Mark doesn't report Peter's failed waterwalk

[Neithan]

I was reading the Gospel of Mark the other day and I came to the passage where Jesus walks on water.

I noticed there is no mention of Peter coming out of the boat to meet Our Lord and then falling in the water because of his weak faith.

I wondered why that wasn’t included, since Mark wrote the Gospel from Peter’s accounts right? Why wouldn’t Peter have mentioned that? I can’t believe the Apostle would have been too embarrassed and instructed Mark not to write it. Or did Mark just not think it was important?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was reading the Gospel of Mark the other day and I came to the passage where Jesus walks on water.

I noticed there is no mention of Peter coming out of the boat to meet Our Lord and then falling in the water because of his weak faith.

I wondered why that wasn’t included, since Mark wrote the Gospel from Peter’s accounts right? Why wouldn’t Peter have mentioned that? I can’t believe the Apostle would have been too embarrassed and instructed Mark not to write it. Or did Mark just not think it was important?

Remember that the Gospel accounts weren’t meant to be a “play-by-play” account of history. They were testimonies about Christ and were written for specific audiences. Perhaps Mark’s intended audience weren’t concerned about that. One commentary on his Gospel I heard was that Mark seems to focus more on the Passion of Christ. He has a short Gospel yet devotes a lot of chapters on the Passion. The early part seems to be more of just an extended intro to give context about the Passion.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I was reading the Gospel of Mark the other day and I came to the passage where Jesus walks on water.

I noticed there is no mention of Peter coming out of the boat to meet Our Lord and then falling in the water because of his weak faith.

I wondered why that wasn’t included, since Mark wrote the Gospel from Peter’s accounts right? Why wouldn’t Peter have mentioned that? I can’t believe the Apostle would have been too embarrassed and instructed Mark not to write it. Or did Mark just not think it was important?

Peter’s failings in general have a particular emphasis in Matthew that we don’t find in Mark.

 

[patrick457]

I was reading the Gospel of Mark the other day and I came to the passage where Jesus walks on water.

I noticed there is no mention of Peter coming out of the boat to meet Our Lord and then falling in the water because of his weak faith.

I wondered why that wasn’t included, since Mark wrote the Gospel from Peter’s accounts right? Why wouldn’t Peter have mentioned that? I can’t believe the Apostle would have been too embarrassed and instructed Mark not to write it. Or did Mark just not think it was important?

I’m guessing that this might be due to the different emphases between different gospels.

One of the main themes in Mark’s gospel is the “blindness of the disciples.” I’m quoting something I wrote a while ago:

Let’s first start off with the ‘blind disciples’ motif. Mark actually starts off his portrayal of the disciples pretty well: for instance, when Jesus calls His disciples, they obediently follow, leaving behind everything to follow Him (1:16-20; 2:13-17; 3:13-18). However, aside from a handful of places where the disciples shine, everything goes downhill from there, as we will soon see:

The gospel pays particular attention to the alienation that Jesus feels from His disciples. When Jesus articulates His first parable in the gospel (that of the sower), He concludes it with an exhortation: “He who has ears to hear, let him hear.” In other words, “You’d better use your ears and listen well!” Mark does not relate the crowd’s reaction, but he does tell the disciples’, and they pointedly lack “ears to hear.” Jesus responds to their request for an explanation of the parable by pointing their privileged position of having “the mystery of the kingdom of God” plainly revealed to them, while to those outside everything is said in parables. In other words, Jesus does not explain Himself immediately, but provides a justification for His parables, and this justification divides insiders from outsiders. In the hyperbole of this explanation, everything sounds parabolic to outsiders in order that they will remain outside. Mark’s Jesus, according to His own admission, intentionally confounds His listeners to push them away: He slams and locks the door on their faces, so to speak.

The disciples would seem to play the role of insiders, in contrast to the scribes and other opponents, but this is not exactly right. Their position only allows them exposure to the “mystery,” but not necessarily understanding. This gift would prove to be a mixed blessing. In 4:13 Jesus asks them a pair of questions: “Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables?” The implied answer for the first question being “no,” and to the second, that they won’t. Hence, the insiders have no more luck than the outsiders in comprehending Jesus’ riddles. After more parables (mostly involving more seeds), Mark closes this section of the gospel with the words:

With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

The parable of the sower epitomizes Jesus’ teaching to the disciples. He presents them something which confounds them, and when they ask for an explanation, they become more confused. Returning to Jesus’ question, we see that if the disciples do not understand one parable, then they necessarily cannot understand all or any of the parables.

