Comparing Mark And Matthew 15: 22

The Gospel of Mark has three different endings rather than one known ending like the other Gospels. The other Gospels are easily ended with an ending that fits. The Gospel of Mark is also much shorter than the other ones, but the most important difference is how he chose to begin and end it. There are many scholars giving reasons for how or why this one ended the way it did, and also where they think the correct ending appears. They too have different views, so they must leave it to the readers to decide what they each personally think. The two extra ending that were added have major differences from the original. But with more than one version of the correct ending, it shows there is a problem.

Starting with differences, in the Gospel of Matthew 15:21-28, Matthew seems to have actually referred to Jesus in the text a few times, whereas in the Gospel of Mark 7:24-30 Jesus is continually referred to as “he” by Mark. Not once is Jesus’ actual name mentioned anywhere throughout the text in which Mark is describing the events of what was going on. Although it might be worthy to note that in other portions throughout Mark’s Gospel Jesus is indeed mentioned by Mark.

While both books of Mark and Matthew portray Peter as one of the most important followers of Jesus, Mark seems to emphasize Jesus' spiritual career unlike the broad, more in-depth pursuit of Jesus' life that Matthew embellishes on. As both Jesus' student and friend, Peter is the one disciple most commonly referred to in the stories. Yet the two passages seem to draw different pictures of Jesus' distinguished disciple. In Matthew, Peter seems to play a larger role in Jesus' teachings and seems more significant to Jesus throughout the book. In Mark, he is still important, but to a lesser extent in the eyes of the author. Mark leaves Peter out of a few of the stories altogether and only touches

When comparing how the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Thomas view the kingdom of God, the writings have some similarities, but have two opposing main views are how you get to the kingdom. In the Gospel of Mark, it talks more about how one has to repent in order to enter the kingdom of God. It’s portrayed as more of a place one has to earn the right to enter through various doings. In the Gospel of Thomas, it has written that the kingdom is inside and all around. It’s not a specific place, but rather the kingdom is present at all times. However, both Gospels describe the actual kingdom in such a similar way, both comparing the kingdom to a mustard seed.

I have decided to compare and contrast the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. In the book of Matthew, we begin with the angel coming to Joseph and telling him of the son that Mary will bare him. The angel says to name him Jesus and tells him that he will save the people from their sins. This clearly marks Christ as the savior from the start. It can be seen that Jesus is the healer of many when he is presented with sick people, because he heals them. He heals those who are sick, mental, and possessed. He is seen as a teacher when he goes to the top of the mountain and speaks to everyone that is listening, he teaches them what is right from then on. He is seen giving healing powers to his disciples and sending them forth to heal and teach the people of his ways. He is seen as a miracle worker, when he walks on the waters of the sea and calms them and then allows Peter to walk on the water toward him. He is seen as a leader as well, in the many times that he leads his people to where they need to be. He is seen as forgiving, in the many times he forgives and tells others to forgive. He is seen as the Messiah, which was clear from the

The Gospel according to Matthew is the first book of the New Testament. The story explains how the Messiah, Jesus, was refused by Israel and finally sent the disciples to preach the gospel around the whole world. As Matthew wrote for his fellow Jews, he wrote his Gospel in the language Jesus spoke, Aramaic, which led early Church Fathers to believe Matthew’s was the first Gospel. On the other hand, the Gospel of Mark teaches that Jesus is the Son of God who assumed human nature. Mark wrote the gospel in Greek for a Gentile-Christian audience, which was undergoing persecution, perhaps in Rome. A central theme is that following Jesus often means that a Christian must suffer like Jesus did. Mark’s Gospel points out that Jesus accepted this important title, but that he was reluctant to let people know his identity. (Matthew 26:26-30 and Mark 14:22-26 )

The way in which both Matthew and Luke treat Mary in their birth narratives affects our understanding of the historicity of these accounts. It could be argued that both of the birth narratives present the male ideology of that time. This is clear when in Luke, Mary is first introduced as “a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David” This description reveals the two most important features of a woman of her time: her virginity and, the man who she belonged to. This male ideology is also presented through Matthew’s writing as he also associates the female population with the aspect of birth and nurture. However, despite both of

Jesus Christ and his kingdom as the good news of salvation. For Matthew, Jesus is not the son of David, but he is the son of Abraham.

