The Significance of Matthew's Alterations and Edits of Mark

[Berserk]

NT scholars recognize the need to distinguish the Evangelists' purposes in editing and rewording their Gospel sources from the purpose of the original events or sayings of Jesus. You are invited to engage the interpretations offered below for several Matthean alterations and edits of Mark.

(1) "And a voice came from Heaven: "YOU ARE my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased (Mark 1:11)."
"And a voice from Heaven said: "THIS IS my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased Matthew 3:17)."

In the Marcan original, the heavenly voice addresses Jesus alone in what seems like a private vision. But Matthew changes "You are" to "This is" so that the heavenly voice's message addresses a broader audience in what seems like a shared vision. John 1:32 agrees with Matthew that John the Baptist also saw the Spirit descending like a dove on Jesus. Some might see Mark's version as the original and use it to help explain John's later doubts about Jesus (Matthew 11:12, 6 // Luke 7:20, 23). Others might see Matthew and John's version not as a later development of this tradition, but as the more historically accurate version. What do you think?

(2) "And the Spirit immediately CAST HIM OUT [Greek: "ekballo"l into the wilderness (Mark 1:12)."
"Then Jesus WAS LED into the wilderness...(Matthew 4:1 // Luke 4:1)."

Mark's verb "ekballo" ("cast out" or "drive") is a powerful verb, the same verb used for Jesus' exorcisms! It's use jmplies Jesus' initial resistance as He tries to process the significance of the heavenly voice's message. Its use also implies that Jesus is still in an altered state of consciousness (a trance?) as He enters the wilderness for what turns out to be a 40 day fasting vigil. Matthew and Luke (using Q) substitute the less descriptive verb "led" to remove the implication of Jesus' temporary loss of self-control.

 

[BeyondET]

Jesus is testifying what He saw in Mark and the other isn't. That's not to complicated.

 

[Berserk]

(2) 3 CHANGES MATTHEW 13:53-58 MAKES TO MARK 61-6:

"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary (Mark 6:3)?"
"Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary (Matthew 13:55)?

Matthew changes Mark's "carpenter" to "carpenter's son" to remove the implication that the Messiah had to perform manual labor for a living.
In Mark the locals call Jesus "the son of Mary," a hostile phrase that implies illegitimacy. A Jewish man would typically be referred to as the son of his father. Matthew eliminates this odious implication by changing the phrase to the more bland: "Is not his mother called Mary?"
Mark's phrase indirectly supports Jesus' virgin birth in the sense that skeptic and believer alike agree that Joseph is not Jesus' true father.

"A prophet is not without honor, except in his hometown AND AMONG HIS OWN KIN, and in his own house (Mark 6:4)."
"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country and in his own house (Maatthew 13:57)."

Matthew covers up the disrespect shown Jesus by His own family. Matthew does this in 2 ways:
(i) He eliminates Jesus' phrase "among His own kin."
(ii) Matthew 13: 46-50 copies Mark's context but eliminates the reference in Mark 3:20-21 to the angry efforts of Jesus 'family to restrain Him for not giving His audience a lunch break.

"And He COULD DO NO deeds of power there... (Mark 6:5)"
"And He DID NOT DO MANY deeds of power there... (Matthew 13:58)"

Matthew recognizes the possible implication of the phrase "could do no" that Jesus sometimes tried and failed to perform miracles.
So Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to remove this implication. But the mere fact that Mark is willing to share such unflattering information about Jesus' efforts lends added credibility to reports of His more spectacular miracles.

 

[Strong in Him]

Matthew changes Mark's "carpenter" to "carpenter's son" to remove the implication that the Messiah had to perform manual labor for a living.

How do you know that was his motivation for "changing" it?
What does the Greek say?

In Mark the locals call Jesus "the son of Mary," a hostile phrase that implies illegitimacy. A Jewish man would typically be referred to as the son of his father.

Even if the father was dead?

Matthew covers up the disrespect shown Jesus by His own family. Matthew does this in 2 ways:
(i) He eliminates Jesus' phrase "among His own kin."