Perhaps to drive home the point that the disciples are faithless dullards, Mark in the following pericope (the calming of the storm; 4:35-41) has the disciples tell Jesus rather bluntly: “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?” and Jesus retorting back: “Have you still no faith?” When Jesus finally orders the storm to die down, the disciples could only remark: “Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” thereby bringing us back to Mark’s emphasis on Jesus being a mysteriously unique figure, as well as further hammering the point of the disciples’ blindness (the only ones who know Jesus’ true identity as “son of God” within the story are supernatural beings like God and the demons; by contrast, most of the human dramatis personae are in the dark as to who Jesus is - Mark’s hearers, in a case of dramatic irony, are thus privileged to be ‘in the know’).​

 

[patrick457]

There is another scene which proves this same point even further. Mark is one of the two gospels which includes two feeding stories. The first (6:30-44) has 5,000 men (plus uncounted numbers of women and children) being fed with only five loaves and two fish, while the second (8:1-10) involved 4,000 people, seven loaves and “a few” small fish. At first, the two stories seem to be so similar as to be repetitive (Luke and John do not include the latter feeding), but it serves the purpose of showing the readers, or rather the hearers of the gospel the disciples’ comprehension skills (or lack thereof). Three times in the first story, the place where the crowd gathers is described as deserted or desolate:

The apostles returned to Jesus and told him all that they had done and taught. And he said to them, “Come away by yourselves to a desolate place and rest a while.” For many were coming and going, and they had no leisure even to eat. And they went away in the boat to a desolate place by themselves. …] And when it grew late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is a desolate place, and the hour is now late. Send them away to go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

In the second story, Jesus subtly attempts to provide His disciples a cue for recalling the previous feeding:

In those days, when again a great crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he called his disciples to him and said to them, “I have compassion on the crowd, because they have been with me now three days and have nothing to eat. And if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way. And some of them have come from far away.”

One would expect the disciples to say, “Why not feed them the same way you did that other crowd.” Instead, however, we get this gem of a question:

And his disciples answered him, “How can one feed these people with bread here in this desolate place?”

The disciples are either so thick, or have collective amnesia: I mean, they were right there in the previous feeding in the other “desolate place”!

Mark, however, does not let the disciples off the hook yet. After the feeding, Jesus has a dispute with “the Pharisees” concerning signs, after which:

And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side. Now they had forgotten to bring bread, and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out; beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” And they began discussing with one another the fact that they had no bread. And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why are you discussing the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Having eyes do you not see, and having ears do you not hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?” And they said to him, “Seven.” And he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?”

Which brings us back to chapter 4:

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.”

The disciples, therefore, are acting like “those outside:” seeing but not seeing, hearing but not hearing. There is again the trademark Markan irony at play here: immediately after Jesus talks about signs, His disciples mistake a metaphorical statement for literal truth. After just having seen Jesus feed crowds, they worry that one loaf will not be enough for all of them. The disciples could get their numbers right, but make horrible interpreters.​

 

[patrick457]

]I quote here from Kyle Keefer’s The New Testament as Literature (one of Oxford University Press’ Very Short Introductions series), to which this thread is mostly indebted to:

Jesus’ almost constant frustration with the disciples and their amazing ability to misunderstand pulls the reader in two directions. In one sense, Mark encourages admiration and even worship of Jesus. Rarely do narratives spotlight one particular character – as Mark’s gospel does – without portraying the antagonist sympathetically. Because Jesus has many attractive qualities, readers do tend to take his side and thus share in his frustration over the disciples’ stupidity. Yet the reader might also side with the disciples. This would especially be true within a religious community that already adhered to Christianity. In this second sense of sympathetic reading, the reader would share in the puzzlement that the disciples feel. Readers who do not claim any religious connection with Mark can be as easily confounded by Jesus as the disciples in the narrative are. By pushing the reader both toward the uncomprehending disciples and the enigmatic Jesus, the Gospel of Mark tends to destabilize the reader and to make the narrative just as challenging as its protagonist.

As mentioned earlier, the greatest irony in Mark’s gospel is that almost know one knows who Jesus is. Mark partly privileges the audience by saying right at the very beginning that Jesus is “son of God,” although he leaves it at that with no clarification. Time and again, supernatural entities appear in the course of the story revealing His true identity (usually using that key phrase “son of God”), sometimes in the ostensive hearing of everyone, but most of the time, either Jesus orders them to shut up, or the people around Him are just too blind and deaf.

And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

And immediately there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit. And he cried out, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God.” But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him!”

And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. And he would not permit the demons to speak, because they knew him.

