�鶹��ý

Annie Henrie, Balm of Gilead. Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

While it is not uncommon to harmonize the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to produce a single view of Jesus and his earthly ministry, doing so obscures the unique emphases, styles, and objectives of the individual Gospels. Instead, the New Testament Gospels present four different portraits of the Savior, each of which contributes to a richer and deeper understanding of Christ and his saving work. Because the first three Gospels generally tell the story from the same perspective, they are often referred to as the Synoptics (from the Greek synopsis, meaning “with the same eye or view”). Even so, Matthew, Mark, and Luke vary in their depiction of Jesus and in the way they represent some of the same events. Furthermore, John presents a decidedly different version. It contains a great deal of material not found in the other Gospels, has a markedly different style, and portrays Jesus quite differently than the Synoptics do. To understand how the similarities and differences in the four Gospels help produce a fuller picture of Jesus Christ and a deeper understanding of his last week, we must first better understand the background and representative features of each Gospel, recognize their distinctive portrayals of Jesus’s nature and work, and see how they drew upon the basic, early passion story and crafted their own literary versions of that story.

Four Accounts, One Gospel Message

While we often refer to the Gospels as being “The Gospel of Matthew” or of one of the other three evangelists, early Christians maintained that there was only one gospel—the good news that salvation from sin and death were made possible through Jesus Christ. What we have, then, are four different accounts of Jesus’s incarnation, ministry, and, above all, his salvific suffering, death, and resurrection. Specific names were not associated with the Gospels until the latter half of the second century, when various early Christian texts began to be gathered as an early book, known as a codex. When more than one of these narratives about Jesus were placed in the same codex, there was a need to differentiate them from one another, but even then they were seen as versions of the same message. Because the Gospels are all formally anonymous—meaning that they never explicitly name their authors—the attributions come from early Christian tradition, though clues in the texts sometimes support the traditional associations. Hence the Fourth Gospel became known as “The Gospel according to John” (Greek, euangellion kata Iōannēn) because it was believed that in it the apostle John had written his testimony or perspective of Jesus’s ministry.[1]

Most scholars believe that the Gospel according to Mark was the earliest of these four accounts, having been written in the mid to late AD 60s. According to early Christian tradition its author was John Mark, a sometime missionary companion of Paul who also served as a “translator” and assistant to Peter during his missionary visit to Rome. Perhaps there is an element of truth behind this tradition. This account may have been so widely accepted because much of its information was believed to have come from the chief apostle, who might have been seen as the authority behind it. Interestingly, the overall structure of Mark reflects the pattern of Peter’s preaching as represented in Acts, particularly his speech to the centurion Cornelius, where he testified that God sent his Son Jesus, who went about doing good, was crucified, and was then raised from the dead (Acts 10:36‒43). This, in fact, is the general outline of the Marcan Gospel: after narrating Jesus’s Galilean ministry in a way that highlights his deeds, especially his miracles, it then portrays a single visit to Jerusalem before his arrest and execution. This structure represents not only a geographic but also a thematic progression because it has Jesus’s entire mission climax with his last week in the holy city. Mark seems to have had a primarily Gentile audience, perhaps in Rome and Italy, that was not familiar with Jewish customs or terms. It was also written in a concise, fast-moving style, which made it ideal for oral presentation.[2]

Mark appears to have served as the foundation for the Matthean and Lucan accounts, although the order of these other two Gospels and their exact relationship to the Marcan prototype and to each other is still debated.[3] The Gospel of Matthew seems to have drawn upon the basic Marcan narrative, interweaving it with additional sayings of Jesus and some additional unique material.[4] Whereas the words of Jesus in Mark generally consisted of short parables and teaching sayings, the additional sayings of Jesus in Matthew are often presented as longer sermons and discourses, resulting in a considerably lengthier Gospel. Largely because of his frequent use of quotations from the Old Testament and his familiarity with Jewish law and customs, the author of this Gospel has often been assumed to have been written by a Jew writing for other Jews. More nuanced discussions of Matthean authorship, however, suggest that rather than having been a proselytizing tract to convert Jews to Christ, the text may have been intended primarily for those who were already believers, including both Jewish and Gentile Christians. His Greek style is more refined than Mark’s, with Matthew often correcting Mark’s grammar or reworking his wording. The text was associated with the apostle Matthew early in the Christian tradition; together with its preservation of vital teachings of Jesus and its emphasis on his Church, this assumed authorship helped Matthew be placed first in the canon even though it was written after Mark.[5]

