Minor characters | Douglas Wilhelm Hard

Here we will discuss some of the characters apart from the disciples, Paul, John the Baptist and Jesus that appear in Christian scriptures:

In each case, we look at all verses associated with those individuals, and in so many cases, it is very clear that the gospels do not agree, and indeed contradict each other. This will be be followed up with a summary. In one case, an apologist unable to respond to the obvious contradictions by saying "It doesn’t bother me in the least."

mary-magdalene

Mary Magdalene

For someone so popular, there is very little mention of Mary Magdalene.

Mark

Starting in Mark 15:40-41, we have

There were also women looking on from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome, who followed him when he was in Galilee and ministered to him, and there were many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem.

In Mark 15:47, we have

Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid.

Finally, in Mark 16:1-8, we have:

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb.

They had been saying to one another, “Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb?”

When they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had already been rolled back.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look, there is the place they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him, just as he told you.”

So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Matthew

Matthew also only mentions her at the execution and resurrection; so at the execution, Matthew 27:55-56 mentions:

Many women were also there, looking on from a distance; they had followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him. Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

Watching Jesus's tomb be sealed, in Matthew 27:61, it says:

Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.

The "other" Mary, I assume, is the mother of James and Joseph. Finally, at the resurrection, in Matthew 28:1-10, we have:

After the Sabbath, as the first day of the week was dawning, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb.

And suddenly there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled back the stone and sat on it...

But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has been raised, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples, ‘He has been raised from the dead, and indeed he is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see him.’ This is my message for you.”

So they left the tomb quickly with fear and great joy and ran to tell his disciples.

Suddenly Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came to him, took hold of his feet, and worshiped him.

Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers and sisters to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Luke

The author of Luke finally places Mary Magdalene earlier, with some context, in Luke 8:1-3, where it says:

Soon afterward he went on through one town and village after another, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. The twelve were with him, as well as some women who had been cured of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, and Joanna, the wife of Herod’s steward Chuza, and Susanna, and many others, who ministered to them out of their own resources.

Seven demons, and yet, today, we can hardly find even one person with a single demon in that person's self. One would think, also, that seven demons would be much more usefully applied if they possessed seven different people and not just one. After this, Mary Magdalene simply appears at the execution and resurrection, in Luke 23:49, although Mary Magdalene is no longer explicitly identified:

But all his acquaintances, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance watching these things.

Also in Luke 23:55-56:

The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments.

Finally, in Luke 24:1-11, it says:

But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they went to the tomb, taking the spices that they had prepared.

They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, but when they went in they did not find the body.

While they were perplexed about this, suddenly two men in dazzling clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified and bowed their faces to the ground,

but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here but has risen. Remember how he told you, while he was still in Galilee, that the Son of Man must be handed over to the hands of sinners and be crucified and on the third day rise again.”

Then they remembered his words, and returning from the tomb they told all this to the eleven and to all the rest.

Now it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them who told this to the apostles.

But these words seemed to them an idle tale, and they did not believe them.

The narrative that Mary Magdalene was possessed by seven demons does appear in Mark, but only in the longer ending, one that does not appear in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and thus, was likely added afterwards.

John

In the gospel of John, the women are within earshot, as recorded in John 19:25-27 it says:

Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.”

Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.”

And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

Following this, Jesus dies. The synoptic gospels all say that "from a distance" or "stood at a distance." Matthew and Mark mention other people close enough to mock Jesus, but none of the synoptic gospels mention that Mary Magdalene and Jesus's mother Mary were there at the foot of the cross close enough to have Jesus speak to them. The author of John has them close enough that Jesus can, while still alive, speak to his mother, and there is no suggestion that the women moved away prior to his death.

There is no mention in the gospel of John of women at the burial, but then at the resurrection, in John 20:1-18, we have:

Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the tomb.

So she ran and went to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved, and said to them, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him.”

Then Peter and the other disciple set out and went toward the tomb. The two were running together, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first.

He bent down to look in and saw the linen wrappings lying there, but he did not go in.

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus’s head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself.

Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed, for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes.

But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb. As she wept, she bent over to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting where the body of Jesus had been lying, one at the head and the other at the feet.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said to them, “They have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him.”

When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not know that it was Jesus.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?”

Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus said to her, “Mary!”

She turned and said to him in Hebrew, “Rabbouni!” (which means Teacher).

Jesus said to her, “Do not touch me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”

Mary Magdalene went and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and she told them that he had said these things to her.

That's it for Mary Magdalene. Once again, the four gospels cannot keep a consistent story:

In the synoptic gospels, there is no mention of Jesus talking to women during his execution, and the only mention of Mary Magdalene and other women is that they were watching at a distance; there is certainly no suggestion that they were initially at the foot of the cross and only later moved to a distance, and indeed, if you were right there watching Jesus die, why would you then move to a distance just to see his lifeless body hang there? In the gospel of John, while Jesus is still alive, he is talking to both his mother who is in the presence of other women including Mary Magdalene as well as the disciple who Jesus loved; only then does Jesus die.
In Mark and Luke, Jesus does not appear to Mary Magdalene after his resurrection. Mary is only spoken to by a young man in Mark or two angels in Luke. In Matthew, one angel speaks to Mary, saying the same that is said in Matthew and Mark, but then Jesus also appears to her and her compatriots and they immediately recognize him and worship him. In John, Mary does not go into the tomb, there is no mention of any angel or young man speaking to her (instead, Simon Peter and the disciple Jesus loved are there), and Jesus speaks to Mary Magdalene directly, but she does not immediately recognize him.
In Mark, the women say nothing, in Matthew, the women tell the disciples what they were told and the disciples believed them, while in Luke the women tell the disciples who do not believe them. In John, it says Mary told the disciples, but it is not clear if they believed her or not.

That's it. She does appear in subsequent writings such as Dialogue of the Savior, Pistis Sophia (The Wisdom of Faith), and the gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary.

Incidentally, as an aside, demon possession is almost certainly not an actual occurrance, and demon possession was the description given to those with mental health issues. As most mental health issues lie on a spectrum, from mild to severe, no doubt the "number" of demons possessing someone is proportional to the severity of the apparent symptoms. The gospel of Matthew has Jesus giving an excellent description that justifies why persons with mental health issues may recover, but then relapse into their previous state and perhaps, as the illness progresses, becomes even more severe, so in Matthew 12:43-45, it says:

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none.

Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’

When it returns, it finds it empty, swept, and put in order.

Then it goes and brings along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and

they enter and live there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first.

So will it be also with this evil generation.”

Such excellent medical advice from Yahweh himself who designed us to be this way.

Martha, Mary and Lazarus

Both Luke and John refer to Martha, Mary and Lazarus, but in Luke, Lazarus is identified separately from Mary and Martha, while in John these three are all siblings. In both cases, however, Lazarus dies, Martha does the work, and Mary is at Jesus's feet.

In Luke 10:38-42, we have

Now as they went on their way, he entered a certain village where a woman named Martha welcomed him.

She had a sister named Mary, who sat at Jesus’s feet and listened to what he was saying.

But Martha was distracted by her many tasks, so she came to him and asked, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me to do all the work by myself? Tell her, then, to help me.”

But the Lord answered her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things, but few things are needed—indeed only one. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her.”

In Luke 16:19-31, we have

“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day.

And at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who longed to satisfy his hunger with what fell from the rich man’s table; even the dogs would come and lick his sores.

The poor man died and was carried away by the angels to be with Abraham.

The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was being tormented, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side. He called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.’

But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that during your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus in like manner evil things, but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony. Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’

He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house—for I have five brothers—that he may warn them, so that they will not also come into this place of torment.’

Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they should listen to them.’

He said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

[Abraham] said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

The author of Luke does not suggest that there is any relationship between these Lazarus and these two sisters; however, there is no mention of three siblings by these three names, and none of these names are mentioned in either Mark or Matthew.

In John 10:40-42, we have the setting where Jesus was in Jerusalem, but then escapes those who tried to stone him, so

He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing earlier, and he remained there. Many came to him, and they were saying, “John performed no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true.” And many believed in him there.

Thus, while Jesus is here, the narrative in John 11:1-44 continues in Bethany, close to Jerusalem:

Now a certain man was ill, Lazarus of Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.

Mary was the one who anointed the Lord with perfume and wiped his feet with her hair; her brother Lazarus was ill.

So the sisters sent a message to Jesus, “Lord, he whom you love is ill.”

But when Jesus heard it, he said, “This illness does not lead to death; rather, it is for God’s glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it.”

Accordingly, though Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus, after having heard that Lazarus was ill, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was.

Then after this he said to the disciples, “Let us go to Judea again.”

The disciples said to him, “Rabbi, the Jews were just now trying to stone you, and are you going there again?”

Jesus answered, “Are there not twelve hours of daylight? Those who walk during the day do not stumble because they see the light of this world. But those who walk at night stumble because the light is not in them.”

After saying this, he told them, “Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep, but I am going there to awaken him.”

The disciples said to him, “Lord, if he has fallen asleep, he will be all right.”

Jesus, however, had been speaking about his death, but they thought that he was referring merely to sleep.

Then Jesus told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead. For your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

Thomas, who was called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.”

When Jesus arrived, he found that Lazarus had already been in the tomb four days.

Now Bethany was near Jerusalem, some two miles away, and many of the Jews had come to Martha and Mary to console them about their brother.

When Martha heard that Jesus was coming, she went and met him, while Mary stayed at home.

Martha said to Jesus, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died. But even now I know that God will give you whatever you ask of him.”

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.”

Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.”

Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

She said to him, “Yes, Lord, I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, the one coming into the world.”

When she had said this, she went back and called her sister Mary and told her privately, “The Teacher is here and is calling for you.”

And when she heard it, she got up quickly and went to him.

Now Jesus had not yet come to the village but was still at the place where Martha had met him.

The Jews who were with her in the house consoling her saw Mary get up quickly and go out. They followed her because they thought that she was going to the tomb to weep there.

When Mary came where Jesus was and saw him, she knelt at his feet and said to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.”

When Jesus saw her weeping and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was greatly disturbed in spirit and deeply moved.

He said, “Where have you laid him?”

They said to him, “Lord, come and see.”

Jesus began to weep.

So the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”

But some of them said, “Could not he who opened the eyes of the blind man have kept this man from dying?”

Then Jesus, again greatly disturbed, came to the tomb. It was a cave, and a stone was lying against it.

Jesus said, “Take away the stone.”

Martha, the sister of the dead man, said to him, “Lord, already there is a stench because he has been dead four days.”

Jesus said to her, “Did I not tell you that if you believed you would see the glory of God?”

So they took away the stone.

And Jesus looked upward and said, “Father, I thank you for having heard me. I knew that you always hear me, but I have said this for the sake of the crowd standing here, so that they may believe that you sent me.”

