Jesus in the Four Gospels

[farpinho]

Not to mention Mark wasn’t apparently much too worried about the development and explanation of a deeper theological analysis. It might be only me, but I believe Mark felt the need to write the Gospel because most of the disciples were dead or dying, and soon enough there would be no one else left of the first generation of disciples to be the “bearers of the word” (quoting Luke), then he started to gather whatever information he could and pieced them together, as best as he could. In other words, I believe Mark’s was more preoccupied with perpetuating the teachings of Jesus rather than the history of His life.

That’s what you would expect from a (maybe the) first written gospel.

 

[farpinho]

Just a little thing that just came to my mind to people who think 30 years is way too long to remember the facts in great detail. It is a fact that we keep a (or at least almost) perfect memory of the things we do/use in our everyday life. If the Apostles (like an actor who memorizes the script of a play where he/she acts every day over and over) preached Jesus’ gospel orally every (or almost every) single day (they surely preached with a great frequency), and they preached it over and over and over… isn’t it natural that the memories remained alive in much detail even after 30 years the events happened? To them, it wouldn’t be like writing the events that happened 30 years ago, but more like writing something that happened like… a few days ago… maybe the sequence of the events would be a problem, but most of the memories would probably be still there.
Just imagine how someone who goes to a mass every Sunday for years remembers the prayers and the readings very well…
Not to mention the amount of eyewitnesses was overwhelming. They would always have another eyewitness that remembers a detail better than another, and so on… ← that explains the discrepancies in the Gospels.
(yuck, sometimes I don’t like the way I write, I hope this makes sense… )

 

[patrick457]

Not to mention Mark wasn’t apparently much too worried about the development and explanation of a deeper theological analysis. It might be only me, but I believe Mark felt the need to write the Gospel because most of the disciples were dead or dying, and soon enough there would be no one else left of the first generation of disciples to be the “bearers of the word” (quoting Luke), then he started to gather whatever information he could and pieced them together, as best as he could. In other words, I believe Mark’s was more preoccupied with perpetuating the teachings of Jesus rather than the history of His life.

That’s what you would expect from a (maybe the) first written gospel.

That’s a very good point. There is that idea that since the disciples and the very first generations of Christians originally expected Jesus to come soon anyway there was no need to write things down. Instead, different sayings and episodes from His life were passed down in an oral fashion (this was, after all, an oral culture), apparently usually as a way to win new converts, as instruction for the faithful, and as an arsenal against opponents. However, as decades passed, there was still no sign of the Lord, while some of the eyewitnesses are either dead or in faraway places. It was only by that time that people realized that they need to write down what they know in order to preserve it for future generations.

 

[patrick457]

Just a little thing that just came to my mind to people who think 30 years is way too long to remember the facts in great detail. It is a fact that we keep a (or at least almost) perfect memory of the things we do/use in our everyday life. If the Apostles (like an actor who memorizes the script of a play where he/she acts every day over and over) preached Jesus’ gospel orally every (or almost every) single day (they surely preached with a great frequency), and they preached it over and over and over… isn’t it natural that the memories remained alive in much detail even after 30 years the events happened? To them, it wouldn’t be like writing the events that happened 30 years ago, but more like writing something that happened like… a few days ago… maybe the sequence of the events would be a problem, but most of the memories would probably be still there.
Just imagine how someone who goes to a mass every Sunday for years remembers the prayers and the readings very well…
Not to mention the amount of eyewitnesses was overwhelming. They would always have another eyewitness that remembers a detail better than another, and so on… ← that explains the discrepancies in the Gospels.
(yuck, sometimes I don’t like the way I write, I hope this makes sense… )

That might explain the episodic nature of the synoptics. When the disciples and other Christians told the story of Jesus, apparently they did not tell it in a linear fashion (you know, starting at the beginning and going on to the end) but instead in the form of self-contained vignettes or pericopes. (“There was this one time when Jesus said this…”) You know, kind of like how the gospel is read during Mass nowadays: we do not read all of it in one sitting, but assign different passages each day.

