Religious Studies: Matthew and Mark’s Gospel

Explain how and why Matthew may have edited Mark’s Gospel. Use the following two sets of passages to support your claim.

1. 1. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 6:45-52 contrasted with Matthew 14:22-23?
   2. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 9:2-10 contrasted with Matthew 17:1-13?

Book

Martin, Dale: New Testament History and Literature (Yale U. Press 2012) pp.106-108, http://saintleo.worldcat.org/title/new-testament-history-andliterature/oclc/839386981&referer=brief_results

Solution

Christianity in the early age has given more regard to the Gospel of Matthew. It is depicted by the act of featuring Matthew at the start of the New Testament. Mathew was made-up to be the one out of the other twelve. This feature was not given to the Gospel of Mark. The reason was that in the Gospel of Mathew, the Jesus life and story was presented in a more convenient way easily understandable for the ordinary man. The teaching of Jesus arranged topic-wise and spread at intervals throughout the Gospel, hence meeting the needs of an ordinary reader. Evidence shows that the authors of the Gospel of Mathew were more intending to focus on storytelling than on passing the traditions.

The earliest testimony about the changes in the Gospel of Matthew shows that Mathew interpreted the sayings of Jesus as per his ability. There is evidence that much of the work in the Gospel of Mathew is similar to that of the Gospel of Mark. In many sections, the similarity is accounted for word to word, and the main sketch of the events is also similar to the two Gospels.

However, there is much matter in Matthew which is not similar to Mark. In fact, the Gospel of Mark accounts for only about half of the substance of the First Gospel. It is evident that the first evangelist was capable of working as an author and editor. Whenever it matched his intention, so, he copied from Mark, but when it doesn’t, he altered the language or even added to his freedom. Thus, it can be inferred that unparalleled sections of Mathew are independent compositions. It is evident that Mark in its current form delivered most of the narrative framework and content for the Matthew.

The reason behind the changes made to the Mark can be attributed to the assumption that the author presented the material to achieve the particular needs of his day. These considerations show that the aim of the author was not an unimportant factor in his work. Thus, the sense and significance of the book of Matthew cannot be grasped without overlooking the end it was meant to meet. This aim is clear in the reading of Matthew as the author has shown in the arrangement and selection of the sections to make it more convenient for community use. It is a fact that the church interests stand out quite prominently, and the opposition to the Judaism and emphasis on specific doctrines of Christianity are more focused in this Gospel. It is stated by Harnack that the Matthew of Gospel was made to apologize against the calumnies and the objections of the Jews.

The historical situation is also important to understand the full context of the gospel writer. To understand why such changes were made to the Gospel and why it was needed to write the Gospel of Matthew, the full context and the situation of the writer is to be understood as well. After studying for the Matthew, it is evident that the interest of the writer was uppermost while writing the Gospel. It is evident from the reference to the community as a church (16:18), and its ultimate authority to discipline (18:17).

It is also evident from the strong position in opposition to the Jews on the position of their opposition to Christianity by reference to the number of woes of Jesus in opposition to the Jews leaders (chap 23) calling them workers of lawlessness (7:23; 13:41; 23:28). Another account can be given from the section in which the writer evenhanded the idea of Jews refusal and reality of Gentile missions by mentioning that “many shall come from the west and east” (8:11). Thus, these evidences show that whatever the reasons behind the additions and changes made to the Matthew, the intention was based on fulfilling they then need of the situation (Jackson).

For supporting the point that Matthew has edited the Gospel of Mark following sections are discussed in detail.

1-Edition of Matthew to Mark 6:45-52 in comparison with Matthew 14:22-23

Matthew 14; 22-23 and Mark 6:45-52 both are almost same in the content and the message that it delivers. However, the Gospel of Matthew looks to have made changes to the Gospel of the Mark in some sections. From the two mentioned sections, it is quite evident that both have followed a similar arrangement while recounting the walk of Jesus on the water. In the two chapters of the both Gospels, Jesus sends its multitudes away and then goes to the mountain peak to pray. Here Jesus sees his disciples at sea. Jesus goes to the disciples at sea by walking on the water of the sea. The disciples are amazed by looking at Jesus walking on the sea. The only difference here is in the description which is more vivid and descriptive in Matthew than in Mark.

Matthew describes that Jesus instructed Peter to walk on water which he could not do and started to sink. Peter calls for Jesus to help on whom Jesus save him. Jesus then reprimands peter on not putting faith in Jesus. This narrative is not presented in the book of Mark. Still, the two Gospels show that Jesus went to his disciples on the 4^th night. The difference is the telling of the Jesus to his disciples. The Gospel of Mark reports that the disciples saw Jesus and thought of him as a ghost when he asks them “to be brave and not be afraid” whereas, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus asks them to be “good of cheer and not to be afraid.” Thus these differences are apparent in both Gospels. It is likely that Matthew is copied work of the Gospel of Mark and some additions were also made to his scripture.

2-Editions of Matthew to Mark 9:2-10 in comparison with Matthew 17:1-13?

Matthew 17:1-13 and Mark 9:10 speak about the transfiguration of Jesus. Both have similar accounts with slight differences in the content of both scriptures. It reveals that Matthew copied the chapter and edited it. In the Gospel of Mark, it is written that the Jesus took John, Peter, and James. Whereas, in the Gospel of Matthew, he added that Jesus took the three disciples and that James was the brother of John. Then again, in the book of Mark, the transfigured clothes worn by Jesus are described whereas, in Matthew, the face along with the clothes is shown as transfigured.

Mark refers to the clothes of Jesus as dazzling white, while Matthew refers to it as white light. In Mark, a reference to Jesus is made as the Rabbi of Peter whereas in Matthew the reference is given to Jesus as Lord. In another instance, the apparent difference in content is visible when in Mark, a voice from the cloud calls; “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” on the other hand, in Matthew, the voice calls out; “this is my Son, I love whom; and with him, I am well pleased. So listen to him! (Martin).” The differences might be small but reveals that edition and addition to the Gospel of Mark were made in the Gospel of Matthew. As mentioned earlier, the reason behind it is underlying in the particular interest of the writer of Matthew to assist with the then aim of the time.

Work Cited

Jackson, Shirley. “The Origin and Purpose of the Gospel of Matthew.” The Biblical World 34.6 (1909): 391-402.

Martin, Dale B. New Testament history and literature. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2012.