[PrttyBrownEyez21]

My western culture teacher assigned this writing prompt and I'm having trouble figuring out what he wants us to do. Can someone please read the assignment he gave us and elaborate a little more. I sent my teacher an email days ago and he has not answered me.

The prompt was

"Choose three stories that are common to both the gospel of Mathew and Mark,and going on the assumption that Matthew recast the gospel of Mark,point out(in as much detail as you can) what modifications Mathew made to his predecessor,and speculate as to why he may have made those changes.Your comparison might include such things as the portrayal of the events themselves, a juxtaposition and analysis of character traits, actions, interactions, and the like."

I would appreciate someone's help. Thank you in advance

[Wondergirl]

1) Choose three stories that are common to both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.
2) Point out (in as much detail as you can) what modifications Matthew made to Mark's writings.
3) Speculate why he made those changes.
a) the portrayal of the events themselves
b) a juxtaposition of facts and events
c) an analysis of character traits, actions, interactions, and the like

First, choose three stories common to Matthew and Mark.

[PrttyBrownEyez21]

Thank you. I don't know if you are familiar with Mathew and Mark but if so do you know one more story that are common to the both of them. I have the meeting with John The Baptist and the encounter with Pontius Pilate.

[Wondergirl]

I'm a preacher's kid and former Lutheran school teacher and Bible class leader, so yes, I'm familiar with them.

Common to Matthew and Mark --

* John the Baptist's appearance & message
* Jesus baptized
* Jesus tested
* Jesus preaches in Galilee
* Cures & exorcisms
* Social controversies (meals & sabbath observance)
* Interpretation of parables
* 5000 fed
* Peter identifies Jesus as Messiah
* Jesus' death & disciples' persecution predicted
* Jesus transformed
* Exorcism
* 2nd prediction of Jesus' fate
* Jesus goes to Judea
* Jesus summons children
* Call to abandon possessions & follow Jesus
* 3rd prediction of Jesus' fate.
* Blind cured
* Jesus enters Jerusalem
* Temple purged
* Jesus questioned by Jerusalem authorities
* Destruction of temple predicted
* Judas Iscariot cooperates with temple authorities
* Jesus celebrates Passover meal
* Jesus arrested at Gethsemane
* Trial by Sanhedrin
* Peter denies Jesus
* Trial by Pontius Pilate
* Crucifixion
* Burial by Joseph of Arimathea
* Women discover empty tomb (told to report to disciples).

This link should give you everything you need to write your report --

http://virtualreligion.net/primer/ou.../outlines.html

[PrttyBrownEyez21]

Thank you so much!! I appreciate all your help!! :)

[PrttyBrownEyez21]

I finished my paper. If it's not too much to ask, can you look over it for me? I will attach it, if you can't then that is fine too.I also need a title, I think mine is too bland.

I tried attaching it but it didn't work.


Here it is...