Do we know that it was Matthew who eliminated it? What does the Greek say?

(ii) Matthew 13: 46-50 copies Mark's context

I think you mean Matthew 13:55-57.
In Mark 3 it is not clear that Jesus is in his home town as he is in Matthew 13:54. Two separate incidents?

Matthew recognizes the possible implication of the phrase "could do no" that Jesus sometimes tried and failed to perform miracles.
So Matthew changes "could do no" to "did not do many" to remove this implication. But the mere fact that Mark is willing to share such unflattering information about Jesus' efforts lends added credibility to reports of His more spectacular miracles.

But Jesus often did miracles without enquiring about a person's faith, or asking them to show faith.
Jairus' daughter and Lazarus showed no faith. The man at the pool of Bethesda didn't show faith that Jesus could heal him. A man with a demon possessed son said "IF you can do anything, take pity on us".

"Could do no" miracles doesn't say that Jesus attempted miracles and failed.

 

[Berserk]

How do you know that was his motivation for "changing" it?
What does the Greek say?

The Greek calls Jesus "the carpenter's son," and so, if you only read Matthew, you would not know about Jesus' prior career as a carpenter.
The hostile locals are bent on insulting Jesus. So their claim that Jesus was just a carpenter helps that purpose in a way a way that "carpener's son" does not.

Even if the father was dead?

Again, you forget that the locals are "scandalized' by Jesus and His claims. In a patriarchal society like Palestine, one refers to a man as the son of his father. The early rabbis charge Jesus with illegitimacy, too.

Do we know that it was Matthew who eliminated it? What does the Greek say?

Yes, because Matthew is copying Mark and Matthew has a pattern of omitting references to His family disrespecting Him.
But Jesus often did miracles without enquiring about a person's faith, or asking them to show faith.

But Jesus often did miracles without enquiring about a person's faith, or asking them to show faith.

Irrelevant to the point that the entire spiritual atmosphere in Nazareth was toxic due to the scandal.

"Could do no" miracles doesn't say that Jesus attempted miracles and failed.

Jesus prayed for the sick in Nazareth and most of His efforts failed. Similarly, Jesus initially failed in his effort to cure the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26). Faith healers celebrate their successes, not their failures. Jesus was human. Who cares as long as Jesus performed many marvellous healings?

Jairus' daughter and Lazarus showed no faith. The man at the pool of Bethesda didn't show faith that Jesus could heal him. A man with a demon possessed son said "IF you can do anything, take pity on us".

"Could do no" miracles doesn't say that Jesus attempted miracles and failed.

 

[Strong in Him]

The Greek calls Jesus "the carpenter's son," and so, if you only read Matthew, you would not know about Jesus' prior career as a carpenter.

Does that matter?
If someone only read John they would know very few details of Jesus' life at all. How many people read only 1 Gospel and expect to know everything there is to know?

The hostile locals are bent on insulting Jesus. So their claim that Jesus was just a carpenter helps that purpose in a way a way that "carpener's son" does not.

I'm not sure which passage you're referring to, but most of the locals loved Jesus - it was the religious leaders who didn't.

Again, you forget that the locals are "scandalized' by Jesus and His claims.

Were they?
Large crowds followed Jesus and took their sick friends to him for healing. Mark says that the crowds were amazed at Jesus; where did you get the word "scandalised"?

The early rabbis charge Jesus with illegitimacy, too.

Well they would have done - they didn't accept him, or his claims.

Yes, because Matthew is copying Mark

A great deal of the material found in Mark's Gospel is in Matthew's too; true.
But Matthew had other sources; his Gospel is nearly twice as long as Mark's.

But Jesus often did miracles without enquiring about a person's faith, or asking them to show faith.

Irrelevant to the point that the entire spiritual atmosphere in Nazareth was toxic due to the scandal.

It's not irrelevant - the statement was made that Jesus could do no miracles due to their lack of faith.
I'm just saying that his miracles were not always dependant on the faith of the other person.

