This is almost word for word in Matthew, chapter 27:42-44. In Luke, chapter 23:35-37, there is only a mention of leaders and Roman soldiers, without any specific indication of which leaders, while there is nothing similar in John. Mark said that the taunting continued. They said if Jesus was the Messiah Christ (ὁ Χριστὸς), the King of Israel (ὁ Βασιλεὺς Ἰσραὴλ), let him come down or descend from the cross now (καταβάτω νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυροῦ). Then they would see (ἵνα ἴδωμεν) and believe (καὶ πιστεύσωμεν). Mark also said that the bandits or robbers, who were crucified with Jesus (καὶ οἱ συνεσταυρωμένοι σὺν αὐτῷ), also taunted or insulted him in the same way as the others had done (ὠνείδιζον αὐτόν). These robbers were just as bad as the Jewish leaders, Roman soldiers, and the others passing by. However, Luke, chapter 23:39-43, had an extended conversation between Jesus and these two bandits. One of the two thieves or bandits told Jesus to save himself and them also, but the other thief or robber said that they deserved to die. Only Luke had this story about the good and the bad thief. Here in Matthew and Mark, both of the bandits being crucified with Jesus taunted him. There was nothing about these thieves at all in John. When someone is down, do you taunt them? Would you have been among these people taunting Jesus?
This is almost word for word in Matthew, chapter 27:41-42. However, Mark did not mention the elders nor anything about the Son of God. In Luke, chapter 23:35-36, there is only a mention of leaders and soldiers, without any specific indication of which leaders. On the other hand, there is nothing similar in John. Mark said that the chief priests (καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς) were mocking Jesus among one another or among themselves (ἐμπαίζοντες πρὸς ἀλλήλους) with the Scribes (μετὰ τῶν γραμματέων), in the same way as those passing by (ὁμοίως). These religious leaders said that Jesus had saved others (ἔλεγον Ἄλλους ἔσωσεν). Why could he not save himself (ἑαυτὸν οὐ δύναται σῶσαι)? They seemed to take a sense of self satisfaction that they had Jesus right where they wanted him.
This is almost word for word in Mathew, chapter 26:26, but in Luke, chapter 22:19, it has a little more elaboration. Paul used almost the same wording in I Corinthians, chapter 11:23-24. In John, chapter 6:35-58, Jesus was preaching about eating the flesh of the Son of Man, the bread of life, so that he does not have a Last Supper institution narrative. Mark said that while they were eating (Καὶ ἐσθιόντων αὐτῶν) the Passover meal, Jesus took a loaf of bread (λαβὼν ἄρτον). He spoke the blessing or blessed it (εὐλογήσας). He broke it into pieces (ἔκλασεν). Then he gave it to them (καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς). He said (καὶ εἶπεν) that they should take (Λάβετε) this bread, because it was his body (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου). There was no mention of eating it here, as in Matthew. This Eucharistic institution narrative may already have been in this stylized form at the time of the writing of this gospel. There was no specific indication whether this was leavened or unleavened bread, just a loaf of bread. However, if it was a Passover meal on the feast of the Unleavened Bread, the evident assumption would be that it was unleavened or “matzah” bread. Clearly, this institution narrative has had a profound effect on further Christian Eucharistic sacramental theological development.
This is almost word for word in Mark, chapter 14:22, but in Luke, chapter 22:19, it has a little more elaboration. In John, chapter 6:52-58, Jesus was preaching about eating the flesh of the Son of Man. While they were eating (Ἐσθιόντων δὲ αὐτῶν) the Passover meal, Jesus took a loaf of bread (λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον). He blessed it (καὶ εὐλογήσας). He broke it into pieces (ἔκλασεν). He gave it to the disciples (καὶ δοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς). He said (εἶπεν) that they should take (Λάβετε) this bread and eat (φάγετε) it because it was his body (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου). This Eucharistic institution narrative may already have been in this stylized form at the time of the writing of this gospel. There was no specific indication whether this was leavened or unleavened bread, but it was a bread loaf. Clearly this narrative has had a profound effect on the Christian Eucharistic theological development.
This is a very unusual section that contains explicit first person details of this property field sale. However, there is no indication of the exact size of this field. Nowhere else in the biblical works is there such a specific indication of how financial transactions took place. First, Jeremiah bought the land. Most times, there would be no more details other than that. However, here Jeremiah next weighs out the money, 17 silver shekels, which was not a lot of money, about a couple of hundred USA dollars. Where he got the money is not indicated here. Then he signed the deed, probably on papyrus, sealed it, and had witnesses also sign it. There must have been some kind of official seal used here, but we do not know what kind. Finally there seems to be 2 copies of this transaction. The sealed deed contained all the terms and conditions of the sale, while the open copy or city file copy might just have the statement that the sale was made, much like current open records in USA, which generally adds the dollar amount of the sale. Thus these transactions were stored or kept in jars of some kind.