For Christians and Catholics, the most important story in the gospels is that of the Passion and Resurrection of Christ – the central message of Christ is contained in that event. The gospels of Mark and John are different in many ways, from the language used to the stories themselves, and the account of the crucifixion in these two gospels is no exception.

Both gospels show the character in Jesus in different lights to express different messages. Mark shows Jesus as the suffering servant, a sacrifice sent by God to redeem us. He is like a lamb being sent to the slaughterhouse, walking to his death yet not saying a word against his captors, for “the hour has come” (Mark 14:41). John J. Pilch says:

“An adult male resigns himself completely to an imminent, shameful, and painful death willed by his father (Mark 14:36). This same adult male is physically scourged and beaten by his captors yet appears to suffer without complaining, in complete silence (Mark 15:16-20).”

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/DeathHonor.htm

Mark writes about Jesus as this vicarious messiah to make us sympathise with Jesus as he suffers so horrifically and almost to send us on a guilt trip – we have sinned and he is paying the price for it, not us. That is what we truly deserve, yet Jesus and his father take pity on us and send us our Saviour, the man who will save us from damnation and punishment.

Suffering is woven into every story leading up to the crucifixion in the Passion account. Peter’s denial, for example, is filled with much more sorrow in Mark than it is in John;

“He denied it, saying ‘I am not’ … Again Peter denied it, and at once the cock crew” (John 18:26-27)

“He started cursing and swearing … at once the cock crowed for the second time and Peter recalled what Jesus had said to him … and he burst into tears” (Mark 14:71-72)

When Mark’s gospel was being written, Christians suffering great persecution from other more widely accepted religions, groups and communities, above all the Romans. Those who were found “guilty” of worshipping Christ were sentenced to death and faced all manner of gruesome ends. Mark’s gospel shows this sorrow and fear of persecution in his writing, but it also spreads a message of hope by saying ‘This is what we believe – this is what we fight for. You are not alone’.

John expresses a completely different message. His message is one of exultation; he glorifies Jesus as the triumphant redeemer of the world. John also uses midrash, placing several texts from the Old Testament (particularly prophecies) into the New Testament to link the two and to make them timeless. This is a literary technique which John uses a lot – five examples can be found in the Passion story. One of the most relevant of these links to the Passion and Resurrection account in John 10:

“I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man can take it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.”

John writes Jesus in this way to spread a hopeful and joyful message of truth. In the time of John’s gospel, Christianity was becoming more popular and more widely accepted, so communities were beginning to form. John’s gospel gives them incentive to continue their mission and to carry on spreading the word of Christ so that we may all share in the gift of eternal life.

“These are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing this you may have life through his name”. (John 20:31)

The differences between these two gospels in the story of the crucifixion are numerous. John’s gospel is different to Mark’s – and in fact, all of the synoptic gospels – because of the amount of detail he puts in to the stories he tells. The way in which he writes creates a vivid image in the reader’s imagination as to what was happening at the time. John even goes as far as to describe the temperature of the Pharisee courtyard (John 18:18)!!!

There are exceptions, of course, such as the difference between the trial before Annas and Caiaphas and the trial before Pilate in John’s gospel. The trial before the High Priests is only 15 lines long, whereas before Pilate, it is twice as long. John clearly sees more theological significance in the trial before Pilate than in the trial before the High Priests:

“John does not use huge amounts of detail in this trial, as he is hastening towards the trial before Pilate”

(The New English Bible Companion to the New Testament, A.E. Harvey)

This is also a difference between the trial before Pilate in the two gospels, regarding their length. As I have just said, in John, the trial before Pilate is 28 lines long. In Mark, it is only 15 lines long; Mark writes a couple of paragraphs, John writes several.

Also, due to the difference of general themes in the two gospels, Jesus is not mocked whilst he is dying on the cross in John’s gospel. On the road to Calvary and whilst he is on the cross in Mark’s gospel, he is mocked, abused, slapped and spat at. John is presenting Jesus as this great, supernatural, holy figure who should be exulted, not pitied, so all this physical abuse is omitted.

In Mark’s account, Simon of Cyrene is picked by the Romans to help Jesus carry his cross, as he is unable to carry it the whole distance alone. John omits this also, which shows Jesus as an image of great power and strength through the immeasurable love he bears for us.