And who says that "the entire spiritual atmosphere in Nazareth was toxic"? It was in Nazareth the Jesus read from Isaiah, told them they were seeing Scripture being fulfilled and the crowd all spoke well of him, Luke 4:22.

Jesus prayed for the sick in Nazareth and most of His efforts failed. Similarly, Jesus initially failed in his effort to cure the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26). Faith healers celebrate their successes, not their failures. Jesus was human. Who cares as long as Jesus performed many marvellous healings?

If you're saying that Jesus didn't have much power and tried to heal people but failed - I care.
Jesus knew what he was doing. He healed lepers, the deaf, the lame and raised the dead. He healed Bartimaeus, a man born blind and at least 2 other blind men, Matthew 9:27-31. If he did not heal the man in Mark 8 first time round, it was for a reason - probably to show us that we need to persevere in prayer and we don't always get "results" first time.

Jesus told the healed to praise and thank God, he did not "celebrate his successes".

 

[Berserk]

I'm not sure which passage you're referring to, but most of the locals loved Jesus - it was the religious leaders who didn't.

That's your eisegesis of Mark 6:1-6. In Nazareth it is the synagogue members and Jesus' own famly ("kin") who are scandalized by Him (6:4; see also John 7:5; Mark 3:20-21)

Were they? where did you get the word "scandalised"?

"scandaIizomai" in 6:3

A great deal of the material found in Mark's Gospel is in Matthew's too; true.
But Matthew had other sources; his Gospel is nearly twice as long as Mark's.

Yes, NT scholars recognize that Matthew had 2 other sources: Q (from the German "quelle" which means "source") and Matthew's unique source M. Before there were Gospels, there were sayings collections. Q is a sayings source used by Matthew and Luke, but not by Mark and John. It resembles another early sayings of Jesus document, the Gospel of Thomas.

It's not irrelevant - the statement was made that Jesus could do no miracles due to their lack of faith.
I'm just saying that his miracles were not always dependant on the faith of the other person.

First, you need to distinguish between the faith of an individual and a toxic atmosphere in general.
Second, you don't know who had and didn't have faith. We're not told.

If you're saying that Jesus didn't have much power and tried to heal people but failed - I care.
Jesus told the healed to praise and thank God, he did not "celebrate his successes".

But His followers did and would overlook His failures. That's why Matthew changes "could do no" and omits reference to Jesus' initial failure to cure the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26). Have you ever asked yourself why Jesus didn't prevent His stepfather Joseph from dying? I worship a Jesus who was fully human like me with all the limitations that this involves, not the cartoon caricature of a superhero that drives many thinking young adults from the faith.

 

[Malleeboy]

In Mark the locals call Jesus "the son of Mary," a hostile phrase that implies illegitimacy. A Jewish man would typically be referred to as the son of his father.

Just as an example, many of your issues may be explained. For example, if Joseph already had a family, (as some hold the brothers of the Lord are Joseph's children from a previous marriage), it would make sense to refer to Jesus by which of Joseph wives he is from.

 

[Berserk]

Just as an example, many of your issues may be explained. For example, if Joseph already had a family, (as some hold the brothers of the Lord are Joseph's children from a previous marriage), it would make sense to refer to Jesus by which of Joseph wives he is from.

That tradition is based on the historically worthless Proto-Gospel of James from the 2nd half of the of the 2nd century. So you have no alternative explanations that are more plausible, given the hostile attitudes of the locals as reported in Mark.
Remember. there is the corroborative evidence of a first-century rabbic claim that Jesus' birth was illegitimate.

 

[FireDragon76]

That tradition is based on the historically worthless Proto-Gospel of James from the 2nd half of the of the 2nd century. So you have no alternative explanations that are more plausible, given the hostile attitudes of the locals as reported in Mark.
Remember. there is the corroborative evidence of a first-century rabbic claim that Jesus' birth was illegitimate.

There is evidence that Joseph was not alive when Jesus was an adult. Joseph doesn't appear outside of the birth and childhood narratives.

 

[Strong in Him]

That's your eisegesis of Mark 6:1-6.

