A comparion: Mark, Luke and Matthew
Stories: Jesus’ baptism, temptation, and healing of two women
I find the relationship between the three gospels quite striking. The fact that so much action, even specific language, is shared, provides strong evidence that the three authors obviously drew upon common sources beyond simply the oral tradition. However, the very similarity between the gospels allows the reader to discern more clearly the theological perspective and literary style of the three authors. In the scenes of Jesus’ baptism, temptation and healing of two women, each author’s choice of words as well as actions show clearly that each author has a different emphasis.
Mark’s language adds a certain rawness to his narrative. For example, in his baptismal account, Mark uses the word [schism] instead of a milder “open” that Luke and Matthew use. Furthermore, Mark uses the words [it happened, and, immediately] throughout his narrative and thus avoids giving as much background information. In his temptation story, Mark uses the word [desert/wilderness] twice, mentions wild animals (which neither Luke nor Mathew use) and then uses the word [expel] (again in contrast with Luke and Matthew) to describe the Spirit’s actions on Jesus. Lastly, Jesus even speaks in Aramaic in Mark, which in my opinion adds to the rawness.
Matthew’s language, I believe, more fully develops the ties of between Judaism and Jesus. In Matthew’s baptismal account, Jesus discusses with John that these actions must be done to fulfill “righteousness,” an important Jewish concept not addressed in the other authors’ version of the story. In his temptation account, Matthew adds the words “forty nights” to the forty days, which give this passage stronger resonance with the Exodus story. Matthew also has Jesus complete the Scripture verse, “but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” In Matthew’s account of the healings, Jesus does not call the bleeding woman my daughter, but simply calls her daughter. This small change from Mark and Luke allows Matthew to put distance between Jesus and this ritually unclean woman. Lastly, perhaps this is mostly conjecture, but I find it interesting that Matthew calls attention at the end of his healing story to the fact that the fame spread through out the land, as opposed to the people. I think this connection to a particular land would emphasize a Jewish, as opposed to Hellenist outlook of his Gospel.
Specific words of Luke in these stories reflect not only his perspective on Jesus, but also on the community of believers. Before Jesus is baptized, he is praying, something unique in Luke’s account. Furthermore, Luke is concerned with the [people] a word he uses in his baptismal account and healing stories (3.21, 8.47). In addition, Luke uses the word “holy” or “spirit” in all three accounts where Mark and Matthew do not (8.55, 3.22, 4.1). Lastly, Luke uniquely uses the words [save] and [heal](8.44, 8.50). I think if we rework these words, we see some key elements of the theology of Luke and Acts. Jesus is a Savior who brings healing. Jesus creates a people of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, who constantly receive their strength from prayer.
The actions in Mark’s narrative portray a distant, but yet very human Jesus. Unlike Matthew, Jesus has no dialogue with John. Instead, he comes alone and is baptized without discussion. The healing stories in Mark begin with Jesus removed from the people, off in a boat. In Matthew and Luke, he is already walking among the people. However, this same distant, almost aloof figure, is not omniscient. In Mark’s account, Jesus has no idea who touched him and even after he looks around, he cannot see her. He is almost too aloof to even be aware of his surroundings. Ultimately, this distance, this being withdrawn and being alone makes Jesus vulnerable.
Matthew, one could almost argue, cleans up Mark to protect Jesus. As previously mentioned, Matthew includes the account of Jesus justifying his baptism, as if to address the argument, why would Jesus be baptized? In my mind, Matthew’s expansion of the temptation account testifies to Jesus strength. Jesus is able, in spite of his hunger, to argue with the devil. In the healing accounts, Matthew ignores Mark’s claim of Jesus ignorance. Instead, he immediately has Jesus offer the woman words of compassion. Furthermore, Matthew also has the story end with triumph and praise, without the imperative for silence found in Mark and Luke.
Luke’s narrative not only varies in his details regarding Jesus, but also his details regarding the other characters in the story. Although John is not mentioned in his Baptism account, John has already played a large role in the narrative. In his temptation account, the devil is given a voice beyond Mark, beyond Matthew and even beyond Scripture. Furthermore, Luke offers names in his healing account – Peter and Jarius. Moreover, the reader learns that Jarius only has one daughter. Even though Mark also details the hemorrhaging woman’s sufferings, it is important to note that Luke also mentions these. I think that Luke’s details create a more personal narrative, a strong contrast to the distance of Mark. Indeed, at the end of the healing narrative, Luke has the family first feed the child and then tells them to keep silent; Mark reverses the order. I think Luke’s order shows the child is Jesus’ first priority.
Mark, Luke and Matthew all share various elements of their stories. However, each author utilizes a different vocabulary and stresses various events in their stories. I shy away from making strong assertions about the overall tendencies of each author after such a short exercise. However, Mark seems rough, Luke seems personable, and Matthew seems neat and Jewish.
