Redactional Analysis

Redactional Analysis of the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Assuming Markan Priority  

Assuming the widely-accepted hypothesis of Markan Priority is correct, a redactional analysis of the synoptic gospels of Matthew and Mark when placed side-by-side illustrates clearly the stylistic and theological differences between the two gospels. Upon further analysis, these changes that were made in the gospel of Matthew—as the author used Mark as a source—can be explained by a number of reasons. For example, stylistic improvement of some choppy Markan material, re-writing a dialogue or statement to make a particular person's character seem more fluid and consistent, or just simple preference on the part of the author of Matthew are just a few of the types of changes seen from Mark to Matthew.

A particularly good example of a passage that has a plethora of changes for just as many myriad reasons is Matthew 14:22-33 and Mark 6:45-52. A step-by-step analysis of each individual change will provide a glimpse as to the reasons for the thousands of other  changes made from not only Mark to Matthew, but from Mark to Luke as well.

For purposes of clarity, the references in Matthew all refer to chapter 14, and Matthew is abbreviated Mt. All of the Markan material comes from chapter 6, and Mark is abbreviated Mk. Therefore, only abbreviations and verse numbers have been used in this paper. Luke will also be abbreviated Lk.

The first change is found in Mt (22) and in Mk (45). The change is from the word “his” in Mk to “the” in Mt. This change has been made for the purposes of stylistic improvement.

Secondly, the phrase “to Bethsaida” is removed in Mt—still within the verses noted for the first change—due to faulty geography on the part of Mk. Geographical errors were not uncommon to Mk and both Mt and Lk make it a point to either correct or remove the faulty reference. In this case, it was omitted.

The third change also occurs in the abovementioned verse; Mt changes Mk's “crowd” to “crowds.” It is believed that this change was made in order to show that there were a great deal of people listening to Jesus' teachings in the previous story commonly referred to as The Feeding of the Five Thousand.

Fourth, Mt has omitted the phrase (Mk 46, Mt 23) “after saying farewell to them,” leaving only the statement of Jesus dismissing the crowd. This omission gives Jesus more of a refined air of authority; he does not even have to explain himself or say goodbye, he just leaves. This is an instance where the character of Jesus is more clearly portrayed in Mt than in Mk, as the theological agenda of Mt is that Jesus is the Messiah of the Jewish scriptures, and in that, he is a dignified authority. This is in contrast to Mk's Jesus, who is very human—he is less dignified and authoritative. He does indeed suffer; he is the secret messiah.

The fifth change occurs in the same verse as the fourth; the change is the addition of the phrase “by himself,” simply added to emphasize that Jesus was alone, and to clarify that all the disciples had gone out to the sea while he stayed behind praying on the mountain.

The sixth change is a minor stylistic omission in the same verse as the fourth and fifth improvements, in which Mt removes “on” from Mk's “up on.”

Seventh is a whole verse of Mk (47) that has been stylistically improved in which Mt has cleared up Mk's choppy sentence in which he first mentions that in the evening, “the boat was out to sea,” and Jesus was still alone “on the land.” Mt changes this to mentioning Jesus first, as the last verse was already talking about how Jesus was praying alone on the mountain. He states the same as Mk that it was evening, but then he goes on to say that Jesus was there alone, but the boat was far out to sea. It simply flows better with that improvement in comparison with Mk's version.

Eighth, a situationally-clarifying omission can be found in Mt, verse 25 and in Mk 48. Mt removes Mk's “when he saw that they were...” because it was nighttime at that point—therefore, how could Jesus have seen them “straining at the oars against an adverse wind?” Mt makes sure to still let the reader know that there was some kind of trouble on the sea by mentioning in verse 24 that the boat was indeed “battered by the waves... far from land” and “the wind was against them.” The reader does not know how Jesus knows this, but because there is no obvious discrepancy, we do not question that Jesus just knows, as he often does.

In the same verse in Mk as mentioned directly above, Mt omits “straining at the oars” to give the disciples less of a feel of desperation and struggle. In other words, they are fighting the force of the wind rather than their own human weakness. This tendency to portray the disciples in a more understanding and dignified light is common to Mt, as Mk tends to portray them as childish; the disciples of Mk simply do not understand Jesus most of the time.

The tenth change is another rearrangement of Mk's uneven sentence structure (verse 48) in Mt (verse 25). As well, Mt moves a part of Mk's verse 48 to the end of verse 24 in his gospel. The changes were made as not only a stylistic improvement, but it also highlights the miraculous occurrence of Jesus walking on the water by placing it at the end of the sentence for added emphasis.

Eleventh, Mt makes another contextual omission, this time, of Mk's “He intended to pass them by” (verse 48). The reason for this is that Mk almost seems to sabotage the idea that Jesus knew of their troubles and intended to save them all along. It is much more clear in Mt that Jesus had a clear purpose for going out to them, and highlights that he is all-knowing.

The twelfth change is an omission of Mk's “for they all saw him,” for stylistic reasons. Simply, Mk already told us that the disciples had seen Jesus and this is an unnecessary re-statement.

The next few changes all revolve around Mt's addition of some interesting dialogue with a great deal of theological context. He changes a short statement from Jesus in Mk, verse 50, to a whole direct discourse between Peter and Jesus. The addition of the Jesus-Peter dialogue has a few specific implications: Peter is known to speak for the rest of the disciples, and this portrays Peter imitating Jesus' power, as Peter is to become a prominent disciple, eventually becoming a major symbol of the Catholic church. Within this passage, there is a change from “he” in Mk to “Jesus” in Mt, for the reason of stylistic preference. It should also be noted that Mt uses the term “Lord.”

The seventeenth change noted (Mt 32, Mk 51) clarifies that Jesus is directly the cause of the wind ceasing. While this is implied in Mk, it is much more clearly illustrated in Mt.

The last change is an important one; it takes the blindness to Jesus' teachings on the part of the disciples in Mk and makes them both more understanding, and proclaims Jesus the “Son of God.” Mt's portrayal of the disciples shows that they can understand the deep significance of this event as another sign that Jesus really is the Messiah, while Mk's disciples are just standing there in awe, but “their hearts were hardened” and they did not see the importance of this event (Mk 51, Mt 33). This again follows with each gospel's theological agenda; in Mk, Jesus is not to be proclaimed as Christ—he himself actively tells people remain quiet about him—whereas Mt's Jesus is the fulfillment of the Jewish scripture and is continually proclaimed as thus.

This one short Bible passage is but a tiny microcosm of the huge macrocosm of Matthew, Mark, and Luke's individual stylistic changes, theological agendas, error rectification and omission, and storytelling preferences, among many other elements.