It's not eisegesis at all. I asked you which passage you were referring to when you spoke of hostile locals intent on insulting Jesus.
If you are talking about Mark 6: many people were astonished at Jesus' words and actions; some were also offended because they believed him (only) to be a carpenter's son. Jesus was in his home town, so there was probably an element of "We've watched you grow up. You're a carpenter's son; why are you getting ideas above your station?"
And no, that's not reading into the text.

First, you need to distinguish between the faith of an individual and a toxic atmosphere in general.

How do you know the atmosphere was toxic?
On one occasion, maybe - but throughout his ministry?

Second, you don't know who had and didn't have faith. We're not told.

No.
But we are told that Jesus healed many - with no reference to faith, or asking about faith.

But His followers did and would overlook His failures. That's why Matthew changes "could do no" and omits reference to Jesus' initial failure to cure the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26).

How do you know Matthew changed the verse and chose to omit Jesus' "initial failure" in healing the blind man?

Have you ever asked yourself why Jesus didn't prevent His stepfather Joseph from dying?

No.
Why would he? Death came into the world when sin did; it's a part of life.
He didn't prevent his grandparents from dying; God didn't prevent the babies from being massacred when Jesus was born. All through the ages people have asked, "why didn't God prevent this death or tragedy?"
What's your point?

I worship a Jesus who was fully human like me with all the limitations that this involves,

Jesus was like us in every way except that he did not sin - absolutely correct.
That doesn't mean that he tried to perform miracles but failed.

not the cartoon caricature of a superhero that drives many thinking young adults from the faith.

I don't know where you got that from, but I hope you're not implying that that's the Jesus I worship.

 

[ARBITER01]

Comparing and drawing contrasts between the gospel accounts is neat and all,.... but no two accounts are exactly alike due to differing sources. Tryin to say that Matthew got it wrong and Mark got it right because scholars think Mark is an earlier account is foolhardy at best.

 

[FireDragon76]

Comparing and drawing contrasts between the gospel accounts is neat and all,.... but no two accounts are exactly alike due to differing sources. Tryin to say that Matthew got it wrong and Mark got it right because scholars think Mark is an earlier account is foolhardy at best.

There's widespread consensus among scholars that Mark is the earliest book, and the other two Synoptics were based off Mark. The Synoptics are not independent accounts that can corroborate each other, apologists who use that argument are being dishonest intellectually.

There is debate about the Gospel of John. Some think it is based off Mark, but others think it represents an independent tradition.

 

[ARBITER01]

There's widespread consensus among scholars that Mark is the earliest book, and the other two Synoptics were based off Mark. The Synoptics are not independent accounts that can corroborate each other, apologists who use that argument are being dishonest intellectually.

There is debate about the Gospel of John. Some think it is based off Mark, but others think it represents an independent tradition.

It's a guess at best, no matter what their degrees and certificates from men call them.

Luke's gospel came later, and he went through all the possible sources still alive at that time. He has some divergent readings from the other accounts because of their later dates and possible differing sources. John is an altogether different account from the others.

Trying to speculate on which gospel account had the truer reading is still speculation, and who knows if it is a really good use of time.

 

[FireDragon76]

It's a guess at best, no matter what their degrees and certificates from men call them.

Luke's gospel came later, and he went through all the possible sources still alive at that time. He has some divergent readings from the other accounts because of their later dates and possible differing sources. John is an altogether different account from the others.

Trying to speculate on which gospel account had the truer reading is still speculation, and who knows if it is a really good use of time.

Luke wasn't written based off independent testimony. It's redacted earlier material, rewritten in a stylized way, to resemble Greco-Roman historical conventions and cultural concerns.

 

[ARBITER01]

Luke wasn't written based off independent testimony. It's redacted earlier material, rewritten in a stylized way, to resemble Greco-Roman historical conventions and cultural concerns.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

Here is the beginning of Luke's account, I'm using the New American Standard since I'm at work currently and on break,...

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things [a]accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning [b]were eyewitnesses and [c]servants of the [d]word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having [e]investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been [f]taught.

