0
To understand both the similarities and the differences among the four New Testament gospels, it needs to be understood that all the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and were only attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear later in the second century. Biblical scholars say there is no good reason to accept those attributions, so we do not really know who wrote the four New Testament gospels.
The reason for the relatively close similarities in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) has also been established. By lying these gospels in parallel and reading them synoptically ('with the same eye') in the original Greek language, it can readily be seen that there is a literary dependency among these gospels. Scholars have established that Mark's Gospel was written first, around 70 CE, and that the other two synoptic gospels were, to a large extent, copied from it.
Until early in the twentieth century, most scholars accepted that John's Gospel was independent of the synoptic gospels. However, further study has shown that it was inspired by Luke's Gospel, although many of the passages in Luke, or their chronological sequence, have been changed almost beyond recognition. Some material was actually taken direct from Mark, but the author of John usually preferred to be guided by Luke. Thus, John was further removed from the original gospel, Mark, which in itself would result in more differences. It was also written somewhat later than the others and was intended for a different theological environment.
Wiki User
∙ 11y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the difference between the synoptic gospels and John's Gospel?
Another answer from our community:John differs from the synoptic Gospels because it is not just listing events in the life of Jesus and reporting His teachings. John is more thematic in nature and provides more theological discourse on the person and work of Christ. John also focus' on events in Judea rather than the Galilean ministry. The synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called such because they contain a brief review, summary or synopsis of Jesus' life and teachings. John is recognized as somewhat different with a lot less detail in terms of coverage of events but a much greater degree of theological detail focused around people's reactions to Jesus work and teachings and ensuing discussions. Thus John's different structure which is more theological and not a summary of all Jesus said and did is classified as non-synoptic.Another answerThere are four gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels because they agree moderately well on the life and teachings of Jesus, although each is a little different from the other two.John's Gospel is quite a good deal different from the other gospels. Some scholars believe that John was originally written in a Gnostic community and was subsequently edited to remove some of the more clearly Gnostic material, although the gospel still has a Gnostic flavour. John is the only gospel that states Jesus to be God and to have been pre-existing. John also contains a good deal of material that is not in the other gospels, including a much longer account of the appearances of the risen Jesus. Although some say that this gospel is concerned with themes rather than the chronological order of events, it is nevertheless true that events are certainly placed in a different sequence compared to the other gospels.Scholars have noted that the events in the mission of Jesus, as described by the synoptic gospels, could have taken place in as little as one year, but the events described in John's Gospel would require four years. John appears to differ from the other three gospels in several ways. For example, in John the ministry of Jesus seems to last several years, whereas in the other gospels it appears to be limited to about one year. Also, John give an important role to the un-named "disciple whom Jesus loved", but the other gospels don't even mention such a person. Also, in John, Jesus performs several major miracles that aren't recorded in the other gospels, such as the resurrection of Lazarus and the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana. John depicts Jesus somewhat differently than the other gospels do. Some people have said that this is because John tries to show the spiritual side of Jesus, whereas the other gospels mainly try to show his human side.
Why is the length of Jesus' public ministry in John's Gospel different from that in the synoptic Gospels?
A:New Testament scholars have traced the stories of the mission of Jesus in the synoptic gospels and find they involve a period of apparently less than one year. This does not mean it could not actually have been somewhat longer, but this is all that is found. Luke's Gospel states that John the Baptist began to preach in 28 CE, thus suggesting that the crucifixion of Jesus could have been in 30 CE. John's Gospel makes it clear that, in the author's view, the mission of Jesus took three years, with Jesus going to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivals. It can not be assumed that the author of John somehow knew more than the other authors, since it has now been established that the anonymous author of this gospel based it loosely on Luke's Gospel. Assuming Luke is correct on the date on which John began to preach, the crucifixion of Jesus in John's Gospel could not have been before about 33 CE.
Who was the apostle who asked for Jesus' body?