Richard A. Horsley in Hearing the Whole Story: the Politics of Plot in Mark’s Gospel points out that Mark structures his narrative around repetitions, not just of phrases and words, but even syllables and sounds. (Some authors also think that Mark employs a chiastic structure: in other words, the gospel is one whole series of repetitions!) Here’s how the pericope of the demoniac in Capharnaum reads in Greek:

Kai eisporeuontai eis Kapharnaoum,
kai euthys tois sabbasin eiselthōn eis tēn synagōgēn edidasken.
Kai exeplēssonto epi tē didachē autou;
ēn gar didaskōn autous hōs exousian echōn,
kai ouch’ hōs hoi grammateis.
Kai euthys ēn en tē synagōgē autōn anthrōpos en pneumati akathartō,
kai anekraxen legōn:
Ti hēmin kai soi, Iēsou Nazarēne?
Ēlthes apolesai hēmas?
Oida se tis ei, ho hagios tou Theou.
Kai epetimēsen autō ho Iēsous, [legōn]:
Phimōthēti, kai exelthe ex autou.
Kai sparaxan auton to pneuma to akatharton
kai phōnēsan phōnē megalē exēlthen ex autou.
Kai ethambēthēsan hapantes,
hōste syzētein autous legontas:
Ti estin touto?
Didachē kainē kat’ exousian;
kai tois pneumasin tois akathartois epitassei,
kai hypakouousin autō.
Kai exēlthen hē akoē autou euthys pantachou
eis holēn tēn perichōron tēs Galilaias.

 

[farpinho]

That might explain the episodic nature of the synoptics. When the disciples and other Christians told the story of Jesus, apparently they did not tell it in a linear fashion (you know, starting at the beginning and going on to the end) but instead in the form of self-contained vignettes or pericopes. (“There was this one time when Jesus said this…”) You know, kind of like how the gospel is read during Mass nowadays: we do not read all of it in one sitting, but assign different passages each day.

Yep And the “placing the events in linear+chronological order” will be Luke’s mission, but that’s the subject for later discussion…

 

[patrick457]

Before someone shouts “get on with it,” I’ve been thinking of putting up a slightly more polished version of this up on my blog.

 

[patrick457]

Last one, I swear. I mentioned Jesus Christ Superstar in the context of Mark’s portrayal of the disciples: the curious thing about it is, that some commentators have actually noted how JCS is similar in spirit to Mark’s gospel. Aside from the Last Supper scene here are a few instances where the disciples and everyone around Jesus are being, well, ‘blind’.

Jesus
Why should you want to know?
Why are you obsessed with fighting
times and fates you can’t defy?
If you knew the path we’re riding,
you’d understand it less than I

…] I’m amazed that men like you
can be so shallow, thick and slow
There’s not a man among you
who knows or cares if I come or go

• What’s the Buzz / Strange Thing Mystifying

Simon
There must be over fifty thousand
screaming love and more for you
And everyone of fifty thousand
would do whatever you ask him to
Keep them yelling their devotion,
but add a touch of hate at Rome
You will rise to a greater power - we will win ourselves a home
You’ll get the power and the glory,
for ever and ever and ever (repeat),
Amen

Jesus
Neither you Simon, nor the fifty thousand,
Nor the Romans, nor the Jews,
Nor Judas, nor the Twelve, nor the priests, nor the scribes,
nor doomed Jerusalem itself
understand what power is,
understand what glory is,
understand at all
understand at all…

If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem
You’d see the truth but you close your eyes, but you close your eyes
While you live your troubles are many, poor Jerusalem
To conquer death you only have to die, you only have to die

• Simon Zealotes / Poor Jerusalem

Mary Magdalene
I don’t know how to love him
What to do how to move him
I’ve been changed, yes really changed
In this past few days, when I’ve seen myself
I seem like someone else

I don’t know how to take this
I don’t see why he moves me
He’s a man, he’s just a man
And I’ve had so many men before
In very many ways…he’s just one more

- I Don’t Know How to Love Him

Mary Magdalene
Peter, don’t you know what you have said,
You’ve gone and cut him dead

Peter
I had to do it, don’t you see?
Or else they’d go for me

Mary Magdalene
It’s what he told us you would do
I wonder how he knew

- Peter’s Denial

Judas
I don’t know how to love him
I don’t know why he moves me
He’s a man - he’s just a man
He is not a King, he’s just the same
as anyone I know,
he scares me so

When he’s cold and dead will he let me be?
Does he love, does he love me too? Does he care for me?

- Judas’ Death

The title number IMHO really encapsulates the whole theme (especially since Judas is singing it), so I’ll quote it in full.

Everytime I look at you I don’t understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You’d have managed better if you’d had it planned
Why’d you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?