And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and cried out, “You are the Son of God.” And he strictly ordered them not to make him known.

And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said, “What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me.” For he was saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”

And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.” And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone with them but Jesus only.​

 

[patrick457]

Mark’s gospel pays particular attention to the alienation that Jesus feels from his disciples. A key passage for investigating the dynamics of Mark occurs in chapter four, when Jesus articulates his first parable. He speaks of a sower who scatters seed on four different types of terrain. Mostly the seed falls on ground that proves inhospitable for germination and only a fourth of the seed actually sprouts. Jesus concludes the parable with the exhortation, “Let anyone with ears to hear listen!” Although Mark does not narrate the response of the crowd, he does tell the disciples’ reaction, and they pointedly lack “ears to hear.” Jesus responds their request for an explanation: “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables, in order that ‘while seeing, they see but do not perceive, and while hearing, they hear but do not understand; so that they may not turn again and be forgiven’” (4:11-12). Instead of explaining himself, Jesus gives a justification for his parables, and his justification divides insiders from outsiders. In the hyperbole of this explanation, everything sounds parabolic to outsiders in order that they will remain outside. Jesus in Mark’s gospel, according to his own admission, intentionally confounds the listeners to push them away.

The disciples would seem to play the role of insiders, in contrast to the scribes and other opponents, but this is not exactly right. Their position only allows them the “mystery,” but not necessarily understanding. Some translations of this sentence read “secret” instead of mystery, but the Greek word is mysterion and the English deritative mystery better conveys Jesus’ intent. This gift of mystery proves a mixed blessing for the disciples. Jesus asks in 4:13 a pair of questions: “Do you not understand this parable?” “How then will you understand all the parables?” The answer to the first is “no” and to the second, the implied response is that they won’t. The insiders have no more luck than the outsiders in comprehending Jesus’ riddling speech. After Jesus speaks more parables about seeds, Mark states, “With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples” (4:33) The parable of the sower epitomizes Jesus’ teaching to the disciples. He presents a parable that confounds them, and when they ask for explanation, they become only more confused. Returning to Jesus’ questions, we can see that if the disciples do not understand one parable, then they necessarily cannot understand all of the parables.

The disciples never understand all the parables, and one can make the case that they never understand any of the parables. The characterization of the disciples in Mark’s gospel is shocking in its condescension; the disciples are complete, utter dullards. One scene in particular makes his point. Mark narrates two stories of Jesus’ miraculously feeding a crowd of thousands. The first, in Mark 6:30-44, includes 5,000 men (plus presumably, commensurate numbers of women and children), and they all get their fill from five loaves of bread and two fish. After the meal, the disciples gather up twelve baskets of leftovers. In 8:1-10, presumably a short time later, Jesus does it again. This time he feeds 4,000 people with seven loaves and “a few” small fish (whatever “few” means, there must have been more than two). This seemingly repetitive story serves primarily to point to the disciples’ woeful comprehension. Three times in the first story, the place where the crowd gathers is described as deserted. In the second story, Jesus subtly urges the disciples to remember the previous feeding: “I have compassion for the crowd, because they have been with me now for three days and have nothing to eat. If I send them away hungry to their homes, they will faint on the way—and some of them have come from a great distance.” (8:2-3) This statement cries out for the disciples to say, “Why don’t you feed them the way you did with that other crowd.” But instead they say “How can one feed these people with bread here in the desert?” (8:4). The syntax of their question amply demonstrates their cloddishness. A reader of the text wants to say in response, “The same way that one fed those people back in chapter six with the other bread in the other deserted place!”

 

[patrick457]

But Mark does not let the disciples off the hook yet. He reserves one more jab. After this feeing, Jesus has a brief dispute with the Pharisees, in which he discusses “signs.” What follows is a comical scene resembling a schoolteacher at wit’s end with his students:

Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, “Watch out—beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.” They said to one another, “It is because we have no bread.” And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” They said to him, “Twelve.” “And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?” And they said to him, “Seven.” Then he said to them, “Do you not yet understand?” (8:14-21)

Jesus’ series of questions recalls almost precisely the language of 4:12, and the disciples act exactly as outsiders because while seeing, they do not see, and while hearing, they do not hear. The answer to the last question, just as it had been in chapter 4, is emphatically “No.” Heavy irony pervades this passage, to the detriment of the disciples. After Jesus has just been speaking about “signs,” they mistake a metaphorical statement for a literal truth. After just having seen Jesus feed 4,000 people with seven loaves, they worry that one loaf will not be enough for the twelve of them. The mathematical lesson at the end shows that they can get their facts right, but their interpretive skills are nil.

