The volumes of the University of Michigan Studies are published by authority of the Executive Board of the Graduate Department of the University of Michigan. A list of the volumes thus far published or arranged for is given at the end of this volume.

University of Michigan Studies
HUMANISTIC SERIES
VOLUME V

SOURCES OF THE SYNOPTIC
GOSPELS

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
NEW YORK · BOSTON · CHICAGO
ATLANTA · SAN FRANCISCO
MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED
LONDON · BOMBAY · CALCUTTA
MELBOURNE
THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD.
TORONTO

SOURCES
OF THE
SYNOPTIC GOSPELS

BY
CARL S. PATTON
FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH
COLUMBUS, OHIO

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND THE ARTS OF THE UNIVERSITY
OF MICHIGAN, FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

New York
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON: MACMILLAN & COMPANY, LIMITED
1915
All Rights Reserved

Copyright 1915 By
Carl S. Patton

Printed August, 1915

Composed and Printed By
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.

PREFACE

The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to give some account of the investigations recently made in the Synoptic Problem, and the present status of scholarly opinion concerning it; secondly, upon the basis of such established results, to push the inquiry into certain items a step farther.

The first part of the work, including pages 3-120, tho largely occupied with results reached by many different scholars, and bringing the matter up to where the writer adds his own more personal contribution, is yet not a mere survey of results attained. The writer has expressed his own judgment freely thruout it, as to the merits of arguments of others, and as to the points involved in the discussion. But his more personal contribution lies in the analysis of the groundwork Q into the two recensions, Q Mt and Q Lk.

The one book constantly in the writer’s hands during the preparation of this study was A. Huck’s Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien.[1] Without some such parallel edition of the Greek Gospels constantly open before him, one can neither write nor read profitably upon the Synoptic Question. The question of originality, and of giving credit for arguments and suggestions derived from other students, in a study of this sort, is extremely difficult. In the minute comparison of passages in one Gospel with passages in another, many of the differences and resemblances noted are part of the working material of most writers upon the Synoptic Problem; when one has worked thru the analyses of other students, has made their results his own, and has also made his own observations upon the basis of them, it becomes almost impossible for him to say what part of the total result is due to himself and for what part he is indebted to others. The writer is more deeply indebted to Paul Wernle, Sir John Hawkins, and the authors of the Oxford Studies, than to anyone else. The latter book came out after this study had been completed but the results have been revised somewhat under its influence. I have attempted to give credit in footnotes for suggestions received from many sources, but many must have gone unnoticed.

I am under deep obligation to the kind friends who have encouraged and made possible the publication of this Study, particularly to Mr. William H. Murphy, of Detroit.

Carl S. Patton

First Congregational Church
Columbus, Ohio
August, 1914

CONTENTS

PART I
ACCEPTED RESULTS OF SYNOPTIC STUDY

CHAPTER I

THE DEPENDENCE OF MATTHEW AND LUKE UPON MARK

The one universally accepted result of modern study of the synoptic problem is the dependence of Matthew and Luke upon the Gospel of Mark.

Tho it is no longer necessary to demonstrate this use of Mark by Matthew and Luke, the relation among the three Gospels is not to be dismissed with a simple statement of this dependence. The Gospel of Mark is the one document possessed by us in substantially the same form in which it was used by Matthew and Luke. A consideration of how Matthew and Luke treated the sources which we no longer have before us will be influenced by the treatment which they accorded to this one source which we have. Our first work, therefore, is to observe, with some thoroness, the manner in which Matthew and Luke use the Gospel of Mark. If any proof is still required that Matthew and Luke did employ this Gospel, it will appear in the discussion.

FRAMEWORK OF MARK’S GOSPEL IN MATTHEW AND LUKE—UP TO LUKE’S “GREAT OMISSION”

Matthew and Luke begin with introductory matter of their own, occupying the first two chapters of their Gospels. With the appearance of John the Baptist their narrative begins to coincide with that of Mark. Luke in a manner characteristic of his Gospel attempts to supply historical details. Mark (i, 6) gives a fuller description of the personal habits and appearance of the Baptist; the others omit this, and pass to a description of his preaching (Mt iii, 7-10; Lk iii, 7-9). Luke adds a brief section (iii, 10-14) on this subject derived from some source of his own.

After these insertions of non-Marcan material, Matthew and Luke come back to the narrative of Mark, and recount (Mk i, 7-8; Mt iii, 11-12; Lk iii, 15-18) the messianic prediction of the Baptist, the baptism of Jesus (Mk i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22), the temptation (Mk i, 12-13; Mt iv, 1-11; Lk iv, 1-13), and the initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee (Mk i, 14-15; Mt iv, 12-17; Lk iv, 14-15). Between the messianic preaching of the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus, Luke has inserted a notice of the arrest and imprisonment of John, and between the baptism and the temptation, his table of the ancestors of Jesus.[2] The large amount of closely parallel matter in Matthew and Luke, especially in their account of the Baptist’s preaching and their narrative of the temptation, shows their use of a common non-Marcan source; but the order of their narrative, as well as its wording, shows their use of Mark also. To his account of the initial appearance of Jesus in Galilee, Luke adds (iv, 16-30) an account of Jesus’ first preaching in Nazareth.

Matthew proceeds to tell with Mark (Mt iv, 18-22; Mk i, 16-20) of the calling of the first disciples. Luke postpones this, having a more detailed and interesting account of the call of Peter which he will introduce later (Lk v, 1-11). Mark (i, 21-28) then tells of Jesus’ preaching in a synagogue at Capernaum. This Matthew omits, but Luke (iv, 31-37) gives the story as Mark has it. Matthew here inserts his Sermon on the Mount and the healing of the nobleman’s daughter (Mt v, 1-viii, 13); he then comes back to the narrative of Mark, and with Luke tells (Mk i, 29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39) of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. The three evangelists then relate together (Mk i, 32-34; Mt viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41), the story of the healings at evening. Luke and Mark add the story of Jesus’ retirement into a desert place (Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43), which Matthew omits. Mark and Luke then add a brief statement of a preaching tour thru Galilee (Mk i, 39; Lk iv, 44); Matthew has already utilized this statement, somewhat enlarged, as introductory to his Sermon on the Mount (Mt iv, 23-25). Luke inserts (Lk v, 1-11) his account of the calling of Peter, postponed from its earlier position in Mark. The three then tell together the story of the healing of the leper and the paralytic, the call of Levi (called Matthew in Matthew), and the discussion about fasting (Mk i, 40-ii, 22; Mt viii, 1-4; ix, 1-17; Lk v, 12-39). Matthew (ix, 35-x, 16) inserts his account of the sending out of the twelve, which Mark and Luke give later. After this he comes back into agreement with the other two, and all three relate the incident of Jesus’ walking thru the corn on the Sabbath (Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5), the healing of the withered hand (Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11), and the healings in the crowd (Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19).

At this point Luke has transposed two brief sections of Mark, because, it is evident, by so doing he secures a better introduction to his Sermon on the Level Place, which he now (Lk vi, 20-49) proceeds to give. By placing the account of the calling of the twelve (Mk iii, 13-19; Lk vi, 12-16) just before the account of the gathering of the throng (Mk iii, 7-12; Lk vi, 17-19) he secures his audience for his Sermon on the Plain; if the narrative had been given in reverse order, as by Mark, the sermon might appear to have been addressed to the twelve alone. After his Sermon on the Plain (Lk vi, 20-49) Luke adds the story of the widow’s son, the anointing in Simon’s house, and the ministering women (vii, 11-17, 36-50; viii, 1-3), not found in either Mark or Matthew, after which the three take up the same story again in the accusation of the scribes and the speech about Beelzebub, tho Luke’s order is here not that of the other two (Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23). After the insertion of non-Marcan material by both Matthew and Luke, both return to Mark’s narrative in the story of the family of Jesus who had come to take him home (Mk iii, 31-35; Mt xii, 46-50; Lk viii, 19-21), the parable of the Sower, the speech about the purpose of the parables, the interpretation of the parable of the Sower, and the group of detached sayings (Mk iv, 1-25; Mt xiii, 1-23; Lk viii, 4-18); Matthew, however, omits three out of the four sayings at this point, because he has already incorporated them in his Sermon on the Mount.