Matthew and Mark's Take on Jesus

The bible is a sacred text that holds many interpretations. Within that text is the New Testament which contains four gospels and those are Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. More Specifically the first three are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because they're all conveying messages about Jesus in ways that are similar. These gospels are an account of Jesus' life but they are not biographical but rather stories told from a person's point of view meant to evoke certain emotions to the intended audience. Despite the fact that the same stories are essentially being told, the way in which they are told differs as well as the amount of detail that is provided.
For as long as we can remember there has been debate about whether Matthew came first. It has been socially accepted that Mark came first and that Matthew rewrote Mark with his own concerns. There were quite a few stories that were present throughout both, but the ones that will be scrutinized in this discussion will be Jesus Walking on Water, The Crucifixion of Jesus and The Resurrection of Jesus.
Matthew's intended audience was the Jews and he was trying to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, while Mark's was for the Romans and he portrayed Jesus as being a strong but suffering servant of God. Mark is more fast-faced and action-orientated, while Matthew is very detail oriented. Mark may have omitted the birth of Jesus and his genealogy but he's never short on providing visuals and relying on emotions. According to both Matthew and Mark Jesus walked on water. Both provide the reader with the essential, but Matthew's take on this story is more in depth. Both agreed that this miracle happened after feeding 5,000 men and both implied that Jesus urged his disciples to get on the boat and go ahead of him so that he could have time alone to pray to God. Unfortunately hours into the trip the disciples reluctantly met a brooding storm. Matthew and Mark agreed that Jesus became the savior and came out to his disciples on the water, but the disciples didn't recognize him for they feared it was a ghost. Because, Mark is condensed and goes straight to the heart of the stories, there was no mention of Peter. Matthew mentioned that when Jesus tried to reassure them by announcing that it was him that Peter needed more assurance that he was indeed Jesus, he said
“Lord if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”
In that moment, Peter started heading towards Jesus but he got intimated when he took his eyes off Jesus and saw the ferocious wind and waves and began to sink. Jesus immediately grabbed his hand and got them both safely aboard the boat, but not before he told Peter he shouldn't doubt him. More than anything, this was the moment that everyone knew he was truly the son of God and the disciples recognized this because for the first time they called him the son of God. I speculate that Matthew differed with his the details of his story for the simple fact that since he was trying to convince his audience that Jesus was the Messiah he had to be very descriptive. One can't convince someone else of something without valid and accurate information.
The main and significant point that both shared was that Jesus had proven himself by doing something that only God could do and that was controlling the elements. What's ironic about both stories is how the disciples didn't recognize Jesus, despite all the time they spent together. On a deeper level this emphasized that sometimes a person doesn't recognize Jesus in times of trouble or “storms”; he may not come when one thinks he should but he does when one needs him the most.
For the most part both Gospels have similar accounts of the Crucifixion of Jesus but there are still some significant differences. Matthew and Mark wanted to emphasize how omniscient Jesus was when it pertained to his death and this occurred in many instances. For example, Jesus knew that one of disciples would betray him for he said during Passover that someone would betray him but everyone was quick to assure him that it was not them. This foreshadowing proved to be true in both gospels because it was Judas who betrayed him, sold him out for money which led to his crucifixion. The description of the crucification itself seemed like that of an eye witness account and this is where the stories began to differ. From Matthew's perspective there was an earthquake during Jesus' death, where bodies of Saints were awakened, later to freely roam the streets after the resurrection. According to Mathew all the disciples fled when Jesus got arrested, the only people who were present for the crucifixion were Mary Magdalene and Mary who was the mother of Joseph and James who later prove to be people of significance. Before the tragedy itself many belittled Jesus, and mocked him and this was best illustrated by
“If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross…He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, “I am God's Son.”
It is hard to provide a proper judgment as to why Matthew and Mark differed because for this story they were very much in sync. Once again this goes back to one providing more details while the other was straight to the point. Certainly more could be said about the Crucifixion of Jesus but through those brief instances mentioned I think you'll get a clearer view of all the events leading up to and after.

Matthew and Mark both record the resurrection of Jesus after his death on the cross. In both, Joseph pleaded with Pilate to let him take Jesus' body. As mentioned before, there was foreshadowing; Jesus foretold his fate three times in both stories in order to signify its importance. This was best portrayed by Matthew,
“…The son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him and kill him; and after three days he will rise again.”
While reflecting on the events, the authorities became terrified of the rants that this so-called imposter had said. They feared that Jesus' body would be stolen or worse rise once more. In order to stop this from happening they barricaded the tomb with a seal and hired security. When Mary and Mary entered the tomb something miraculous happened,
“Suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightening, and his clothing white as snow…The angel said to the women “Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has been raised, as he said.”
After this brief encounter the women did as they were told and went to find the disciples and met Jesus along the way. In Mathew, there was once again doubt about whether he was Jesus. According to Mark he was received by the disciples with open arms but not before he scolded them for their lack of faith and stubbornness. As mentioned earlier, mark tugged on your heart strings and this was best narrated through the ascension of Jesus. Mathew didn't include this in his story and that seems questionable since his main goal was to convey Jesus as the messiah.
No matter whose point of view or perspective you are looking through, in the end Jesus accomplished what he sought out to do and that was bring salvation to all mankind. Matthew and Mark might have portrayed their stories differently but nothing will change the fact that the bible is a literary representation of Jesus. Through the words of Mathew and Mark you were able to a take a deeper look into the life of Jesus and everything and everyone he left behind.

[Wondergirl]

There are a lot of punctuation and grammar problems. Do you want an edit done?

[PrttyBrownEyez21]

Yes please, I'm not sure where all those random symbols came from if that is what you are referring to. As far as the content in the paper and organization,did I do good?

[Wondergirl]

Those symbols show up when you copy something from MSWord. It's still a bit disorganized (you don't prove each story in the same way), but basically okay. I didn't change your title, and added a lot of missing commas.

Matthew and Mark's Take on Jesus

The Bible is a sacred text that offers many interpretations. Within that text is the New Testament that contains four Gospels: Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. More specifically, the first three are referred to as the Synoptic Gospels because all three convey messages about Jesus in similar ways. These Gospels are an account of Jesus' life -- not biographical but rather stories told from a person's point of view and meant to evoke certain emotions from the intended audience. Despite the fact that many of the same stories are told, the way in which they are told differs as well as the amount of detail that is provided.

For as long as we can remember, there has been debate about whether Matthew came first. It has been generally accepted that Mark came first and that Matthew rewrote Mark. There are quite a few stories that are common to both, but the ones that will be scrutinized in this discussion will be Jesus Walking on Water, The Crucifixion of Jesus and The Resurrection of Jesus.

