Compare the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in areas regarding source, style, situation and interest.

Authors Avatar

        This essay is an attempt to compare the Gospels of Matthew and Mark in areas regarding source, style, situation and interest.  This will be accomplished by analyzing the pericope of the ‘Parable of the Sower’ (Mt 13:1-15, Mk 4:1-12).  To aid in the analysis between the two evangelists regarding this specific pericope, scholarly journals and discipline specific reference works will be utilized and meditated upon.  It is by no means to be regarded as an all-inclusive study of the two Gospels.  Through the focus of a specific pericope, this essay will merely examine a few of the contrasts and similarities of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew and show how they effect the writings as a whole, while taking into consideration the themes mentioned above.  

        The Gospel according to ‘Mark’ is believed to be the first of the four canonical Gospels to be written.  Most scholars attest that Mark was not an eyewitness to the accounts of Jesus.  Many believe that the information in the Gospel is drawn from the ‘Q Source’.  Other information in the Gospel is believed to have been consummated orally.  Some scholars, who give an early date to the non-canonical Gospel of Thomas, also believe that the rawest form of the ‘Parable of the Sower’ is found in the ninth chapter of Thomas.  The sources that the author of the Gospel of Matthew used are not totally agreed upon by scholars, yet many hypotheses exist regarding the issue.  One hypothesis believes that Matthew used both the Gospels of Mark and the ‘Q Source’ when formulating his own rendition.  Other hypotheses believe that Matthew also ‘borrowed’ a few ideas from the author of the Gospel of Luke.

        When one compares the pericope of the ‘Parable of the Sower’ vertically, it becomes clear that Matthew builds upon the version that Mark has created.  “…he has revised and intensified the Markan version, but has also had access to parallel traditions and complementary material.”1 In the Markan version, he lacks the word ‘heart’, which is present in Matthew.  “Where the two differ on details, Mark has the less elegant text from the point of view of both language and content.”2 Many scholars believe that the author of  ‘Mark’ has a very poor use of grammar and Matthew seems to have ‘edited’ this version.  Mark persistently refers to the “seed” in its singular form, whereas Matthew refers to it in its plural form.  Moreover, “the sayings of Jesus are prefaced by the formula…and in a way suggests that Mark is using a collection of logia similar in outward form to the Gospel of Thomas.”3 The pericope is similar to that in the Gospel of Thomas, yet, the interpretation of the parable found in the canonical Gospels, are not excluded.  

Join now!

        After reading and analyzing the Gospel of Mark, inferences may be reached regarding the style in which it was written.  Firstly, there did not seem to be any order or outline that was formulated when the Gospel was written.  It is very fast-paced and tersely written; it is simple, yet is still a vivid account of one of Jesus’ parables.  The author moves Jesus along quickly from one event to the next and makes frequent use of the word ‘immediately’.  Mark has very little Old Testament quotes in comparison to Matthew and also draws attention to the disciple’s lack ...

This is a preview of the whole essay