Then follows in Mark alone (Mk iv, 26-29) the parable of the Seed that grew of itself, the only section of Marcan material thus far omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Then the parable of the Seed-Corn, which Luke omits but Matthew gives (Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32).[3] Then come the storm on the lake, the story of the Gadarene demoniac, the healing of Jairus’ daughter, with the interpolation of the story of the woman with the hemorrhage (Mk iv, 35-v, 43; Mt viii, 23-34; ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 22-56), all in the same order. Then follows the rejection in Nazareth (Mk vi, 1-6; Mt xiii, 53-58); Matthew follows Mark in it, but Luke omits it because he has related a similar incident in his fourth chapter. Luke then follows Mark in relating the incident of the sending out of the twelve (Mk vi, 6-13; Lk ix, 1-6); Matthew has given it in an earlier location. The judgment of Herod concerning Jesus is then given by all three (Mk vi, 14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9). Matthew gives with Mark (Mk vi, 17-29; Mt xiv, 3-12) the story of the Baptist’s death; Luke omits it, having concluded his story of John in connection with his account of the baptism of Jesus (Lk iii, 19-20). Then follow in all three the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five thousand (Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv, 13-21; Lk ix, 10-17). Thus far, several items of Mark’s narrative have been omitted now by Matthew and now by Luke, but only one fragment, the parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29), by both Matthew and Luke.

LUKE’S “GREAT OMISSION,” AND BEYOND

With Mk vi, 45, begins a section extending to Mk viii, 26, in which Matthew follows Mark closely, both in wording and in order (Mt xiv, 22-xvi, 12), except that Matthew omits Mark’s healing of the deaf stammerer (Mk vii, 31-37), inserts (Mt xv, 29-31) a summary of the healing narratives, and omits the healing of the blind man (Mk viii, 22-26). Luke omits the entire section. Luke picks up the thread of Mark’s narrative again at Mk viii, 27, and he and Matthew follow it thru the confession of Peter (Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22), the prediction of sufferings for the disciples (Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27), and the transfiguration (Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36). Luke omits the question of the scribes concerning Elias, but Matthew follows Mark in it (Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13). After the omission of these five Marcan verses Luke again continues Mark’s narrative, as does Matthew, and the three relate together the healing of the epileptic boy (Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43a), and the second prediction of sufferings (Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43b-45).

Matthew inserts from another source the passage about the temple-tax (Mt xvii, 24-27), and the three continue together in the passage concerning the strife about precedence (Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48). Matthew then drops out for a few verses, but Luke follows Mark in the story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50). Luke omits Mark’s saying about offenses, but Matthew follows Mark in it (Mk ix, 42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9). Both Matthew and Luke then forsake Mark for the moment, since they have both given his saying about salt (Mk ix, 49-50) in other connections, their treatment of Mark here being evidently influenced by their use of another source.[4] Matthew then inserts a few sections peculiar to his Gospel (Mt xviii, 10-35), a few verses of which (Mt xviii, 10-14; Lk xv, 3-7; Mt xviii, 15; Lk xvii, 3; Mt xviii, 21-22; Lk xvii, 4) are somewhat loosely paralleled in Luke.

LUKE’S “GREAT INTERPOLATION”: ITS CONTENT

Beginning with the 51st verse of his 9th chapter, and extending thru the 14th verse of his 18th chapter, occurs Luke’s “Great Interpolation,” his account of the journey thru Samaria. Here occur in Luke many of Jesus’ sayings which Matthew has combined into his “Sermon on the Mount”; notably the Lord’s Prayer, the speech about backsliding, and the saying “Ask and ye shall receive.” Here also is much material peculiar to Luke; notably Jesus’ visit to the home of Mary and Martha, the blessing of the woman upon the mother of Jesus, the sending out and return of the seventy disciples, the healing of the ten lepers, and the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Friend Asking for Bread, the Foolish Rich Man, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, Dives and Lazarus, the Unjust Judge, and the Publican and Pharisee in the Temple.

Since the purpose here is merely to indicate the relation of the framework of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to that of Mark, the full content of this great interpolation of Luke’s does not need to be presented. Enough has been given to show how long and important a section it is. Thruout it Luke appears to forsake Mark, tho there seem to be evidences that for some of the material contained in this section and also to be found in Mark, Mark and Luke have been drawing upon a common source.[5]

After forsaking Mark for so long, Luke comes back to him, and to Matthew (who has not made this deviation at the same place), in the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii, 15-17), the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30; Lk xviii, 18-30), and the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk xviii, 31-34). Matthew has meantime inserted (Mt xx, 1-16) his parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, but has not allowed this insertion to influence his adherence to the Marcan order. Luke then drops out of the triple tradition in the passage concerning the request of James and John for chief seats in the kingdom, but Matthew continues to follow Mark (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28). After this brief omission of Luke’s, the three come together again in the story of the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk, xviii, 35-43). Luke inserts his story of Zaccheus, unknown to the other evangelists (Lk xix, 1-10), and his parable of the Talents (Lk xix, 11-27), more or less closely parallel to Matthew’s parable (Mt xxv, 14-30).

THE JERUSALEM NARRATIVE

In their account of the happenings in Jerusalem, the three evangelists start out together in the story of the triumphal entry (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi, 1-11; Lk xix, 28-38). Matthew and Luke then insert some material unknown to Mark (Mt xxi, 14-17; Lk xix, 39-44). Matthew follows Mark in the story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19); Luke omits this, perhaps considering it a variant of the parable of the Barren Fig Tree given later by all three. The three continue together in the account of the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 15-18; Mt xxi, 12-13; Lk xix, 45-48), and Matthew gives with Mark the speech of Jesus concerning the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-26; Mt xxi, 20-22); Luke, having omitted the cursing of the fig tree, omits also this speech concerning it.

The three then give together the Pharisees’ question about Jesus’ authority for the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8). Matthew adds his parable of the Dissimilar Sons (Mt xxi, 28-32), and the three relate together the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx, 9-19). Matthew next gives the parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt xxii, 1-14) which Luke has given earlier, in his Great Interpolation (Lk xiv, 16-24). Matthew and Luke follow Mark again in the question about the tribute money (Mk xii, 13-17; Mt xxii, 15-22; Lk xx, 20-26) and the question of the Sadducees about marriage (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40). Matthew continues to follow Mark in the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii, 34-40); Luke has included this also in his Great Interpolation (Lk x, 25-28); both Matthew and Luke omit the complimentary remarks of the scribe to Jesus given by Mark (Mk xii, 32-34). This omission does not hinder their following Mark in his next sections, the question of David’s son, and the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx, 41-44, and Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-36; Lk xx, 45-47). Matthew’s largely expanded form of the latter of these two sections shows him to be here combining some other source with Mark.