If you’d come today you would have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4 B.C. had no mass communication

**Don’t you get me wrong (Don’t you get me wrong)
Don’t you get me wrong, now (Don’t you get me wrong)
Don’t you get me wrong (Don’t you get me wrong)
Don’t you get me wrong, now (Don’t you get me wrong)

Only want to know (Only want to know)
Only want to know now (Only want to know)
Only want to know (Only want to know)
Only want to know (Only want to know)

Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ,
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ,
Who are you? What have you sacrificed?
Jesus Christ, Superstar,
Do you think you’re what they say you are?
Jesus Christ, Superstar,
Do you think you’re what they say you are?**

Tell me what you think about your friends at the top
Who d’you think besides yourself’s the pick of the crop?
Buddha was he where it’s at? Is he where you are?
Could Mohammed move a mountain or was that just PR?
Did you mean to die like that? Was that a mistake or
Did you know your messy death would be a record-breaker?

 

[farpinho]

Before someone shouts “get on with it,” I’ve been thinking of putting up a slightly more polished version of this up on my blog.

I don’t think I’ve seen your blog yet. Could you share the link?

 

[patrick457]

Now for Matthew’s gospel.

http://lib.haifa.ac.il/collections/art/med/8_5d_last_supper.gif

In Matthew’s version of the Last Supper, when Jesus announces to His disciples that one of them will hand Him over, they begin to ask Him: “Is it I, Lord?” After giving a clue as to who the betrayer would be, it is Judas’ turn to ask. “Is it I, Rabbi?” Jesus then gives an oblique answer to Judas (“You have said so”), abruptly ending the scene. (26:20-25)

This is a unique characteristic of Matthew: he has different characters address Jesus using different titles, depending on whether they have a positive or negative role in the story. Those who willingly follow Jesus address Him almost always as Kyrios, “Lord” (8:2-8; 9:27-31; 14:28; 17:4; 20:30), which emphasizes the authority of Jesus and the divine power at work in Him. By contrast, those antagonistic to Jesus address Him as “teacher,” which in Matthew is a designation never used by Jesus’ followers (8:19; 12:38; 17:24; 19:16; 22:16). Indeed, Matthew has Peter and the two blind men address Jesus as “Lord” when Mark has Peter and Bartimaeus saying “Rabbi” (17:4; 20:33; cf. Mark 9:5; 10:51); the other instance where Peter calls Jesus “Rabbi” in Mark (when he finds the fig tree withered; 10:51), meanwhile, is simply not found in Matthew’s gospel.

Matthew has thus provided a clue for his audience as to where a given character’s loyalty lies. To a discerning ear, Judas has basically ‘outed’ himself by his noun choice: “Rabbi,” which also happens to be one of the titles for which Matthew’s Jesus has condemned the scribes and the Pharisees (23:7-8). The following episode in Gethsemane is thus highly ironic:

While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “The one I will kiss is the man; seize him.” And he came up to Jesus at once and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you came to do.” Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him.

It is as if Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t need to exercise any supernatural ability to read Judas’ intentions; his words serve as code language that signifies his treachery. To the arrest party, Judas gives a kiss as an agreed-upon sign, but for Jesus (and by extension, the audience) he gives no less a sign - the word “Rabbi.” Judas is the only character in Matthew to use either one. In other words, Judas speaks like the enemies of Jesus, failing to perceive his Master’s true identity.

 

[farpinho]

pokes

 

[patrick457]

pokes

I almost forgot this thread existed, did you know that? Well, not really, but given how ‘busy’ the Sacred Scripture forums are recently (God forgive me for taking the bait ) I haven’t enough time to post anything here.

 

[patrick457]

The thing about Matthew is, unlike Mark and his like of ambiguity, Matthew prefers to make things crystal-clear and to neatly put things into categories. His narrative has a penchant for dualisms, and these divisions accomplish what Judas’ question does - separating Jesus’ followers from His opponents. This division literally pervades the whole gospel: for instance, you have the parables of the narrow and wide gates (7:13-14), the wise man who built his house on the rock and the fool who built his on the sand (7:24-25), the wheat and the weeds (13:24-30), the wise and foolish maidens (25:1-13), and the sheep and the goats (25:31-46). In each of these cases Matthew divides humanity into two pairs: those who listen to Jesus’ words, and those who do not. Unlike Mark’s gospel, which creates an imbalance in the reader because the line between insider and outsider is blurred (cf. the disciples who are ‘into’ “the mystery of the kingdom” but ultimately prove to be just like “those outside”), Matthew’s gospel exudes clarity.