Jorge Cocco Santángelo, Sermon on the Mount. Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Scholars remain divided as to whether Luke and Matthew acted independently in drawing upon the Marcan narrative and some separate collection of Jesus’s sayings or whether Luke drew on the latter largely from Matthew itself.[6] Nevertheless, Luke has more unique material than the other two Gospels, claims to have consulted multiple sources, and is part of a two-volume work that includes Acts. While Luke does seem to have had a primarily Gentile audience in mind, sometimes being characterized as “a Greek writing for Greeks,” he was very familiar with the Hebrew Bible as found in its Greek translation, the Septuagint, and gives the temple a prominent place, starting and ending his Gospel there (see Luke 1:8–22; 24:52–53). This Gospel has some of the most refined literary Greek of the New Testament, and some of this Gospel’s particular features include a focus on the poor, women, and other marginalized groups as well as an explicit emphasis on salvation, using the verb “to save” (Greek, ��ō_i��ō) and the noun “Savior” (Greek, ��ōtēr) more than the other Gospels. Early tradition identified its author with the New Testament figure of Luke, “the beloved physician” of Colossians 4:14 who served as a frequent missionary companion of the apostle Paul.[7]

Written later than the others, John had a complicated compositional history, achieving its final form as late as the early AD 90s. Although its final editor is unknown, John was based upon the testimony of a figure known as “the disciple whom Jesus loved” who was an eyewitness of key events (see John 13:23; 19:24‒26; 20:10; 21:1‒22; perhaps also 1:35‒40; 18:15‒16) and perhaps wrote the earliest version of the text (see John 21:24). Early Christian sources were quick to identify the Beloved Disciple with the apostle John, an identification that Latter-day revelation and tradition seem to support. Although not as literary as Luke, John’s Greek is clear and well crafted. It is a very symbolic text and contains powerful dialogues and scenes that draw in the reader. Passing over miracles, parables, and sermons recorded in the Synoptics, John relates other powerful acts and teachings of Jesus that focus largely on his divine identity and mission.[8]

Greg K. Olsen, Jesus Blessing Jarius's Daighter (Christ Raising the Daughter of Jarius). Courtesy of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

Distinct Christologies

The issues of Jesus’s identity and mission constitute the study of Christology, which focuses on the person and work of Jesus. Understanding the Christology of each Gospel is important because it helped to shape the way that each evangelist fashioned the material about Jesus’s final week. The first part of Christology, focusing on the person or identity of Jesus as the Christ, concerns what it means that he was both the Son of God and the son of Mary, particularly how relatively human and how divine he was. The second issue, the work of Jesus, relates to his salvific mission. Regarding the person of the Christ, some scholars have noted that an understanding of the divinity of Jesus appears to have evolved over time, with Mark, the earliest Gospel, representing the lowest Christology (meaning that it represents Jesus as the most human) and John evidencing the highest (revealing Jesus as the most divine), with Matthew and then Luke occupying intermediate spots on the spectrum. We must exercise caution, however: just because an evangelist emphasized one aspect of Jesus’s identity does not mean that writer was not aware of other features. In terms of the work of Jesus, all four Gospels unitedly maintain that Jesus came to suffer, die, and rise again to save humanity, but at times they emphasize or illustrate that mission differently.[9]