Luke’s discourse against the Pharisees recorded in this place agrees closely with Mark’s, but he has given in his eleventh chapter much of the non-Marcan material which Matthew gives in this place (Lk xi, 39-50). Matthew then inserts the lament over Jerusalem (Mt xxiii, 37-39) which Luke has given at an earlier and less appropriate point (Lk xiii, 34-35). Matthew deserts, but Luke follows, Mark in the story of the widow’s mite (Mk xii, 41-44; Lk xxi, 1-4). All three continue together in the prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk xiii, 1-4; Mt xxiv, 1-3; Lk xxi, 5-7), and in the signs of the parousia (Mk xiii, 5-9; Mt xxiv, 4-8; Lk xxi, 8-11). Thruout the remainder of the “Little Apocalypse” Matthew has an occasional expansion of Marcan material, and Luke makes an occasional omission, but it is obvious that Matthew and Luke are here, in the main, following Mark closely (Mk xiii; Mt xxiv; Lk xxi). There follow in Matthew several sections not duplicated in Mark, as the saying about the days of Noah (Mt xxiv, 37-41), the parables of the Watching Servant (Mt xxiv, 42-44), the True and False Servant (Mt xxiv, 45-51), the Wise Virgins (Mt xxv, 1-13), the Talents (Mt xxv, 14-30), and the parable of the Judgment (Mt xxv, 31-46). Luke has given to the “Little Apocalypse” an ending of his own (Lk xxi, 34-36); the material which Matthew has inserted continuously in his xxiv, 37-xxv, 30, Luke has scattered over his seventeenth, twelfth, and nineteenth chapters; the Matthean parable of the Judgment is duplicated in neither Mark nor Luke. Luke adds a summary of the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk xxi, 37-38).

THE STORY OF THE PASSION

Here the three evangelists start out together with the machinations of the rulers (Mk xiv, 1-2; Mt xxvi, 1-5; Lk xxii, 1-2). Luke drops out the account of the anointing in Bethany, which Mark and Matthew relate (Mk xiv, 3-9; Mt xxvi, 6-13), Luke having related a similar event in an earlier chapter (Lk vii, 36-50). The three then go on together in the story of the bargain of Judas with the priests (Mk xiv, 10-11; Mt xxvi, 14-16; Lk xxii, 3-6), and the account of the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv, 12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14). Luke then brings forward Mark’s story of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, apparently feeling that it fits better here than as given by Mark; except for the transposition of Luke’s xxii, 21-23 (= Mk xiv, 18-21; Mt xxvi, 21-25), the three agree in their account of the prediction of the betrayal and the institution of the Supper. Luke then adds a section of seven verses (Lk xxii, 24-30) on the strife about rank in the coming kingdom, which Mark and Matthew have given earlier (Mk x, 42-45; Mt xx, 25-28). After this interruption of the common order the three go on with the prediction of the denial by Peter (Mk xiv, 26-31; Mt xxvi, 30-35; Lk xxii, 31-34). Then come, tho interrupted by here and there a slight addition peculiar to Matthew or Luke, and with transpositions of verses or small sections more frequent than in other parts of the Gospels, the scene in Gethsemane, the arrest, trial, execution, and burial of Jesus, and the story of the empty grave (Mk xiv, 32-xvi, 8; Mt xxvi, 36-xxviii, 10; Lk xxii, 39-xxiv, 11); thus bringing us down to the mutilated end of Mark’s Gospel.

Matthew and Luke have thus taken, between them, with trifling exceptions, the entire Gospel of Mark. The historical framework of the Synoptic Gospels goes back to Mark.

THE PRIORITY OF MARK

We add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark’s Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho this theory is no longer defended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment.

1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark of so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.

2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words, Luke 172, and Mark 190. In the calling of Levi (Matthew, in the Gospel of Matthew) Matthew has 92 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have eliminated.

3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, σχιζομένους, i, 10; ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, i, 23; κράβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; ἐπιράπτει, ii, 21; θυγάτριον, v, 23; vii, 25; ἐσχάτως ἔχει, v, 23; σπεκουλάτωρ, vi, 27; συμπόσια συμπόσια, vi, 39; [εἰσὶν τινὲς ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων, ix, 1; εἷς κατὰ εἷς, xiv, 19; ἐκπερισσῶς, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.

4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+; iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49. Such constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they would not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by Mark.

5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such instances may be found in Mark’s Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii, 14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their treatment of these redundancies.[6]

6. Mark uses uniformly καὶ, where Matthew and Luke have sometimes καὶ, and sometimes δὲ. Mark’s use shows him to be nearer the Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by Matthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark’s one conjunction is entirely natural.

7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of Mark’s material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke.

8. Mark’s narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either Matthew’s or Luke’s. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found these before them in their Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives of Matthew and Luke. One may mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the statement, “He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts” (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar items.

LUKE’S GREAT INTERPOLATION: ITS NON-USE OF MARK

Thruout this Great Interpolation, Luke entirely forsakes Mark.[7] Out of the two hundred and fifty-two verses of the interpolation, there are about thirty-five which contain material also to be found in Mark. But thirteen of these thirty-five verses are doublets. And of these doublets, the member which appears in the interpolation seems never to agree in its setting with the verse in Mark to which it is parallel, whereas the verse which, outside the interpolation, constitutes the other member of the doublet does so agree. In the case of five of these doublets, the member standing outside the interpolation is also more closely similar to Mark in wording than the half standing in the interpolation. The thirteen verses containing the doublets therefore came apparently from some other source than Mark.

Nine other brief sayings in the interpolation have a parallel in Mark, and also in Matthew. But the similarity in each case is greater between the Marcan and Matthean than between the Lucan and Marcan forms, and thus indicates that these Lucan verses were not drawn from Mark, tho Matthew’s parallel verses apparently were.[8] The placing of these nine verses in Luke is unlike that in Mark, but their placing in Matthew is exactly similar to Mark’s. In twenty-two out of the thirty-five verses of the Great Interpolation that are paralleled in Mark there are thus but three expressions, at the most, that can possibly be held to indicate that Luke is here following Mark.

Two more such expressions are found in the remaining thirteen verses. Four of these contain the discussion about the Great Commandment, paralleled in Mk xii, 28-34, and Mt xxii, 34-40. The connection is identical in Matthew and Mark, but very different in Luke. The same is true of the introductory question of the scribe. Mark and Matthew assign to the questioner the Old Testament quotation which Luke assigns to Jesus. The commendation of the questioner, common to Mark and Luke, and the addition, also common to them against Matthew, of ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου) would naturally point toward a dependence of Luke upon Mark, but are not strong enough to counterbalance so much evidence in the opposite direction.

The next seven verses (xi, 15, 17-23) contain the defense of Jesus against the charge of having a devil. Mark and Luke agree but slightly, Matthew and Luke very closely. Matthew has 136 words, Luke 139, Mark only 98, whereas the narratives which Luke takes from Mark are invariably abbreviated by Luke. Matthew and Luke have the same setting, Mark a different one. Matthew follows Mark against Luke in the little parable of the Strong Man Armed; Luke has no parallel. Matthew has conflated two sources, one of which was Mark, but Luke has forsaken Mark for the other source.

The remaining two verses, the parable of the Mustard Seed (Lk xiii, 18-19; Mk iv, 30+; Mt xiii, 31+) show the same features as those just considered. We conclude that thruout his Great Interpolation, Luke, while having some matter paralleled in Mark, was not following Mark, but some other source.

CHAPTER II

THE ORDER OF MARK’S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE

In the treatment of the framework of the Synoptics, something has been said of the way in which Matthew and Luke treat the order of the material which they have taken from Mark. The subject, however, calls for a more careful analysis.