Jesus’ almost constant frustration with the disciples and their amazing ability to misunderstand pulls the reader in two directions. In one sense, Mark encourages admiration and even worship of Jesus. Rarely do narratives spotlight one particular character – as Mark’s gospel does – without portraying the antagonist sympathetically. Because Jesus has many attractive qualities, readers do tend to take his side and thus share in his frustration over the disciples’ stupidity. Yet the reader might also side with the disciples. This would especially be true within a religious community that already adhered to Christianity. In this second sense of sympathetic reading, the reader would share in the puzzlement that the disciples feel. Readers who do not claim any religious connection with Mark can be as easily confounded by Jesus as the disciples in the narrative are. By pushing the reader both toward the uncomprehending disciples and the enigmatic Jesus, the Gospel of Mark tends to destabilize the reader and to make the narrative just as challenging as its protagonist.

• Kyle Keefer, The New Testament as Literature (part of Oxford University Press’ Very Short Introductions series)

 

[patrick457]

Peter’s failings in general have a particular emphasis in Matthew that we don’t find in Mark.

(Partly reproducing what I wrote in another thread here) That’s the key here, really. Overall, Matthew, due to his desire for certainty (Matthew has this dualistic worldview where the world is clearly defined into two opposing camps: those who follow Jesus and those who don’t, which stands in stark contrast to the ambiguity in Mark’s gospel), 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.”

 

[patrick457]

Here is yet another pericope which shows us the differing perspectives of Mark and Matthew:

Mark (8:27-30)

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.

Matthew (16:13-20)

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

Quoting myself from earlier:

A little later after the talk about leaven (8:14-21), we finally get to the story of Peter confessing Jesus in Caesarea Philippi. Mark’s version of the story is interesting in that Peter proclaims Jesus as “the Christ,” but not the “son of God,” a title no human character in Mark’s narrative would ever use for Jesus up until the very end of Jesus’ life. As we’ve noted a number of times already, Mark has already set the stage for both titles at the very beginning: this is, after all, “the good-news of Jesus Christ, son of God.” Mark then closes this brief episode with yet another warning of secrecy from Jesus: here we have Peter getting it (halfway) right, but Jesus shuts him up all the same, just like the demons who call Him by His real identity: the “son of God.” The messianic secret all over again. Apparently, Mark’s Jesus is not a very good evangelist.

One could say that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah is really the bridge between the first and the second half of the gospel, since immediately afterwards Jesus becomes increasingly fixated on His impending death. And it is in the second half of the gospel that we begin to see the exact nature of Jesus’ being Christ. Mark opens the following section with the words: “And he began to teach them.” It’s a bit of an odd narration, since Jesus has been teaching ever since the beginning of the story. It is better to take this as a cue from the narrator that we are now at a turning point.

You can see that for Mark, the Caesarea Philippi pericope acts more as a vehicle for his own motifs, such as the messianic secret. Matthew’s Peter, by contrast, instead of just saying that Jesus is the Messiah, also adds “the Son of the living God.” Again, Jesus’ identity is not so much of a secret in Matthew as it is in Mark. Also rather than just ordering him to keep quiet as the Markan Jesus does, Matthew’s Jesus, in keeping with the overall positive portrayal of the disciples, praises Peter for his confession (which was not prompted “by flesh and blood”) and promises to build the Church “upon this rock.”

Matthew thus emphasizes the idea of ‘tradition’; his gospel depends upon an unbroken chain, this transmission of teachings from Jesus Himself to His disciples to the readers of the gospel. The disciples are the links which connect Jesus and the audience. Since for Matthew, knowledge of Jesus’ status as Lord (not ‘Teacher’) stands as the ultimate goal for his audience, and since the disciples must transmit this knowledge, they understand him quite well. They do so because, ultimately, Jesus’ teaching depends on them.

 

[patrick457]

Still, this positive portrayal does not mean that Matthew is willing to let the disciples completely off the hook. He has his own version of the disciples’ failure, which often comes across as being more harsher than Mark’s - precisely because he has a more upbeat view of them. For instance, Matthew’s version of the walking on water has Peter asking Jesus to let him walk on the water as well, which ultimately fails. Then there is also this:

After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed.

Peter swears that he denies Jesus, ironically adopting a form of speech which Matthew’s Jesus Himself condemns:

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Still, this positive portrayal does not mean that Matthew is willing to let the disciples completely off the hook. He has his own version of the disciples’ failure, which often comes across as being more harsher than Mark’s - precisely because he has a more upbeat view of them. For instance, Matthew’s version of the walking on water has Peter asking Jesus to let him walk on the water as well, which ultimately fails. Then there is also this:

After a little while the bystanders came up and said to Peter, “Certainly you too are one of them, for your accent betrays you.” Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed.