AnswerThe gospels are in agreement that a person called Joseph of Arimathea asked Herod for the body of Jesus. However, there is no agreement that Joseph was actually a disciple, rather than a pious Jew for whom it was necessary to end the crucifixion before the start of the Passover.Mark's Gospel says that Joseph was an honourable counsellor and makes no suggestion that he was a disciple of Jesus. Matthew's Gospel says that Joseph was a rich man and a disciple of Jesus. Luke's Gospel says that Joseph was a counsellor and a good man from the city of Arimathea but, like Mark, does not say that he was a disciple. John's Gospel says that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. The location of the city of Arimathea has not been established.
Gospel of Luke vs Gospel of Marcion Who copied who?
There has been a long-standing, minor debate about whether Luke copied Marcion or vice versa. The evidence that Marcion copied Luke is so strong that there should be no real debate.First of all, there is compelling evidence that Luke used Mark's Gospel as his primary source for the life of Jesus. Whenever Luke repeats a passage from Mark, the Greek text is almost identical. Luke's Gospel is famous for the "missing block" of material from Mark, that results in the puzzling verse at Luke 9:18 "And it came to pass, as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him ...", which can be explained by looking at Mark 6:47 and Mark 8:27. One of the authors must have copied Mark, and it is unlikely to have been Marcion. Luke's Gospel and Luke's Acts of the Apostles both appear to contain background material sourced from Josephus. Since there is no dispute that Luke wrote Acts, this makes it highly probable that he did not copy the Gospel from Marcion.Marcion's Gospel is similar to Luke's Gospel, but omits references to the Old Testament, which Marcion rejected. It is not plausible that Marcion wrote a gospel without references to the Old Testament and then Luke copied Marcion and skilfully put appropriate Old Testament into his version.Marcion wrote his gospel after 140 CE. So if Luke copied Marcion, he would have written his gospel after about 150 CE, which is too late to be plausible.On the other handMarcion as pre-dating LukeCharles B. Waite was one of the first to propose in History of the Christian Religion to the Year Two-Hundred in 1881 that Marcion's Gospel may have preceded Luke's Gospel. John Knox (not the same as the Scottish reformer John Knox) in Marcion and the New Testament also defends this hypothesis. Some recent scholars have agreed. In this case, Luke's gospel was not finished. There are two possibilities: Either Marcion and Luke both based their gospels on an earlier, common source (such as Matthew and Mark in the Augustinian hypothesis), or the Gospel of Luke was based on Marcion's gospel. For those who wish to do some review, use the link below to the Gospel of Marcion in Wikipedia. An introduction can be found there, and links to other sources where the full text is posted are available in the footnotes.
When were the four Gospels and Acts written?
Most biblical scholars accept that the Gospel According to St Mark was the first written of the four canonical Gospels. Mark's Gospel was written in Greek, and there is ample evidence that Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel were based on Mark's Gospel. St John's Gospel appears to have been based on Luke's Gospel, but the author clearly also knew Mark's Gospel and copied some material from it. Mark">Mark">Mark">MarkMark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE.One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. MatthewMatthew's Gospel was written after Mark's, but before Luke's Gospel. It is generally considered to have been written in the 80s CE.It is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Matthew's Gospel contains less of the emerging hostility towards the Jews than does Luke's Gospel, so for this and other reasons it is considered to have been written earlier Luke">Luke">Luke">LukeLuke's Gospel was written after both Mark's and Matthew's Gospels. It is generally considered to have been written in the 90s CE, but could well be from early in the second century.It is clear that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when their Gospels contain material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. Also, the Missing Block convincingly shows that Luke was relying on Mark's Gospel for everything he knew about the life of Jesus.There is good evidence that Luke also relied on the writings of the Jewish military leader and historian, Josephus. This reliance probably includes extracts from Antiquities of the Jews, published in 93 CE, making a date much before 100 CE fairly improbable for Luke's Gospel. John">John">John">JohnJohn's Gospel is generally considered to have been written in the late 90s CE, but a date