a reference to the Matthaen 'Great Feast', that this is a theme pursued by Matthew throughout the Gospel. And by the rending of the veil of the Temple. Sam needs to explain explicitly that, like John, Matthew's community may have been in dispute with the local synagogue
For Matthew, the crucifixion is clearly an eschatological event, the events of Jesus; death signalling the dawning of a new age. It is clearly a decisive act of God in human history. This explains his use of ‘supernatural’, apocalyptic images such as earthquakes, splitting rocks, opening tombs and the rising of the dead. John’s gospel account put particular emphasis on the theological and christological significance of Jesus’ life, as V Taylor suggests: “His [John’s] attitude to the narrative tradition is that of one whose main interest is not the details as they actually happened, but the abiding significance of the Gospel story.” Jesus’ death is portrayed as a glorious event, leading CH Dodd to make the claim that through John’s account it can be seen that it is the manifestation of God’s glory. With no account of Simon of Cyrene, it is clear that Jesus is in control of his own destiny. The seamless tunic, similar to that worn by the High Priest, demonstrates Jesus dying as a priest whilst he is proclaimed in the three main languages to be King of the Jews, showing his universal rôle as King. His last words, “It is finished” are the triumphal words of completion in contrast to Matthew’s use of words of desolation. Even when on the cross Jesus instructs his disciples and mother. Throughout the account, John portrays Jesus’ death as the high point of his mission; his triumphant return to the Father.	Again, refer briefly to other places where Matthew uses apocalyptic imagery to make his christological points, eg, his version of the transfiguration, or the Birth Narratives. Ah, but are the differences in John's account really just due to his theology? After all, it comes down to John v Mark. Couldn't John be using a more accurate source? The 'Cry of dereliction'. Again, this Johannine theme needs to be set briefly in the context of the whole gospel.
Despite this image of glory, John is clear in his demonstration of the humanity of Jesus, possibly in reaction to the Docetist heresy prevalent in Gnostics with whom John’s church had contact, which suggested that Jesus was not a man. It has been suggested that Jesus carrying his own cross was intended by John to humanise Jesus. The piercing of Jesus’ side also emphasises this humanity being the only physical description of Jesus’ sufferings in the Gospel accounts. However, it can also be seen that this episode was used by John’s church for teaching on the Eucharist.	Good reference to possible Sitz in Kirche. Reference to prologue could support this point. Liturgical aspects of the account - again, sitz in kirche.
Jewish Passover imagery is very important in John’s narrative. The hyssop on which the sponge of wine is offered to Jesus appears to be a reference to the Passover passage in Exodus 12; 22 where Moses directs the Israelites to use hyssop to put lamb’s blood on their doorposts. This Passover symbolism is continued as Jesus is spared the crucifragium, referring to the statement about the Paschal lamb in Exodus 12; 46: “and you shall not break any of its bones”. This links Jesus to the sacrificial lamb that dies to establish the new covenant between God and his people.	Why? Probably has to do with John's READERSHIP - may well have included Jews or gentile proselytes. Or perhaps reflects the polemic in which the community was engaged with heretics and the local synagogue.
The two Gospel accounts of the death and crucifixion of Jesus have many similarities which suggest early church accuracy and, possibly, the existence of a pre-gospel account of the events. However, there are differences between the two and these can be used to reveal contrasting emphases. This is attributed by form critics to the adaption of the narrative by the early church, identifying the Sitz im Kirche. Redaction critics expand this by considering the purposes of the evangelists themselves and the audience to which they were writing. These considerations can explain these differences and enable a reader to learn more about the significance of the two gospel accounts of Jesus’death and crucifixion.	Good summary.

Return to Passion Narratives Base Page

Return to RATS Base Page