Matthew and Mark continue their accounts, presenting many notable similarities. According to our hypothesis, Mark, as Peter’s scribe, adapts Matthew’s text for a non-Jewish audience. This principle explains the significant similarities observed between the accounts of Matthew and Mark.
Matthew and Mark take care to provide an interpretation of the Master’s words. Matthew stresses that the were offended by his words, an element that corroborates the statements of John 7.1, although neither Matthew nor Mark explicitly mentions that the intended to put Jesus the Messiah to death. Not understanding the Master’s words, Peter asks: “Explain this to us.” Although there is no real here, Peter probably uses this term to mask his lack of understanding.
The passages of Matthew 15.10-20 and Mark 7.14-23 deal with the same teaching of Jesus the Messiah on ritual purity and the true source of impurity. Here is an in-depth analysis and a comparison of the two texts:
Analysis of Matthew 15.10-20
After the confrontation with the over human traditions, Jesus the Messiah addresses the crowd to teach a fundamental truth: what enters the body does not defile a person, but what comes out of it comes from the heart. His disciples, surprised by this teaching, ask him for explanations. Jesus reproaches them for their lack of understanding and develops his argument: the food that is eaten is simply digested and eliminated, whereas an individual’s words and actions come from the heart and reveal the state of his inner being. He then lists sins, such as evil thoughts, murder, adultery, and slander, which make a person truly unclean.
Analysis of Mark 7.14-23
The passage from Mark follows a similar structure but contains a few nuances. Jesus the Messiah first addresses the crowd, explaining that impurity does not come from food but from the . He stresses that food passes through the body and does not touch the soul. Then, when his disciples ask him for details, he develops his argument further. Unlike Matthew, Mark introduces an additional element: “Thus he declared all foods clean,” which shows a break with the Jewish dietary rules. As in Matthew, Jesus lists the evil thoughts and actions that come from the heart and that truly corrupt a person.
Comparison between Matthew 15.10-20 and Mark 7.14-23
Audience and context:
Matthew highlights the dialogue with the disciples and stresses their difficulty in understanding.
Mark, writing for a wider audience, insists on the revolutionary impact of this doctrine, notably the abolition of the dietary rules.
Structure of the discourse :
Matthew first sets out the general teaching, then goes deeper through the disciples’ questioning.
Mark, for his part, insists more on the rejection of the dietary laws.
Central theme :
Both texts denounce an external and ritual conception of purity.
Mark goes further by asserting that all foods are declared clean, which foreshadows an important doctrinal change.
Tone and emphasis :
Matthew is more pedagogical and moralistic.
Mark is more radical and doctrinal, thus preparing the early Church to abandon the Jewish dietary prohibitions.
Conclusion
These two passages mark a turning point in the teaching of Jesus the Messiah: purity is not a matter of rites or diet, but of inner state. While Matthew remains within a more pedagogical approach centered on the interaction with the disciples, Mark introduces a more pronounced theological dimension, clearly affirming the abrogation of the dietary laws of the Old Testament.