THE BURIAL OF CHRIST IN THE FOUR GOSPELS

Burial of Christ (Mark 15:42-46; Matthew 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-42)

 

It is always a question as to the best way to read or study the gospel accounts. Whichever way one chooses will have its advantages and disadvantages. Take, for example, the brief narratives of Jesus' burial found in all four gospels (Mark 15:42-46; Matthew 27:57-60; Luke 23:50-54; John 19:38-42):

Matthew: “When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who also was a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body, and wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and departed.”

Mark: “And when evening had come, since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also looking for the kingdom of God, took courage and went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. And Pilate wondered if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead he granted the body to Joseph. And he brought a linen shroud, and taking him down, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of rock, and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.”

Luke: “Now there was a man named Joseph from the Jewish town of Arimathea. He was a member of the council, a good and righteous man, who had not consented to their purpose and deed, and he was looking for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down and wrapped it in a linen shroud, and laid him in a rock hewn tomb, where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.”

John: “After this Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him leave. So he came and took away his body. Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb where no one had ever been laid. So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, as the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.”

There is a great advantage in taking each version and reading it (in translation) just as that particular Evangelist composed it using his own chosen vocabulary and emphasis. After all, that is the way the various biblical accounts have come down to us. For example, it doesn't take a Bible expert to read Luke 23:53 and see the correspondence between that account and the start of the Gospel (Luke 2:7) where Mary “takes” the baby Jesus, “wraps it in cloth,” and “lays it in the manger,” even if the Greek verbs are not the same in each case. Similarly, the unique mention found only in John's version of Nicodemus who came to Jesus by night is obviously a reminder of the earlier episode recorded only in John 3.

But there are also times when one wants to compare one of the four gospels with the other three to see if any additional insights can be gleaned. In that case, merely having a Bible to consult may make it rather hard to do so. It may be easy to look back and forth between the four versions presented above to compare them, but that is certainly not the way a standard Bible is put together. And even though I have made it a little easier for you to compare them, one would have to do a lot of eye flipping between the four paragraphs to catch all the details.

So what are the alternatives available for such a study of parallel passages?

A. Standard harmonies of the Gospels, of which there are many versions available from book stores or on-line, would seem to present the best of all worlds. You are probably well aware of the general format they usually follow – three (or four if John's Gospel is included) columns at the top of each page, one for each separate account, and the text of each individual version running down the page with similar passages lining up with their parallels in the other versions. In that manner, one can follow the narrative of an individual gospel account by reading straight down the same column on each page. Or conversely, one can consider one small section at a time reading across to see how each gospel echoes or differs from the others.

In practice, it is not quite that easy. Let's take A.T. Robinson's popular book A Harmony of the Gospels for Students of the Life of Christ as an example. In the first place, in order to read through any given Gospel, one would have to cover 250 pages. Secondly, the order of presenting material often varies widely between each Gospel account, and so it it always a hard judgment call for an editor as to how to represent that fact on the page. Are the varying accounts of the same event or teaching truly parallels or do they represent entirely different occasions?

This same sort of judgment call even occurs regarding individual details in the text. Robinson's Harmony indicates that Mark and Luke's description of Joseph as a person who was “looking for the Kingdom of God” is the same as Matthew and John's characterization of him as “a disciple of Jesus.” But that may not be the case at all. In the same manner, the linen cloths present in all four accounts are placed in a parallel arrangement although John uses a different Greek word causing some scholars to believe that it is a separate wrapping from the others.

Then consider the case where the day of Preparation appears at the beginning of Mark's account of the burial and at the end of Luke's and John's versions. One would have to leaf through two pages in A. T. Robinson's version to pick up on that fact. Similarly, at first glance it appears that Luke is the only Evangelist who does not mention that Joseph came from Arimathea; that fact only appears when one turns to the next page of the Harmony.

And finally, it is very hard for the reader to distinguish all those cases in which any two gospel accounts happen to coincide in the material they present and and the way in which it is presented.