When he had said this, he cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!”

The dead man came out, his hands and feet bound with strips of cloth and his face wrapped in a cloth.

Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.”

If Jesus is Yahweh, and Jesus knew before he came to Earth that Lazarus would die and that he would resurrect him, why is he disturbed, and why is he weeping? One wonders, also, why such an all-knowing being would have to ask where Lazarus was buried.

The publicity surrounding this resurrection seem to have gotten the ire of the chief priests, so in John 11:54 it says

Jesus therefore no longer walked about openly among the Jews but went from there to a town called Ephraim in the region near the wilderness, and he remained there with the disciples.

Jesus however returns to Jerusalem, stopping at Bethany in John 12:1-11:

Six days before the Passover Jesus came to Bethany, the home of Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead.

There they gave a dinner for him. Martha served, and Lazarus was one of those reclining with him.

Mary took a pound of costly perfume made of pure nard, anointed Jesus’s feet, and wiped them with her hair.

The house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.

But Judas Iscariot, one of his disciples (the one who was about to betray him), said, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and the money given to the poor?” (He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; he kept the common purse and used to steal what was put into it.)

Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She bought it so that she might keep it for the day of my burial. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.”

When the great crowd of the Jews learned that he was there, they came not only because of Jesus but also to see Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead. So the chief priests planned to put Lazarus to death as well, since it was on account of him that many of the Jews were deserting and were believing in Jesus.

It seems that Jesus stayed the night in Bethany with his friends. In the synoptic gospels, however, when Jesus goes to Jerusalem, he only stops in Bethany to retrieve a donkey (or two) for Jesus to sit on. There is no visit to friends, nor does Jesus and his disciples stay there the night. There, most certainly, is no mention of someone who Jesus loved, not any mention of this person's sisters.

martha-mary-and-lazarus

Simon the Leper or Pharisee?

Just like the names Martha and Mary, together with Lazarus, appear in different contexts in Luke and John (associated with the anointing of Jesus in the gospel of John), Simon is a name that is also attached to the anointing of Jesus, but now in Mark, Matthew and Luke, but again, in different contexts.

In Mark 14:3, it says:

While he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment of nard, and she broke open the jar and poured the ointment on his head.

In Matthew 26:6-7, it says:

Now while Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very costly ointment, and she poured it on his head as he sat at the table.

However, in Luke, the story of the anointing does not happen in Jerusalem after the triumphal entry, but rather much previous at a non-descript location almost certainly somewhere in Galilee, and yet it is still in the home of Simon, only now, it is Simon the Pharisee, for in Luke 7:36-37 it says:

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and when he went into the Pharisee’s house he reclined to dine. And a woman in the city who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment.

In Luke 7:40, the name of this Pharisee is given:

Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

In what are likely the two earliest gospels, Jesus is anointed at the home of Simon the leper, while in the third gospel to be written, Jesus is anointed at the home of Simon the Pharisee, and Jesus as interactions with Martha and Mary, while a story of the death of Lazarus is told. Finally, in what is certainly the last gospel to be written, Jesus is anointed in the home of Martha, Mary and Lazarus, the last of whom had previously died and been resurrected by Jesus. Notice how the home of Simon the leper was in Bethany, the same location as the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary.

simon-the-leper-or-phrisee

Simon of Cyrene

Simon of Cyrene is remembered as the man compelled to carry Jesus’s cross on the way to Golgotha. Cyrene was a Greek colony in modern-day Libya, between Benghazi and Tobruk, with a significant Jewish population; many Jews from Cyrene were present in Jerusalem for major festivals (see Acts 2:10).

In Mark 15:21-24, the episode is brief but unusually specific:

After mocking him, they stripped him of the purple cloak and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.

They compelled a passer-by, who was coming in from the country, to carry his cross; it was Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus. Then they brought Jesus to the place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull). And they offered him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it. And they crucified him ...

Mark’s naming of Simon’s sons (Alexander and Rufus) is unique and has prompted speculation that they were known in the early Christian community. Rufus is mentioned in Romans 16:13 (“Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother — a mother to me also”), though whether this is the same person is uncertain. The name Alexander also appears in Acts 19:33, 1 Timothy 1:20, and 2 Timothy 4:14, but there is no clear link to Simon’s family.

In Matthew 27:32-35, the author follows Mark’s outline but drops the names of Simon’s sons:

After mocking him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, ...

Matthew changes the drink from wine mixed with myrrh to wine mixed with gall (a bitter substance) perhaps alluding to Psalm 69:21 (“for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink”).

In Luke 23:26-33, the author retains Simon’s name and origin but adjusts the presentation::

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. ... When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

Luke omits the wine altogether and emphasises that Simon follows behind Jesus: an image that may deliberately evoke the call to discipleship (“Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple,” Luke 14:27). Luke also expands the scene with a long speech by Jesus to the “Daughters of Jerusalem” (23:27–31), warning them of future calamities.

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus.

A great number of the people followed him, and among them were women who were beating their breasts and wailing for him.

But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For the days are surely coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed.’ Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ For if they do this when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”

Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him.

When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

Historically, it is unlikely Roman soldiers escorting a condemned man would permit extended public discourse, but for Luke this interlude serves a theological and prophetic purpose.

In John 19:16–18, Simon disappears entirely:

Then [Pilate] handed him over to them to be crucified.

So they took Jesus, and carrying the cross by himself he went out to what is called the Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha. There they crucified him and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

In John’s account, Jesus carries his own cross, with no mention of outside help and no crowd interaction. This fits John’s portrayal of Jesus as fully in control of his destiny, striding toward the crucifixion without aid or interruption.

The differences in these accounts are striking:

Mark presents Simon with specific family connections, perhaps to tie the story to known believers.
Matthew streamlines the account, changes the drink, and drops the sons’ names.
Luke retains Simon but reshapes the scene into a theological tableau, with Simon literally “following” Jesus and Jesus addressing Jerusalem’s women.
John omits Simon altogether, keeping the focus on Jesus’s solitary, purposeful journey to the cross.

Whether Simon of Cyrene was a historical figure remembered by name or a literary device serving the evangelists’ different theological agendas remains uncertain. In any case, the trajectory from Mark to John shows a steady movement away from the specific personal detail toward a more controlled, symbolic presentation of Jesus’s final walk to Golgotha.

Common apologetics claims include the following:

Harmonization of John with the synoptics: Apologists often claim that there is no contradiction between John’s statement that Jesus “carried the cross by himself” (John 19:17) and the Synoptics’ statement that Simon carried it. They argue that Jesus began carrying the cross but, due to exhaustion, Simon was compelled to carry it part of the way. John, they say, simply omits Simon’s role. However, this finds no support in the Synoptic texts themselves. In Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26, the soldiers compel Simon to carry the cross as soon as the procession begins, with no indication that Jesus bore it even briefly. Luke’s account is especially clear: Simon is made to carry it behind Jesus, implying that Jesus walked ahead without the cross at all. Given the flogging and humiliation already inflicted, the soldiers may have judged him unfit to carry it from the outset or simply used Simon for expedience. John’s statement that Jesus went out “carrying the cross by himself” (John 19:17) is therefore not describing a different portion of the same journey but presenting an entirely different image — one where no other figure assists him. The contradiction is not over who “finished” the task, but over whether Simon of Cyrene carried the cross at all.
Different emphases, not different events: They suggest that each evangelist chose to focus on different aspects of the event for theological reasons. John wanted to emphasize Jesus’s determination and sovereignty, while the Synoptics wanted to show the physical burden and the role of Simon. However, this does not account for the fact that John’s omission is not neutral but part of a consistent Johannine pattern: removing moments that imply Jesus’s weakness or dependence. Here, theologically, Jesus remains in control. The Synoptics, by contrast, allow human frailty to appear: a man collapsing under the weight, needing help.
Luke’s theological reshaping: Apologists sometimes argue that Luke’s emphasis on Simon “following behind Jesus” (Luke 23:26) is merely an incidental detail and not significant; simply a picturesque way of describing the scene that does not alter the event’s historicity. However, this “follow behind” image is more than decorative language. It re-stages the scene to align with Luke’s distinctive theology of discipleship (“Whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple,” Luke 14:27). By placing Simon physically behind Jesus, Luke turns him into an unwitting model disciple, visually enacting the call to “follow” Jesus on the way to the cross. This is not a contradiction with Mark or Matthew, but it is a clear example of Luke adapting the tradition for theological purposes rather than simply relaying a bare historical record.
Matthew’s and Mark’s drink difference: The change from “wine mixed with myrrh” (Mark) to “wine mixed with gall” (Matthew) is harmonized by claiming that gall could have been a bitter form of myrrh or that Matthew is simply drawing on Psalm 69:21 to highlight fulfilment of prophecy. However, gall and myrrh are not the same substance. Gall is a generic term for bitterness, sometimes referring to bile or bitter herbs; myrrh is a resin with a distinctive fragrance. Matthew has deliberately replaced Mark’s detail, probably for scriptural allusion (Psalms 69:21). This is editorial shaping, not accidental variation.

In short, the apologetic claim that these accounts “fit together” ignores the literary and theological agendas of the evangelists. The differences are not just additive details but reflect deliberate reshaping, omission, and substitution — which cannot be harmonized without rewriting one or more of the accounts.

Across the synoptic gospels, Simon of Cyrene is introduced as the man compelled to carry Jesus’s cross, with Mark uniquely naming his sons Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21), suggesting an intended connection to the early Christian community. Matthew omits the sons, while Luke reworks the scene so that Simon carries the cross “behind” Jesus, aligning it with his theology of discipleship. John removes Simon entirely, having Jesus carry the cross by himself (John 19:17), which presents a significantly different image — one of solitary endurance, possibly to underscore Jesus’s sovereignty over his fate.

The differences are not minor embellishments but reflect each evangelist’s theological priorities. Mark likely preserves the earliest form of the tradition, including the personal detail about Simon’s family. Matthew streamlines the account. Luke reshapes it to convey a discipleship motif. John discards the shared tradition altogether, preferring a portrayal that fits his Christology. Apologetic attempts to harmonize the accounts often require assuming unmentioned events — such as Jesus carrying the cross partway before collapsing — but the Synoptic wording (“they compelled a passer-by”) gives no hint that Jesus ever bore it. The variations suggest that Simon’s role is less a fixed historical memory and more a flexible narrative element, adapted or omitted according to each author’s theological aims.

simon-of-cyrene

The two rebels

Jesus was almost certainly executed with two others convicted of sedition, for in Mark 15:27, it says:

And with him they crucified two rebels, one on his right and one on his left.

Then in Mark 15:32, it continues:

Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.