Matthew and Mark each had an agenda. Matthew's intended audience was the Jews, and he was trying to prove that Jesus was the Messiah. Mark, on the other hand, wrote for the Romans and portrayed Jesus as being a strong but suffering servant of God. Mark is more fast-paced and action-oriented, while Matthew is very detail-oriented. Mark may have omitted the birth of Jesus and his genealogy, but he's never short on providing visuals and relying on emotions.

According to both Matthew and Mark, Jesus walked on water. Both provide the reader with the essentials, but Matthew's take on this story is more in depth. Both agreed that this miracle happened after feeding 5,000 people, and both implied that Jesus urged his disciples to get on the boat and go ahead of him so that he could have time alone to pray to God. Unfortunately, hours into the trip, the disciples encountered a brooding storm. Matthew and Mark agreed that Jesus became the savior and walked out to his disciples on the water, but the disciples didn't recognize him and feared it was a ghost. Because Mark is condensed, he goes straight to the heart of the stories. There was no mention of Peter.

Matthew mentioned that when Jesus tried to reassure them by announcing that it was he, Peter needed more assurance that it was indeed Jesus. He said, "Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water." Peter stepped out of the boat and began walking toward Jesus, but became intimidated when he took his eyes off Jesus and saw the ferocious wind and waves, then began to sink. Jesus immediately grabbed his hand and got them both safely aboard the boat, but not before he told Peter he shouldn't doubt him. More than anything, this was the moment that everyone knew he was truly the son of God. The disciples recognized this because, for the first time, they called him the son of God. I speculate that Matthew differed with the details of his version of the story for the simple fact that, since he was trying to convince his audience that Jesus was the Messiah, he had to be very descriptive. One can't convince someone else of something without valid and accurate information.

The main and significant point that both shared was that Jesus had proven himself by doing something that only God could do and that was controlling the elements. What's ironic about both stories is that the disciples didn't recognize Jesus, despite all the time they spent together. On a deeper level, this emphasized that sometimes a person doesn't recognize Jesus in times of trouble or "storms"; Jesus may not come when one thinks he should, but he does when one needs him the most.

For the most part, both Gospels have similar accounts of the Crucifixion of Jesus, but there are still some significant differences. Matthew and Mark wanted to emphasize how omniscient Jesus regarding his death. This occurred in many instances. For example, Jesus knew that one of disciples would betray him. He said during Passover that someone would betray him, but everyone was quick to assure him that it was not him. This foreshadowing proved to be true in both Gospels, because it was Judas who betrayed him, sold him out for money which led to his crucifixion. The description of the crucifixion itself seemed like that of an eye witness account, and this is where the stories began to differ. From Matthew's perspective, there was an earthquake during Jesus' death, when bodies of saints were awakened, later to freely roam the streets after the resurrection. According to Matthew, all the disciples fled when Jesus got arrested, and the only people who were present for the crucifixion were Mary Magdalene and Mary, the mother of Joseph and James who later prove to be people of significance. Before the tragedy itself, many belittled Jesus, and mocked him. This was best illustrated by "If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross" and then "He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to; for he said, "I am God's Son."

It is hard to provide a proper judgment as to why Matthew and Mark differed. For this story, they were very much in sync. Once again this goes back to one providing more details while the other was straight to the point. Certainly more could be said about the Crucifixion of Jesus but through those brief instances mentioned, the reader can get a clearer view of all the events leading up to and after.

Matthew and Mark both record the Resurrection of Jesus after his death on the cross. In both Gospels, Joseph pleaded with Pilate to let him take Jesus' body. As mentioned before, there was foreshadowing; Jesus foretold his fate three times in both stories in order to signify its importance. This was best portrayed by Matthew, "The son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles; they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him and kill him; and after three days he will rise again." While reflecting on the events, the authorities became terrified of the rants of this so-called imposter. They feared that Jesus' body would be stolen, or worse, rise once more. In order to stop this from happening, they barricaded the tomb with a seal and hired security. When the two Marys entered the tomb, something miraculous happened: "Suddenly there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord, descending from heaven, came and rolled the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow." The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid; I know that you are looking for Jesus who was crucified. He is not here for he has been raised, as he said."

After this brief encounter, the women did as they were told and went to find the disciples. They met Jesus along the way. In Matthew, there was once again doubt about whether he was Jesus. According to Mark, he was received by the disciples with open arms but not before he scolded them for their lack of faith and stubbornness. As mentioned earlier, Mark tugs on the reader's heart strings, best narrated through the ascension of Jesus. Mathew didn't include this in his Gospel, so that seems questionable since his main goal was to convey Jesus as the Messiah.

No matter whose point of view or perspective the reader focuses on, in the end Jesus accomplished what he sought out to do, and that was bring salvation to all mankind. Matthew and Mark might have portrayed their stories differently, but nothing will change the fact that the Bible is a literary representation of Jesus. Through the words of Matthew and Mark, the reader is able to a take a deeper look into the life of Jesus along with everything and everyone he left behind.