In Mark, Jesus is the Son of God because the Father proclaims him to be such, first at the baptism (Mark 1:11) and then at the Transfiguration (9:7), but this identity is also affirmed by his authoritative ministry as he teaches and works miracles with the authority of God. Nevertheless, Mark presents perhaps the most human portrait of Jesus, who although a strong, powerful figure nonetheless displays a wider range of human emotions and needs. Nonetheless, this seemingly low Christology needs to be qualified by how his divine attributes are consistently narrated, leading Latter-day Saint scholar Julie Smith to describe Marcan Christology as a “fuller” Christology. While he is presented as a premier teacher, healer, debater, and leader, the narrative reveals him as wielding God’s power and identifies him with YHWH, or Jehovah, of the Hebrew Bible. Nonetheless, Jesus is not forthcoming with his identity as the Son of God during his ministry, frequently directing recipients of his miracles not to tell anyone of the great things he has done. At times he seems impatient with or critical of the frequent failings of his disciples, does not begin to talk to them about his identity until Caesarea Philippi, and does not allude to his mission or fate until his passion predictions on the road to Jerusalem.[10] One interesting feature of the Marcan presentation has particular bearing upon our study of the passion narratives: whereas Jesus was a strong, miracle-working figure in the Galilean ministry, once he arrives in Jerusalem for his final week, he works no miracles and instead appears as a powerless figure who has submitted himself not only to the will of his Father but also to human authorities, part of what Restoration scripture calls “descending below all things” (see Doctrine and Covenants 58:2; 88:6).

With their additions of infancy narratives describing the divine conception and miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, Matthew and Luke represent a higher Christology: rather than being proclaimed the Son of God at the beginning of his ministry as in Mark, in these two Gospels Jesus’s divine Sonship begins with his conception. Matthew most clearly describes Jesus as the promised Messiah, or anointed king of Israel, using the title “Son of David” nine times for Jesus (Matt 1:1; 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:33‒31; 21:9; 22:42) as opposed to only three times each in Mark and Luke and a single reference in John to Christ “being of the seed of David” (Mark 10:47, 48; 12:35; Luke 3:31; 18:38, 39; John 7:42). This Gospel presents Jesus as a New Moses, both by comparing the unusual and miraculous childhoods of the two figures, the division of the body of Matthew into five sections analogous to the five books traditional attributed to Moses, and Jesus’s expanding upon the Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew also emphasizes that Jesus was the fulfiller of prophecy and, in terms of his salvific work, provides a more detailed account of his suffering, death, and especially resurrection than Mark does.[11]

Luke’s Christology is even higher than Matthew’s. In addition to his longer, more developed infancy narrative, which vividly presents Jesus as the promised Savior, Luke emphasizes that Jesus is the Son of God, the anointed servant of God, a healing Redeemer, and a compassionate, merciful figure throughout its text, leading him to omit or minimize the failings of Jesus’s disciples. Perhaps because of his presumed medical background, Luke provides important details about the suffering of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane (at least in the final version of the text as we have received it) and of the reality of the resurrection. And the Jesus of Luke—always loving, compassionate, and healing—is evident when the Lord heals, teaches, and forgives during the passion narrative, even in times of great personal duress.[12]

Carl Heinrich Bloch (1834-1890), Christ Healing the Sick at Bethesda, 1883, oil on canvas, 100 3/4 x 125 1/2 inches. Brigham Young University Museum of Art, purchased with funds provided by Jack R. and Mary Louis Wheatley, 2001.

By starting “in the beginning” and depicting the premortal Jesus as the Divine Word closely identified with God the Father, John exhibits the highest Christology of the four Gospels. As Jehovah made flesh (John 1:14), in this Gospel Jesus’s divinity is only thinly veiled, and in contrast to the other Gospels, he frequently refers to himself as the Son of God. His divinity is symbolically revealed in the seven miraculous signs that he performs. The Johannine Jesus knows all things, speaks truth in a divine way, and cannot be killed but lays down his life voluntarily (John 10:17‒18). Another signal that Jesus is divine is how Jesus speaks; Johannine scholar Raymond Brown observed that the words of Jesus are often poetic or semipoetic, suggesting the different effect or power that his words had upon their hearers.[13] Yet this divine Jesus is also exquisitely intimate with those who believe in him, particularly in the Farewell Discourses after the Last Supper, where, among other things, he proclaims that he has come to lay down his life for his friends (John 15:13). The Johannine passion narrative, which clearly identifies Jesus as the Lamb of God, nonetheless minimizes his suffering and portrays Jesus as fully in control, needing, for instance, no help carrying his cross and releasing his own spirit after announcing, “It is finished” (John 19:17, 30). Finally, the disposition of Jesus’s grave clothes in the empty tomb suggest that he rose from the dead on his own (as opposed to having been raised by God as in the Synoptics and the writings of Paul), and Thomas declares that the Risen Lord is, in fact, our Lord and our God (John 20:28).[14]