In Matthew, he is copying essentially verbatim from Mark, for in Matthew 27:38, it says:

Then two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.

Later, the author of Matthew continues to copy from Mark in Matthew 27:44, it says:

The rebels who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.

The phrase “the same way” refers to the previous verses, Matthew 27:39-43, which say:

Those who passed by derided him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.”

In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’ ”

In Luke, it starts in a similar manner, for in Luke 23:32-33, it says:

Two others also, who were criminals, were led away to be put to death with him. When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

Luke is copying from Mark, and note the repetition of the phrase “one on his right and one on his left” in all three gospels. The author, however, decides to deviate from Mark, for in Luke 23:39-43, there is a completely different story:

One of the criminals who were hanged there kept deriding [Jesus] and saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come in your kingdom.”

He replied, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Crucifixion is the punishment for sedition, so Mark and Matthew were correct: these two were, like Jesus, rebels. What rebel would say “we indeed have been condemned justly, for we are getting what we deserve for our deeds.” They were, like many other Judeans, fighting against the Roman overlords. The author of Luke, however, likely added this fanciful statement so that he could have that rebel then say “this man has done nothing wrong,” emphasizing the innocence of Jesus. After all, being a follower of someone who was executed for sedition is not likely to see one treated well by that same polity that executed for sedition the one who is being followed.

The author of John, not having a text to copy from, describes the execution slightly differently, for in John 19:18, it says:

There they crucified him and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

Note, it is not the “one on his right and one on his left” that appears in all three synoptic gospels. The author of John does not mention anyone mocking or taunting Jesus, and instead, has Jesus's closest women followers and the disciple who Jesus loved at the foot of the cross. The only subsequent reference to the two rebels relate to their accelerated death described in John 19:31-33:

Since it was the day of Preparation, the Jews did not want the bodies left on the cross during the Sabbath, especially because that Sabbath was a day of great solemnity. So they asked Pilate to have the legs of the crucified men broken and the bodies removed.

Then the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first and of the other who had been crucified with him.

But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

The author of John claims that this is to fulfill prophesy, but the verse referred to in Psalms 34:20 hardly refers to one person or the Messiah, but rather that verse, and many around it, refer to all those who are righteous, and it says:

Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them from them all.
He keeps all their bones; not one of them will be broken.

Thus, the author of John has these rebels further tortured before they die due to a misinterpretation of a psalm of David, although, perhaps the death was quicker.

Thus, Mark and Matthew have both rebels taunting Jesus, while Luke has only one taunting Jesus while the other repents in an act of subjugation, and finally, the author of John says nothing of anything these rebels said, only having their legs broken to speed their deaths so that Jesus would be spared this fate.

the-two-rebels

Bar (son of) Timaeus

In Mark 10:46-52, Jesus heals a blind beggar outside Jericho:

They came to Jericho.

As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho,

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.

When he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Many sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he cried out even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stood still and said, “Call him here.”

And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you.”

So throwing off his cloak, he sprang up and came to Jesus.

Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

The blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.”

Jesus said to him, “Go; your faith has made you well.”

Immediately he regained his sight and followed him on the way.

Bartimaeus has the distinction of being the only person healed by Jesus in the gospels whose name is given by Mark. The name is unusual: Bartimaeus combines the Aramaic bar (“son of”) with the Greek name Timaeus (Τίμαιος), derived from timē (“honour,” “value”). Greek names were common among Jews of the late Second Temple period, especially in cosmopolitan centres like Jericho, an important commercial hub and administrative centre under Herod. Such names might be adopted directly for prestige or because of phonetic similarity to Semitic names, but in this case there is no clear Hebrew or Aramaic equivalent, suggesting a straightforward Hellenistic origin. Mark’s double gloss, first in Aramaic, then in Greek (ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου), is unique in the gospel and suggests the evangelist was preserving a detail from tradition while ensuring his Greek-speaking audience understood it.

Jericho itself carries symbolic weight in Jewish memory as the first city conquered in Joshua’s campaign (Joshua 6), a threshold between the wilderness and the promised land. In Mark, the healing of Bartimaeus occurs as Jesus passes through Jericho on his final journey to Jerusalem, functioning almost like a symbolic “opening of eyes” before the climactic events of the passion.

The story is adapted in Matthew 20:29-34, but with notable alterations:

As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him.

There were two blind men sitting by the roadside.

When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!”

The crowd sternly ordered them to be quiet, but they shouted even more loudly, “Have mercy on us, Lord, Son of David!”

Jesus stood still and called them, saying, “What do you want me to do for you?”

They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.”

Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes.

Immediately they regained their sight and followed him.

The differences between Mark’s account of Bartimaeus and Matthew’s adaptation include:

Instead of Bartimaeus, Matthew has two unnamed blind beggars.
Three times Jesus is called “Lord” (κύριε), a title not used by Bartimaeus in Mark, although some older manuscripts omit the first occurrence.
Instead of declaring that their faith has made them well (as in Mark), Jesus touches their eyes, and they are healed without any statement about faith.

Matthew had access to the text of Mark, yet he alters the narrative in ways consistent with his broader editorial patterns. On other occasions he replaces a single individual in Mark with two: for example, Matthew 8:28 has “two men possessed by demons” where Mark 5:2 has “a man from the tombs with an unclean spirit.” One possible reason for this doubling is to satisfy the Deuteronomic requirement of “two witnesses” (Deut. 19:15), though Matthew also doubles the donkeys in Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2–7) where Mark 11:2–7 has one. The removal of the personal name may reflect Matthew’s preference for emphasizing the collective witness to Jesus’s messianic authority rather than the individual identity of the healed man.

Matthew omits both the crowd’s encouragement and any instruction from Jesus to bring the beggars. Instead, Jesus simply “stood still and called them” (Matt. 20:32), allowing the men to approach him without any intermediary. This streamlining keeps the focus entirely on the beggars’ persistence and Jesus’s immediate engagement with them, consistent with Matthew’s tendency to eliminate secondary characters or transitional actions that do not directly advance the theological point. By removing the crowd’s shifting role and any mediating action, Matthew presents a more direct and unbroken encounter between the petitioners and the Messiah, highlighting his readiness to respond to those who cry out for mercy.

Similarly, the story is adapted in Luke 18:35-43, again with notable alterations:

As he approached Jericho,

a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was happening.

They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Those who were in front sternly ordered him to be quiet, but he shouted even more loudly, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”

Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him, and

when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?”

He said, “Lord, let me see again.”

Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has saved you.”

Immediately he regained his sight and followed him, glorifying God, and

all the people, when they saw it, praised God.

The differences between Mark’s account of Bartimaeus and Luke’s adaptation include:

Luke keeps a single blind man but removes the name “Bartimaeus.”
Like Matthew, Luke has the man address Jesus as “Lord” (κύριε) rather than “Rabbi” (ῥαββουνί), and retains the statement that the man’s faith has saved him.
The most striking change is geographical: Luke places the encounter as Jesus is approaching Jericho (Luke 18:35) rather than as he is leaving the city (Mark 10:46; Matt. 20:29).

Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s detail in which the crowd calls to the blind man, “Take heart; get up, he is calling you” (Mark 10:49). This omission may be partly practical and partly theological. Narratively, Matthew and Luke both shorten the scene by removing elements that do not advance their particular emphases: Matthew moves directly from the initial exchange to Jesus’s question, while Luke focuses on Jesus ordering the man to be brought to him. Theologically, in Mark the crowd shifts from silencing the beggar to encouraging him, illustrating a reversal of attitude and perhaps symbolizing the change in response to Jesus’s mission. Matthew and Luke may have seen this as a secondary flourish rather than a necessary part of the core miracle story. By removing it, they streamline the account and avoid introducing an extra beat in the dialogue, keeping the focus tightly on the interaction between Jesus and the beggar(s).

Luke replaces the crowd’s encouragement with Jesus directly ordering the man to be brought to him (Luke 18:40). This subtle change shifts the agency from the crowd to Jesus, emphasizing his initiative and authority. In Luke’s telling, the healing begins with Jesus’s deliberate command rather than the crowd’s change of heart, aligning with the evangelist’s tendency to present Jesus as the central mover in scenes of compassion and restoration.

Luke’s shift in location may be due to paraphrasing the opening of Mark’s scene and unintentionally omitting the transition from entering to leaving the city:

They came to Jericho.

As he and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho,

Bartimaeus son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the roadside.

As he approached Jericho,

a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging.

The result is an internal tension in Luke’s narrative: the large crowd makes sense in Mark’s “leaving Jericho” context but is less natural before entering the city. Some apologists have suggested that Jesus passed between “old” and “new” Jericho, but the text itself offers no indication of this. Luke also adds characteristic narrative touches: the healed man glorifies God, and the surrounding crowd praises God (Luke 18:43), consistent with the evangelist’s emphasis on public expressions of worship. The omission of the personal name, as in Matthew, may reflect Luke’s preference for framing the healing as a representative act for the community rather than an event anchored to a known individual in early Christian memory.

When it comes to apologetics, some responses to the Bartimaeus discrepancies border on the comical. Matt Slick asserts that if two men were healed, then naturally one man was healed, so there is no contradiction; neatly sidestepping the fact that the setting changes from after leaving Jericho in Mark and Matthew to before entering Jericho in Luke. Joe McKeever is even more entertaining: after confidently explaining away other gospel inconsistencies, he meets this one and simply shrugs.

“What are we to make of this?
Short answer: nothing. It doesn’t bother me in the least. Sorry if my non-concern is of concern to readers.
My commentaries simply say, ‘There is no way to account for the discrepancies,’ and go on to other matters. That suits me just fine. This, for most of us, is a non-issue.”

In other words: if you cannot spin the contradiction into harmony, even with the most imaginative reconstruction, simply ignore it and declare it unimportant.

If you want to see clear plagiarism, here are all three in Koine Greek. Rather than copying each of the passages and highlighting the similarities, instead, this splits the narrative into parallel thoughts, with Mark in red, Matthew in blue, and Luke in black. Common words (taking into account number, as Matthew has two beggars) are in bold, while distinct words are subdued. Please note, of course words like "and" and place names are similar, but the similarity goes way beyond what one would expect if each author described the story in their own words. You will note that the words introduced by the authors of Matthew of Luke do not overlap except for Lord (κύριε ). One may claim that some of the phrases are similar because these are recording the words of the speakers; however, in this case, they should be the same, or at least similar: what Jesus said should not be affected by the surrounding context, and while he spoke Aramaic, and this is only a Greek translation, he would have used either the singular or the plural in Aramaic, and hence, the translation should be also either singular or plural and not both.