“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”

For Matthew’s Jesus, it was not just enough to point out the obvious (building a house on a shaky foundation such as sand is less desirable and just plain stupid), He intensifies the difference by pointing out the destruction of the sand-based house. This is another common theme in Matthew: punishment and reward reinforce one another, and Matthew rarely includes one without the other. This is much more clearly spelled out in the final parable in the gospel:
“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

 

[StrawberryJam]

Matthew and Luke end up reading the same after a point. Sure, at first they Seem to read like they are independent writings. Not too long into it, you see them blend to the point that it demands an answer about their originality.
That’s just my take on it. Not sure anyone else reads it that closely to even see that.

 

[steve53]

Patrick, please post that Q-debunking chart on how the Gospels share sections.

Is that copyrighted?

 

[patrick457]

Matthew and Luke end up reading the same after a point. Sure, at first they Seem to read like they are independent writings. Not too long into it, you see them blend to the point that it demands an answer about their originality.
That’s just my take on it. Not sure anyone else reads it that closely to even see that.

Congratulations! You’ve just stumbled upon the so-called Synoptic problem. You might also want to add Mark into the mix.

 

[patrick457]

Patrick, please post that Q-debunking chart on how the Gospels share sections.

Is that copyrighted?

You meant this?

 

[steve53]

yes. thanks. saved it

 

[patrick457]

To continue:

One of the particular quirks of Matthew is the pet phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” which appears six times throughout the gospel (8:12; 13:42; 13:50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30). This phrase ties in perfectly with Matthew’s dualistic worldview and emphasis on reward and punishment. Strangely enough, however, one of the instances in which this phrase appears is at the end of a story that does not easily lend itself to punishment - the parable of the wedding feast (22:1-14; cf. Luke 14:16-24). Let’s compare how the parable is presented in each of the two gospels:

Matthew (22:1-14)

And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.”’ But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city. Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding feast is ready, but those invited were not worthy. Go therefore to the main roads and invite to the wedding feast as many as you find.’ And those servants went out into the roads and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good. So the wedding hall was filled with guests.
“But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

Luke (14:1-24)

Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
He said also to the man who had invited him, “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the just.”
When one of those who reclined at table with him heard these things, he said to him, “Blessed is everyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” But he said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many. And at the time for the banquet he sent his servant to say to those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.’ But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to examine them. Please have me excused.’ And another said, ‘I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.’ So the servant came and reported these things to his master. Then the master of the house became angry and said to his servant, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and crippled and blind and lame.’ And the servant said, ‘Sir, what you commanded has been done, and still there is room.’ And the master said to the servant, ‘Go out to the highways and hedges and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled. For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste my banquet.’”

We can notice here the Matthean reward and punishment motif: in Matthew’s version of the parable, the ones who rejected the invitation meet a nasty, if somewhat disproportionate, end for their refusal: not only were the ungrateful guests killed, their city was also burned (!) In fact, the disproportionate response goes both ways: whereas in Luke, the guests simply offer different excuses for not going to the banquet, in Matthew the guests kill the messengers (for inviting them to a wedding feast?), which prompts the king to slaughter them in turn.

The Matthean version also ends in a rather odd note, about a man who was bounced out of the party “into the outer darkness” (another Matthean pet phrase, which accompanies “weeping and gnashing of teeth” at least thrice; 8:12; 22:13; 25:10) for not following the party dress code. The ending raises a few intriguing questions: if “many are called but few are chosen,” why then invite them to a party where they are going to be thrown out? Where was this person supposed to get a garment? Did he even know that he needed to wear one? We cannot answer these questions right now, but simply raising them indicates the general framework of Matthew’s storytelling. Even if the narrative logic does not call for a clear delineation of outsider from insider, Matthew crafts his episodes such so that the dualistic framework remains intact.

(P.S. Note that Luke’s parable has the man explicitly naming the invalids of society, “the poor and crippled and blind and lame.” More on this when we get to Luke.)

