Comparing Mark to Matthew

[rcwitness]

Here is a bigger version of the mosiac.

In St. Paul, I see one of the first true converts; a man that gave up a pretty good material life to suffer for Christ and the true Gospel. He lead a hard life because of his faith, and based on his Epistles and Acts, wasn’t always the easiest person to get along with. None the less, when I read his Epistles, I feel he is writing directly to me. Such is the wonder of Scripture, it speaks to us as directly today as it did to those yesterday.

Amen!
An amazing life. A driven man. I like that he was a working man, even through his calling! Do you have thoughts on his “thorn”? …sorry Patrick, I cant stay true to your topic! But you’ve probably rolled some moderator eyes over the yrs just messin

I wonder if the thorn is a type of stigmata or…purging?

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

You can pretty much identify Paul in early Christian artworks even without a trained eye since he is always portrayed the same: a guy with a receding hairline and a long, pointy beard. In fact, he and Peter (short, curly hair + short beard) are the only two persons who are portrayed consistently by different artists. Not even the depictions of Jesus (which varied so much at that time) show a consistency as theirs do.

http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Mar2004/gfx/feature2_1.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patrick457]

As to why Mark didn’t include the additional content in Matthew. I guess there are a few options.

• Mark’s source didn’t know/contain the extra details.
• Mark’s source did know the extra details but didn’t tell him.
• Mark knew the extra details, but didn’t write them down.

It isn’t simply that. What I think happened here is that Mark and Matthew had fashioned and adapted the basic story in such a way so as to flesh out the themes they want to emphasize the most. So in Mark, the pericope serves to further the motif of the messianic secret (Jesus telling Peter to shut up about His identity), as a throwback to the beginning of the gospel (“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” - note that Mark’s Peter doesn’t call Jesus ‘son of God,’ a title no human character had ever used for Jesus in the gospel; he’s gonna reserve it for the lips of the Roman centurion (!) at the crucifixion), and as a further example of the disciples’ lack of comprehension (here we have Peter getting it half-right, but as the next pericope shows, it seems that Mark’s Peter didn’t fully understand what he just said!)

In Matthew meanwhile you have the motif of the bright disciples and the reward-punishment brought out (Matthew’s Peter goes all the way - “the Christ, the son of living God” - and Jesus praises and rewards him for his confession), as well as the emphasis on the Church and on Peter and the disciples as the leading figures of the Church (“You are ‘Peter’ and upon this ‘rock’…”), brought out.

 

[rcwitness]

It isn’t simply that. What I think happened here is that Mark and Matthew had fashioned and adapted the basic story in such a way so as to flesh out the themes they want to emphasize the most. So in Mark, the pericope serves to further the motif of the messianic secret (Jesus telling Peter to shut up about His identity), as a throwback to the beginning of the gospel (“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” - note that Mark’s Peter doesn’t call Jesus ‘son of God,’ a title no human character had ever used for Jesus in the gospel; he’s gonna reserve it for the lips of the Roman centurion (!) at the crucifixion), and as a further example of the disciples’ lack of comprehension (here we have Peter getting it half-right, but as the next pericope shows, it seems that Mark’s Peter didn’t fully understand what he just said!)

In Matthew meanwhile you have the motif of the bright disciples and the reward-punishment brought out (Matthew’s Peter goes all the way - “the Christ, the son of living God” - and Jesus praises and rewards him for his confession), as well as the emphasis on the Church and on Peter and the disciples as the leading figures of the Church (“You are ‘Peter’ and upon this ‘rock’…”), brought out.

Ok, so Mark emphisizes the blind buildup to ultimate Revelation…the reality that the apostles had no greater understanding of Jesus (despite their advantage point) than anyone else. Though they may have thought they were supose to be aids for His ministry…as if they could ease His burden against this “outside” world…as if they were fit to join forces with Jesus and lift up all the fools who were weak in this world. No, they were awaking to the Revelation on the same level as the wretched centurion, making his measly living carrying out the dreadful capitol punishments hammered down on the filthy criminal outcasts, who could not ignore the immense weight of what was transpiring. This man, who drew so much attention from high priests, who went to so much trouble to see Him suffer and be extinguished to hecklers who taunted Him to perform miracles like he did for others, to passionate followers who cried out in sympathy as if He were their own son. And still He blessed them all and spoke to God almighty as if He was His Dad! At that moment, it mattered not that the Apostles had known Him so intimately or just met Him that day, like the thief on the cross. He is who He is.

Where as Matthew was emphisizing an account of no less truth, depicting the stark reality of the cause and effect of the Revelation of God suddenly upon the Apostles and all whom the Word fell on! The actual meaning of our response in hearing the Living Will of the God of all life being poured out to us all the time. How, if I accept or ignore, appreciate or dismiss, chose or reject, love or despise the beckoning of the Spirit of God, there He is, regardless…and there is the consequence wheather it be to take us towards life and give us grace upon grace and a merit that touches the very purpose of why we were created out of nothing, or an emptiness as fruitless as the tree He cursed to never again give life. It is here and now…the kingdom…to build up or tare down.

 

[Christ_is_Risen]

It isn’t simply that. What I think happened here is that Mark and Matthew had fashioned and adapted the basic story in such a way so as to flesh out the themes they want to emphasize the most. So in Mark, the pericope serves to further the motif of the messianic secret (Jesus telling Peter to shut up about His identity), as a throwback to the beginning of the gospel (“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God” - note that Mark’s Peter doesn’t call Jesus ‘son of God,’ a title no human character had ever used for Jesus in the gospel; he’s gonna reserve it for the lips of the Roman centurion (!) at the crucifixion), and as a further example of the disciples’ lack of comprehension (here we have Peter getting it half-right, but as the next pericope shows, it seems that Mark’s Peter didn’t fully understand what he just said!)

In Matthew meanwhile you have the motif of the bright disciples and the reward-punishment brought out (Matthew’s Peter goes all the way - “the Christ, the son of living God” - and Jesus praises and rewards him for his confession), as well as the emphasis on the Church and on Peter and the disciples as the leading figures of the Church (“You are ‘Peter’ and upon this ‘rock’…”), brought out.

I have enjoyed reading your posts on this topic. The “composite” Jesus that is presented in the mass media and too frequently in Churches often influences how people read the Gospels individually (if they do at all.) To really understand Our Lord, I think it is essential that each individual Gospel be understood for what it is and how it presents the details of Jesus’ life.

My humble opinion is that Mark’s gospel has strong undertones of frustration and mystery. Who is Jesus? Why don’t those around him “get it” even after witnessing miracles? Why is the tomb empty? Why are the women so afraid?

To me, the most crucial message of Mark is this:

Mark 9

*23 “What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. “Anything is possible if a person believes.” *

The answers in Mark aren’t always easy to find, and impetus is squarely on the reader to have the faith necessary to see them.