The Depiction of the Transfiguration
The Transfiguration, depicted with minor variations in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, is an event in which Jesus’ true glory is revealed to the privileged disciples (Peter, James, and John) who were there to witness the event. Our author, Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, O.P., gives us a literary critical perspective on what he believes really happened atop Mt. Tabor in Lower Galilee.
As the story in The Synoptic Gospels goes, Jesus ascends to the top of a mountain with Peter, James and John to pray. It is here that Jesus is transformed completely, “and his face shone like the sun, but his garments became white as light” (Matthew 17:2). It is said that his true nature was revealed there when Moses and Elijah appeared and the voice of God spoke affirming that Jesus was indeed God’s son. Peter then offered to make three tents for Jesus, Moses and Elijah.
In the three Synoptic Gospels, the accounts are basically the same with moderate differences scattered throughout. But, who has the original story? Who copied their account from whom? These are the questions that our author attempts to answer.
Many scholars have a hard time dealing with Peter whom, after following Jesus up to the mountain and witnessing God’s presence, latter denies him (Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-72; Luke 22:56-62). Peter’s actions seem asinine given what he has experienced. This is one of the main reasons why people come to question the transfiguration story as it is given to us chronologically in the Gospels.
First, attempting to uncover the original story of the Transfiguration, our author decides to compare the accounts given to us by Matthew and Mark because
there are more similarities between these two than either to Luke. In trying to make a case for the seniority of Mark over Matthew, we are given two examples.
The first example shows the word “Rabbi” in Mark 9 being substituted for “Lord” in Matthew 17. According to the author, this substitution was made to accommodate the audience that they were trying to evangelize. “Rabbi” was widely understood in the Aramaic-speaking audience that surrounded the early Jewish-Christians. As the Gospels spread into the Hellenistic world, they would need to accommodate the now Greek-speaking audience. Thus, the need to substitute in the word “Lord” becomes clear.
In another example, we see Peter making the su...
... middle of paper ...
...eferred to is actually Jesus’ own death. In a flash of insight, he realized that his death would be the means whereby his ministry would be brought to fulfillment. His execution would be the saving event whose role in God’s plan would parallel that of the exodus from Egypt of the Jews. This as apposed to the end of everything; as it probably seemed to Jesus at the time. At the same time, it permitted Jesus to see his death as atonement for the sins of the world. According to references (Mark 10:45, 14:8,24; Luke 11:22, 23:24) in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus used Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to clarify his self-understanding of this idea.
According to our author, this is the true context and likely meaning of the original story embedded in Luke’s Gospel. Our author also goes on to elaborate on some of the additions in Mark’s Gospel and speculate on how they could have possibly affected later versions of Luke’s Gospel, which in turn affected later versions of other New Testament material. This type of development with the holy books is
natural and expected with an early church that is not as concerned with accurately recording the past, but wanted to make the force in the present.
This work is also said to be anonymous, and believed to have been produced in Syria within a large Jewish and Jewish-Christian community. It is apparent from a number of shared accounts, and overlapping stories of Jesus that the author of Matthew’s Gospel used Mark as a source. Although many of the stories are expanded upon, and carry different connotations, the same basic stories are found in all of the synoptic gospels, and because Mark was the first written, scholars assume it was a source used by both Matthew and Luke. It should also be noted that many of Jesus’ teachings in Matthew were not found in Mark. This led scholars to search for a second source, which resulted in the Q document. Although not available as a feasible document, Q designates a compilation of Jesus’ parables and sayings from about 50 to 70 CE, which are present in Matthew (Harris p.156). Throughout the gospel, Matthew uses formula quotations, meaning he quotes from the Old Testament. This strong relationship with the Hebrew Bible helps scholars determine that Matthew wanted to emphasize his Jewish position. This is important because his interpretations of Jesus throughout the gospel are not agreed upon by all Jews, in fact only a small fraction. Although it is obvious to the readers than John and Matthew carry very different stories of Jesus’ life, it is interesting to
The book of Matthew talks about Jesus walking on the water. There are a few ways that people explain the passage. Some people try to explain away the miracle. We are going to discuss both these ways.
The Bible is a large and rather confusing book of laws, parables and true stories. The most important story in the Bible, in the story of Jesus ' birth. These two passages which tell of Jesus ' birth are, especially because Christians, at least the majority of them, base their beliefs on it, along with his death. Matthew and Luke are the only two books out of the sixty-six in the bible which give detailed descriptions of the monumental event. There is the main idea in American culture that the Birth story is clear, that there are not any issues between Matthew and Luke 's stories. However, there are many conflicting facts in the two books, although most of them are easily thought, though, there are some that are a little harder to explain,
Anyway, Jesus took Peter, James and John up on a high mountain. Although, the Bible does not name the mountain, logically there are only two possibilities; Mount Tabor and Mount Hermon. Peter called it “The Holy Mountain” (II Peter 1:18). Matthew and Mark both said they were up there alone on a high mountain by themselves. (Matt. 17:1 & Mark 9:2) Mount Tabor is only 1,900 feet and at the time of the transfiguration, a Roman Garrison occupied a portion of the mountain. Mount Hermon rises 9,200 feet.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are the origin of nearly everything the Christian Church teaches about Jesus. The Gospels, in turn, serve as the scale or test of truth and authenticity of everything the church teaches about Jesus. It is said that the Gospels are the link between Jesus of Nazareth and the people of every age throughout history who have claimed to be his followers. Although the Gospels teach us about Jesus’ life they may not provide concrete evidence that what they speak of is true there are several other sources.