early in the second century is more probable.Many passages in John's Gospel have unique parallels in Luke's Gospel, and the parallels are derivative rather than the other way around. Also, the text differs throughout from Mark's Gospel, precluding it from being the source for Luke. It must therefore post-date Luke. Thomas">Thomas">Thomas">Thomas Of the gospels that are not included in the New Testament, Thomas' Gospel may have been the earliest. Some say it is almost as old as Mark's Gospel, or even older, while others say it dated from the beginning of the second century. This sayings gospel was one of those seriously considered for inclusion in the New Testament canon.Another AnswerI believe the Gospels were written much earlier than the 60's-80's. I would posit that logically it makes sense that the earliest Gospels are written within a decade of Christ's death. The earliest traditions were a series of sayings later called "Q" or Quelle which is a German word for source. It makes sense that these sayings were repeated immediately after Christ's death and formed the foundation of the philosophy of Christianity. If you review the time-line of Christianity commencing with Christ's death during the Pax Romana around 30-33 AD and Paul's conversion which is generally agreed to be about 33-36 AD and the Pauline letters commencing in the 50's you see a migration towards the documentation of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Some of the purported early "creeds" of the church include Paul's first Corinthian Chapter 15 reference to resurrection doctrine. This creed was clearly being utilized right at the time of Christ's death and references a harmonized version of the Church's resurrection doctrine. It is not so hard to believe that the early traditions migrated from teachings to formalized remembrances. Two of the four Gospel writers were actually eyewitnesses and would not have waited to put their thoughts down on paper especially after their inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The other two were intimates of the eyewitnesses who were, according to all experts, writing under the eyewitnesses own supervision. As teachers of the faith, it is unlikely these men used as memory as 'texts." I have read a lot on the subject and I have two thoughts that wont go away: first, just because archaeologists have not found a Gospel from the period does not mean it does not exist. Second, just because these men lived in antiquity and did not have modern technology does not mean they were stupid. So, in my mind, that clearly argues on behalf of early datings of the Gospels (maybe late 30's early 40's for Mark).Another AnswerThere are different views on exactly when the gospels were written. A traditional Christian view is that they were written quite early, probably in the fifties of the first century CE. Many Christian theologians now accept a later date.Many scholars sat that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70CE. Matthew's Gospel was written in the eighties, although Raymond E. Brown suggests an allowance of up to ten years either way. Luke's Gospel was written at the end of the first century or early in the second century CE. John's Gospel was written early in the second century.The term "Gospel" meaning "good news" was coined to describe the works of the four evangelists whose books were written in the 1st Christian century. These books were quoted extensively by the early Christian Fathers - Polycarp, Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolitus etc. The apostolic community excepted without question only the four Gospels which are now in the New Testament canon. In short, there were only four authoritative Gospels and these were accepted as such by the first Christian community which included the close family, friends, disciples and other eyewitnesses of the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Christ. Other 'gospels' so-called are later pseudiographs and forgeries, written during the 2nd to 13th C and designed as vehicles for various heresies. The so-called Gospel of Thomas, which dates from around the middle of the C2nd AD is not a narrative document but a collection of 114 sayings many of dubious authenticity. The most laughable of the many fake gospels is the Gospel of Barnabas which was written by a Muslim no earlier than C13th.Yet another thought:Many people feel thatMatthew (written in Hebrew(in Palestine)) was completed around 41C.E. and covers the years of 3 B.C.E. to 33 C.E.Mark (written in Greek(in Rome)) was completed around 60-65.C.E. and covers the years 29-33.C.E.Luke (written in Greek(in Caesarea)) was completed around 56-58 C.E. and covers the years 3 B.C.E. to 33 C.E.John (written in Greek(in or near Ephesus)) was completed around 98 C.E. and covers the years (after prologue) 29 - 33 C.E.The gospels were written in the first century A.D.According to the