At the opening of the 3d chapters of Matthew and Luke, these writers begin their use of Marcan material. Thru the story of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus, and his first preaching in Galilee, Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order, with the trifling exception that Luke has brot forward to his 3d chapter the account of John’s imprisonment, which in Mark is not given till his 6th chapter and in Matthew till his 14th, Matthew’s order here being the same as Mark’s. Luke’s insertion of the genealogy of Jesus between the baptism and the temptation of Jesus does not constitute a deviation from the order, but only an addition to the material, of Mark. In Luke’s 4th chapter (16-30) he brings forward an incident which Mark relates much later (Mk vi, 1-6), the incident also being much worked over by Luke. Matthew, on the contrary, follows Mark in next relating the call of the first disciples; Luke continues his deviation in order by postponing this till later.[9]

Luke then comes back to Mark’s order (Mk i, 21-38; Lk iv, 31-43), and follows it thru four sections: the incident in the synagogue at Capernaum, the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother, the healings in the evening, and the retirement of Jesus. Of these four sections, Matthew omits the first, presumably because he considers himself to have given, in his Sermon on the Mount, a much fuller account of the effect of Jesus’ preaching than is conveyed by the words of Mark. The second and third of the four sections Matthew postpones till after his Sermon on the Mount. The last one, about the retirement of Jesus, he omits, because he has no place for it, since he has not recorded the preaching at Capernaum and the incident attached to it, out of which the retirement came.

Luke then inserts (v, 1-11) his account of the calling of Peter. He then returns to Mark’s order (Mk i, 40-45; Lk v, 12-16) in the healing of the leper; this incident Matthew has postponed till after his Sermon on the Mount. Matthew again brings forward the account of the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac, which Mark does not relate till his 4th and 5th chapters. But after these deviations he again coincides with Mark and Luke in the healing of the paralytic, the calling of Levi, and the question about fasting. Matthew again forsakes Mark’s order by bringing forward the mission of the twelve to a place much earlier than it occupies in Mark’s narrative. Having done this he falls again into the Marcan order, which Luke has been still following, and relates in the same order with Mark the walk thru the corn and the healing of the withered hand.

Luke has thus far shown few deviations from Mark’s order, Matthew many. These deviations of Matthew’s seem mostly to have been occasioned by his insertion of so much non-Marcan material in his Sermon on the Mount. Luke now makes a slight transposition; he relates with Mark the story of the healings and the crowd, and the calling of the twelve, but in the reverse order; he has thus secured a better introduction to his Sermon on the Level Place (beginning Lk vi, 20). After the conclusion of that sermon, and the inclusion of much non-Marcan material, in Luke; and after the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the insertion by him of much Marcan material which in Mark’s Gospel comes at later points, Matthew and Luke come back to Mark’s order in the Beelzebul controversy. Matthew continues with Mark in the story of the family of Jesus, come to take him home, the parable of the Sower, and the interpretation of that parable. Luke also follows Mark’s order thruout these three sections, tho he has placed all three of them at an earlier point in his Gospel, and has transposed the first section.

Beginning again with the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac, Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order thru two long sections. Matthew, in copying Mark’s earlier narrative, omitted his healing of the paralytic, his call of Levi (Matthew), and his report of the discussion about fasting, where these occurred in Mark’s 2d chapter. He therefore inserts them here in his 9th chapter. After the insertion of these Matthew comes back to the order of Mark in his story of the daughter of Jairus. Luke, having followed Mark’s order in the earlier narrative where Matthew deviated from it, follows it here uninterruptedly thru the three sections about the storm on the lake, the Gadarene demoniac, and the daughter of Jairus. After omitting Mk vi, 1-6, the story of the rejection at Nazareth, which Luke has given in an expanded form much earlier, Luke again follows Mark’s narrative thru two sections on the sending out of the disciples and the judgment of Herod concerning Jesus. He omits the death of the Baptist, perhaps under the impression that this will be inferred from his leaving him in prison in an earlier chapter, but goes on with Mark again in the account of the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five thousand. Matthew has come back to Mark’s order at Mk vi, 14 (Mt xiv, 1), and follows it without deviation or interruption thru about seventy verses; after which, tho omitting several small sections of Marcan material, and inserting some non-Marcan matter, he continues to follow the Marcan order to Mk ix, 48; thus following Mark’s order, in spite of additions and omissions, thru more than three of Mark’s chapters, without deviation. Luke has fallen out at Mk vi, 45, and takes nothing from Mark again till he reaches Mark’s viii, 27; at which point, without having made any insertion of his own peculiar material, he again takes up Mark’s narrative, and follows it from Mk viii, 27, to Mk ix, 8 (= Lk ix, 18, to ix, 36); then making another omission of a few Marcan verses, he continues to follow Mark up to Mk ix, 40. In spite of Luke’s omission of several brief Marcan sections, and of more than three Marcan chapters at another point, Luke has thus not disturbed the Marcan order from Mk vi, 6, to Mk ix, 40.

Beginning with Mk x, 1, Matthew follows Mark, tho making an insertion of 16 verses, up to Mk xi, 11, at which point he transposes a few verses. Luke has come in at Mk x, 13, and has followed up to Mk x, 34, at which point he makes an omission of ten Marcan verses. Going on with Mark at Mk x, 46, he continues to follow him (tho inserting his story of Zaccheus and his parable of the talents) to Mk xiii, 9, omitting, however, Mark’s story of the cursing of the fig tree and the speech of Jesus attached to this incident in Mark’s Gospel. After the transposition of a few Marcan verses in Mt xxi, 12-13, Matthew also continues Mark’s order, beginning with Mk xi, 20, down to Mk xiii, 9.

From Mk xiii, 9, to xiii, 32, both Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order. At Mk xiii, 33-37, they come upon a section which Matthew postpones and which Luke has previously inserted. After the insertion of some non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke, and of some matter peculiar to each, both Matthew and Luke go on with the Marcan material, beginning where they left off at Mk xiv, 1. Luke omits Mk xiv, 3-9, because of a duplicate or variant of the passage which he has inserted in his 7th chapter; except for this omission (which does not affect Matthew), the three proceed in the same order down to Mk xiv, 17, where Luke again transposes a few verses, but Matthew follows without deviation. From here on to the end of Mark’s Gospel, Matthew follows practically without deviation, tho adding much matter of his own. Luke makes a transposition of the story of Peter’s denial, and of one or two other items; except for which he also follows Mark’s order substantially as he finds it.

This statement of the relative order of Marcan material in the three Synoptic Gospels has been made in a way to facilitate comparison in the large, and give a general idea of how faithfully Matthew and Luke have followed the order of Mark. For purposes of studying the matter in more detail, Table I is appended. The sections are given and numbered as they occur in Mark, and also as they occur in Matthew and Luke.

TABLE I

Showing Changes Made by Matthew and Luke in the Order of Marcan Material

A comparison of the number in the Table which a given section bears respectively in Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark will show the number and extent of the changes which Matthew and Luke have permitted themselves in their disposition of Marcan material.

DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE

An examination of the preceding table will show how generally both Matthew and Luke have followed the order of Mark.

Of the 87 Marcan sections retained by Luke, only 11 sections (Nos. 6, 12, 21, 22, 23, 42-47) are seriously misplaced. From sec. 35 to the end, the order is particularly well preserved, the only changes being in the placing of 49 before 48, and 74 before 73. Luke’s displacements are usually made in the interest of a better historical or literary sequence; some of them may also be occasioned by his large omissions of Marcan material and his large insertions of peculiar matter.