Mark gets right to the point when telling the story of the life of Jesus; he does not talk about the birth, Jesus ancestry, nor his mother, or father. Mark recognizes Jesus as a person, as a messiah, a son of God, he shows that he is the son of God. Mark 1:11 says, “The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ, the son of God”(NIV, p 1653). He shows who Jesus is through the things he does, not so much what Jesus said, Mark focuses more on the life Jesus lived. Showing the miracles Jesus performed, and talks about the people Jesus healed, Mark speaks of over 15 accounts where Jesus preformed these miracles walking on water, healing people/strangers of diseases, sickness, pain and weakness. Jesus says in Mark 11:24, “Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (NIV, p 1679). Mark does paint a beautiful picture of Jesus but he shows a different side, a side of Jesus who did not flaunt himself as the Messiah. Although Mark refers to Jesus as the Messiah or the Son of God he often shows that Jesus does

The gospels Mathew and John contain distinct differences. According to the Gospel of John, Pilate brought Jesus out a second time to plead Jesus' innocence. The crowd demanded Jesus' death again. Also in John's gospel, the soldiers are sent to take down the bodies. Pilate's soldiers broke the legs of the two criminals. They "did not break [Jesus'] legs" because they thought he was dead (Jn 19:33 NAB). This detail is not mentioned in Mathew's gospel. Another difference was when Jesus was resurrected he said to his disciples "Peace be with you" (Jn 20:19 NAB). In Mathew, moments after Jesus death "the rocks split" (Mt 27:51 NAB). Johns gospel does not have an earthquake in it. Also, in Mathew, Simon helps Jesus carry the cross. Simon was "pressed

The dispute of details between Mark and Matthew continues in Mark 10:1: “And crowds again gathered around him and as was his custom, he again taught them.” Based on Mark’s gospel once Jesus arrived at both Judea and beyond the Jordan, he is met with many people who he’d taught. Matthew’s gospel thought otherwise. In Matthew 19:2, “Large crowds followed him, and he cured them there.” Unlike Mark’s Gospel in which Jesus taught a large group of people, Matthew writes that once Jesus arrives in Judea he cured the large group of people. This ambiguity could have been caused because the words for teaching and cure in Greek are similar. It could suggest that Matthew meant Jesus cured the large group of people of their sins, which would be more in line with Mark in which Jesus may have taught the large group of people on how to rid of their sins.

The genre of this specific pericope is best described as a narrative (Mann 398). This narrative is seen not only here in Mark but also in Luke 18:18-30 and Matthew 19:16-30. Thus, though the Markan story is written by Mark, it does not stand alone. The Book

The books of Matthew and John though have many similarities, also have many differences due to the goals that they are trying to achieve and the importance of points/events they are trying to get across. The reason behind the initial portrayals of Jesus helps achieve the goals of each book; whereas Matthew’s book tries to ‘convince’ the educated readers and quarrelers (Pharisees), John’s book does not care much about reputation per se. For example, Jesus turns on the Jews who believe in him to generate a readers response to him as the definitive expression of God 's will or revelation as opposed to Matthew’s intentional readers response to God 's will as expressed in the Mosaic Law. While there are many qualities I could delve into regarding the difference in characters of Jesus, my essay in particular will look at what each book views is especially important with regard to Jesus and his intentions. Specifically, my main focus will be on the presentation of Jesus and reasons for doing so; setting in context what the book is basically about.

Matthew and Mark have the most similar writings in regards to this miraculous act, besides a few minor things. Matthew writes that Jesus feels pity for them and cures the sick but Mark on the other hand does write that Jesus feels pity, but does not mention healing the sick. In Matthew, the people heard the ship

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the first books of the New Testament within the Bible, The Gospels as they are so called. The words of the Gospels tell of the teachings of Jesus and his disciples and they bring the word of God to others through the land. Now, the books of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are called synoptic gospels as they are all very similar as to the way the stories are structured, worded, and similarity in context. As for the book of John, this book differs a bit with its structure being different than the 3 before and also its perception, or depiction, of Christ.