B. Another method, which almost needs color coding, is to attempt to combine all of the material into one account without leaving out any valuable information or paraphrasing any of the original. And in addition, to do this while clearly indicating the particular gospel version(s) responsible for each individual word or phrase. This can get a little messy both to put together and to read, as the example below illustrates, especially if the various accounts differ considerably in wording. As a key to understanding the following, what I have done is:

        placed Matthew's words in bold;

        underlined Mark's version;

        given Luke's account in italics;

        (and put John's Gospel in parentheses.)

        In addition, alternative ways of expressing the same material are given in [brackets].

And when evening had come [(and after these things)] since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath [It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning.*] [(So because of the Jewish day of Preparation)*]

                        *placed at the end of Luke's and John's accounts, respectively.

Now there was a rich man from the Jewish town of Arimathea named Joseph [(Joseph of Arimathea)]

a respected member of the council, a good and righteous man who had not consented to their purpose and deed, who was also looking for the kingdom of God, (who was) also (a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews,)

This man [He] took courage and went to Pilate and asked for [(that he might take away)] the body of Jesus.]

And Pilate wondering if he were already dead, and summoning the centurion he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead

he granted the body to Joseph [(and Pilate gave him leave)] [Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him].

Then he took it down [and taking him down] [(So he came and took away his body)]

And he brought a linen shroud.

(Nicodemus also, who had at first come to him by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. They took the body of Jesus, and bound it in linen cloths [a clean linen shroud] with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews.)

(Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a [his own] new) rock hewn (tomb where no one had ever been laid was close at hand)

they laid Jesus [him] there [in a tomb])

And he rolled a great stone against the door of the tomb and departed.

Despite the awkwardness of such an approach, look at some of the insights one can gain by utilizing it. In the first place, it is instructive to consider those portions of the account that are only found in one particular version.

For example, only Matthew mentions that Joseph was rich. That Evangelist's interest in such matters may stem from his profession as tax collector, and he may even have had some inside information concerning that fact to which the other evangelists had no access.

The fact that John is the only writer to mention Nicodemus stands out like a sore thumb and prompts the reader to look for other mentions of him in John's Gospel. The two allusions to him appear toward the beginning and end of this account, and so we are encouraged to compare the two episodes in which he is prominent and consider how Nicodemus has matured spiritually.

With the use of an analytical concordance, one can also look for individual words and phrases that appear only in one particular account. Again, this unique language can be seen rather readily from the varied typography utilized in this approach.

John uses the word “Jew/Jewish” twice in this account versus only one other appearance in the other three accounts. This should cause one to consider other places in John where the word appears in his Gospel. In fact, an analytical concordance will show that it occurs there almost 70 times, compared to only 16 times in the all the Synoptic accounts combined. And in many of those occasions, John uses it in a derogatory sense, which is strange considering that John himself was a Jew. As most scholars will point out, John often uses that term to denote a Jew who has rejected Jesus. And the specific phrase “fear of the Jews” even appears in John 7:13; 19:38; and 20:19.

Mark's sole mention of a “centurion” in the burial account (15:44,45) is matched by similar account of that same centurion a few verses earlier (15:39). An analytical concordance will also demonstrate that Mark is the only Evangelist to use the Greek word kenturion for “centurion.”

Only Matthew says that Pilate “commanded” the body to be given to Joseph. This is somewhat ironic since a few verses later (27:64) it is the Jews who tell Pilate that he has to “command” a watch be put on the tomb. Pilate tells them to do it themselves. The key Greek word keleuo appears seven times in Matthew and only once elsewhere in the other three gospels.

Language preferred by Luke appears in several places in the burial account. This includes “righteous man” (Luke 23:47,50), “good man” (Luke 6:45; 23:50), praxis (“deed”) (Luke 23:51; Acts 19:18), and “counsel” (Luke 7:30; 23:51; 6x in Acts).

There are three similar statements found in Luke's Gospel located near the start and conclusion of the narrative. All utilize the Greek verb prosdecho.

