Comparing Gospel Accounts of Matthew 27
Comparing Gospel Accounts of Matthew 27
Matthew 27 narrates the final hours of Jesus' earthly life: Judas's remorse and death, the trial before Pilate, the crucifixion, mockery, death, and burial. Comparing this chapter with parallel accounts in Mark, Luke, and John reveals both substantial agreement and distinctive emphases that have occupied interpreters since the patristic era.
Literary Context and Composition
Matthew's Gospel was composed between A.D. 60 and 65, evidently before Jerusalem's destruction, as an apostolic account shaped by Matthew's own "plans and aims" and "point of view" [1]. The first three Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—"have occupied themselves chiefly with the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ," while John's approach stands apart [7]. This difference in focus helps explain why the Synoptics share extensive material in Matthew 27, while John's passion narrative follows its own theological trajectory.
Key Interpretive Challenges
Judas's Death
One prominent difficulty involves reconciling Matthew 27:3–10 with Acts 1:18–19. Matthew reports that Judas hanged himself and that the priests bought the field (27:5–7), while Acts appears to say Judas bought it and describes a fall with abdominal rupture [3]. Matthew also attributes the field's name to its use as a burial place, whereas Acts links it to Judas's violent death [3]. Early interpreters proposed that both accounts could be true sequentially—Judas hanged himself, the rope broke, and the fall caused the rupture—though the textual evidence leaves the precise harmonization contested.
The Mockery at the Cross
Augustine addressed apparent tensions in the crucifixion mockery. Matthew 27:39–44 states that passersby, chief priests, and "the robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth" [4, 6]. Mark agrees nearly verbatim [4]. Luke, however, describes only one thief reviling Jesus while the other defends him (Luke 23:39–43). Augustine's solution invoked a "certain mode of speech" by which both robbers initially mocked Jesus, but one later repented—a reading that preserves both accounts without contradiction [6].
Methodological Principles
Augustine's Harmony of the Gospels established the principle that "not one of these evangelists contains anything either at variance with other statements in his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts presented by his fellow-historians" [5]. This approach treats differences as complementary rather than contradictory, a stance that has shaped Reformed and broader Protestant exegesis. The Gospels were "all composed during the latter half of the first century," with Matthew and Mark written before Jerusalem's fall [2], lending them early and independent testimonial weight.
Sources
- Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Matthew, Gospel according to — The author of this book was beyond a doubt the Matthew, an apostle of our Lord, whose name it bears. He wrote the Gospel of Christ according to his own plans and aims, and from his own point of view, as did also the other "evangelists." As to the time of its composition, there is little in the Gospel itself to indicate. It was evidently written before the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. 24), and some time after the events it records. The probability is that it was written between the years A.D. 60 and 65. The cast of thought and the for”
- Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Gospels — The name Gospel (from god and spell, Ang. Sax. good message or news, which is a translation of the Greek euaggelion) is applied to the four inspired histories of the life and teaching of Christ contained in the New Testament, of which separate accounts are given in their place. They were all composed during the latter half of the first century: those of St. Matthew and St. Mark some years before the destruction of Jerusalem; that of St. Luke probably about A.D. 64; and that of St. John towards the close of the century. Before the end of the second century, t”
- Matthew (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on Matthew 27:3: 27:3-10 There are two accounts of Judas’s death—this one and Acts 1:18-19. There are differences between the two: (1) Matthew states that the priests bought the field (Matt 27:6-7), while Acts seems to suggest that Judas bought it (Acts 1:18); (2) Matthew reports that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself (Matt 27:5), while Acts enigmatically refers to a fall and an abdominal rupture (Acts 1:18); (3) Matthew implies that the field of blood was so named because it became a place of burial (Matt 27:7-8), while Acts suggests that it was because of Judas’s viole”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XV.--OF THE CONSISTENCY OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVEN BY MATTHEW, MARK, AND LUKE ON THE SUBJECT OF THE PARTIES WHO INSULTED THE LORD.: 52. Matthew goes on in the following strain: "And they that passed by reviled Him, wagging their heads, and saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself: if thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross."[1] Mark's statement agrees with this almost to the letter. Then Matthew continues thus: "Likewise also the chief priests, mocking Him, with the scribes and elders, said”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — THIS BOOK EMBRACES A DISCUSSION OF THOSE PASSAGES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO: MARK, LUKE, OR JOHN. PROLOGUE. 1. As we have examined Matthew's narrative in its complete connection, and as the comparison which we have carried out between it and the other three on to its conclusion has established the fact, that not one of these evangelists contains anything either at variance with other statements in his own Gospel, or inconsistent with the accounts presented by his fellow-historians, let us now subject Mark to a similar scrutiny. Our plan will be to”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XVI.--OF THE DERISION ASCRIBED TO THE ROBBERS, AND OF THE QUESTION REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN MATTHEW AND MARK ON THE ONE HAND, AND LUKE ON THE OTHER, WHEN THE LAST-NAMED E (part 1): 53. Matthew continues his narrative in these terms: "The robbers also, which were crucified with Him, cast the same in His teeth."[4] Mark is quite in harmony with Matthew here, giving the same statement in different words.[5] On the other hand, Luke may be thought to contradict this, unless we be careful not to forget a certain mode of”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. X.--OF THE EVANGELIST JOHN, AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE OTHER THREE. (part 1): 11. John remains, between whom and others there is left no comparison to be instituted. For, however the evangelists may each have reported some matters which are not recorded by the others, it will be hard to prove that any question involving real discrepancy arises out of these. Thus, too, it is a clearly admitted position that the first three--namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke--have occupied themselves chiefly with the humanity of our Lord Jesus C”