How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 6:45-52 contrasted with Matthew 14:25-27, 32-33?
First and foremost, the Gospel of Matthew refers to the study of the life and preaching of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The features of the Gospel stem from its intended purpose for the Jewish audience – the Gospel often refers to Old Testament Messianic prophecies to show the fulfillment of these prophecies in Christ (Martin 106). Matthew wrote for the Jewish people, and one of his aims was to show from the history of Jesus and the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies that Christ was the long-awaited Messiah and therefore deserved their trust (Gospel of Matthew, 9:27). Like Matthew, Mark was the witness to events in the life of Christ, and also the friend of the apostle Peter. Mark wrote to a Gentile audience, which is evident in the fact that he does not mention events of particular importance to Jewish readers: the genealogy and Christ’s disagreement with Jewish leaders. Mark stresses the role of Christ as a suffering servant who did not come into the world to be served, but to help others (Gospel of Mark, 10:45). Fragments of the Gospels reveal a difference in the story told about Jesus’ ability to walk on water. Mark consciously does not mention the name of Christ in the episode, indicating by an attractive pronoun (Gospel of Mark, 6:45). Unlike Mark, Matthew explicitly says the name of the Messiah. Matthew portrays the story better because he describes more details, while Mark speaks more superficially about the incident. Moreover, in the Gospel of Matthew, more emphasis is placed on the astonishment and defeat experienced by miracle witnesses. The narrator plays on the contrast between faith and unbelief, showing how Jesus’ disciple, Peter, walked on water. Matthew did not describe this scene by chance: he set out to demonstrate the power of faith and its victory over rational consciousness.
How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 9:2-10 contrasted with Matthew 17:1-13?
The Transfiguration of Jesus is mentioned in the three Gospels, but the text from Matthew and Mark is examined as part of this analysis. The primary line of the evangelists is very similar, but there is a noticeable difference in the details described (Muddiman and Barton 56). Matthew writes about the episode in a more familiar and detailed way, adding dialogues and actions, while Mark is more concise. When Jesus climbed the mountain, he left the three disciples of Peter, James, and John and stepped aside and shone (Muddiman and Barton 56). A study of the first lines of the original texts determines the clarifying detail given by Matthew but missing from Mark. John, according to Matthew, is the brother of James (Gospel of Matthew, 17:1). This refinement allows readers to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the sometimes-confusing figures of the gospels.
Comparative analysis of the two passages reveals other discrepancies between the texts. Mark writes that Christ’s garments became whiter than snow, but Matthew adds that not only the clothes but also the face of the Messiah shone brighter than the sun (Gospel of Matthew, 17:2). This is a generally subtle detail, but it allows us to emphasize the holiness of Jesus. Another difference refers the reader to the original mission of the two texts. Both authors represent Peter among the apostles who climbed the mountain, but the disciple’s address to the teacher is transmitted in different ways. In Matthew, Peter calls Jesus Lord, who is divine, while Mark writes about Jesus as a Jewish rabbi (Gospel of Mark, 9:5). The voice from the dispersed clouds presents Christ to the apostles as the Son of God but does so in different versions. Thus, in the Gospel of Matthew, God’s attitude towards His son is transmitted more tenderly and carefully, which elevates Jesus in the eyes of his disciples and readers. Taking into account the properties of Matthew to worship the Messiah to a large extent, it becomes clear why the narrator decided to edit the texts of the mark.
Works Cited
Gospel of Matthew. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Richard France. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007.
Gospel of Mark. Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Edited by Peter Williamson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Martin, Dale B. New Testament History and Literature. Yale University Press, 2012.
Muddiman, John, and John Barton. The Gospels. Oxford University Press, 2010.