Matthew has made rather a larger number of changes in the order of his Marcan material; due perhaps to his habit of combining his Marcan and his other matter, and to his wish to present most of his sayings-material in one block (chaps. v-vii). His notable transpositions occur near the beginning of his Gospel, just before or after the insertion of his Sermon on the Mount, and in that section (the sending out of the twelve) where he has made his most obvious conflation of Marcan and other matter. From sec. 37 to the end, however, changes in order are extremely few. The insertion of 8 between 54 and 55 may be only an apparent dislocation, since the saying about salt may here not have been derived from Mark but from Q. The placing of the cleansing of the temple before the cursing of the fig tree (secs. 62, 63) may be due to his wish to bring the cursing of the fig tree into immediate connection with the remarks to which it gave rise; the transposition is an improvement. From here on to the end the sections occur precisely as in Mark, except that 21 is inserted between 74 and 75; apparently owing to the influence of Q. The table will also show that Matthew and Luke practically never concur in forsaking the order of Mark. It also warrants the assertion often made of late years that Matthew is more faithful to the content of Mark, permitting himself fewer omissions, but Luke is more faithful to his order.

CHAPTER III

THE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[10]

OMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH MATTHEW AND LUKE

The omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and the blind man (Mk vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26), is sufficiently accounted for by the character of those accounts. The crassness of the means used and the apparent difficulty of the cures offended the growing sense of the dignity of Jesus.

The exceedingly patronizing answer of the scribe to Jesus in Mk xii, 32-34 is probably omitted by Matthew and Luke for the same reason. The parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29) may have been omitted because it so closely duplicated other material in both Matthew and Luke;[11] it has been suggested also that it might have a discouraging effect, or at least not a stimulating one, upon the missionary activities of the early church.

The first visit of Jesus to the temple (Mk xi, 11) is mentioned by Mark in three words only. No incident is connected with it, but Jesus is said to have looked about and, as it was late, to have gone back to Bethany. The incident may have dropped out because unsupported by any events or sayings; or the three words εἰς τὸ ἱερόν may have crept into the text of Mark after its use by Matthew and Luke (the sense is equally good without them).

The mention of the man in the linen garment (Mk xiv, 51) and the names of Alexander and Rufus (Mk xv, 21) may have been omitted because neither Matthew nor Luke nor their readers would be acquainted with these persons.

OMISSIONS MADE BY MATTHEW IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE

Matthew omits the account of the preaching of Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk i, 21-28) because he wished to give a much more detailed account of Jesus’ preaching, in his Sermon on the Mount. This explanation becomes a practical certainty when we observe that the statement which Mark and Luke make concerning the effect of the sermon in the synagogue, “They were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes,” is used by Matthew to describe the effect of the Sermon on the Mount.

Matthew’s omission of the flight of Jesus (Mk i, 35-38) is probably due to its failure to fit into his story, as this has been changed on account of the insertion of the Sermon on the Mount. The retirement takes place from Capernaum, as a result of the enthusiasm aroused by Jesus’ preaching there. Matthew does not represent Jesus as preaching in Capernaum. He brings Jesus to Capernaum in chaps. 8 and 9, not however to preach, but to work miracles. Jesus closes this series of healings with the statement (Mt ix, 37-38), “The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his vineyard.” The retirement does not follow naturally upon this series of healings, much less upon these words, and so is omitted.

The omission of the story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41), as Wernle remarks,[12] is not so easy to explain. It may be observed, however, that by its omission Matthew secures a better connection between the two sayings of Jesus which are thus brought into succession: “He that receiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me,” and “but he that causeth one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble, it is better for him,” etc. (Mt xviii, 5, 6).

The story of the widow’s mite (Mk xii, 41-44) Matthew may have omitted because he lacks the connection for it which is supplied in the Gospel of Mark. Mark makes Jesus speak of the Pharisees who “devour widow’s houses,” and immediately after this introduces the incident of the widow’s self-sacrifice. Matthew has omitted the incident because he has not the proper occasion for it.[13]

Matthew’s other omissions have been accounted for under the omissions common to him with Luke. The sum total of them is very small and in general they are easily accounted for.

OMISSIONS MADE BY LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[14]

Luke omits the circumstantial account of the death of the Baptist (Mk vi, 17-29); he has long ago inserted the account of his imprisonment (Lk iii, 19-20), wishing to finish with John before beginning with Jesus. “But the circumstantial account did not fit in that place.”[15]

The longest omission of continuous Marcan material is made by Luke in omitting the whole of Mk vi, 45 to viii, 26. This long omission immediately precedes the long insertion of special Lucan material, indicating a possible difficulty in combining the two sources at this point. Quite without this, however, there are more or less obvious reasons for Luke’s omission of every section in this long passage. He avoids[16] the repetition of the same story, and may have regarded Mark’s feeding of the four thousand (Mk viii, 1-10) as a repetition of the feeding of the five thousand which Luke has already copied from him.

The demand for a sign is a doublet in Matthew; Luke has taken it once with Matthew from Q and therefore does not care to take it with him here again from Mark (Mk viii, 11-13). The dispute about things that defile (Mk vii, 1-23) had no significance for a gentile writer or his gentile readers. As early as his 4th chapter, Luke has represented Jesus as turning from the Jews, who had rejected him, to the gentiles; he cannot therefore use Mark’s story of the Canaanitish woman, (Mk vii, 24-30), with its apparently narrow national outlook: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”[17] The crossing of the lake to Gennesaret has in Mark (vi, 53-56) no particular incident connected with it, merely the statement that many people came to Jesus and were healed. It may have been omitted by Luke because he has a duplicate in viii, 22-25. The omission of this item was no particular loss to Luke’s account; but with its omission the incident of the walking on the water also fell out. The latter may have been omitted also because of its implied aspersion upon the disciples. Luke may have been the more ready to drop this, as his interest in the miracles of Jesus is confined more largely to the healings, the miracles peculiar to Luke being entirely of this kind.

Luke omitted the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees about Elias (Mk ix, 9-13) because it had no interest for his gentile readers. The omission of the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48) is accounted for by Luke’s having a parallel for the first part of it in another connection; the last part, about cutting off the hand or the foot, may have seemed to him, with his Greek taste, too harsh a saying to be attributed to Jesus.

Luke omitted the journey thru Judaea (Mk x, 1) (or Perea) because in its place he has given a long account (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14) (again his great interpolation) of the journey thru Samaria. The terminus of both journeys and their place in the story are the same. The question about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 2-12) is again connected with a Pharisaic dispute; Luke has also given his own briefer version of the same item (xvi, 18); for either or both of these reasons he omits it here. The request of James and John for chief seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45) Luke omits because it reflects upon the motives of those disciples; Matthew perceives the same objection to it, but, more faithful to his sources he gets over the difficulty by attributing the request to the mother, instead of to the disciples. Mark’s discussion about the disciples’ failure to bring bread (Mk viii, 14-21) Luke may have omitted because of its implication of carelessness on the part of the disciples. Luke also uniformly avoids any implication of lack of knowledge on the part of Jesus, and this incident includes one such.[18]

The question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34) Luke may have omitted because it also is connected with a dispute with a scribe. Or if Luke’s passage (x, 25-28) be considered a parallel to it, this is enough to account for its omission here. On this latter supposition, Luke has used the saying as an introduction to his story of the Good Samaritan. The cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14) Luke apparently regarded as a misunderstanding of the parable of the Fig Tree, which he gives. Whether so or not, it is of the same kind as the other miracles which Luke omits, in that it is not a miracle of healing. The anointing in Bethany (Mk xiv, 3-9) has a parallel in the anointing (both in the “house of Simon”) by the sinful woman, which Luke has related in his 7th chapter (vss. 36-50). “The second session of the sanhedrim he has combined with the first.”[19]