I find the relationship between the three gospels quite striking. The fact that so much action, even specific language, is shared, provides strong evidence that the three authors obviously drew upon common sources beyond simply the oral tradition. However, the very similarity between the gospels allows the reader to discern more clearly the theological perspective and literary style of the three authors. In the scenes of Jesus’ baptism, temptation and healing of two women, each author’s choice of words as well as actions show clearly that each author has a different emphasis.
Mark’s language adds a certain rawness to his narrative. For example, in his baptismal account, Mark uses the word [schism] instead of a milder “open” that Luke and Matthew use. Furthermore, Mark uses the words [it happened, and, immediately] throughout his narrative and thus avoids giving as much background information. In his temptation story, Mark uses the word [desert/wilderness] twice, mentions wild animals (which neither Luke nor Mathew use) and then uses the word [expel] (again in contrast with Luke and Matthew) to describe the Spirit’s actions on Jesus. Lastly, Jesus even speaks in Aramaic in Mark, which in my opinion adds to the rawness.
Matthew’s language, I believe, more fully develops the ties of between Judaism and Jesus. In Matthew’s baptismal account, Jesus discusses with John that these actions must be done to fulfill “righteousness,” an important Jewish concept not addressed in the other authors’ version of the story. In his temptation account, Matthew adds the words “forty nights” to the forty days, which give this passage stronger resonance with the Exodus story. Matthew also has Jesus complete the Scripture verse, “but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord.” In Matthew’s account of the healings, Jesus does not call the bleeding woman my daughter, but simply calls her daughter. This small change from Mark and Luke allows Matthew to put distance between Jesus and this ritually unclean woman. Lastly, perhaps this is mostly conjecture, but I find it interesting that Matthew calls attention at the end of his healing story to the fact that the fame spread through out the land, as opposed to the people. I think this connection to a particular land would emphasize a Jewish, as opposed to Hellenist outlook of his Gospel.
Specific words of Luke in these stories reflect not only his perspective on Jesus, but also on the community of believers. Before Jesus is baptized, he is praying, something unique in Luke’s account. Furthermore, Luke is concerned with the [people] a word he uses in his baptismal account and healing stories (3.21, 8.47). In addition, Luke uses the word “holy” or “spirit” in all three accounts where Mark and Matthew do not (8.55, 3.22, 4.1). Lastly, Luke uniquely uses the words [save] and [heal](8.44, 8.50). I think if we rework these words, we see some key elements of the theology of Luke and Acts. Jesus is a Savior who brings healing. Jesus creates a people of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit, who constantly receive their strength from prayer.
The actions in Mark’s narrative portray a distant, but yet very human Jesus. Unlike Matthew, Jesus has no dialogue with John. Instead, he comes alone and is baptized without discussion. The healing stories in Mark begin with Jesus removed from the people, off in a boat. In Matthew and Luke, he is already walking among the people. However, this same distant, almost aloof figure, is not omniscient. In Mark’s account, Jesus has no idea who touched him and even after he looks around, he cannot see her. He is almost too aloof to even be aware of his surroundings. Ultimately, this distance, this being withdrawn and being alone makes Jesus vulnerable.
Matthew, one could almost argue, cleans up Mark to protect Jesus. As previously mentioned, Matthew includes the account of Jesus justifying his baptism, as if to address the argument, why would Jesus be baptized? In my mind, Matthew’s expansion of the temptation account testifies to Jesus strength. Jesus is able, in spite of his hunger, to argue with the devil. In the healing accounts, Matthew ignores Mark’s claim of Jesus ignorance. Instead, he immediately has Jesus offer the woman words of compassion. Furthermore, Matthew also has the story end with triumph and praise, without the imperative for silence found in Mark and Luke.
Luke’s narrative not only varies in his details regarding Jesus, but also his details regarding the other characters in the story. Although John is not mentioned in his Baptism account, John has already played a large role in the narrative. In his temptation account, the devil is given a voice beyond Mark, beyond Matthew and even beyond Scripture. Furthermore, Luke offers names in his healing account – Peter and Jarius. Moreover, the reader learns that Jarius only has one daughter. Even though Mark also details the hemorrhaging woman’s sufferings, it is important to note that Luke also mentions these. I think that Luke’s details create a more personal narrative, a strong contrast to the distance of Mark. Indeed, at the end of the healing narrative, Luke has the family first feed the child and then tells them to keep silent; Mark reverses the order. I think Luke’s order shows the child is Jesus’ first priority.
Mark, Luke and Matthew all share various elements of their stories. However, each author utilizes a different vocabulary and stresses various events in their stories. I shy away from making strong assertions about the overall tendencies of each author after such a short exercise. However, Mark seems rough, Luke seems personable, and Matthew seems neat and Jewish.
posted by RJM at 2:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home