Zondervan Life Application Study Bible the Gospel of Matthew was written between 60 and 65 A.D., the Gospel of Mark was written between 55 and 65 A.D., the Gospel of Luke was written about 60 A.D., and the Gospel of John between 85 and 90 A.D.ANSWERIn some cases, the sequence of authorship is well established, because it is recognised that Matthew and Luke are now known to have been based largely on Mark's Gospel, and because John is regarded as having been inspired by Luke, with some material taken direct from Mark.This question will get you much debate but suffice it to say, the biblical writers contributing to the New King James Version of the Bible would put the writing of the four Gospels sometime between late 50s to 95 A.D. with either Matthew or Mark being first circa 60s A.D. and before the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. John on the other hand has conservative historians dating it between 85-95 A.D..ANSWERVarious broad ranges of dates have been put for the Gospels:for example:-Matthew: 37 to 180ad/ceMark: 40 to 175 ad/ceLuke: 50 to 170 ad/ceJohn: 65 to 178 ad/ceThey could not have been written earlier than the date Christ died which was April 10th, 32AD [see Sir Robert Anderson in "The Coming Prince"]. That is straightforward, so the question really is to determine the latest the Gospels could have been written.Although the exact dates are unknown, this range can be narrowed down much much furthur.(1) the latest date can be narrowed down to BEFORE 70AD:-All the synoptic Gospels specifically mention the prophesied destruction and obliteration of Jerusalem and the Temple.:-Matthew 242And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.Mark 132And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.Luke 2143 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.In particular, because Matthew wrote his Gospel to the jews he often referred them back to prophecies in the Old Testament, but in this case he did not say "As prophesied by the prophet Micah...." : Luke prophesies how the Romans used their seigeworks and the results of it.This destruction was prophesied by Jeremiah over 600 years before in 587BC :-Jeremiah 26:1818 "Micah of Moresheth prophesied in the days of Hezekiah king of Judah, and spoke to all the people of Judah, saying, 'Thus says the LORDof hosts: " Zion shall be plowed like a field, Jerusalem shall become heaps of ruins, And the mountain of the temple Like the bare hills of the forest." 'Although that prophesied destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587BC by the Babylonians, it was only partially-fulfilled. This particular prophecy of Jeremiah 26:18 was fulfilled in 70AD when the Romans:destroyed the Temple,completely levelled the city,ploughed it up [this didn't occur until 70AD],killed over a million people,strewed it with salt to make it uninhabitable, andrenamed Judea 'Palestina' after their enemies.Allthe synoptic Gospel writers refer to this destruction as yet future and not past,and although John does not specifically refer to it, the destruction of Judaism's Holy City of Jerusalem's and resultant death toll was sohorrificall the gospels would have referred back to it if they had been written post-70AD. They don't, so they were all written before 70AD.(2) the latest date can be furthur narrowed down to no later than 44AD:-The Gospels put comments to explain furthur particular events, customs, and people. For example, because Matthew's Gospel was written to the jews and they would know what he was referring to, his Gospel quotes many prophecies from the Old Testament.Matthew 1314And in them the prophecyof Isaiah is fulfilled, which says: ' Hearing you will hear and shall not understand, And seeing you will see and not perceive;In contrast, Luke didn't stress Judaic prophecies because he wrote his Gospel to the Gentiles, and they wouldn't know what he was talking about and couldn't care less.Matthew added a comment to explain why John the Baptist was killed:-Matthew 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; ...3 [For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife.4 For John saidunto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her.]10 And he [Herod] sent, and beheaded John in the prison.Herod killed James, but despite his status it is not mentioned in any of the Gospels.This means all the Gospels must have been written before James was killed. It has been confirmed by secular historians that James was executed by King Herod Agrippa 1 (the grandson of Herod the Great) shortly before Passover possibly in 42AD. The exactyear is unknown but as Agrippa 1 died in 44AD it definitely cannot have been later than that. [It also means 'Acts' could not have been written earlier than 42AD.]In summary, all the Gospels were written no later than 44AD.The answer depends on who you are referring to. Please edit your question to include more information.