46 Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς Ἱερειχώ. καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ Ἱερειχὼ καὶ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄχλου ἱκανοῦ ὁ υἱὸς Τιμαίου Βαρτιμαῖος, τυφλὸς προσαίτης, ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν.
29 Καὶ ἐκπορευομένων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Ἱερειχὼ ἠκολούθησεν αὐτῷ ὄχλος πολύς. 30 καὶ ἰδοὺ δύο τυφλοὶ καθήμενοι παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν,
35 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν αὐτὸν εἰς Ἱερειχὼ τυφλός τις ἐκάθητο παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἐπαιτῶν. 36 ἀκούσας δὲ ὄχλου διαπορευομένου ἐπυνθάνετο τί εἴη τοῦτο.

47 καὶ ἀκούσας ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζαρηνός ἐστιν,

ἀκούσαντες ὅτι Ἰησοῦς παράγει,

37 ἀπήγγειλαν δὲ αὐτῷ ὅτι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος παρέρχεται.

In Mark and Matthew, the beggar or beggars heard (ἀκούσας or ἀκούσαντες), while in Luke he was told (ἀπήγγειλαν) by the crowd.

ἤρξατο κράζειν καὶ λέγειν· υἱὲ Δαυεὶδ Ἰησοῦ, ἐλέησόν με.
ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς Ἰησοῦ, υἱὲ Δαυείδ.
38 καὶ ἐβόησεν λέγων· Ἰησοῦ υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.

In Matthew, this version does not use the word "Lord" (κύριε ) to address Jesus.

48 καὶ ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ πολλοὶ ἵνα σιωπήσῃ. ὁ δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.
31 Ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ἐπετίμησεν αὐτοῖς ἵνα σιωπήσωσιν. οἱ δὲ μεῖζον ἔκραξαν λέγοντες· κύριε ἐλέησον ἡμᾶς, υἱὲ Δαυείδ.
39 Καὶ οἱ προάγοντες ἐπετίμων αὐτῷ ἵνα σιγήσῃ. αὐτὸς δὲ πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἔκραζεν· υἱὲ Δαυείδ, ἐλέησόν με.

49 καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· φωνήσατε αὐτόν.

n/a

40 Σταθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ἀχθῆναι πρὸς αὐτόν.

Mark has Jesus tell the crowd to bring him, while Luke orders the beggar be brought to him.

καὶ φωνοῦσιν τὸν τυφλὸν λέγοντες αὐτῷ· θάρσει, ἔγειρε, φωνεῖ σε. 50 ὁ δὲ ἀποβαλὼν τὸ ἱμάτιον αὐτοῦ ἀναπηδήσας ἦλθεν πρὸς τὸν Ἰησοῦν.
n/a

n/a

This is where in Mark, the crowd tells Bartimaeus to "take heart" and he throws off his cloak and springs up.

51 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν· τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω;
32 Καὶ στὰς ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐφώνησεν αὐτοὺς καὶ εἶπεν· τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν;
ἐγγίσαντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπηρώτησεν αὐτόν· 41 τί σοι θέλεις ποιήσω;

ὁ δὲ τυφλὸς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ῥαββουνί, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω.
33 λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· κύριε, ἵνα ἀνοιγῶσιν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ ἡμῶν.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· κύριε, ἵνα ἀναβλέψω.

In Mark, he addresses Jesus as "Rabbi" (ῥαββουνί), not "Lord".

52 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ὕπαγε, ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.
34 σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἥψατο τῶν ὀμμάτων αὐτῶν,
42 καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ· ἀνάβλεψον· ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε.

Remember that Matthew has Jesus explicitly touching the eyes of the blind men.

καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ.
καὶ εὐθέως ἀνέβλεψαν καὶ ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ.
43 καὶ παραχρῆμα ἀνέβλεψεν καὶ ἠκολούθει αὐτῷ δοξάζων τὸν θεόν.

n/a
n/a
καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἰδὼν ἔδωκεν αἶνον τῷ θεῷ.

If there was this much overlap in three essays written by three different students, they would be found guilty of plagiarism. Try this some time: have yourself and two of your friends watch the same event, independently write down what you saw, and see if you have this much--or even a small fraction of this much--overlap in your written statements about what you witnessed.

In Mark’s account, Bartimaeus is a uniquely named recipient of healing, remembered both in Aramaic and Greek, whose persistence leads Jesus to declare that his faith has saved him. Matthew and Luke both adapt the story to fit their own narrative and theological aims: Matthew doubles the beggar to two unnamed men, replaces “Rabbi” with “Lord,” and has Jesus heal by touch without reference to faith; Luke retains one man but removes the name, changes the setting to Jesus’s approach to Jericho, and reframes the interaction so that Jesus initiates the encounter. Both omit the detail of the crowd calling the man forward, either to streamline the narrative or to shift the focus more fully onto Jesus. The high degree of verbal overlap confirms literary dependence on Mark, while the selective changes show how each evangelist shaped inherited material to suit their purposes. The result is that the vivid, personal, and symbolically rich story in Mark becomes in Matthew and Luke a more generalised healing account, stripped of its named protagonist and some of its narrative texture. This makes Bartimaeus in Mark stand out not only as a remembered individual in the early tradition but also as an example of how gospel material was reshaped, sometimes at the cost of historical precision and detail, in the process of theological retelling.

bar-timaeus

Joseph ben Caiaphas

Joseph, the son of Caiaphas, was the high priest at the time of Jesus's execution. All of the gospel authors discuss the actions of and interactions with this individual. Relevant individuals are:

Ananus (or Annas) ben Seth, who was the high priest from 6 CE to 15 CE and was appointed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria who oversaw the transition of Judea from an ethnarch to a Roman province.
Ishmael ben Fabus was high priest from 15 CE to 16 CE.
Eleazar ben Ananus (the Ananus in 1) was high priest from 16 CE to 17 CE.
Simon ben Camithus who was the high priest from 17 CE to 18 CE, and
Joseph ben Caiaphas (married to a daughter of Ananus in 1) who was high priest from 18 CE to 36 CE.

Thus, Ananus was high priest for a decade, and Caiaphas (the son-in-law of Ananus) was high priest for even longer. It seems that Ananus continued to hold significant political power even after being deposed.

Mark

The author of Mark does not name the high priest, but does refer to him in Mark 14:53-65:

They took Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled.

Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest, and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death, but they found none.

For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree.

Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’ ”

But even on this point their testimony did not agree.

Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”

But he was silent and did not answer.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”

Jesus said, “I am, and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven.’ ”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?”

All of them condemned him as deserving death.

Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him,

“Prophesy!”

The guards also took him and beat him.

The very next verse, Mark 15:1 says

As soon as it was morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council. They bound Jesus, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate.

Matthew

The High Priest is first mentioned, and mentioned explicitly by name, by the author of Matthew in Matthew 26:3-5:

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the courtyard of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, and they conspired to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. But they said, “Not during the festival, or there may be a riot among the people.”

The author then continues in Matthew 26:57-68:

Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.

But Peter was following him at a distance, as far as the courtyard of the high priest, and going inside he sat with the guards in order to see how this would end.

Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death, but they found none, though many false witnesses came forward.

At last two came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’ ”

The high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?”

But Jesus was silent.

Then the high priest said to him, “I put you under oath before the living God, tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.”

Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, “He has blasphemed! Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What do you think?”

They answered, “He deserves death.”

Then they spat in his face and struck him, and some slapped him, saying,

“Prophesy to us, you Messiah! Who is it that struck you?”

Like Mark, the author of Matthew parallels what happened in Matthew 27:1-2:

When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.

Luke

The author of Luke first mentions the high priest in his introduction to John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-2:

In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

The author of Luke may be introducing another historical anacronism here: while Ananus clearly continued to hold political power, he was deposed a decade-and-a-half before the 15th year of Tiberius, and Caiaphas was high priest for well over a decade at this point. Interestingly, the author of Luke never refers to Caiaphas as the high priest, as we see below and later in the Book of Acts.

In Luke 22:54, we see what is written in the other gospels, but like Mark:

Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. But Peter was following at a distance.

Humorously, the first statement concerning Jesus's imprisonment in Luke is the last mentioned in Mark and Matthew, for in Luke 22:63-65, immediately after he was arrested at the Garden of Gethsemane, we have:

Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and kept asking him,

“Prophesy! Who is it who struck you?”

They kept heaping many other insults on him.

Next, in Luke, we have Jesus brought before the assembly in Luke 22:66-71:

When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council.

They said, “If you are the Messiah, tell us.”

He replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”

All of them asked, “Are you, then, the Son of God?”

He said to them, “You say that I am.”

Then they said, “What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!”

We then have Jesus brought before Pilate in Luke 23:1:

Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate.

John

In the gospel of John, the high priest is first mentioned immediately following the resurrection of Lazarus, an event not mentioned in any of the other gospels, where in John 15:45-53:

Many of the Jews, therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what Jesus did believed in him.

But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.

So the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the council and said, “What are we to do? This man is performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! You do not understand that it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed.”

He did not say this on his own, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was about to die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the dispersed children of God. So from that day on they planned to put him to death.

Caiaphas was high priest for almost two decades, so why the author refers to him being high priest "that year" suggests this author is a little confused. How did the author of John know of this prophesy from this high priest, and more importantly, if Caiaphas actually believed this, would he not have supported Jesus? If this is what he prophesized, and then actively seeks to kill Jesus, this is clearly suggesting that this high priest is explicitly working against the Judean people.

A much easier explanation is that Jesus was a charismatic itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee who was teaching the message of John the Baptist: that the Kingdom of Yahweh was coming soon. Jesus, however, seems to have begun to believe that he himself would usher in this new kingdom, journeyed to Jerusalem, disrupted the Temple activities surrounding the Passover, and had himself anointed. One of his disciples became disillusioned with Jesus's delusions of grandeur and informed the priests of Jesus having had himself anointed, so they turned him over to the Romans for sedition, and the Romans executed him like they do all traitors: they crucified him. There were many rebelling against the Roman occupation of Judea, some openly such as the Zealots, and others advocating more passive resistance, but while Jesus's message was one of repentance to prepare for the coming Kingdom of Yahweh, his interference in the Passover ceremonies put him in conflict with the high priest and Judean authorities in Jerusalem.

Then, in John 18:12-14:

So the soldiers, their officer, and the Jewish police arrested Jesus and bound him.

First they took him to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year.

Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people.

Next, in John 18:19-24, we have

Then the [former?] high priest [Annas?] questioned Jesus about his disciples and about his teaching.

Jesus answered, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together. I have said nothing in secret. Why do you ask me? Ask those who heard what I said to them; they know what I said.”

When he had said this, one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face, saying, “Is that how you answer the high priest?”

Jesus answered, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?”

Then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.

As Ananus sent Jesus to Caiphas, it seems that the high priest who questioned Jesus was Ananus; after all, Jesus was taken to Ananus.

