The main difference between Mark 3 and Mathew 12 is the way in which the miracle is portrayed.  Consistent with what White says throughout the Casting Spells chapter, Mark’s stories tend to be longer versions of the story giving that provide more detail into the actual events of each miracle where as in Mathew, the miracle is considerably shorter and attempts to serve as more of a lesson of faith.  The author attempts to accomplish this by including a prophecy from Isaiah to try and give more credibility to Jesus by by saying to the readers that Jesus is a man of prophecy and not a fraud. Another reason that the miracle is toned down in Mathew 12 because in the past, as stated by Bohak and Cotter, there was a fine line between miracles and magic. So by downplaying the miraculous nature of his healing, Mathew is creating more trust between the ancient people and Jesus so they know he is not just a conjurer of cheap tricks. Moving on to Mark 6 and Mathew 14 many of the same differences arise.  The main difference is the way in which the disciples react to the miracles performed by Jesus is that in Mark, all of the disciples are bewildered by the Jesus walking on water and culling the storm.  Where as in Mathew the disciples understand the reason for the miracles, that being that Jesus is the son of God. Again the is written in to the Mathew narrative to inspire more confidence in Jesus and his followers.  Another difference between the two that was also shown earlier also appears in these two stories and that is the addition of a lesson of faith(as seen with the inclusion of the prophecy from Isaiah before).  This time in Mathew the added part speaks of how Peter struggled to walk on the water because he did not have a strong enough faith causing Jesus to question it.  Lastly, Mathew is supposed to depict a more divine leader who came down to save human beings where as in Mark his virtuosity is not as defined.  This is shown in Mark when Jesus was walking on water he intended to walk right on by the boat where as in Mathew he was headed toward it the entire time.

Throughout all of Mathew and Mark several differences are consistently demonstrated.  These difference give the reader a clear understanding at what Mathew was trying to accomplish in his rendition of the gospel.  Mathew puts a premium on abbreviating and improving the writing of mark while also improving the image of Jesus himself. These differences are shown in Mathew 8:1-4 and Mark 1:40-45, this is the story where Jesus cleanses a man of his leprosy. However, the passages classically show the differences between Mathew and Mark. First, there is a clear difference in the lengths.  Mathew has trimmed up his version into a much more concise telling.  Second, there are distinct differences in both the reaction of Jesus to the man and how the man reacts to being healed. In Mark, Jesus seems taken aback when the leper approaches and asks for his help, where as in Mathew, Jesus willingly accepts and heals him.  Mathews also chooses to leave out the part where the leper tells everyone despite what Jesus has asked him. Mathew uses these two differences to show improvements to Jesus and his followers by making Jesus a more open and willing healer and also making his followers better at following his directions.

These differences are again shown in Mathew 8:23-27 and Mark 4:35-41. In these passages Jesus quells the storm while his disciples are on the boat.  Mathew, keeping true to form, shortens his version and improves the image of Jesus. He accomplishes this when he tells that Jesus stayed with his disciples during the storm instead of leaving them as it is told in Mark. Jesus also turns the experience into more of a teaching moment by asking them about their faith before quieting the storm as opposed to after in Mark. Finally, there is another improvement of the disciples in Mathew where they ask Jesus for help instead of asking why he would cause them to perish in the storm. Lastly, Mathews improvements to Jesus are shown in Mathew 9:18-26 and Mark 5:21-43. These passages tell the story of Jesus healing the hemorrhaging woman and resurrecting the daughter of Jarius. In Mathew the daughter is already thought to be dead where as in Mark she is alive during his trip and “dies” by the time he arrives. This is a small difference but intends to improve how Jesus looks because he was not late in Mathew. Next when healing the hemorrhaging in Mark, she sneaks up to him and then runs away. This is much different than in Mathew where he senses her and tells her to approach him.  Another difference is that the woman is much more confident in front of him in Mathew. At the end of the story Jesus arrives at the house of Jarius, tell them she is not dead, and then brings her back. Again, changes were made by Mathew. First, in Mark, Jesus only heals the daughter in front of Peter, James, and John. In Mathew however, it is implied that more people are present to witness the event, making his actions more credible. These passages conclude differently, in Mark no one hears of his miracle, where as in Mathew, everyone does.

The people healed by Jesus were a leper, a hemorrhaging woman who had been an outcast for 12 years, and a small girl. The common factor here is that they are perceived to be more disadvantaged or weaker than most people, these are the people that Jesus helps.  Another factor is that they are people who had faith in his abilities. These miracles provide a solid example of what Jesus was trying to teach in his sermon on the mount. The sermon basically gives a moral code to live by in which he says people who need help will receive it as well as people with a benevolence in their heart and those who believe. These are all shown by those who are helped in the miracles.

The idea of Mathew listing 10 miracles in chapters 8 and 9 is that there is a relation between him and Moses with his 10 miracles. The connection is that Moses saved his people through the act of 10 miracles and Jesus fulfills his role as messiah by doing the exact same.  By doing this Mathew gives Jesus more credibility in the eyes of the readers at the time.