Do any scriptures tell me with no doubt that Jesus is God?
AnswerJohn's Gospel tells us, several times, that Jesus is God. However, if you are looking for a reference about which there is no doubt, this is not it. You should hold doubts if only John's Gospel makes this unequivocal claim, while the earlier gospels do not do so.
What is the difference between the synoptic gospels and John's Gospel?
Another answer from our community:John differs from the synoptic Gospels because it is not just listing events in the life of Jesus and reporting His teachings. John is more thematic in nature and provides more theological discourse on the person and work of Christ. John also focus' on events in Judea rather than the Galilean ministry. The synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are called such because they contain a brief review, summary or synopsis of Jesus' life and teachings. John is recognized as somewhat different with a lot less detail in terms of coverage of events but a much greater degree of theological detail focused around people's reactions to Jesus work and teachings and ensuing discussions. Thus John's different structure which is more theological and not a summary of all Jesus said and did is classified as non-synoptic.Another answerThere are four gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are called the synoptic gospels because they agree moderately well on the life and teachings of Jesus, although each is a little different from the other two.John's Gospel is quite a good deal different from the other gospels. Some scholars believe that John was originally written in a Gnostic community and was subsequently edited to remove some of the more clearly Gnostic material, although the gospel still has a Gnostic flavour. John is the only gospel that states Jesus to be God and to have been pre-existing. John also contains a good deal of material that is not in the other gospels, including a much longer account of the appearances of the risen Jesus. Although some say that this gospel is concerned with themes rather than the chronological order of events, it is nevertheless true that events are certainly placed in a different sequence compared to the other gospels.Scholars have noted that the events in the mission of Jesus, as described by the synoptic gospels, could have taken place in as little as one year, but the events described in John's Gospel would require four years. John appears to differ from the other three gospels in several ways. For example, in John the ministry of Jesus seems to last several years, whereas in the other gospels it appears to be limited to about one year. Also, John give an important role to the un-named "disciple whom Jesus loved", but the other gospels don't even mention such a person. Also, in John, Jesus performs several major miracles that aren't recorded in the other gospels, such as the resurrection of Lazarus and the changing of water into wine at the wedding in Cana. John depicts Jesus somewhat differently than the other gospels do. Some people have said that this is because John tries to show the spiritual side of Jesus, whereas the other gospels mainly try to show his human side.
What Jewish holidays were Jesus and his disciples celebrating the night of his arrest?
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus and his disciples were celebrating the Jewish Passover on the night of his arrest; the Last Supper was their Seder meal. In John's Gospel, Jesus was arrested on the night before the Passover, thus instead of a detailed mention of the Last Supper, we have the account of Jesus washing their feet. The gospel says that Jesus was crucified on the day prior to the Passover, and makes greater use of Passover imagery than do the other gospels.
Why is the length of Jesus' public ministry in John's Gospel different from that in the synoptic Gospels?
A:New Testament scholars have traced the stories of the mission of Jesus in the synoptic gospels and find they involve a period of apparently less than one year. This does not mean it could not actually have been somewhat longer, but this is all that is found. Luke's Gospel states that John the Baptist began to preach in 28 CE, thus suggesting that the crucifixion of Jesus could have been in 30 CE. John's Gospel makes it clear that, in the author's view, the mission of Jesus took three years, with Jesus going to Jerusalem for the annual Passover festivals. It can not be assumed that the author of John somehow knew more than the other authors, since it has now been established that the anonymous author of this gospel based it loosely on Luke's Gospel. Assuming Luke is correct on the date on which John began to preach, the crucifixion of Jesus in John's Gospel could not have been before about 33 CE.