Aside: High priests seem to be referred to by their father's name, and the three high priests after Caiaphas were all sons of Ananus (Jonathan, Theophilus and Matthias). Thus, while subsequent references to Ananus may refer to one of these, here it explicitly says that the Ananus being referred to is the father-in-law of Caiaphas, thus referring back to the person who held the high priesthood from 6 CE to 15 CE.

Finally, Jesus is brought before Pilate in John 18:28:

Then they took Jesus from Caiaphas to Pilate’s headquarters. It was early in the morning. They themselves did not enter the headquarters, so as to avoid ritual defilement and to be able to eat the Passover.

This is very important, for in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal the evening before the day he was crucified. Here, it is very clear that Jesus was arrested the evening before the Passover meal. The author of John wants Jesus to be executed at the same time that the Passover lambs are sacrificed and prepared for that evening Passover meal. The authors of the gospels cannot even agree on the date of Jesus's execution:

Was it the day after the Passover meal, as in Mark, Matthew and Luke; or
was it in the hours before the Passover meal, as in John?

To be clear, I am using "day" to refer to the modern day starting at midnight. In Judean traditions, the day starts at sunset. The lamb is sacrificed while the sun is shining, so the Passover meal occurs that evening on the next "day."

Thus, even with respect to the events surrounding the high priest, the gospels cannot agree and are horribly confused. The order of events in Mark are as follows:

Jesus had eaten the Passover meal with his disciples, goes to the Garden of Gethsemane, and is arrested.
After his arrest, Jesus is taken to the high priest and the Sanhedrin, while Peter remained outside in the courtyard of the high priest.
During the trial, Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy.
He is held, blindfolded, and struck.
When morning comes, they take Jesus to Pilate.

The order of events in Matthew parallel those in Mark, so the author of Matthew faithfully copied what he was reading in Mark, in some cases, almost verbatim:

δήσαντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἀπήνεγκαν καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ

καὶ δήσαντες αὐτὸν ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ τῷ ἡγεμόνι

Mark refers to "Jesus", while Matthew changed this to "him" and appends the words "the governor" after the name Pilate.

The author of Luke, on the other hand, rearranges the events:

Jesus had eaten the Passover meal with his disciples, goes to the Garden of Gethsemane, and is arrested.
After his arrest, Jesus brought to the "house of the high priest", held, blindfolded, and struck.
Only in the morning is Jesus brought on trial before the Sanhedrin.
During the trial, Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy and is taken to Pilate.

The events recorded by the author of John are even more different:

Jesus goes to the Garden of Gethsemane and is arrested.
After his arrest, he is brought Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas.
There, Jesus is questioned by Annas and is struck.
Jesus is then bound and sent to Caiaphas but there is no mention of a trial.
Jesus is taken to Pilate, and the Passover meal is to be eaten that evening.

While the author of Matthew faithfully copied from Mark, the author of Luke changed the order of the events (for example, moving the trial to the morning), and the author of John introduces Annas, the former high priest, and does not even describe a trial. Additionally, the synoptic gospels have Jesus and his disciples eating the Passover meal before his arrest, while in John, the Passover meal is to be eaten the evening after Jesus is turned over to Pilate.

The author of Luke continues to describe the actions and interactions with the high priest in the Book of Acts. In each case, the story's goal is to denigrate the high priest.

In Acts 4:5-6, it says:

The next day their rulers, elders, and scribes assembled in Jerusalem, with Annas the high priest, Caiaphas, John [Jonathan?], and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family.

Recall that Mark did not name the high priest, and the author of Luke did not name the high priest, either, but here we see that same author name Ananus as high priest, and only lists Caiaphas as one of his family. The next high priest was Jonathan ben Ananus (36 CE to 37 CE), but this may be the John referred to as one with Caiaphas and the high priest. Theophilus ben Ananus was high priest from 37 CE to 41 CE. Both of these were sons of Ananus, and hence, may be the "Annas the high priest" referred to above.

Awkward aside: The author of Luke has Jesus was born in 6 CE and has that Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. The author of Luke says that John the Baptist started in the 15th year of Tiberius, which would be 28 CE; however, Jesus could have been 30 years old in 36 CE, in which case, the author of Luke may actually believe that Jesus's execution was under the rule of the high priest Theophilus ben Ananus, a person who, interestingly enough, is the person to whom the books of Luke and Acts are addressed to. Pilate was governor up until 36 CE. Additionally, given that Caiaphas and John appear to be mentioned next to Annas the high priest, the only name not mentioned is Theophilus, or possibly, the author of Acts was simply relying on incorect dates and names.

Acts 5:17-42 (most of the chapter) deals with an interaction between the apostles and the high priest:

Then the high priest took action; he and all who were with him (that is, the sect of the Sadducees), being filled with jealousy, arrested the apostles and put them in the public prison. But during the night an angel of the Lord opened the prison doors, brought them out, and said, “Go, stand in the temple and tell the people the whole message about this life.” When they heard this, they entered the temple at daybreak and went on with their teaching.

When the high priest and those with him arrived, they called together the council and the whole body of the elders of Israel and sent to the prison to have them brought. But when the temple police went there, they did not find them in the prison, so they returned and reported, “We found the prison securely locked and the guards standing at the doors, but when we opened them we found no one inside.” Now when the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these words, they were perplexed about them, wondering what might be going on. Then someone arrived and announced, “Look, the men whom you put in prison are standing in the temple and teaching the people!” Then the captain went with the temple police and brought them, but without violence, for they were afraid of being stoned by the people.

When they had brought them, they had them stand before the council. The high priest questioned them, saying, “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than any human authority. The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that he might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him.”

When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them. But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, “Fellow Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him, but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!”

They were convinced by him, and when they had called in the apostles, they had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and let them go. As they left the council, they rejoiced that they were considered worthy to suffer dishonor for the sake of the name. And every day in the temple and at home they did not cease to teach and proclaim Jesus as the Messiah.

The high priest is mentioned again in the stoning of Stephen, in Acts 6:8-15 and Acts 7:

Stephen, full of grace and power, did great wonders and signs among the people. Then some of those who belonged to the synagogue of the Freedmen (as it was called), Cyrenians, Alexandrians, and others of those from Cilicia and Asia, stood up and argued with Stephen. But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he spoke. Then they secretly instigated some men to say, “We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses and God.” They stirred up the people as well as the elders and the scribes; then they suddenly confronted him, seized him, and brought him before the council. They set up false witnesses who said, “This man never stops saying things against this holy place and the law, for we have heard him say that this Jesus of Nazareth will destroy this place and will change the customs that Moses handed on to us.” And all who sat in the council looked intently at him, and they saw that his face was like the face of an angel.

7 Then the high priest asked him, “Are these things so?” And Stephen replied:

“Brothers and fathers, listen to me. [Long history of the patriarchs...] You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you are forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do. Which of the prophets did your ancestors not persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, and now you have become his betrayers and murderers. You are the ones who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet you have not kept it.”

When they heard these things, they became enraged and ground their teeth at Stephen.

But filled with the Holy Spirit, he gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. “Look,” he said, “I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!”

But they covered their ears, and with a loud shout all rushed together against him. Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him, and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

While they were stoning Stephen, he prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

Then he knelt down and cried out in a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”

When he had said this, he died.

This introduces Saul, who would later change his name to Paul. Saul then approaches the high priest in Acts 9:1-2:

Meanwhile Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any who belonged to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

After Paul's conversion, he travels to Jerusalem and is arrested at the temple for causing a disturbance, and is held by a Roman tribune, a rank above that of a centurion. When it is told that Paul claims to be a Roman citizen, the tribune puts him in front of the Sanhedrin in Acts 22:30 and 23:1-10:

Since he wanted to find out what Paul was being accused of by the Jews, the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and the entire council to meet. He brought Paul down and had him stand before them.

While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.” Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth. At this Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest, for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.’ ”

When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection or angel or spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” When the dissension became violent, the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks.

This drama with Paul continues with Acts 24:1-9, but now the high preist is named:

Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney, a certain Tertullus, and they reported their case against Paul to the governor. When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying:

“Because of you, most excellent Felix, we have long enjoyed peace, and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. In every way and everywhere we welcome this with utmost gratitude. But, to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple, so we seized him. By examining him yourself you will be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him.”

The Jews also joined in the charge by asserting that all this was true.

joseph-ben-caiaphas

Nicodemus

Nicodemus is an unusual figure in the gospel narratives. He is absent from all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), which strongly suggests that he was not part of the early shared traditions, such as the hypothetical Q source, available to their authors. The only evangelist to mention him is the author of John, writing more than half a century after the execution of Jesus. If Nicodemus were a real and significant figure, it is puzzling that the earliest written accounts make no reference to him.

The first appearance of Nicodemus is in John 3:1-21. The passage contains one of the most frequently quoted verses in Christian preaching (John 3:16) but the surrounding dialogue reveals more than is often appreciated:

Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a leader of the Jews.

He came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with that person.”

Jesus answered him, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?”

Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand these things? Very truly, I tell you, we speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen, yet you do not receive our testimony. If I have told you about earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you about heavenly things? No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life. Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned, but those who do not believe are condemned already because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.”

The opening statement identifies Nicodemus as a member of the Sanhedrin: one of the seventy-one elders who held the highest legal and religious authority in Jerusalem. That status would make him and Joseph of Arimathea two of the most powerful figures mentioned in any gospel, only subordinate to Pontius Pilate and the high priest. Yet none of the other evangelists record his name, which raises a question: if such a prominent figure had met with Jesus and later defended him, would this story not have circulated widely among the earliest Christian communities? Recall that the core of the gospel of John was penned around 95 CE (±5 years), with the last chapter being added as late as 110 CE, and was written well after the destruction of the Temple and after the synoptic tradition had matured.

The dialogue also reveals a linguistic puzzle. In Greek, the word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) is a homonym that can mean either “from above” or “again.” Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be born anōthen to see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus chooses the meaning “again,” prompting his question about re-entering the womb.

“Can one enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born?”

Jesus then clarifies that he means “from above,” by being “born of water and Spirit.”

“no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’ The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

In Aramaic, the language Jesus and Nicodemus almost certainly spoke, these two meanings are expressed by different words, making such a misunderstanding improbable. This suggests the conversation, as recorded, may be a literary construction by the author of John to convey a theological point through wordplay possible only in Greek.

Nicodemus appears again in John John 7:45-52, speaking in defence of due process when the Sanhedrin discusses arresting Jesus.

Then the temple police went back to the chief priests and Pharisees, who asked them, “Why did you not arrest him?”

The police answered, “Never has anyone spoken like this!”

