Read a portion of the Gospel of Mark and a parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew. Which version of the passage (if either) seems to you to be most likely the original version? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Ancient Art
- Aberdeen, South Dakota, United States
- Professor of History, NSU
12 comments:
The story of Jesus walking on the water is a story that are similar in nature. Matthew 14:22-33 mentions all the details covered in Mark 6:45-52 and adds the subplot of Peter trying to talk on the water with Jesus but unable to due to his doubt.
The story in Mark is probably the original version and Matthew added his stroy about Peter onto Mark's story.
To correct a typo: Peter walked on the water.
Another story that are both in Matthew and Mark are the burial of Jesus. While Matthew described that a rich man from Arimathea named Joseph took the body and buried Him in a tomb. Mark goes into detail on the burial of Jesus, describing Joseph as "a respected member of the council, who was also waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God." Another part of Mark that wasn't mentioned in Matthew was that a centurion was asked whether Jesus was dead. The centurion told Pilate that Jesus was dead and granted Joseph the body.
In this story, the story of Matthew was probably the original and Mark added detail to the story.
Mark v. Matthew
1:2
Obviously, Matthew is the most comprehensive and original version, because it begins withe the genealogy of Jesus, whereas Mark defines the beginning in more uncertain and less inclusive terms. In Matthew there is a greater sense of knowledge and perspective. An early example is illustrated in Matthew and Mark, John the Baptist Prepares the way: Matthew exclaims, in 3:7 "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?...". While Matthew denounces the Pharisees and Saducees, Mark neglects this remark. It is obvious that Matthew was the more original version and Mark merely added little detail or omitted certain remarks.
Kirsten Saunders
Is there even a chance with both gospels being writen so close together that Matthew or Mark would have seen the others work. In some ways yes they similiar but the differences in stories suggest a different way in which they viewed the life of Christ. Even Biblical scolars and pastors debate over who wrote which gospel first. The real question isnt which gospel came first but whether or not we can decifer what each book is telling us no matter when it was written.
Jessica Hinners
In Mark, when he writes about the betrayal, he mentions this guy that was following Jesus. This guy was apparently taken too, but was able to get free by coming out of his robe and running away. Matthew doesn't mention this at all. It could be that Mark put it in to show that there was someone whose name may not be known who could have gone with Jesus to the cross.
Matthew is more detailed than Mark is. It could be Mark may have helped Matthew and Luke to get details straight for their writings and just decided to skim things over, kind of like a review.
Amanda Blood
The first difference I noticed between Mark and Matthew is that Mark starts his gospel with John the Baptist preaching in the desert. This passage doesn't show up in Matthew until his 3 chapter. Also when Jesus is tempted in the desert, Mark uses a total of 2 verses to describe the experience. Matthew uses 11 verses in detail.
I guess my point is that Mark is significantly shortly and less detailed than Matthew. You could assume Mark was putting in only what was most important for his point to get across, but what is his point? One could perceive Mark's briefness as a sign that he was assuming his audience knew the details of the story, and he was only reminding them. One could also speculate that his gospel probably wasn't the first written because of its shortened status. His gospel seems like a basic explanation- much like a shortened version of a story, or a pamphlet explaining the way to salvation.
I do not want to insult or degrade Mark's gospel. Mark actually becomes more detailed towards the end of book. He adds details that no other gospel adds and causes one to ponder why. This looks to me like he was only told the beginning information and as it got closer to the crucifixion, it may be a more personal account? One particular verse stands out in Mark 14, verses 51 and 52...
A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.
I read it twice. Who was this young man? Could it possibly have been Mark? If he were in Gethsemane with Jesus and the others, that would explain why the end is much more detailed- the rest is just window dressing for his point.
A differance I found in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark would be The story of the rich young ruler. In Matthew the ruler ask Jesus what he lacks. While the gospel of Mark Jesus tells the young ruler he still lacks something. but while in the Gospel of Mark when Jesus tells him he still lacks something.Right before that the ruler told him he observed them all from his youth.
