-1

Comparing the account of the Transfiguration in Mark and Matthew, I noticed some intriguing differences in the two endings of the narrative.

Mark 9

“Elijah will indeed come first and restore all things, yet how is it written regarding the Son of Man that he must suffer greatly and be treated with contempt? 13 But I tell you that Elijah has come and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.” (story ends here)

Matthew 17

12 I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist. (story ends here)

The question is, why does Mark omit the statement "Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist." I've been studying Mark carefully in recent days and I've noticed that this gospel often takes a dim view of the disciples, who consistently fail to understand Jesus. For example:

  • 6:51 He got into the boat with them and the wind died down. They were [completely] astounded. 52 They had not understood the incident of the loaves. On the contrary, their hearts were hardened. (In Matthew 14:31-33 their hearts are not hardened, instead they worship Jesus as the Son of God.)

  • 8:29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, “You are the Messiah.” 30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him. (in Mark, Peter does not add "the Son of the living God" after "Messiah" and Jesus does not give him the keys to the kingdom as he does in Matthew.)

  • 9:31 He was teaching his disciples and telling them, “The Son of Man is to be handed over to men and they will kill him, and three days after his death he will rise.” 32 But they did not understand the saying, and they were afraid to question him. (In Mt 17:22-24, they understand well, and they are "overwhelmed with grief.")

The question: how should we understand Mark's omission of "then the disciples understood..." in Mark 9? Does it represent a pattern in Mark (more affirming of Paul's theology/authority) compared to Matthew's (more likely to affirm the authority of Peter the original apostles)? If not, how should one explain the omission in Mark 9 and his other seeming denigrations of Peter and the apostles?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    This sounds schismatic, as though Mark (spiritual son to both Peter and Paul) were publicising a document which denigrated the chief apostle Peter and sided with Paul. The truth is that Mark's book sets forth the Messenger of the Covenant (see its first verses) whilst Matthew sets forth the Messiah and the Kingdom of the Heavens. All differences, omissions and additions stem from the authors' purposes as led and moved of God, the Holy Spirit as they set forth two aspects of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Commented Oct 16, 2024 at 4:57
  • I'd suggest that Mark demonstrates not denigration but humility of the Apostles. He almost certainly conversed with some of them, there's reason to think that Mark largely includes Peter's perspective. That then explains why Mark records specifically Peter's faults in detail. For example, only Mark records the cock crowing twice. For everyone else, the main thing was the betrayal, but Peter probably can't forget a single detail. If the goal was to support Paul against Peter, it's unlikely he'd know or care about details like this. Commented Oct 16, 2024 at 5:51
  • I apologize for "denigration." I think Mark does criticize the apostles' faith and that he diminishes Peter's authority (compared to Matthew) but denigration was too harsh a word. I'd still appreciate an answer as to why Mark downplays the disciples' recognition and understanding of Jesus. To me it can't be that he emphasizes their humility. He says "their hearts were hardened" and they did not understand... Commented Oct 16, 2024 at 11:46

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

It is only my guess, but I think that the answer may have something to do with the Gospel's audience. Many commentators believe that the three Synoptic Gospels were written for three different groups of people. Matthew wrote for the Jews, Mark for the Romans and Luke for the Greeks. The style of the Gospel of Mark was crafted for the Roman ears:

“The first thing that a reader notices about Mark is the pace. Mark is much shorter and carries a much faster pace through the gospel. Romans are westerners who like to be entertained. They are not easterners who value a treasure hunt buried in the Text or an expectation that you would want to work through tough questions in order to unearth amazing truths. Romans want you to get to the point and tickle their fancy. And so Mark writes a gospel that is a fast-paced tale of all the things Jesus did. He bounces from story to story, keeping the characters moving and Jesus busy.“ https://makingtalmidim.blogspot.com/2014/10/mark-roman-gospel.html

As for why Mark described the apostles the way he did:

“Mark makes a known the lack of understanding within the Apostles of Jesus. As Jesus is disciplining the Twelve, Jesus is often confronted with their own disbelief. The Parables that Jesus used are not easy for the Twelve to understand. The Apostles are presented as spiritually blind. Peter is quickly rebuked after making a hearty profession of who Jesus is, yet Peter ultimately denies Jesus. Judas, one of the twelve, betrays him for a sack of silver and all the other Apostles scatter. This theme of the disbelief of the Apostles can be presented to the Roman audience to understand that they, too, struggled with understanding who Jesus truly is.“ https://valleyremnant.com/2021/08/an-intro-to-the-gospel-according-to-mark/

Improve this answer
0

Mark's narrative is fast-paced and action-oriented. He's like the journalist on the scene, reporting Jesus' dynamic ministry in real-time. It is possible that Mark's account reflects actual events. This does not imply a flaw in Matthew's Gospel. Over time, the disciples came to understand that Jesus' words were referring to John the Baptist. Aimed at Jewish audiences, Matthew emphasizes Jesus as the Messiah and the fulfullment of Old Testament prophecies. He likely placed the disciples' later understanding into earlier contents.

For example, the Beatitudes, absent in Mark, are likely drawn from various sermons. Matthew purposefully compiled them into one topic to enhance their spiritual impact.

Improve this answer

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.