From Primitive Passion Accounts to Literary Passion Narratives

Because Mark was written between thirty and thirty-five years after Jesus’s death and resurrection, even this earliest Gospel must have relied upon other sources, including but not limited to the testimony of Peter. While many of the similarities of the Matthean and Lucan passion narratives can be attributed to their dependence upon Mark, the fact that John, otherwise so different than the Synoptics and apparently unaware of their texts, largely agrees with them on the overall sequence and basic events of Jesus’s last week strongly supports the existence of some sort of primitive passion narrative, probably oral, that antedated all the Gospels. The broad outlines, of course, would have been found in the apostolic preaching tradition, what is often called the ��ŧ���ⲵ���� (a Greek word meaning “proclamation”), but the dramatic contours and frequent details found in all four Gospels strongly suggest an actual story that the earliest Christians frequently told because it represented for them, as it should for us, the heart of so much of their faith.[15]

Despite important similarities, including a basic common sequence (see Appendix B: The Chronology of Jesus’s Final Week), the Gospels each contain special material. While Matthew is closest to the Marcan prototype, some of its unique content includes Judas’s hanging himself, the dream of Pilate’s wife, Pilate’s washing his hands of responsibility for Jesus’s execution, the Jewish “people” accepting guilt for his death, the opening of the tombs of the righteous, and the posting of a Roman guard at Jesus’s tomb. As noted in our introduction, Matthew’s unfortunate presentation of the Jewish crowd accepting responsibility for Jesus’s death, which in the past has led to terrible acts of Christian anti-Semitism, might be partially explained by the history of Jewish Christians in Matthew’s original audience who had experienced a painful separation from mainstream Jewish synagogues. In addition to Jesus’s healing the ear of the high priest’s servant, forgiving his crucifiers, or teaching of the penitent thief, the Lucan passion narrative reduces the number of times Peter, James, and John fall asleep in Gethsemane and is the only account that preserves an interview of Jesus by Herod Antipas or notes Jesus’s interaction with the weeping daughters of Jerusalem. Significantly, Luke shares some sequencing, certain details, and aspects of a common theological emphasis with the Johannine passion narrative. Because John was written as long as twenty years later and does not seem to have known either Mark or Luke in their written forms, an attractive possibility is that the author of Luke might have either known the witness of the Beloved Disciple or been familiar with other pre-Johannine traditions. As for the passion narrative of John itself, it differs with the Synoptics on the timing of Passover, intriguingly lacks any mention of the institution of the Lord’s Supper or the events in Gethsemane, includes lengthy discourses to the disciples and an interview with Pilate found nowhere else, portrays a small group of loved ones at the foot of the cross, and has unique post-resurrection accounts.[16]

In addition to including material unique to their accounts, the individual evangelists shaped the material they had to reflect the Christology and other themes of their Gospels and to appeal to their specific audiences. What resulted were literary narratives that were in each instance dramatic and moving accounts of Jesus’s final days and hours, each unique and with its own character and tone. As a result, as explained in the introduction, whenever giving scriptural references for specific events or scenes, we have chosen to list Mark’s references first, followed by those in Matthew and Luke, rather than using the traditional canonical order. This allows readers to see the presumably earliest account first and then see how the later Synoptics adopted, changed, or at times omitted the Marcan prototype. References from John then indicate important second attestations for Marcan evidence or reveal material unique to that Gospel. By avoiding harmonization as much as possible, we hope to preserve the individuality of the four accounts, allowing them to serve together in producing a powerful mosaic, a beautiful stained-glass window, or the distinct facets of a gospel diamond.[17] §

Scott Sumner, As a Little Child. Used by permission.

For Further Reading

Brown, Raymond. The Death of the Messiah, 36‒93. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

—�Ĕ�Ĕ. An Introduction to New Testament Christology. New York: Paulist Press, 1994.