The way in which Jesus dies also differs in Mark and John:

“Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last” (Mark 15:37)

“’It is fulfilled’ and bowing his head he gave up his spirit” (John 19:30)

Mark’s version is heart-breaking to read and gives us a real feel for the agony that Jesus was experiencing. He was cruelly taken, accused, tortured and killed not by God his Father, but by the Jews and the Romans. John, on the other hand, shows Jesus as very calm and totally in control, despite the fact that he is suffering in this most appalling fashion. He “gave up” his own spirit – it was not taken from him, but he gave it up freely, fulfilling the words he spoke in John 10.

They are similar due to the fact that the same main stories are used in both gospels – the two trials, the denial of Peter, the road to Calvary, the crucifixion itself and the burial. However, there are stories missing from certain gospels too – Mark has no mention of the discussion between Jesus and Pilate, the dispute over what should be written on the plaque on the cross, the piercing of Jesus’ side and the women at the foot of the cross. John has no mention of the anointing at Bethany, the Passover meal, Jesus praying in the garden, Judas and the ripping of the temple curtain.

In conclusion, there are numerous differences between the two gospels – language used, themes, messages, representations, events. Both write the account of the crucifixion in different lights, each showing the different side to the character of Christ.

“The burial account in John’s gospel presents a King, not a criminal”.

Discuss (17)

Jesus, in the eyes of the Jews and the Romans, was an evil-doer and a threat, who deserved to die for his ‘crimes’ against God and Caesar. In the eyes of disciples, however – both modern and in first century Palestine – he was their saviour, redeemer, Messiah and King. As a twentieth century reader, we can see both sides.

Many people would agree with this statement due to the kindness and efforts of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. In John 19:38, Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for the body of Jesus to save his corpse being eaten and further mutilated by dogs and wild bird, which would have been a very undignified end. People were crucified to terrify people and to show people the power and control of the Romans and the dead were left hanging for days – their execution was so humiliating and the Romans so fearsome, their families and friends would not have the courage to go to someone such as Pilate and ask for their body. Jesus, due to his ‘kingly’ reputation and exceptional character, was an exception.

Nicodemus, a secret disciple who greatly respected Jesus and helped Joseph of Arimathea with the burial, anoints the body of Christ with “expensive myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds”. Myrrh such as this would have been very expensive and fit for a king, which is probably why Nicodemus used it on Jesus.

A final argument for this statement is that it is historically incorrect to say that the Romans executed criminals using crucifixion - as it is said some of the synoptic gospels – only political prisoners. This is why Jesus was crucified and not stoned to death, which was a common Jewish punishment at the time for crimes such as adultery, etc. The Romans executed Jesus because he was a political threat to Caesar and the Roman’s authority.

However, there are those who would disagree with this statement, because it was said in Isaiah that “he was laid in a tomb of the wicked”. A king would never be buried in such a crude tomb as this. Also, in the eyes of the law, Jesus was accused, condemned and executed as a blasphemer, a law-breaker and political criminal.

But the question does not ask whether Jesus himself was a criminal; it asks how he was presented. It says in John’s gospel that the Sabbath was fast approaching and because it was against their law to work on that day, the disciples and the women were running out of time to bury their Saviour. Due to this, they found the nearest empty tomb and placed Jesus there. To simply leave Jesus in the closest empty space wrapped up in a white sheet does not appear very kingly.

Also, if a King or Queen died, either today or in first century Palestine, there would be an expression of national mourning. Thousands would attend the burial – the crowds would be enormous and the ceremony would be planned to the most miniscule detail and would probably last several days. At the burial of Christ, there were just some members of his family and a couple of friends and followers – a small group of people that you could probably count on two hands. It was by no means a royal burial, ergo Christ is not presented in this way as a King.

John’s gospel was written to be one of exultation. The account of Christ’s passion and death is written so that Jesus is clearly shown as our Lord and Saviour, King of the World. His death shows him in control of his actions and what is coming to pass, but his burial is left to the hands of those who loved him most. In conclusion, given the circumstances his mother, friends and followers were in at the time (lack of time, resources, etc.), I do not see it as a very kingly burial, but they did their best and they at least gave him the honour of a decent burial, contrast to what happened to other criminals after their execution.