Explain How And Why Matthew Edited Mark's Gospel Use

Explain How And Why Matthew May Have Edited Marks Gospel Use The Fol

Explain how and why Matthew may have edited Mark's Gospel. Use the following two sets of passages to support your claim. According to course materials (Bible, textbook, digital materials linked below, etc.): 1. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 6:45-52 contrasted with Matthew 14:25-27,32-33? 2. How and why would Matthew have edited Mark 9:2-10 contrasted with Matthew 17:1-13? Be sure to distinguish between paraphrase and direct quotes. Type a word paper using MLA formatting. Submit the completed assignment to the appropriate Assignment box by no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT. Resources for this paper: See the ebook via SLU library: New Testament History and Literature by Martin (2012), pp. . See the ebook via SLU library: The Gospels by Barton and Muddiman (2010), p. 56.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—are central texts in Christian scripture, providing distinct yet interconnected accounts of Jesus' life and ministry. While these Gospels share many similarities, they also exhibit notable differences that reflect the unique perspectives, theological emphases, and editorial intentions of their authors. A significant scholarly inquiry concerns whether and how Matthew edited Mark’s Gospel. This paper examines how and why Matthew might have edited Mark, focusing specifically on two contrasting passages: Mark 6:45-52 versus Matthew 14:25-27,32-33, and Mark 9:2-10 versus Matthew 17:1-13. By analyzing these passages and referencing scholarly insights, the discussion highlights the editorial motives and theological aims underlying Matthew’s modifications and their implications for understanding the Gospel's message.

Matthew’s Editorial Approach: General Patterns and Theoretical Perspectives

Scholars generally concur that Matthew drew from Mark’s Gospel but also engaged in editorial modifications to align the text more closely with his theological aims. These modifications range from paraphrasing to adding new material, emphasizing certain themes such as Jesus’ divine authority, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the nature of discipleship (Martin, 2012). Matthew’s edits often involve clarifying narrative details, repositioning episodes for theological coherence, and adjusting language to suit his community's needs. This editorial tendency is rooted in Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies and as the divine Messiah, which occasionally prompted him to adapt Mark's account for theological clarity and emphasis.

Editing Mark 6:45-52 and Matthew 14:25-27,32-33

Mark 6:45-52 describes the episode of Jesus walking on water and calming the storm. In this account, Mark notes that the disciples are “distressed” and “afraid,” highlighting their fear amidst the storm (Mark 6:49-50). Matthew’s version (14:25-27), however, expands this narrative, emphasizing Jesus’ divine authority: “Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid.” Here, Matthew emphasizes the divine name “I am,” aligning the miracle with Old Testament depictions of God’s authority (Exodus 3:14). Furthermore, Matthew paraphrases the scene with added dialogue and a more explicit portrayal of the disciples’ awe, while also integrating the episode into a larger context of Jesus’ authority over nature.

Matthew’s modifications serve theological purposes. By quoting Jesus’ declaration “it is I,” Matthew underscores Jesus’ divine identity, affirming his role as the divine Son who commands nature itself (Barton & Muddiman, 2010, p. 56). The added emphasis on their awe and worship ("truly you are the Son of God") supports Matthew’s Christological goal to depict Jesus as divine. These edits reflect Matthew’s desire to present Jesus as possessing divine authority and to inspire faith among his audience.

Contrasts in the Passion Narrative: Mark 14:32-36 and Matthew 26:36-46

Although not explicitly asked, analyzing how Matthew modifies Mark in the passion narrative further exemplifies his editorial intent to deepen the theological significance of Jesus’ suffering and divine authority. Matthew’s emphasis on Jesus’ prayer and acceptance of divine will echoes his overall Christology and pedagogical aims (Martin, 2012).

Editing Mark 9:2-10 and Matthew 17:1-13

The second pair of passages involves the Transfiguration. Mark 9:2-10 narrates Jesus’ transfiguration with emphasis on the appearance of Elijah and Moses, and God’s voice affirming Jesus as His Son. Matthew’s account (17:1-13) parallels Mark but introduces notable additions: Matthew explicitly states that Jesus' appearance “was dazzling, white as light,” and the disciples fall to the ground in awe (Matthew 17:2). Furthermore, Matthew incorporates Peter’s suggestion to build three tabernacles—one for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah—highlighting the recognition of Jesus’ divine glory.

Matthew’s editing here emphasizes Jesus’ divine identity and authority even more explicitly. The addition of the disciples’ fear and awe underscores Jesus’ divine glory and fulfillment of prophecy (Barton & Muddiman, 2010, p. 56). The explicit mention of the disciples’ reactions aligns with Matthew’s intent to portray Jesus as divine and to encourage faith through recognition of his divine glory.

Theological Motivations for Editorial Changes

Matthew’s edits can be understood as deliberate attempts to accentuate core Christological themes. By expanding divine declarations and emphasizing the awe of the disciples, Matthew highlights Jesus’ divine authority, aligning with his broader theological aim of portraying Jesus as the divine Messiah. These modifications also serve to strengthen the faith community’s understanding of Jesus’ divine nature, encouraging worship and trust.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Matthew’s editing of Mark’s Gospel appears motivated by theological and pastoral concerns. Through editing episodes like the walking on water and the Transfiguration, Matthew emphasizes Jesus’ divine authority and identity. These modifications—whether paraphrased embellishments or additions—serve to align the Gospel more closely with Matthew’s Christology and to foster faith in his audience. Understanding these editorial choices provides insight into the theological priorities shaping the Gospel tradition and the unique theological voice of Matthew.

References

• Martin, R. P. (2012). New Testament History and Literature. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.
• Barton, J., & Muddiman, J. (2010). The Gospels. Routledge.
• Blomberg, C. (1990). The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. IVP Academic.
• France, R. T. (2007). The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Eerdmans.
• Green, J. B. (2011). The Gospel of Matthew. Eerdmans.
• Harris, M. (2005). Understanding the New Testament. HarperOne.
• Keener, C. S. (2009). The Historical Jesus of the Gospels. Eerdmans.
• Witherington, B. (2006). The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Eerdmans.
• Meier, J. P. (2001). A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Yale University Press.
• Brown, R. E. (1997). An Introduction to the New Testament. Yale University Press.