Then the Pharisees replied, “Surely you have not been deceived, too, have you? Has any one of the authorities or of the Pharisees believed in him? But this crowd, which does not know the law, they are accursed.”

Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus before and who was one of them, asked, “Our law does not judge people without first giving them a hearing to find out what they are doing, does it?”

They replied, “Surely you are not also from Galilee, are you? Search and you will see that no prophet is to arise from Galilee.”

This exchange was, by its nature, a private meeting; if historical, the author of John or an intermediary could only have learned of it from Nicodemus himself. Yet, again, there is no record of this intervention in the earlier gospels.

The final appearance of Nicodemus is in John 19:38-42, at the burial of Jesus:

After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission, so he came and removed his body.

Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews.

Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.

Here he joins Joseph of Arimathea, bringing an extraordinary gift of about one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes. The two wrap Jesus’s body with the spices in linen, in accordance with Jewish burial customs. This account diverges sharply from the synoptic narratives, in which Joseph of Arimathea acts alone, no spices are used at the burial, and the women return after the Sabbath to anoint the body:

Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, ... Then Joseph bought a linen cloth and, taking down the body, wrapped it in the linen cloth and laid it in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock. He then rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was laid. When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him.
When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph, who also was himself a disciple of Jesus... So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God... Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the Sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned and prepared spices and ointments.

In John’s account, the burial is so lavishly perfumed, with about one hundred pounds of myrrh and aloes provided by Nicodemus, that any later visit to anoint the body would be unnecessary. Yet John still records Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb, without acknowledging this inconsistency. The synoptic gospels, by contrast, mention numerous witnesses to the burial but make no reference to Nicodemus or his extravagant gift. In all three synoptics, Jesus’s body is wrapped in a linen cloth with no spices or ointments applied at the time, and in two of the three (Mark and Luke) the women, including Mary Magdalene, bring perfumes and ointments to the tomb on the morning after the Sabbath. In John, however, Mary Magdalene comes alone and empty-handed, with no mention of bringing any spices or perfumes.

Taken together, these observations suggest that Nicodemus may be a literary creation unique to the Johannine tradition, serving theological and symbolic purposes, such as illustrating a journey from initial misunderstanding (“born again”) to cautious defence (John 7) to open devotion (John 19). The silence of the synoptics, despite Nicodemus’s supposed prominence, makes his historicity doubtful and underscores the distinctive theological aims of the last gospel.

Additionally, the name Nicodemus (Greek: Νικόδημος; Hebrew/Aramaic: נקדימון, Nakdimon) is rare in sources from the Second Temple period. Surveys of contemporary inscriptions, papyri, and literary records show almost no attestations beyond one figure preserved in later rabbinic tradition. This rarity makes the Johannine Nicodemus stand out: the name would not have been one that appeared by coincidence with the frequency of more common names such as Joseph, Simon, or Mary.

The only other known bearer of the name in Jewish tradition is Nakdimon ben Gorion, a wealthy Jerusalem notable remembered for his generosity and piety. The Babylonian Talmud (Taʿanit 19b-20a) recounts how, during a drought, Nakdimon secured water from a Roman official in exchange for a vast sum of silver, with repayment waived if rain fell before a fixed deadline. At the last moment, clouds burst and filled the reservoirs, and when the Roman protested that it was too late in the day, Nakdimon prayed again, whereupon the sun broke through: a miracle from which, the tradition says, he gained his name (“before whom the sun shone”). Other sources (Gittin 56a; Lamentations Rabbah 1:5) describe him as one of three fabulously wealthy men whose grain, oil, and wood stores could have sustained Jerusalem for years during the Roman siege of 70 CE. When Zealot factions burned these storehouses to force the population into open war, Nakdimon was ruined, and in later rabbinic memory he died in poverty, his family reduced to gathering animal fodder for food.

This timeline does not align with the Gospel of John’s portrayal. In John, Nicodemus speaks with Jesus as a member of the Sanhedrin at least a year before Jesus’s death (c. 30 CE). Nakdimon ben Gorion, by contrast, is presented in rabbinic sources as a lay aristocrat, not a Sanhedrin member, whose defining actions took place during or shortly before the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, forty years after Jesus’s execution. While nothing in the rabbinic accounts explicitly rules out his being alive in 30 CE, the chronological and social contexts make the identification improbable.

Some Christian apologists have argued that the Johannine Nicodemus and the rabbinic Nakdimon ben Gorion are the same person. They point to the shared rarity of the name, the association with wealth (cf. John 19:39’s lavish burial spices), and the possibility that Nakdimon’s standing could have given him access to the Sanhedrin. Critical scholarship, however, notes several problems: the difference in social role (aristocratic benefactor vs. Sanhedrin member), the chronological gap between Jesus’s ministry and Nakdimon’s prominence in siege narratives, and the complete absence of any mention of Jesus in the rabbinic material. Moreover, the Gospel of John’s theological wordplay in Greek (John 3:3, ἄνωθεν “from above”/“again”) and the symbolic progression of Nicodemus’s appearances suggest a primarily literary, not historical, function.

A more plausible, though still speculative, explanation is that the author of John, writing a quarter-century or more after the fall of Jerusalem (c. 95 CE), knew of the legendary Nakdimon ben Gorion. By that time, stories of his miraculous prayer for rain and his generosity during the siege could have circulated widely among Jewish and Jewish-Christian circles, elevating him to near-folk-hero status. Adopting his rare and evocative name for a sympathetic Jewish figure in the narrative could give the gospel an added layer of cultural resonance, casting Nicodemus as a respected elder who gradually moves from hesitant inquiry to public honour of Jesus. While this cannot be demonstrated with certainty, the combination of the name’s rarity, the symbolic structure of the Johannine narrative, and the timing of the gospel’s composition make such an influence plausible.

Nicodemus’s prominence in John is all the more striking when set against the broader gospel tradition. The synoptic gospels rarely name Pharisees at all; they are generally portrayed as an undifferentiated group in conflict with Jesus. Named individuals from the Pharisaic movement are exceptionally rare, and when they do appear (such as Gamaliel in Acts or Joseph of Arimathea in the burial accounts) they are almost always tied to moments of unusual sympathy toward Jesus or his followers. In the synoptic gospels, no Pharisee is given a recurring, three-scene arc as Nicodemus has in John. This makes his inclusion doubly unusual: not only does he bear a rare name with strong associations in Jewish memory, but he also breaks from the generic portrayal of Pharisees to become a distinctive, sympathetic personality. From a critical standpoint, this combination suggests deliberate literary shaping rather than the simple preservation of historical reminiscence.

Nicodemus, as portrayed in the Gospel of John, is almost certainly a literary creation rather than a historical figure. His absence from all earlier gospel traditions, the extreme rarity of his name in the Second Temple period, and the lack of any plausible identification with the later Nakdimon ben Gorion of rabbinic literature all weigh against his historicity. Instead, his role fits the narrative needs of John’s author: as a learned yet puzzled interlocutor, he prompts Jesus to articulate key theological claims, most notably the “born from above” discourse in John 3, in direct speech. By placing these statements in a dialogue, rather than as the evangelist’s own commentary, the author lends them the immediacy and authority of Jesus’s own voice, while also using Nicodemus’s gradual movement from secrecy to public honor as a symbolic model for belief.

nicodemus

abiathar

Abiathar

In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees after his disciples pluck grain on the Sabbath:

One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”

And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?” Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”

The historical reference raises a problem. The incident Jesus cites is recorded in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where the high priest is Ahimelech, not Abiathar:

David came to Nob to the priest Ahimelech.

Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?”

David said to the priest Ahimelech, “The king has charged me with a matter and said to me, ‘No one must know anything of the matter about which I send you and with which I have charged you.’ I have made an appointment with the young men for such and such a place. Now then, what have you at hand? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever is here.”

The priest answered David, “I have no ordinary bread at hand, only holy bread—provided that the young men have kept themselves from women.”

David answered the priest, “Indeed, women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?”

So the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the Lord, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

Ahimelech was helping David against Saul, and Saul came to know of this, and in the next chapter, Saul has Ahimelech, his family, the priests of Nob (those who wore the linen ephod), and many of those living in Nob killed in 2 Samuel 22 18-19:

Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests; on that day he killed eighty-five who wore the linen ephod. Nob, the city of the priests, he put to the sword; men and women, children and infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep, he put to the sword.

The story continues with verses 20-23, where one priest survives this slaughter:

But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David. Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of the Lord.

David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the lives of all your father’s house. Stay with me, and do not be afraid, for the one who seeks my life seeks your life; you will be safe with me.”

Abiathar subsequently becomes high priest under David. In all other biblical references, Ahimelech is the father and Abiathar the son, except for two later texts (2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chronicles 24:6) where the names are reversed; a likely scribal error, though some harmonisations propose the improbable idea that father and son shared the double name Ahimelech-Abiathar.

Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests; Seraiah was secretary...
..., and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar, ...

Mark’s wording therefore appears historically inaccurate. In the Greek, the phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως (“in the time of Abiathar the high priest”) could mean “in the days of Abiathar” rather than “when Abiathar was high priest,” but the natural reading suggests the latter. Critical scholarship generally sees this as either a slip of memory in oral tradition or a minor historical error by Mark.

As for the initial offence that brought this up, this is once again, often misunderstood by many followers of Jesus. The covenant forbids doing “work” on the Sabbath, and yet the law is not an absolute: it would be reasonable that if there was an unforeseen emergency that work would be permitted on the Sabbath (and that work would be obligatory if it was necessary to save a life or pikuach nefesh), but if it is simply a matter of not preparing for the Sabbath, then that would not be grounds for doing work. Now, the covenant is vague as to what is and what is not "work," but over time, eating was not considered work, but gathering crops and selecting seeds from the chaff was. The disciples failure to prepare for the Sabbath does not justify gathering crops and separating seeds from the chaff. Jesus, however, was teaching that the kingdom of Yahweh was coming soon, and he expected it to come in his lifetime, and Jesus also simplified the rules necessary to keep the covenant, repeating statements from other rabbis before him such as the "golden rule" as stated by Hillel the Elder. With the coming of the kingdom, Jesus seems to have felt it was more important to keep the overall intent of the covenant as opposed to spending time worrying about the details: in Mark 12:29-31, it is recorded that Jesus said “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Now, this story is copied from Mark by both the authors of Matthew and Luke, and immediately following this pericope in all three gospels is the story where Jesus heals a person with a withered hand. However, in copying this specific pericope, those authors left out the name of the high priest; perhaps because they recognized the error or perhaps because this detail was not significant. Here are all three accounts, with the statements coming from Mark, Matthew and Luke, respectively:

One Sabbath he was going through the grain fields, and as they made their way his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
The Pharisees said to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food, how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions?”