    “this man was righteous and devout looking forward to the consolation of Israel.” (2:25)

    “looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.” (2:38)

    “waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God.” (23:51)

This indicates that Luke considers all three phrases to describe the same event.

Approach B is by no means foolproof, however. Take the fact that only Matthew says the “rock” was “great.” Those same two key words appear together in Matthew's account of Jesus' parable of the wise and foolish house builders (Matt. 7:24-27). One could therefore come up with some sort of theory that the two passages were related thematically. But if you were to read a little further in the four gospel accounts, one could see that Mark also mentions the size of the stone/rock as “great” (Mark 16:4) although he places that information outside of the burial account itself.

When source critics study the gospels, they are especially interested in those occasions when two (or more) accounts are identical or nearly so. They then speculate on which account came first, with the others following. This can be a useful endeavor on occasion, but it always relies on a number of unproved assumptions. However, we could note that only Mark and Luke state that Joseph was a member of the council. It would not be unlikely for those two writers to share such information between themselves since the two were close acquaintances. Similarly, Matthew and John, as fellow apostles, characterize Joseph as a follower of Jesus, a fact which they certainly should have known.

And finally, it is sometimes instructive to look at those occasions where all of the Evangelists but one mention a certain fact. The most prominent example in the burial account involves the mention of the day of Preparation by everyone but Matthew. That is not at all unusual, however, since he was writing to a mainly Jewish audience who would have already known what that day entailed without having it mentioned to them. Simply noting that evening had come was enough to stress the fact that the body had to be buried rather soon.

C. There have been a number of attempts to put together the material in the four accounts as a continuous narrative without including all of the variations as shown in B or always clearly indicating which of the gospels were the source of each piece of information. One is The Life of Christ in Stereo and another is The Chronological Bible. Below is an excerpt from the latter book, changing some of the NIV language there into the RSV so that it can be more easily compared with approach B. In parentheses I have placed language not found in any of the original accounts, but added by the author of The Chronological Bible to make the combined account read more smoothly.

“It was the day of Preparation (that is, the day before the sabbath). When evening came, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also waiting for the kingdom of God, took courage and and went to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate wondered if he were already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he was already dead. And when he learned from the centurion that he was dead, he granted the body to Joseph.

(With Pilate's permission,) he (came and) took the body away. (He was accompanied by) Nicodemus also who earlier had visited Jesus at night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds weight. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it with the spices, in strips of linen as is the burial customs of the Jews. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen shroud, and placed it in his own new tomb which he had hewn out of the rock. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there. He rolled a great stone against the door of the tomb and went away.”

This combined version does read smoothly except for one glaring problem. It seesaws back and forth between Joseph and Nicodemus (who only appears in John's account) acting together and only Joseph doing so. Thus, there is the awkward situation where it appears that both of them wrapped the body with strips of linen followed by only Joseph wrapping it in a shroud, followed by both of them laying the body in the tomb while only Joseph rolled the stone and left. And, in fact, what John calls “linen cloths” is probably what the Synoptic accounts call a “linen shroud,” and not a different form of cloth at all. This is one of the situations that a combined narrative has to face.

Another problem is that the combined version gives the impression that the whole episode is bounded at start and finish with mention of the day of Preparation, a literary device called an inclusio. But in fact, no one account reads that way. It is merely an artifact of combining Mark's mention of it at the start of his narrative with Luke and John's accounts where it appears at the end.

Another thing to note is that a very important piece of information found in Matthew's and especially John's Gospel is entirely left out – the fact that Joseph was actually a secret follower of Jesus.

The bottom line concerning such combined versions is that what they gain in terms of easy readability, they also lose in failing to show the unique contributions and differing points of emphasis of each Evangelist. Such a move might be justified if all one wanted was a straight historical record of exactly what happened. But although that is certainly important to our faith, it is by no means the only reason the gospel accounts were written. As one commentator said concerning another historical book in the Bible, “You believe it happened. Good! But what effect does it have on your life?”