Holzapfel, Richard Neitzel. A Lively Hope, 22‒24, 82‒85, 114‒15, 127‒28.

Huntsman, Eric D. God So Loved the World, 125‒29.

Huntsman, Eric D., Lincoln H. Blumell, and Tyler J. Griffin, eds. Thou Art the Christ, the Son of the Living God: The Person and Work of Jesus in the New Testament. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018.

Strathearn, Gaye, and Frank F. Judd Jr. “The Distinctive Testimonies of the Four Gospels.” Religious Educator 8, no. 2 (2007): 59–85.

Notes

[1] Latter-day Saint commentators often point out that Joseph Smith seems to have changed “Gospel” to “Testimony.” Actually, although Latter-day Saint editions of the KJV Bible have notes that mark that “Gospel” should be changed to “Testimony” for all four Gospels, the actual JST manuscripts only do so for Matthew and John. See Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts, edited by Scott H. Faurling, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 234; Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” Dialogue 19, no. 3 (Fall 1986): 88.

[2] Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 127, 158‒67; France, Gospel of Mark, 4‒47; Eric D. Huntsman, “The Petrine ��ŧ���ⲵ���� and the Gospel according to Mark,” in The Ministry of Peter, the Chief Apostle, ed. Frank F. Judd Jr., Eric D. Huntsman, and Shon D. Hopkin (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2014), 170‒75, 177‒82.

[3] Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 111‒22; Stanley E. Porter and Bryan R. Dyer, eds., The Synoptic Problem: Four Views (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), 1‒26.

[4] Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 170‒73; Porter and Dyer, Synoptic Problem, 19‒21, 28‒44, 47‒53.

[5] Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 203‒17; John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 2‒4, 11‒19, 23‒36.

[6] Porter and Dyer, Synoptic Problem, 19‒21, 28‒44, 47‒66.

[7] Brown, Introduction to the New Testament, 267‒75; Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 6‒23; Eric D. Huntsman, “Luke’s Jesus: The Compassionate and Saving Son of God,” in Thou Art the Christ, the Son of the Living God: The Person and Work of Jesus in the New Testament, ed. Eric D. Huntsman, Lincoln H. Blumell, and Tyler J. Griffin (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2018), 112‒17, 404‒5.

[8] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, ed. Francis J. Moloney (New York: Doubleday, 2003), 90–104; J. Ramsey Michaels, The Gospel of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1‒43; Eric D. Huntsman, “The Gospel of John,” in New Testament History, Culture, and Society, ed. Lincoln Blumell (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2019), 304‒12.

Scott Sumner, I Am. Used by permission.

[9] For some important scholarly treatments of the subject, see Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology (New York: Paulist Press, 1994); Ben Witherington, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1990); Thomas P. Rausch, Who Is Jesus? An Introduction to Christology (Wilmington, DE: Michael Glazier, 2003); N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015).

[10] Smith, Gospel According to Mark, 17–20, 885–900. See also Amy Easton-Flake, “Marcan Christology: Narrating the Christ,” in Thou Art the Christ, 92–111.

[11] Tyler J. Griffin, “Matthew’s Portrayal of Jesus: Son of David, a New Moses, and Son of God,” in Thou Art the Christ, 67‒91.

[12] Huntsman, “Luke’s Jesus: The Compassionate and Saving Son of God,” 112‒35.

[13] Brown, Gospel of John, cxxxii‒cxxxv; Huntsman, “The Gospel of John,” 314. To the extent possible, this poetic style is reflected in the formatting of our translation.

[14] Jennifer and Keith Lane, “God Incarnate: The Word Made Flesh,” in Thou Art the Christ, 136‒52; Huntsman, “The Gospel of John,” 312‒21.

[15] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 53‒57; Huntsman, God So Loved the World, 127.

[16] Brown, Death of the Messiah, 57‒93; Matson, In Dialogue with Another Gospel?, 153–55.

[17] Roger R. Keller, “Mark and Luke: Two Facets of a Diamond,” in Sperry Symposium Classics: The New Testament, ed. Frank F. Judd Jr. and Gaye Strathearn (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2006), 92–107; Richard Neitzel Holzapfel, A Lively Hope (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1999), 1–8.