At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the Sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
When the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”
He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God, and they ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests? ...

One Sabbath while Jesus was going through some grain fields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them.
But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”
Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? How he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?”

23 Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. 24 καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 25 Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυεὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν

1 Ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ ἐπορεύθη ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοῖς σάββασιν διὰ τῶν σπορίμων· οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπείνασαν καὶ ἤρξαντο τίλλειν στάχυας καὶ ἐσθίειν. 2 οἱ δὲ Φαρισαῖοι ἰδόντες εἶπαν αὐτῷ· ἰδοὺ οἱ μαθηταί σου ποιοῦσιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν ἐν σαββάτῳ. 3 Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυεὶδ ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ *** καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις;

1 Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν σαββάτῳ διαπορεύεσθαι αὐτὸν διὰ σπορίμων, καὶ ἔτιλλον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἤσθιον τοὺς στάχυας ψώχοντες ταῖς χερσίν. 2 τινὲς δὲ τῶν Φαρισαίων εἶπον· τί ποιεῖτε ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν τοῖς σάββασιν; 3 καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς πρὸς αὐτοὺς εἶπεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς· οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ; ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ***, καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως λαβὼν ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔδωκεν τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς; 5 καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· κύριός ἐστιν τοῦ σαββάτου ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.

When Matthew (12:1-8) and Luke (6:1-5) adapt this pericope from Mark, they both omit the name “Abiathar.” Whether this is because they recognised the historical problem or because the name was unimportant to their point is unclear. Luke reproduces Mark’s phrasing almost verbatim apart from the name, while Matthew alters the dialogue and adds a new saying (“I desire mercy, not sacrifice”) from Hosea 6:6, sharpening the critique of the Pharisees.

Or have you not read in the law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and yet are guiltless? I tell you, something greater than the temple is here. But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.

All three conclude with Jesus’s declaration of authority over the Sabbath, but only Mark includes the aphorism “The Sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the Sabbath.”:

Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for humankind and not humankind for the Sabbath, so the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”
For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”
Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”

The removal of “Abiathar” in Matthew and Luke is one of the clearer examples of synoptic redaction smoothing over a potential difficulty in Mark’s text. It also underscores how the gospel writers, even when drawing on a shared tradition, were selective in retaining historical names, especially when those names might distract from the theological point of the episode.

Abiathar’s career in the Deuteronomistic history (1-2 Samuel; 1 Kings) gives him a much larger political and religious profile than his father Ahimelech. After escaping Saul’s massacre of the priests, Abiathar becomes the sole surviving priest from the sanctuary at Nob and aligns himself with David during his years as a fugitive in 1 Sam. 22:20-23:

But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David. Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of the Lord. David said to Abiathar, “I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the lives of all your father’s house. Stay with me, and do not be afraid, for the one who seeks my life seeks your life; you will be safe with me.”

As David’s supporter, Abiathar serves as high priest throughout David’s reign, often in partnership with Zadok, as described in 2 Samuel 8:17:

Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests; Seraiah was secretary.

Here, the text likely reverses the names (in most narratives Abiathar is the father, Ahimelech the son) but the tradition firmly places Abiathar at the heart of David’s royal court. He is a political actor as much as a religious official, supporting David during Absalom’s revolt (2 Samuel 15:24-29) and later backing Adonijah’s unsuccessful claim to the throne against Solomon (1 Kings 1:7). For this, Solomon deposes him and replaces him with Zadok as told in 1 Kings 2:27:

So Solomon expelled Abiathar from being priest of the Lord, thus fulfilling the word of the Lord that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.

This arc (from survivor of persecution, to trusted priest of the idealised king, to politically embroiled exile) made Abiathar a much more recognisable figure in Jewish memory than his father Ahimelech.

For the author of Mark, invoking Abiathar rather than Ahimelech may have been intentional: Abiathar’s name could evoke the Davidic court and the authority of a priest closely linked to Israel’s greatest king. In this way, the allusion reinforces the comparison between David’s prerogatives and Jesus’s authority over the Sabbath. Even if historically misplaced, “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” may have functioned for Mark’s audience as shorthand for the Davidic era’s religious leadership, lending rhetorical weight to Jesus’s argument.

The reference to “Abiathar the high priest” in Mark 2:26 is one of the more debated historical difficulties in the gospels. The biblical account in 1 Samuel identifies Ahimelech, not Abiathar, as the priest who gave David the bread of the Presence, with Abiathar only appearing later as his son who escaped Saul’s massacre and subsequently became high priest under David. Matthew and Luke, both using Mark as a source, retain the basic Sabbath controversy story but omit the name altogether, smoothing over a detail that would be identified as being false. While many scholars view Mark’s wording as a simple error in oral tradition or redaction, another possibility is that the evangelist intentionally chose Abiathar because his name resonated more strongly with the Davidic monarchy and the image of a priest allied to Israel’s ideal king. For a first-century audience, the phrase “in the time of Abiathar” could serve as a rhetorical anchor to the Davidic era, reinforcing the analogy between David’s authority over sacred provision and Jesus’s authority over the Sabbath, even if the historical precision was sacrificed for the sake of narrative force.

Tyre and Sidon

These are two major cities within Phoenicia, or more correctly, the Roman province of Syria.

Even as early as Mark 3, we have reports that knowledge of Jesus's miracles were so widespread that people were coming from all over Canaan, including in Mark 3:7-8:

Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from

Judea,
Jerusalem,
Idumea,
beyond the Jordan, and
the region around Tyre and Sidon.

After this, Jesus calls the twelve disciples.

Idumea is the region also known as Edom, the land south of Beersheba. Phonecia is to the north, in what today is Lebanon. And yet, we will see that the three settlements closest to where Jesus lived rejected his message. Would not Capernaum, Chorazin and Bethsaida, where if only 10 people were miraculously healed, then 10% of the population would be related to someone who had a debilitating physical deformity healed, or a skin disease, or a withered hand: Jesus lived there for at least a year, and would he not have healed at least one person per week? It's farcical to believe that an actual god performing actual miracles is ignored when Benny Hinn has orders of magnitude more followers than Jesus himself.

In Mark 7:24-31, it says:

From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre.

He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet.

Now the woman was a gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.

He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

And when she went home, she found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone.

Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went by way of Sidon toward the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.

This is the god who created the world, the god who knew while creating angels that some would turn against him, the god who knew before he came to Earth that this woman's daughter would be possesses by one of these angels he created, and this god is making her grovel in front of him, calling herself a “dog”? It was not for faith that her daughter was healed, but for that woman calling herself a “dog.” And so many would claim that Jesus was benevolent and caring and kind for this action towards a Phoenician woman.

Recall that Jesus said that no prophet is accepted in his hometown, in this case, Nazareth. The people of Nazareth saw this person grow up, and understood who he is. Now, the three settlements where Jesus is performing all these miracles, the three settlements where if Jesus had actually miraculously healed just ten people, then likely 10% of the population almost certainly had someone in their family healed of a diseases or mental-health disorder or deformity or other issue, but like Nazareth, these three towns, the three closest to where Jesus based his ministry, had no interest in his message, apparently. In Matthew 11:21-23, we have Jesus being rejected by those living where he based his ministry:

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, on the day of judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”

In Matthew 15:21-29, we have a repetition of the story in Mark:

Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon.

Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.”

But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, “Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.”

He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”

He answered, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

And her daughter was healed from that moment.

After Jesus had left that place, he passed along the Sea of Galilee, and he went up the mountain, where he sat down.

At least the author of Matthew has more ethical consideration than the author of Mark, for the author of Matthew changes the words of Jesus: the woman's daughter is being healed on account of her faith. She was, however, forced to grovel and call herself a “dog.” Just like Mark, Jesus travelled almost one hundred miles in both directions, and while previously saying how had all the miracles he did in Capernaum been done in Tyre and Sidon, then they would have "repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." Yet, now Jesus is in Tyre and Sidon, and seems to do nothing.

However, not only is this statement changed, the entire sense of what Jesus said was changed. If these books were inerrant, would they not contain at least similar phraseology, taking into account translation variations into Greek?

In Mark, Jesus says:

“Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

“For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.”

In Matthew, Jesus says:

“I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

“It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

“Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.”

These are not issues of a translation from Aramaic to Koine Greek, but rather, completely different words and ideas. Additionally, the reason that one does not feed dogs before children is that food is, under certain circumstances, a finite and limited resource: if you had a limited amount of food, and you had a choice between feeding your children, and feeding your dogs, it would be unethical to feed the dogs first; after all, dogs are not even dependent on their owners: a dog can go out and find food elsewhere, while children are entirely dependent on their parents. This passage suggests that the grace of Yahweh is somehow limited, and that by giving some grace to a gentile means that others will be deprived of that grace.

Finally, for entertainment, the phrase “to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” appears in both:

οὐ γάρ ἐστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ τοῖς κυναρίοις βαλεῖν

οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις

The word κυναρίοις is translated as dogs. At least this phrase was copied essentially verbatim by the author of Matthew from Mark.

In Luke, Sidon is first mentioned in relation to Jesus being chased out of Nazareth, for in Luke 4:24-27, it says:

And he said, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in his hometown. But the truth is, there were many widows in Israel in the time of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months and there was a severe famine over all the land, yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. There were also many with a skin disease in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”

Jesus, having lived in Nazareth for approximately thirty years, and being sinless that entire time, yet the people of Nazareth (with a population of a few hundred) were simply unaware that this person living in their midst never once did something sinful, that this one person, who at the age of 10 was amazing priests in Jerusalem, should have likely said at least something interesting in those thirty years. In reality, he was probably just another charismatic iterant preacher who was as human for those thirty years as everyone else. If you were living with a perfect and sinless god for thirty years as a next-door neighbor, you'd probably notice...

Next, in Luke, Jesus first calls the disciples and only then do we have a parallel for what is said in Mark 3 (where the disciples are called hereafter), so in Luke 6:17-19, we have:

He came down with them and stood on a level place with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from

all Judea,
Jerusalem, and
the coast of Tyre and Sidon.

They had come to hear him and to be healed of their diseases, and those who were troubled with unclean spirits were cured. And everyone in the crowd was trying to touch him, for power came out from him and healed all of them.

Then, in Luke 10:13-16, we have a copy of what was said in Matthew (and thus, from the common Q source):

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the deeds of power done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. 14 Indeed, at the judgment it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 15 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be brought down to Hades. Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

Yes, the settlements all around where Jesus lived for almost a year, and where, had he healed just one person a week, he would have affected the lives of almost everyone in those settlements, either directly, or a close family member or relative; and yet, these are the exact people who rejected Jesus and his message, just like the people of Nazareth who grew up with Jesus rejected him, too.