He doesn't say that he goes off the same sources that Matthew and Mark had, as well as their own testimony. Luke never met Jesus, his account is based off of eyewitness testimony, so yea, it can be different from Matthew and Mark, and certainly different from John's.

 

[FireDragon76]

Luke simply isn't a letter in the sense we think of today, written to an individual. theophilus isn't used as a name in the actual Greek. It literally means "lover of God", and was used synonymously with theophobos (God fearer) to refer to gentiles that were "Jewish-adjacent", believers in the Jewish God but not converts to Judaism.

 

[ARBITER01]

Luke simply isn't a letter in the sense we think of today, written to an individual. theophilus isn't used as a name in the actual Greek. It literally means "lover of God", and was used synonymously with theophobos (God fearer) to refer to gentiles that were "Jewish-adjacent", believers in the Jewish God but not converts to Judaism.

I know this, you're not telling me something I don't already know.

 

[Berserk]

If you are talking about Mark 6: many people were astonished at Jesus' words and actions;

Yes. and many people are "astonished" by reports of alien abductions, but that doesn't mean they believe these reports. In the case of the Nazareth locals, their initial admiration of the Jesus novelty (Luke 4:22) quickly gave way to rage.

some were also offended because they believed him (only) to be a carpenter's son.
How do you know the atmosphere was toxic?

"Some," you say?
"When they heard this, ALL in the [Nazareth] synagogue were filled with rage. They got up, drove Him out of the town and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they might hurl Him off the cliff (Luke 4:28-29)!"

Is that toxic enough for you?

On one occasion, maybe - but throughout his ministry?

Jesus didn't even have His own family's support (Mark 6:4; cp. 3:20-21; John 7:5). Jesus devoted much of His outreach to the towns along the northern side of the Sea of Galilee. But even there the atmosphere became so toxic that Jesus ultimately felt the need to pronounce judgment against Capernaum, Bethsaida, and Chorazin (e. g. Luke 10:13-15).
.
-

How do you know Matthew changed the verse and chose to omit Jesus' "initial failure" in healing the blind man?

First, because, as NT scholars recognize, Matthew has a consistent pattern of omitting or altering embarrassing details of Jesus' words and deeds in Mark. Stay tuned for future posts on this.
Second, because of the massive evidence that Mark is a primary source for Matthew, who copies 90% of it.

No, why would he (heal Joseph)?... What's your point?

Duh, so that His earthly Dad could live to see how unique his stepson was!
So that the Nazareth locals couldn't point to Joseph's death as evidence that widespread reports of Jesu's' miracles were bogus.
If Jesus was capable of healing Dad, He would have!

 

[Strong in Him]

Yes. and many people are "astonished" by reports of alien abductions, but that doesn't mean they believe these reports. In the case of the Nazareth locals, their initial admiration of the Jesus novelty (Luke 4:22) quickly gave way to rage.

On that one occasion - but that rage wasn't felt by everyone in Israel, nor did it last for his entire ministry.

First, because, as NT scholars recognize, Matthew has a consistent pattern of omitting or altering embarrassing details of Jesus' words and deeds in Mark. Stay tuned for future posts on this.

I'll pass, thank you.
You seem to be determined to show that Matthew changed things in his Gospel, for reasons of his own - and even seem to be trying to discredit him. I don't know why, but I'm not going to join in.

Duh, so that His earthly Dad could live to see how unique his stepson was!

And if you're going to treat me like a 5 year old, or someone of limited intelligence - hence, "Duh" - I'm definitely not responding to you any further.

Joseph was told by an angel that his step son would be unique. He saw some of this at the birth - it's not usual for a new born to be visited by shepherds, angels and important foreign men bringing gifts of gold and spices. Most fathers of that day were not visited by an angel and told to take their son to Egypt - and they probably wondered why not after Herod massacred them.
Joseph also heard Anna and Simeon saying that Jesus was God's chosen one.

If Jesus was capable of healing Dad, He would have!

What Scriptural evidence do you have for that assumption?
You might as well say that if God were capable of keeping Adam from disobeying him, he would have.