Concerning the great omission of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), it should be added that his Gospel is now considerably longer than Mark’s and even than Matthew’s. He had much material of his own to incorporate. Rolls of papyrus were of an average length, and not capable of indefinite extension. Luke could not include all Mark’s material without omitting much that he has derived elsewhere. If it was necessary or convenient for him to make an omission amounting in length to the matter he has passed over in Mark, it was much easier and simpler for him to omit an entire section of that length, than to go here and there thru Mark to make his necessary total of eliminations. This consideration, with the character of the material omitted, sufficiently accounts for the “great omission.”[20]

CHAPTER IV

THE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF MARK[21]

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

(Mk i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22)

Matthew adds to Mark’s account the conversation in which John objects to baptizing Jesus, and Jesus quiets his scruples (Mt iii, 14-15). This reflects the later time, when the superiority of Jesus to John had been historically demonstrated, and when the baptism might have given offense by seeming to imply a need of forgiveness. The item approaches the point of view of the similar addition in the Fourth Gospel. Matthew, who has added this item here, is the only evangelist who says that John’s baptism was εἰς μετάνοιαν (iii, 11). Matthew’s added conversation appears, still more elaborated, in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke (iii, 21) adds that Jesus was praying during his baptism, which may be an accommodation to the custom of the early church. Mark says the voice from the sky was addressed to Jesus; Matthew represents it as addressed to the crowd, perhaps to give more public honor to Jesus. The Gospel of the Ebionites adds to Mark’s “in thee I am well pleased,” the quotation from the Psalms, “this day have I begotten thee”; and certain MSS contain the same words in the text of Luke, omitting “in thee I am well pleased.” These variations show the freedom of the early tradition, but its unanimity in the idea that the baptism was Jesus’ messianic consecration. Matthew and Luke replace Mark’s σχιζομένους, a word not elsewhere found, with a word common in such connections.

THE CALLING OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES

(Mk i, 16-20; Mt iv, 18-22; Lk v, 1-11)

Luke postpones this account, and in connection with it gives the story of the miraculous draft of fishes, unknown to Mark and Matthew. The reason is not apparent, especially since the transposition involves Luke in some anachronisms. Matthew follows Mark’s account closely,[22] retaining even the parenthetical and appended explanation in vs. 16. He omits Mark’s words, “with the hired men,” perhaps because of his general tendency toward condensation, perhaps because the departure of James and John from their father is rendered less critical by Mark’s mention of the hired men.

JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM

(Mk i, 21-28; Mt vii, 28-29; Lk iv, 31-37)

Luke omits “and not as the scribes,” because his readers would not understand the allusion. He replaces Mark’s awkward phrase ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ by the good Greek phrase ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου. He omits Mark’s mention of Galilee at the end of his account, because he has inserted it at the beginning. Matthew’s omission of the whole story may be controlled by his unwillingness, elsewhere manifested, to represent the demons as recognizing Jesus as the Messiah.

THE HEALING OF PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW

(Mk i, 29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39)

Mark calls Peter by the name of Simon, as is uniform with him up to the time Jesus gives him the name of Peter at his calling of the twelve. Matthew calls him Peter, by which name he knows him from the beginning. Luke’s displacement of the call of Peter involves him in the anachronism of having the healing take place in his house before he becomes a disciple.

THE HEALINGS IN THE EVENING

(Mk i, 32-34; Mt viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41)

Mark says “In the evening when the sun was set.” Matthew has reduced the redundancy of this expression by saying merely “When it was evening.” Luke has caught the point of Mark’s expression, namely, that the Sabbath was over, and so has reduced the pleonasm by saying only “The sun having set.” Mark says they brot all the sick to Jesus and he healed many. Matthew improves this by saying they brot many and he healed all. Luke goes a step farther and says they brot all, and he healed every one. No explanation is necessary for these changes except the natural desire to avoid the implication that there were some whom Jesus did not heal, and to make the statement of his cures as positive and inclusive as possible. Matthew mentions only the possessed, Mark puts the sick and the possessed in the same class, Luke gives a separate paragraph to each. Both Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s irregular and unusual form ἤφιεν.

THE RETIREMENT OF JESUS

(Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43)

Matthew omits, for reasons already given.[23] Luke avoids Mark’s strange word, κωμοπόλεις. Where Mark says “Simon and those with him,” Luke says “the crowd,” because in Luke’s story Simon is not yet a disciple.

THE CALLING OF PETER

(Lk v, 1-11)

Luke here displays his freedom in working over the story of Mark. He builds upon Mk i, 19, yet instead of saying that the fishermen were mending their nets in their boats, he says they had gone out of their boats and were washing their nets. He has apparently read Mk iv, 1, also, and builds upon this the statement about Jesus’ going into the boat to get away from the crowd (which statement he later omits when he comes to it in Mark’s parable of the Sower). (There is a reminiscence here also of Mk iii, 9.) After the draft of fishes, when he comes to the words of Jesus to Peter, he picks up again a fragment of Mark’s account, tho still with an addition and with a deviation in the wording; Mark says δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων; Luke says μὴ φοβοῦ· ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν. Luke’s closing statement, “They left all and followed him” is substantially, tho not quite in wording, the same as Mark’s. No example could be more striking, of Luke’s freedom in his treatment of Mark. He exercises this freedom, however, in the narratives rather than in the words of Jesus; when he comes to these latter, even in the midst of a narrative which he has largely created out of mere fragments of Mark, he follows Mark comparatively closely. In not many narratives does Luke go to quite such lengths in his re-working as in this story and the account of the rejection (initial preaching) at Nazareth. But this is typical of him, as compared with Matthew’s treatment of the same source.

THE HEALING OF THE LEPER

(Mk i, 40-45; Mt viii, 1-4; Lk v, 12-16)

Matthew and Luke both omit Mark’s ἐμβριμησάμενος, for which they have in this case double ground; it is an unusual word, and it implies that Jesus was angry. Luke avoids Mark’s statement that the man directly disobeyed Jesus’ command not to tell of his cleansing.

THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC

(Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)

Both Matthew and Luke have supplied their own introductions. Both substitute εἶπεν for Mark’s λέγει (Mk ix, 5) (a correction which Luke invariably makes). Both use substitutes for Mark’s κράβαττον. Luke avoids Jesus’ address to the man as τέκνον. In the words of Jesus to his critics and to the paralytic, both follow Mark with general fidelity, and tho Mark’s vss. 5b-10 appear to interrupt the story, both follow him in their inclusion of these verses. Luke’s change of Mark’s vs. 7 is a fine example of his ability to make an improvement in the sense with the least possible change in the wording. Mark reads, τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ· Luke changes to τίς ἐστιν ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας; The latter fits much better into the question, “Who has power to forgive sins except God?” Mark has made Jesus, in his dispute with his critics, say “Which is easier, to say, ... or to say, rise, take up thy bed and walk?” Matthew and Luke make him leave out the clause “take up thy bed,” reserving this for Jesus’ actual address to the man a little later, whereas Mark uses it in both places. Luke heightens the effect of his story by saying “He took up that upon which he had been carried,” instead of “he took up his bed.” This may be a heightening of the contrast, or perhaps a hint that he did not know exactly what Mark’s κράβαττον was, tho he has elsewhere replaced it by κλινίδιον.[24]

THE CALLING OF LEVI (MATTHEW)

(Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32)

Matthew and Luke both correct Mark’s unusual if not ungrammatical use of ὅτι in the sense of why. Mark says “Why does he eat with publicans and sinners?” Matthew improves by reading, “Why does your master eat,” etc. Luke improves still more by directing the question to the disciples in such manner as to include Jesus, “Why do ye eat,” etc.