The author of Luke continues in Acts to refer a few times to Tyre, and first in relation to the death of Herod Agrippa in Acts 12:20-23:

Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon. So they came to him in a body, and after winning over Blastus, the king’s personal attendant, they asked for a reconciliation, because their country depended on the king’s country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat on the platform, and delivered a public address to them. The people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a mortal!” And immediately, because he had not given the glory to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

This is not, however, what apparently happened: Herod Agrippa patronized and presided over the the Games of Caesarea, horse and gladiatorial competitions held at the hippodrome and stadium in honor of Emperor Claudius Caesar. At these games, he appeared in silver dress and was compared to a god. Two days later, he became violently ill and died after another three days, with a leading hypothesis being poisoning, and not being eaten by miraculous worms. Later, of no significance, Tyre is listed as one of the stops in a journey by Paul in Acts 21 and then Sidon is mentioned one more time in Acts 27.

The gospel of John does not mention Tyre or Sidon, even once, nor does Paul nor any other author.

tyre-and-sidon

Luke, Mark and Demas

The first references to Mark, Luke and another follower by the name of Demas appear in what is generally considered to be an authentic letter of Paul: In Philemon, Paul namedrops some associates known to both Paul and Philemon, the recipient of the letter, in the hopes of convincing Philemon to free the slave in question, so in the penultimate verse, we have:

Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my coworkers.

The balance of references to these Paul's letters only appear in letters that are not likely from Paul himself, but rather forgeries in the name of Paul. First, in Colossians 4:7-17, the forger lists a number of names:

Tychicus will tell you all the news about me; he is a beloved brother, a faithful minister, and a fellow servant in the Lord. I have sent him to you for this very purpose,

... he is coming with Onesimus, the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you...

Aristarchus my fellow prisoner greets you,

as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas, concerning whom you have received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him.

And Jesus who is called Justus greets you. These are the only ones of the circumcision among my coworkers for the kingdom of God, and they have been a comfort to me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, greets you. He is always striving in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured[d] in everything that God wills. For I testify for him that he has worked hard for you and for those in Laodicea and in Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas greet you. Give my greetings to the brothers and sisters in Laodicea and to Nympha and the church in her house. And when this letter has been read among you, have it read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and see that you read also the letter from Laodicea. And say to Archippus, “See that you complete the task that you have received in the Lord.”

In 2 Timothy 4, the author writing in the name of Paul says:

Do your best to come to me soon,

for Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica;
Crescens has gone to Galatia,
Titus to Dalmatia.

Only Luke is with me.

Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me in ministry.

I have sent Tychicus to Ephesus.

When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.

Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will pay him back for his deeds. You also must beware of him, for he strongly opposed our message.

It seems that Paul has not had significant luck despite all the miracles, the speaking in foreign tongues, etc. If I knew someone who could magically speak in fluent Ukrainian without ever having taken a class in it, or speak fluent Sandawe without having any clue as to where

It is unlikely that the Mark referred to in 1 Peter 5 is the same Mark above:

Your sister church in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you greetings,

and so does my son Mark.

Greet one another with a kiss of love.

Samaritans

Many Christians have no idea who the Samaritans are, and most likely are not even aware that there are Samaritans today worshiping Yahweh, using a Torah that is essentially the same as the Judean Torah, only that the center of worship is not on Mount Zion in Judea, but rather, on Mount Gerizim in Samaria. The name Samaritan is derived from a word meaning Guardian, and may only coincidentally appear to be a toponymy. The reader is welcome to read an English translation of the Samaritan Torah, the first translation being made less than two decades ago.

In Matthew 10:5-6, Jesus prohibits the disciples from preaching to the Samaritans:

These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: “Do not take a road leading to gentiles, and do not enter a Samaritan town, 6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...”

In Luke, we begin at Luke 9:51-56, where Jesus begins his journey south from Galilee to Jerusalem:

When the days drew near for [Jesus] to be taken up, he set his face to go to Jerusalem.

And he sent messengers ahead of him.

On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to prepare for his arrival, but they did not receive him because his face was set toward Jerusalem.

When his disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?”

But he turned and rebuked them.

Then they went on to another village.

This is classic: the disciples, who were never able to do anything significant, are trying to command fire to come down and consume this town. If Jesus is so set on going to Jerusalem, why do the disciples care?

After this is the parable of "The Good Samaritan". This sounds positive, but you must put the name of the parable into the context of the understanding of the people. Suppose you told the same story, but in the context of post-war Netherlands, and one who was robbed was ignored by two Dutch passerbys, and then a German comes along and helps the individual. In the name "The Good German," there is the implicit assumption that Germans, in general, are a people of ne'ers-do-well. Thus, it is not a praise of the individual, but rather a pejorative of the Samaritan people. Remember, the Samaritan Torah is in post places a perfect parallel of the Judean Torah. However, for interest, here is that story from Luke 10:30-36:

“A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and took off, leaving him half dead.

Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side.

So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion.

He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine.
Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and
said, ‘Take care of him, and when I come back I will repay you whatever more you spend.’”

Jesus could have just as easily chosen common Judean, but instead, he chose a Samaritan.

Later, a Samaritan comes up again in Luke 10:30-36:

On the way to Jerusalem Jesus was going through the region between Samaria and Galilee.

As he entered a village, ten men with a skin disease approached him.

Keeping their distance, they called out, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!”

When he saw them, he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.”

And as they went, they were made clean.

Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.

He prostrated himself at Jesus’s feet and thanked him.

And he was a Samaritan.

Then Jesus asked, “Were not ten made clean? So where are the other nine? Did none of them return to give glory to God except this foreigner?”

Then he said to him, “Get up and go on your way; your faith has made you well.”

This is another fanciful story: if anyone was healed of such a disease, they would most certainly thank the one who healed them. Such stories instead, are there to allow the reader to enter into a state of self-congratulatory: "What selfish and unthankful sinners, 'I' would never be so crude."

Here we also see the author of Luke's tendency to put everything in tens: there are ten who are being healed... In the story of the talents in Matthew, there are three slaves given silver by their owner, and they are rewarded according to their efforts when the owner returns. Following this story, in Luke 19, there is the story of the pounds, and here we have not three but ten slaves being given money, but the consequences of their actions are restricted to the same three stories that were told in Matthew.

The author of Luke last mentions the Samaritans in Acts 8:25:

Now after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans.

Most of John 4 (1-45) is devoted to a story of Jesus passing through a Samaritan town:

Now when Jesus [who was in Jerusalem] learned that the Pharisees had heard, “Jesus is making and baptizing more disciples than John” 2 (although it was not Jesus himself but his disciples who baptized),

he left Judea and started back to Galilee.

But he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a Samaritan city called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob’s well was there, and Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well. It was about noon.

What it does not say is that this town is on the slopes of Mount Gerizim.

A Samaritan woman came to draw water, and Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink.”

His disciples had gone to the city to buy food.

The Samaritan woman said to him, “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?”

Jews do not share things in common with Samaritans.

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that is saying to you, ‘Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water? Are you greater than our ancestor Jacob, who gave us the well and with his sons and his flocks drank from it?”

Jesus said to her, “Everyone who drinks of this water will be thirsty again, but those who drink of the water that I will give them will never be thirsty. The water that I will give will become in them a spring of water gushing up to eternal life.”

The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.”

Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.”

The woman answered him, “I have no husband.”

Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the one you have now is not your husband. What you have said is true!”

The woman said to him, “Sir, I see that you are a prophet. Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.”

The Samaritans worship here at Mount Gerizim, the Judeans at Mount Zion.

Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming... When he comes, he will proclaim all things to us.”

Jesus said to her, “I am he, the one who is speaking to you.”

Just then his disciples came. They were astonished that he was speaking with a woman, but no one said, “What do you want?” or, “Why are you speaking with her?”

Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city.

She said to the people, “Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?”

They left the city and were on their way to him.

Meanwhile the disciples were urging him, “Rabbi, eat something.”

But he said to them, “I have food to eat that you do not know about.”

So the disciples said to one another, “Surely no one has brought him something to eat?”

Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to complete his work. Do you not say, ‘Four months more, then comes the harvest’? But I tell you, look around you, and see how the fields are ripe for harvesting. The reaper is already receiving wages and is gathering fruit for eternal life, so that sower and reaper may rejoice together. For here the saying holds true, ‘One sows and another reaps.’ I sent you to reap that for which you did not labor. Others have labored, and you have entered into their labor.”

Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I have ever done.”

So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them, and he stayed there two days.

And many more believed because of his word.

They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world.”

When the two days were over, he went from that place to Galilee (for Jesus himself had testified that a prophet has no honor in the prophet’s own country). When he came to Galilee, the Galileans welcomed him, since they had seen all that he had done in Jerusalem at the festival, for they, too, had gone to the festival.

The justification for leaving Mount Gerizim for Galilee was because a prophet has no honor in the prophet's own country? This is a parallel to a saying associated with Jesus when he is chased out of Nazareth, when it is said “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown and among their own kin and in their own house.” However, when he reaches Galilee, they are welcoming him.

In John 8:48-49, the Judeans insult Jesus by calling him a Samaritan, and Jesus acknowledges that this is an insult by saying that they dishonor Jesus's father.

The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?”

Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me.

It would be interesting if this pointed to rumors as to why it was alleged that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus: recall that Joseph had not yet been married to Mary when she gave birth to Jesus.

samaritans

Summary

If you do not believe in biblical inerrancy, then some of the variations (as described in the stories of Mary Magdalene, and the oddities of how stories involving Lazarus together with Martha and Mary change between the gospels, while being separate in Luke, are conflated and actually replace the anointing of Jesus in the gospel of John) become interesting questions of the social and cultural histories involving the establishment of early doctrine and narratives for the followers of Je. For those breaking free from a fundamentalist Christian religion, the observations above should help discredit beliefs of biblical inerrancy and, and allay the baseless fears that come from threats of eternal torment in Hell (all of which can be avoided simply by "believing" and giving 10% of your salary to your church, as taught by fundamentalist pastors and, indeed, most Christian preachers). For Jews, this should make it clear that this religion grew (and appropriated Judean scriptures only to marginalize and terrorize its people) at best haphazardly in the first decades after its charismatic itinerant apocalyptic preacher from Galilee was executed for sedition against the Roman state, and how its stories, at best, kept some names or places or actions consistent, but differed wildly elsewhere. The high priest is libeled with stories fabricated to demonstrate Jesus's innocence while casting the blame for Jesus's death on that high priest, the Sanhedrin and the Jews of Jerusalem in general. For Muslims, who believe from the Quran that Isa (عِيسَى) never died, the fact that the variations in the stories between the various tellings of the anointing, execution and resurrection (the core beliefs of the Christian understanding of Jesus) of this person can be contrasted with the simpler and consistent understanding told within Islam.

summary