Peter swears that he denies Jesus, ironically adopting a form of speech which Matthew’s Jesus Himself condemns:

“Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.”

And of course Peter’s fall from grace in Matthew 16, which is made more dramatic in Matthew than in Mark 8 by the build up earlier in the chapter. Stories about Peter in Matthew generally start off well and end badly.

 

[patrick457]

And of course Peter’s fall from grace in Matthew 16, which is made more dramatic in Matthew than in Mark 8 by the build up earlier in the chapter. Stories about Peter in Matthew generally start off well and end badly.

Correct. The more positive and reverential view of Peter and the disciples in Matthew makes their acts of failure (which Matthew does not leave out, but in fact makes harsher) more serious.

 

[patrick457]

Remember that the Gospel accounts weren’t meant to be a “play-by-play” account of history. They were testimonies about Christ and were written for specific audiences. Perhaps Mark’s intended audience weren’t concerned about that. One commentary on his Gospel I heard was that Mark seems to focus more on the Passion of Christ. He has a short Gospel yet devotes a lot of chapters on the Passion. The early part seems to be more of just an extended intro to give context about the Passion.

Exactly! The theme of the crucified Messiah is a pivotal one in Mark. All the motifs in that gospel - such as the pervading dramatic irony, the ‘messianic secret’, Jesus identity as “son of God” and the disciples’ failure - hinge upon it.

 

[gus]

Peter’s failings in general have a particular emphasis in Matthew that we don’t find in Mark.

I disagree the most important Petrine Doctrice Matthew 16 doesn’t occur in Mark
The walk on water again would single Peter out as Special .

Everyone else was cowering in the Boat.
The other importantant Petrine quote
The “feed my sheep” comes from John
Cutting off the ear with the sword John

Were do do find Mark giving a pass to any dumb thing Peter did
/
Please point out something I might have missed
In Mark Peter constantly holds himself out to ridule in Mark as a reminder of the Power of Christ even on a humble fisherman.

 

[patrick457]

I disagree the most important Petrine Doctrice Matthew 16 doesn’t occur in Mark
The walk on water again would single Peter out as Special .

Everyone else was cowering in the Boat.
The other importantant Petrine quote
The “feed my sheep” comes from John
Cutting off the ear with the sword John

Were do do find Mark giving a pass to any dumb thing Peter did
/
Please point out something I might have missed
In Mark Peter constantly holds himself out to ridule in Mark as a reminder of the Power of Christ even on a humble fisherman.

Dave’s point is, as has been explained earlier, that Matthew paints a more positive picture of the disciples in general and Peter in particular. Even so, he also includes many of the ‘negative’ episodes Mark has, and even makes them more ‘intense’: aside from the aforementioned episodes (walking on water and Peter’s denial), you also have Jesus’ rebuke to Peter: Matthew’s Jesus does not just call Peter “Satan,” He also adds that he is being a “stumbling-block.” At least Mark almost consistently shows the disciples as bumbling and blind; Matthew’s portrayal of them as being very capable and understanding makes their fall more jarring.

 

[Neithan]

Thanks Patrick, very enlightening

Naturally these differences in the Gospel narratives make me wonder what *exactly *was really said and done. It couldn’t be an either/or or that would mean a contradiction right? So I guess it was a both/and. For example, the disciples must have called Him both Teacher and Lord, in the boat?

 

[patrick457]

Thanks Patrick, very enlightening

Naturally these differences in the Gospel narratives make me wonder what *exactly *was really said and done. It couldn’t be an either/or or that would mean a contradiction right? So I guess it was a both/and. For example, the disciples must have called Him both Teacher and Lord, in the boat?

This is another of Matthew’s peculiar quirks at play here. In Matthew, you could identify Jesus’ disciples from His enemies based on the titles they use for Him. Those who follow Jesus address Him 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). Matthew in fact has Peter and the two blind men (another Matthean quirk there) 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.

Now guess what Judas calls Jesus in Matthew. He calls Him “Rabbi.” He is the only person in the narrative to use the word, which also happens to be one of the titles which Matthew’s Jesus has condemned the scribes and the Pharisees for accepting (23:7-8). Matthew’s Judas, failing to perceive his Master’s true identity, speaks like the enemies of Jesus.

 

[aragonjohn1]

perhaps peter was marks best friend?

that could be a possibility.