The author’s intent is Christological. Jesus is the Son of God. He is God amongst us. Recognized titles in Matthew include Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, King, Immanuel. In addition, “the allusions and actions of Jesus of Matthew’s Jesus also communicate his Messianic claims.”2 The Gospel functions as a teaching tool and can be used liturgically. The author of Matthew intended it to be read and for his audience to understand, be engaged in and appreciate the literary devices and references. He “did not write for bad or casual readers, but in stead for good and attentive listeners. The ancient audiences were “accustomed to retain minute textual details”.3
One of the main characteristics of the gospel of Mark is it’s length. Mark is much shorter than Matthew and Luke, but what it lacks in quantity, it makes up for in quality. The author of Mark does not slow down the gospel story and makes sure that only important and relevant details are included. When Mark is compared with Matthew and Luke, it becomes obvious to see what Mark has eliminated. The author’s omission of Jesus’ birth, lineage, resurrection, and ascension denote careful planning and purpose in the gospel of Mark.
The four Gospels stand at the head of the New Testament, underlining their importance, forming a “seamless continuity between the story of Israel and the story of the church”. The four documents now known as the Gospels were not known by this name until late in the second century. Until then, there was only one Gospel, the proclamation of Jesus and the kingdom of God, with four books presenting it, each in its own way. Modern readers are so used to seeing the compilation of these writings as the New Testament that they forget that each one was originally conceived to stand on its own. Consequently, to understand the Gospels and the kind of literature that they are, it is crucial to look at them in the first century Palestinian environment in which they were written. At that time, the cultural landscape was dominated by three main elements: Roman rule, Hellenistic culture and, above all, the religious symbols of Judaism. In that context, Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God could be perceived as a challenge to Roman rule, a dismissal of Greek thought and an attack on Judaism.
A curious thing that Mark never mentions throughout the entirety of the gospel is Joseph, Jesus’ earthly father. The beginning of Mark continuously reiterates that Jesus is the Son of God, the gospel’s first verse is a clear example, “the beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Again towards the end of the gospel in verse 15:39 Jesus is clearly declared as the Son of God, “and when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, ‘Surely this man was the Son of God!’” The beginning of Mark does not have a nativity story and the end does not continue to the resurrection story, so in beginning and ending the gospels with the proclaiming of Jesus as the Son of God the author is saying that Jesus was the promised savior and he was perfect rather than being seen as a simply son of a
Mark was Peter's son (I Peter 5:13, possibly spiritual son), who wrote down what Peter said about who Jesus was, what He did, where He went and what happened; Mark's gospel is therefore Peter's account, an eye-witness account, written down by Mark.
...rning the declination of invitations, whereas Luke goes further into detail. Also, the Gospel of Matthew offers a shorter summary in comparison to Luke and includes the second part of the parable, Mt 22:11-14. (Lester 308)
Mark’s gospel and John’s gospel contain many differences from the beginning, but both end with Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The gospels of John and Mark represent Jesus as two different people. The disparity is that Mark represents Jesus as a servant while John portrays Jesus as a divine being. However, one must realize the two texts are meant to read by different audiences during different time periods. Each description presents a particular aspect of the life of Historical Jesus.
The reason that the Gospel of Matthew is in the first place among the four Gospels is due to the early church tradition that Matthew was the earliest one who recorded Lord’s word and Jesus stories. In the fifth century, Augustine of Hippo claimed that "the canonical order of the four Gospels was the chronological order." In the late-eighteenth century, J. J. Griesbach stated that The Gospel of Mark was a short version of the combination of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. In the nineteenth century, German scholars concluded that the Gospel of Matthew was preceded by the Gospel of Mark and Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as his primary source. No matter which theory that most New Testament scholars accept, Matthew did not simply copy sources from other Gospels, but also included his own ideas and quoted verses from the Old Testament. So the question of readers should rise is "How strong relationship did the Gospel of Matthew have with the Old Testament?" or "How accurately did Matthew use the Old Testament?
The development of the Gospel as described by Luke referred to “eyewitnesses” an “account of the things” and “an orderly account”. These stages correlate to the Oral tradition, the period of written sources, and the period of final composition. Lea and Black, The New Testament, Its Background and Message 2003:115. • The Urevangelium Theory by G. E. Lessing, a German critic, suggests that the relationships from the Gospels derived from a single Gospel written in Hebrew or Aramaic. He believed that Matthew wrote the Aramaic Gospel of the Nazarenes, the germs of which originated in the time immediately following the death of Jesus Christ.
The word "gospel" is a translation of the Greek word "euangelion" which means "good news. The first three books in the New Testament (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels (from Greek synoptikos, "seen together") They bear greater similarity to each other than any of the other gospels in the New Testament. Along with these similarities come some differences among the gospels, suggesting that each gospel was written for a specific audience and for a specific purpose. This paper will examine the resurrection of Jesus, while identifying the significant differences between Mark, Matthew and Luke. This paper will also analyze the differences to suggest the prominent theological perspective each gospel author might be trying to convey about the resurrection of Jesus.