THE QUESTION ABOUT FASTING

(Mk ii, 18-22; Mt ix, 14-17; Lk v, 33-39)

Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s verb ἐπιράπτει, a word found nowhere but in this verse of Mark’s (ix, 21). At the end they avoid Mark’s clumsy expression, “The wine and the bottles will be destroyed,” and say, “The wine will be spilled and the bottles destroyed.”[25] They both omit the last part of Mark’s vs. 19, an obvious pleonasm and possibly a later insertion. Luke’s addition in his vs. 39 does not fit well, but is bracketed by Westcott and Hort and is probably an insertion. More difficult (and so far as I see impossible) to explain is Luke’s suggestion that the patch to be put on the old garment is cut out of a new one—an unusual procedure, certainly. He may possibly have been misled into this statement by his desire to heighten the contrast between old and new.

THE WALK THRU THE CORN

(Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5)

Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s expression ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, which sounds as if Mark meant to say that Jesus made a new path thru the corn. They add, what Mark forgets to say, that he and his disciples ate the grain. Luke adds that they rubbed it in their hands. They are led to these corrections by the fact that the justification of Jesus by the example of David has to do, not with making a road thru the grain, but with eating on the Sabbath and, perhaps, eating something which it would not ordinarily have been proper for him to eat. Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s colorless and unnecessary “when he had need,” and his historically difficult reference to Abiathar.[26] All three have the clause, “and to those that were with him,” but each in a different place. Luke improves the order of the clauses in Mark’s 26th verse. Matthew adds to the words of Jesus the reference to the priests profaning the temple and yet being guiltless. The addition is suggested by David’s eating the shewbread, but does not fit the case so closely, since Jesus was not defending himself against the charge of profaning a holy place. Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s saying that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sir John Hawkins suggests that the saying may have been offensive to Jewish ears. This may account for Matthew’s omission of it; and Luke may have omitted it because he and his readers had not much interest in discussions about the Sabbath. But it is perhaps still more likely that the sentence is a later addition to Mark.

THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND

(Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11)

Luke changes Mark’s σάββασιν to σαββάτῳ, perhaps because he is not acquainted with the Hebrew (Aramaic) usage of the plural of this word in the sense of the singular. Both Matthew and Luke avoid the direct statement of Mark in his 5th verse that Jesus was angry.

THE CROWD AND THE HEALINGS

(Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19)

Matthew’s treatment of Mark is influenced by the fact that just before his Sermon on the Mount he has, in iv, 25, given a somewhat similar statement. Luke’s transposition has been noticed.[27]

THE CALLING OF THE TWELVE

(Mk iii, 13-19; Mt x, 2-4; Lk vi, 12-16)

Characteristic of Luke is his “He was continuing all night in prayer.”[28] The addition by Matthew and Luke of the words ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) is held by some to indicate their use of a Marcan text different from ours. The order of the names is not the same in any two of the three lists. Both Matthew and Mark avoid an anacoluthon of Mark in his vs. 16, and omit the appellative “Boanerges,” with its translation. Matthew and Luke follow Mark in naming Matthew, tho in their account of his call in Mt ix, 13, and Lk v, 27, Luke follows Mark in calling him Levi. Luke changes Mark’s “Simon the Canaanite” to “Simon the Zealot.” Matthew alone gives the name of Lebbaeus, Mark alone says Thaddeus, Luke alone names Judas the son of James. No simple explanation suggests itself as covering all these deviations. Matthew or Luke or both may have been influenced by a similar list of names in Q or some other non-Marcan source; but that both of them are here following Mark is rendered practically certain by their addition of the appended parenthetical statement concerning Judas, with which all three accounts close.

THE PHARISAIC ACCUSATION AND JESUS’ DEFENSE

(Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23)

The discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the section in both Mark and Q, and is therefore postponed to a later time.[29]

THE TRUE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS; THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER; THE PURPOSE OF THE PARABLES

(Mk iii, 31-iv, 12; Mt xii, 46-xiii, 15; Lk viii, 4-10, 19-21)

Luke has done more than Matthew to turn Mark’s narrative into good Greek, tho Matthew has also improved it. The agreement of Matthew and Luke in the addition of αὐτὸν in Mt xiii, 4, and Lk viii, 5, where it does not occur in their exemplar (Mk iv, 4), is sometimes held to indicate a text of Mark containing this word. The hypothesis of assimilation seems simpler; or in this case even accidental agreement would not be strange. The insertion of πάλιν in Mk iv, 1, not in Matthew and Luke, has been suggested by Weiss to be the work of an editor who saw the confused character of the geographical references since Mk iii, 7.[30]

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER

(Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15)

Matthew changes Mark’s Σατανᾶς to ὁ πονηρὸς. The latter is used by Matthew in this sense five times, and not at all by Mark and Luke. The change may therefore be regarded as stylistic. Luke’s addition of “lest they should believe and be saved” sounds like a Christian addition, and may be explained by the development of the Christian doctrine. Mark’s loose and unliterary addition of “and the desires for the rest of the things,” after the “cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches,” Luke very naturally corrects into “the cares and wealth and pleasures of life.” In iv, 19, Mark uses the participle εἰσπορευόμεναι in a somewhat inexact manner: “The cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for the rest of the things, coming in, choke the word.” Luke’s change may be accounted for by his desire to improve the style; which he does without discarding Mark’s misplaced participle. For he says, “And by the cares ... as they [i.e., the people who have heard the word] proceed, they are choked and rendered unfruitful.” Probably Schmiedel’s statement, in his article in the Encyclopedia Biblica, that this instance alone would prove literary relation between Mark and Luke is too strong; especially considering the fact that Luke’s participle is not precisely the same as Mark’s; but the deviation is certainly an interesting one. In the earlier part of the passage Matthew and Luke both omit Mark’s reference to the dulness of the disciples. The omission is due to their customary deference to the feeling of a later time.

A GROUP OF DETACHED SAYINGS

(Mk iv, 21-25; Mt v, 15; x, 26; vii, 2; xiii, 12; Lk viii, 16-18; vi, 38)

The divergences in wording, the fact that the verses found together in Mark are separated in both Matthew and Luke, and the additional fact of doublets in Matthew or Luke for all but one of Mark’s verses, indicate beyond a doubt that these verses stood in both Mark and Q.

THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED

(Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19)

This section also stood in both Mark and Q. Luke is perhaps independent of Mark here, preferring to follow Q. Matthew seems, as often, to try to combine the two sources, showing some resemblances to Mark as against Luke, and others to Luke as against Mark. The passage is narrative only in Mark, parable only in Luke, and a combination of narrative and parable in Matthew. The anacoluthon in Mk iv, 31, is avoided by Matthew and Luke.[31]

THE STORM ON THE LAKE

(Mk iv, 35-41; Mt viii, 23-27; Lk viii, 22-25)

Matthew and Luke omit the statement that other boats accompanied the one in which Jesus sailed. Perhaps, as Hawkins suggests, they wondered how these weathered the storm. Or, since the point of narrating the story has to do only with the boat in which Jesus sailed, they may simply have seen no advantage in relating the circumstance of the other boats. Matthew substitutes the comparatively common word, tho I believe not common in exactly this connection, σεισμὸς, for Mark’s rare word λαῖλαψ. Matthew and Luke omit the statement that Jesus was “asleep on the cushion”; it has been suggested that they may have considered the use of the cushion as an effeminacy unworthy of Jesus; or more probably they have omitted it as of no consequence. They both omit the direct address of Jesus to the sea, as they often omit his words of address to the demons. They do not wish to represent the disciples as distrustful; so while Mark says “Master, dost thou not care that we perish?” Matthew says “Save, Lord; we perish,” and Luke simply “Master, we perish.”