 

[patrick457]

Matthew’s gospel, stylistically speaking, creates a taxonomy of good and evil. For Matthew, there is no middle way: you either follow Jesus (in which case you are blessed) or you don’t (which means bad luck for you). This viewpoint, as mentioned, makes his gospel different in tone from that of Mark, even though they share much of the same content. Whilst Mark thrives in enigma and ambiguity, Matthew emits earnestness and certainty.

http://images2.bridgemanart.com/cgi-bin/bridgemanImage.cgi/400wm.JB.5760510.7055475/147496.jpg

Which brings us to the other characteristic of Matthew’s gospel: his portrayal of the disciples. Overall, Matthew, due to his desire for certainty, has a more positive portrayal of the disciples, unlike Mark’s blind buffoons. We can see this contrast in the way Mark and Matthew tell the same episode, that of Jesus explaining the parable of the sower.

Mark (4:10-13)

And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that

“they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.”

And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?”

Matthew (13:10-17)

Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says:

“‘“You will indeed hear but never understand,
and you will indeed see but never perceive.”
For this people’s heart has grown dull,
and with their ears they can barely hear,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their heart
and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. For truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

Whereas Mark simply writes that the disciples had been given “the mystery of the kingdom of God,” Matthew, true to form, clarifies it further: “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” Whilst Mark’s Jesus asks His disciples if they understood the parable (with an implied and understood “No” on their part), Matthew’s Jesus commends them: “blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.” Not only that - they also confidently reply to Jesus that yes, they understood what He was saying (14:51-52):

“Have you understood all these things?” They said to him, “Yes.” And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”

For Matthew, solid knowledge is a necessity, and he gives clear instructions on how to achieve it. Whereas Mark puts into question the easy categorization of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders,’ Matthew leaves no doubt as to who ‘gets it’. The Matthean Jesus requires no less devotion than the Markan Jesus, but He requires less puzzling. To go back to the example of the two houses, Jesus’ reputation as leader rests upon those who hear His words and those who act on them. It is as if Matthew could not risk ‘tarnishing’ and calling into question Jesus’ legacy by showing the disciples as ignorant hearers.

 

[patrick457]

There are other two episode in Matthew where we can see this difference between the two, both coincidentally involving the sea: the calming of the storm and the walking on the water. Again, in both instances let’s compare Matthew’s version with Mark’s.

Mark (4:35-41)

On that day, when evening had come, he said to them, “Let us go across to the other side.” And leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat, just as he was. And other boats were with him. And a great windstorm arose, and the waves were breaking into the boat, so that the boat was already filling. But he was in the stern, asleep on the cushion. And they woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” And he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Peace! Be still!” And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, “Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?” And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?”

Matthew (8:23-27)

And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” And he said to them, “Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?” Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, “What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?”

In Mark, the disciples seem to ask a blunt, somewhat petulant question to the sleeping Jesus: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” In Matthew, however, they give out a more certain cry for help: “Save us, Lord; we are perishing.” (Again, note here the use of “Lord,” which is used in Matthew by those who believe in Jesus - the title “Teacher,” or in Judas’ case, “Rabbi,” is a shibboleth limited to the antagonists of the gospel.) The impact of Jesus’ rebuke is also a good deal softer: rather than saying outright that the disciples have “no faith” as Mark does, in Matthew they have “little faith.” Not enough, but faith nevertheless.

Mark (6:45-52)

Immediately he made his disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. And after he had taken leave of them, he went up on the mountain to pray. And when evening came, the boat was out on the sea, and he was alone on the land. And he saw that they were making headway painfully, for the wind was against them. And about the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. He meant to pass by them, but when they saw him walking on the sea they thought it was a ghost, and cried out, for they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” And he got into the boat with them, and the wind ceased. And they were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened.

Matthew (14:22-33)

Immediately he made the disciples get into the boat and go before him to the other side, while he dismissed the crowds. And after he had dismissed the crowds, he went up on the mountain by himself to pray. When evening came, he was there alone, but the boat by this time was a long way from the land, beaten by the waves, for the wind was against them. And in the fourth watch of the night he came to them, walking on the sea. But when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” and they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.”
And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Again, compared to Mark’s somewhat grim ending (where he emphasizes again via narration just how blind the disciples were), the pericope ends positively: the disciples confess Jesus outright as “Son of God.” In Mark, the only human character to ever use the title in relation to Jesus is the centurion who presides over the crucifixion at the end of the story, but in Matthew’s narrative, the people around Jesus aren’t that blind - in fact, the Matthean Jesus gets showered with the title every now and then. There is also the fact that Matthew has greater drama by this point: instead of merely noting that “the wind was against them” as Mark does, the boat, which is by now “a long way from the land,” is said to be “beaten by the waves.”