The stories are differant yet tells the same story so the question is which one is the original? Maybe. neither one is original. But instead there is another gospel out there that hasn't been discovered and maybe both Matthew and Mark added their own versions to the story. Or another thing that could have happened is that they both heard stories about Christ and the stories they heard were similar. so in return the stories in their gospels would be the same.
Margaret Schiley
The story of Jesus healing the paralytic (Matthew 9:2-8, Mark 2:2-13) is very similar in both gospels. The only real difference is that in Mark the exact number of men carrying the paralytic is named and the way they get him to Jesus is also named.
The story in Mark is most likely the first since he has details that would have been lost if the story was on its third retelling.
John Schirado
I believe the apostels colaberated first and went their separate ways. All three are original. The different wording depended upon who the apostel was catering (speaking to/writing for) at the time.
I was always taught that Mark’s Gospel had been first. A parallel passage I think of is the Parable of the Tenants, Mark 12:1-11 & Matthew 21:33-44. Both parables are very similar in their wording almost verse by verse, the difference is in Matthew where Christ asks the chief priests and the elders of the people “What will the landowner do the farmers (tenants)?” In Mark, Jesus answers the question himself.
I’ve heard that Matthew expounded on Marks Gospel, that is why Mark’s is only 16 chapters long and Matthew’s is 28. If this is true, then it is proven in these verses where Matthew give the account of the Teachers answering Christ, (a little more added to the story).
To me I believe it would make more sense for the second writer to add more to the first account then to take away from what the first account stated. That is why I believe that the shorter account, Mark’s gospel was written first.
-Nate Mills
The majority of scholars do not disagree on Markan priority. It is, quite universally accepted that Mark wrote his gospel first, probably before the fall of the Temple, and then Matthew, used both a version of Mark's Gospel as well as a version of Q to compose his Gospel sometime after the fall of the Temple. The verbatim agreement in so many of the passages makes it nearly impossible to argue that the two Gospels are mutually exclusive of each other. There is no way that so many passages would be written identically without every having seen eachother. Matthew's audience is clearly one in crisis and in need of counsel as is indicative of the pastoral nature of Christ in this Gospel. Verse 18:16-20 about how to settle disputes is only found in Matthew, demonstrating the need in his community for such a definition. Evidence of the post Temple existance of this Gospel can be found in Matt 27:25. This claim of responsibility for two generations (On our heads and the heads of our children) would have been an explanation by some Jews, especially Christian Jews, for the fall of the temple which would have happened roughly two generations after the death of Christ. As many may have been questioning what they could have done to deserve this punishment from God, the answer to some was the killing of God's Son. Mark's audience were likely pagan converts who respected judaism because it was the religion that Jesus followed, however, there are some common mistakes in his Gospel about Judaism that jewish followers would not have made. Matthew's community, on the other hand, is believed to have been predominately jewish, as Jesus is depicted in this Gospel as the new Moses. Hopefully these thoughts stir up some meaningful reflection. God Bless
MF
Hi, MF. Thanks for adding your thoughts to the blog.
While you are right in saying that most NT professors teach Marcan priority as undeniable, I don't think the hypothesis stands up.
One example:
After Jesus baptism, Mark says the spirit led him into the wilderness where he was tempted of Satan. That's it. Matthew and Luke both exand on the temptation account. Where do they get the extra information? From Q? But their versions are different! So the defenders of Marcan priority have to give us Q1 and Q2--two different versions of Q.
When one has to posit two hypothetical versions of a hypothetical document to maintain one's case, the case can't be very strong.
The exercise here asked students themselves to compare passages in Mark and Matthew to see what their impressions were. Most of the time, the students think the Matthew versions likely the earliest. They aren't alone. Voltaire thought so. So did Griesbach--a much shrewder critic than most modern scholars.
Post a Comment