The synoptic gospels describe the mission of Jesus as involving a period of apparently less than one year. Since Luke's Gospel states that John the Baptist began to preach in 28 CE, this suggests 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. Assuming Luke is correct on the date on which John began to preach, 30 CE becomes too early for the crucifixion of Jesus, which in John's Gospel could have been in 33 CE.
Other dates for the crucifixion of Jesus have been suggested, but these are the most popular.
The first synoptic gospel to be written was Mark's Gospel. Matthew and Luke were both largely based on Mark's original, although they contain changes and elaborations, so it is simpler to make the comparison between Mark and John. A summary of the timing of the passion of Jesus in Mark's Gospel can then be compared with the similar detail from John. The twenty four hour period is broken up into eight intervals of exactly three hours each:
Peter's threefold denial of Jesus, once each hour until the cock crowed, marked the end of that phase of the night, the watch between 3 am and 6 am being known as cockcrow. It was 6 o'clock.
Notice in the above that the crucifixion takes place on the day of the Passover, after the Seder feast. John 13:1-2 says that Jesus and the disciples finished a meal "before the feast of the Passover." This is confirmed in John 19:14, which says that it was the preparation of the Passover when Jesus was placed on trial before Pontius Pilate. After the trial and Jesus was sent for crucifixion on the sixth hour, leaving less than three hours for him to be on the cross.
The timing before the Passover is important in John, because Jesus is compared to the Paschal lamb killed in the afternoon before the Seder feast. John 19:14 reminds us of this when it says it was the preparation of the Passover when Jesus was sent for crucifixion. The Paschal lamb must be perfect, with no broken bones, so John tells us that the soldiers did not break his legs to ensure that he was dead, as they did to the other two being crucified.
Not only was Jesus on the cross for a lesser period of time, he did not suffer. We can see this in the calm way he talked to his mother and the beloved disciple, giving instructions for the care of Mary. And when he died, his last words were a calm, "It is finished." Compare this to Mark, where Jesus' forlorn last words were, "My God. My God. Why hast thou forsaken me?" In Mark, Jesus was finally aware that God had not taken away his cup of destiny. In John, Jesus knew his destiny and simply gave up the ghost when his mission was complete.
In the synoptic gospels, the prayer in the Garden of Gethsemene is part of the story of how greatly Jesus suffered. In John's Gospel, Jesus does not pray in the Garden of Gethsemene and does not ask God to be spared from crucifixion, but does say a triumphant prayer to God before reaching the Garden, saying that his time had come.
An important difference exists between John and Matthew with the addition in Matthew of the miracle of the earthquake which opened the graves, and the saints rose up and walked into Jerusalem where they were seen by many. No other New Testament gospel has this passage, and of course the 'many' never wrote about this amazing event.
your car
The differences are true, because each gospel concentrates on a certain value in the Life of Jesus Christ. But differences does not mean conflicts.
The two source hypothesis is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and the differences between the three gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It emerged in the 19th century.
A:Common oral traditions would be a useful explanation for what is known as the 'Synoptic Problem', a problem of the surprising similarities among the synoptic gospels, if those traditions exist. However, a parallel reading of the three synoptic gospels, in the original Greek language, shows that when they agree, the similarities are too great and they often use exactly the same words in the Greek language. Clearly, there is a literary dependency among the synoptic gospels, and it can not be explained by oral sources. The explanation for this is that Matthewand Luke were actually based on Mark, but also relied on the hypothetical 'Q' document for further sayings material attributed to Jesus. There is no evidence of common oral traditions.
Henry Kameo is pimpster
A:The author of John's Gospel certainly knew of the existence of Mark and Luke, as his own gospel was loosely based on those gospels (mainly Luke, but some material is from Mark), but like the author of Luke he seems entirely unaware of the existence of Matthew's Gospel. John was written to be the gospel of choice in the Johannine community and the synoptic gospels were probably discouraged. Nevertheless the anonymous author of Johnassumed his readers might have known the synoptic gospels, as evidenced by the fact that even when completely changing the synoptic account, he was careful not to directly contradict his sources.However, there is a difference between possibly knowing of the synoptic gospels and knowing them well enough that John need not tell everything about the life and mission of Jesus. When John omits details found in the synoptic Gospels of Mark and Luke, it was not because the author expected his readers to have found those stories elsewhere, while he focussed on important new information. For example, John omits the nativity story of Luke, but it can be seen elsewhere that the author and his community did not really believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
A:The word synoptic means 'seen with the same eye' and can refer to many different things such as synoptic weather charts. In a religious context, it refers to the close similarities among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke - the synoptic gospels. When the synoptic gospels are looked at in parallel - synoptically - in the original Greek language, it soon becomes apparent that there is a literary dependency among the three gospels. New Testament scholars say that Mark's Gospel was written first, approximately 70 CE, and that Matthew and Lukewere largely based on Mark's original Gospel. There are further similarities between Matthew and Luke only, which have been traced back to the hypothetical 'Q' document.
Two differences between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and John's Gospel are that in John, many of Jesus' close friends were rich or powerful members of society, and that he seems to reserve his best miracles for his rich friends. The most awe-inspiring miracle, unknown to the synoptic authors, was when Jesus raised his friend Lazarus, brother of Mary and Martha, from the dead. Lazarus had been dead for four days and his body stank.
The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were written between 50-90 AD. Most scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written, followed by Matthew and Luke, with John being the last of the four Gospels to be written.
A:An interesting difference between John's Gospel and the synoptic gospels is the timing of the crucifixion of Jesus. In the synoptic gospels, the Last Super celebrated the seder feast and marked the beginning of the Passover; Jesus was placed on the cross at the third hour (9 o'clock) the next morning and remained on the cross for six hours. In John's Gospel, Jesus was placed on the cross at the sixth hour (12 o'clock) on the day before the Passover. This is interesting because John is able to compare Jesus to the lamb that was sacrificed by the Jews on the day before the Passover, and because there is nothing anywhere in John's account that suggests that Jesus suffered - even Jesus' time on the cross is reduced to a symbolic duration.
The synoptic problem is the puzzle of explaining the similarities and differences between the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). The two-source hypothesis is a widely accepted solution to the synoptic problem, proposing that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as well as another common source known as Q (from the German word Quelle, meaning "source") when writing their Gospels.
This question is too vague. We could talk about first-person narratives, third-person narratives and third-person omniscient narratives. We could talk about narratives written in the past tense and those written in the present tense and those which cannot make up their minds. We could talk about quest-type narratives, or mystery-type narratives, or romance-type narratives, or conflict-type narratives. We could distinguish between mundane narratives, epic narratives, and mythic narratives. There are lots of possibilities here.