Please take a look a this online Gospel synopsis here. This site allows you to easily scroll through Matthew, Mark, or Luke and find the parallel passages in the other gospels. If you clicking on the purple (Matthew), blue (Mark), or green (Luke) book icon beside the section heading, the appropriate column will automatically scroll to the parallel passage. Read a portion of the Gospel of Mark and a parallel passage in the Gospel of Matthew, e.g., the "plucking the grain" story in Matthew 12:1-8 and Mark 2:23-28 or the "house divided" story in Matthew 12:25-27 and Mark 3:23-30.
As your "comment," note which version of the passage (if either) seems to you to be most likely the original version? In this passage does it look like Matthew is dependent on Mark, the Mark is dependent on Matthew, or that the the two gospels are giving independent accounts? Explain your thinking.
I choose Of Salt and Light.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I feel like the account written in Mark is the original account and I think that Matthew was dependent on Mark. I know this seems like a weird thing to say because Matthew comes before Mark, but it doesn't mean that they couldn't take inspiration from the other.
I am looking at the Rich Young Ruler found in Matthew, Mark and Luke. I think the original was from Mark i believe that Mark was the person that was there. But what is interesting is that Matthew says the Rich Young Ruler is worried about what good deed will get him into heaven. Aka the Pharisees way of thinking. Then after him telling Jesús he has kept all the "Law". He only says in Matthew what thing do i lack. Then Jesus metions that if he where perfect he would sell all his things give to the poor and follow him. But in Mark and Luke. The Young Ruler doesn't mention he lacks anything directly. But Jesus just says you lack one thing then mentions the same thing. So you can tell that Matthew made more convicting for the Jewish Audience. Plus you can say it is more convicting now to so called religious peoples. -Austin Dreyer
ReplyDeleteIn Mathew 8:28-32: Jesus casts out demons into pigs, and in mark 5:1-20 does the same.
ReplyDeleteI personally think they're two individual personal accounts of the events happening. In Mathew it's a relatively small account, because the headers in the area would have told everyone what happened, including the jewish population. While in mark, I think mark would have saw what had happened, remembered the extremely potent struggle, then written it down when he wrote his book. He's trying to make a shorter account for growing churches, that also showcases Jesus' authority even over demons. This is the perfect story for it. We know the area, the description of the topography, a look into how demonic hierarchy works, and what happens to the man afterwards. It does not feel like mark was written before Mathew, because they're totally different accounts of the same event, that still line up with each other.
-Walker Larson
(Entry to fix my typos.)
ReplyDeleteIn Mathew 8:28-32: Jesus casts out demons into pigs, and in mark 5:1-20 of the same event.
I personally think they're two individual personal accounts of the events happening. In Mathew it's a relatively small account, because the hearders in the area would have told everyone what happened, including the jewish population. While in mark, I think mark would have saw what had happened, remembered the extremely potent struggle, then written it down when he wrote his book. If he's trying to make a shorter account for growing churches, that also showcases Jesus' authority even over demons. This is the perfect story for it. We know the area, the description of the topography, a look into how demonic hierarchy works, and what happens to the man afterwards. It does not feel like mark was written before Mathew, because they're totally different accounts of the same event, that still line up with each other.
-Walker Larson
House Divided
ReplyDeleteMatthew 12:25-27 & Mark 3:23-30
After reading both versions of this story side by side it would seem to me that Matthew’s version is the original. It is more extensive and lengthy as it goes into more detail. I think that this is more likely than Mark having the original shorter version and just having Matthew add to it. Rather Mark keeps his version short because he assumes that the reader already knows Matthew’s account of the passage so he doesn’t need to go so deep into it, therefore relying on Matthew to have the original version.