Gospel song with what is this makes you love?
a song of praise ....
What is today's gospel about?
The real meaning of the gospel is the same anytime or age. The gospel is how - God makes bad people good. For many people today the gospel is a social gospel. But the gospel is not about improving peoples lives, giving them food or financial aid or fighting for their rights. These are all good things but they are not the gospel.
What is different about the 4 Gospels of the New Testament?
The four Gospels of the New Testament offer four distinct perspectives on the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Each Gospel was written by a different author (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) and tailored to a specific audience, highlighting different aspects of Jesus's ministry and message. While there is overlap in content, each Gospel provides unique insights and emphases.
Why is John's Gospel different from the synoptic gospels?
A:The Gospel According to St John differs to such an extent from the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) that Origen felt obliged to defend the Gospel, saying, "Although he does not always tell the truth literally, he always tells it spiritually" (Origen, Commentary on John). Part of the explanation is that all the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and were only attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John later in the second century. Biblical scholars say there is no good reason to accept those attributions, and that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events described.Scholars have demonstrated that Matthew and Lukewere largely based on Mark's Gospel, which explains the consistency among the three synoptic gospels. Matthew and Lukealso both copied sayings material from the hypothetical 'Q' document.John's Gospel was much later, written early in the second century, and further removed from Mark's Gospel. The fourth gospel was inspired by Luke's Gospel, but the author felt free to change details for theological reasons. He also knew Mark's Gospel, as a small amount of material and literary styles were used direct from Mark. John's Gospel was written at a time when anti-Jewish sentiment was at its height in the early Church, reflected in stronger sentiment in John and the more frequent references to generic 'Jews' rather than Pharisees and scribes. The author can also be seen to have dealt with issues that had arisen in his time, by inserting events and dialog into his gospel account.Answer:Part of the enigma of John is its distinctiveness from the other three canonical Gospels. John does not tell of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem; scarcely mentions the kingdom of God; has no parables; has no list of the twelve disciples; has nothing like the Sermon on the Mount; has no healing of lepers; has no bread and wine at the last supper; and never mentions demons. John reports Jesus' extended discourses rather than the Synoptic short, pithy sayings. In the Synoptics, Jesus spends His entire ministry in and around Galilee and makes on trip to Jerusalem, just a week before His death. According to John, however, Jesus made four trips to Jerusalem (John 2:13, 5:1, 7:10, 12:12) and spent a significant part of His ministry in Judea. The Gospel of John gives a distinctive account of Jesus' "signs", His words, and His ministry. The roots of the Johannine tradition reach back to the ministry of Jesus, and the Gospel stands on eyewitness testimony (John 19:35-35, 21:24-25).
What limits do the Gospels have as a historical source?
The gospels are unique documents, they are not stories based on facts, they are not academic historical documents, they are recounts of personal experiences of several members of a community, they are written to help people to the conversion of faith, for which it is evident the intention and the bias of the writings, is a truthful record of historical facts
What southern gospel songs contains the lyrics Jesus will be what makes it heaven for you?
"Jesus Will Be What Makes It Heaven for Me." YYou can find the lyrics on the internet.
Who was the apostle who asked for Jesus' body?
AnswerThe gospels are in agreement that a person called Joseph of Arimathea asked Herod for the body of Jesus. However, there is no agreement that Joseph was actually a disciple, rather than a pious Jew for whom it was necessary to end the crucifixion before the start of the Passover.Mark's Gospel says that Joseph was an honourable counsellor and makes no suggestion that he was a disciple of Jesus. Matthew's Gospel says that Joseph was a rich man and a disciple of Jesus. Luke's Gospel says that Joseph was a counsellor and a good man from the city of Arimathea but, like Mark, does not say that he was a disciple. John's Gospel says that Joseph was a disciple of Jesus. The location of the city of Arimathea has not been established.
Is Gerald Crabb the gospel song writer dead?
No. He makes regular appearances with his singing family.