THE GADARENE DEMONIAC

(Mk v, 1-20; Mt viii, 28-34; Lk viii, 26-39)

The name of the locality is different in each account. Some texts, however, make Matthew agree with Mark; others make him agree with Luke; while still other texts do the same for Luke with reference to Mark and Matthew. The exact location, or the proper name for it, may have been in dispute. Matthew shortens Mark’s narrative, as almost invariably. Luke shows himself to be no mere copyist; in view of Mark’s statement that after the demoniac’s cure they found him “clothed,” he supplies in his original description of the demoniac the statement which Mark does not have, that the man wore no clothes. Matthew and Luke again omit Jesus’ command to the demon to come out of the man. Luke includes Jesus’ question, “What is thy name?” But to make it plain that this question is addressed to the man and not to the demon, he changes Mark’s statement, “for we are many,” into his own editorial explanation, “for many demons had entered into him.” Matthew and Luke are involved in a slight difficulty by their abbreviation of Mark. For while Mark makes those who have seen the cure of the demoniac tell their neighbors about him “and about the swine,” Matthew and Luke omit this latter item. It therefore appears from Matthew and Luke that the Gadarenes requested Jesus to depart from their coasts lest their demoniacs should be cured; in Mark they asked him to depart because they did not wish their property destroyed. Luke’s change of Mark’s ὁ κύριος (Mk’s vs. 19) into ὁ θεός, is not easily explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his ὁ κύριος. As the latter word, however, is ambiguous, and as Mark seems to use it more often than the other evangelists with reference to God, Luke may have so understood his narrative here. But as the man went and told, not what God, but what Jesus, had done for him, Luke can hardly have so misunderstood Mark; and Luke’s change may be due to his feeling that Jesus did not call himself κύριος. This indeed seems to be the only place where Mark puts this self-designation into the mouth of Jesus. Matthew and Luke seem consistently to avoid it.

THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD

(Mk v, 21-43; Mt ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 40-56)

This curious insertion of one miracle within another might be held to be enough in itself to prove the literary dependence of the three synoptists. Luke’s change of Mark’s vs. 23 is explained by the anacoluthon in Mark. Matthew and Luke naturally avoid Mark’s θυγάτριον. Their substitution of the “tassel of his garment” for “his garment” is unusual, since it seems to indicate their closer definition of the kind of cloak worn by Jesus. The change may serve to heighten the appearance of reverence in the woman. Luke substitutes παραχρῆμα for Mark’s εὐθὺς; the latter is Mark’s uniform word for “immediately,” used by him forty-one times against Matthew’s eighteen and Luke’s seven; the former is Luke’s favorite word, being used ten times by him, twice by Matthew, and never by Mark. Matthew and Luke omit the question of the disciples to Jesus, “Sayest thou, Who touched me?” as possibly implying lack of respect upon their part. They also omit Mark’s parenthetical statement that John was the brother of James; this had been mentioned often enough already. Luke’s abbreviation of Mark involves him in the difficulty of saying that Jesus allowed nobody to go into the house with him, except the three disciples and the parents of the child, whereas Mark expressly says that he allowed only those to go with him into the death chamber. Matthew, not mentioning the death chamber, has a reminiscence of it in his participle εἰσελθὼν, coming as it does after the ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν of his previous verse. In this story also Luke has read Mark thru carefully; and finding that Mark inserts “she was twelve years old” after the statement that she arose and walked, prefers to put this into the more appropriate place as part of the introductory narrative; he is thus enabled at the same time to make the connection in the latter part of the story much better by saying that as soon as the girl sat up Jesus commanded her parents to give her something to eat; a command which in Mark follows only after several other items. Luke thus makes the giving of food to the girl a part of the means used for her recovery.

THE INITIAL PREACHING IN NAZARETH

(Mk vi, 1-6; Mt xiii, 53-58; Lk iv, 16-30)

Luke’s working over of the account in Mk vi, 1-6, has already been considered.[32] He has preferred to put it at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, as a sort of introductory résumé of the reception which Jesus received at the hands of the Jews, and his consequent turning to the gentiles. The anachronism involved is seen in the fact that Jesus says, “Ye will say to me, ... what we have heard done in Capernaum do also here in thine own town”; whereas, in Luke’s own account the wonders in Capernaum have not yet occurred. The words, “No prophet is accepted in his own country,” do not fit so well here as where Mark has them (vi, 4) following upon the question, “Is not this the carpenter, ... and are not his sisters here with us?” and where Mark adds to the word “country” the words “and among his own kinsmen and in his own house.” Luke does not add that Jesus was not able to do many wonders there, partly because he is speaking of his preaching only, but still more because he always avoids such statements about the inability or limitation of Jesus.

THE SENDING OUT OF THE DISCIPLES

(Mk vi, 6-13; Mt ix, 35; x, 1, 9-11; Lk ix, 1-6)

Luke has a second sending out of disciples in his 10th chapter. Considering his usual avoidance of duplicates, it seems probable that he took one of these accounts from Mark and one from Q, and that the account therefore stood in both Q and Mark. The account in Luke’s chap. 10 is closely akin to one part of Matthew’s parallel section, and his account in his 9th chapter is more closely akin to other verses of Matthew’s account. These latter verses of Matthew agree more closely with Mark’s account than do his other verses. It seems clear therefore that Matthew has combined the account of the sending out of the disciples which he found in Q with that which he found in Mark. This combination of material from his two sources is characteristic of him, as the careful separation of it is characteristic of Luke.[33]

Comparing here the passages of Matthew and Luke which were apparently taken from Mark, Luke and Matthew correct the anacoluthon of Mark’s vss. 8 and 9. Matthew and Mark mention the healing but once; Luke three times. Mark says the disciples are to take nothing, except a staff; Luke and Matthew say they are to take nothing, not even a staff. Mark seems to contemplate a mission chiefly to houses, not so much to cities, tho his word τόπος may indicate the latter. The substitution by Matthew and Luke of κονιορτός for Mark’s χοῦν, as well as other minor and verbal deviations, may easily be accounted for by their acquaintance with the account in Q. Harnack suggests that Mark’s permission of the staff, which is denied in Matthew and Luke, may indicate a relaxation of the rule, arising in actual practice. If so, Matthew and Luke, because they here follow Q, may represent a more original form of the saying.[34]

THE JUDGMENT OF HEROD CONCERNING JESUS

(Mk vi, 14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9)

Matthew and Luke correct Mark’s “Herod the king” into “Herod the tetrarch,” tho Matthew a few verses later falls back into the error which he has corrected. Mark says that Herod himself surmised that Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead (tho some texts read ἔλεγον for ἔλεγεν in vs. 14). Matthew follows Mark in this by saying distinctly that Herod “said to those about him, it is John,” etc. Luke says Herod had heard of the things Jesus did, “and was perplexed because it was said that John was risen.” Luke may here have been following one text of Mark and Matthew another text. The fact that with ἔλεγεν in Mark’s vs. 14, his vs. 16 is a mere repetition of this verse (Matthew omits the parallel to Mark’s vs. 16), may indicate either that ἔλεγον is the original reading of vs. 14, or that Luke, finding ἔλεγεν there, corrected it into his own statement which upon the face of it is much better. Luke does not represent Herod as personally making any such statement about John, but says merely that when Herod heard of the deeds of Jesus and of the explanation that was popularly given for them, he desired to see Jesus.

THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST

(Mk vi, 17-29; Mt xiv, 3-12)

Luke has omitted this because he has long ago finished with the Baptist (in iii, 19-20). The passage seems to be parenthetical in Mark, to explain Herod’s statement that he has killed John the Baptist. Mark says Herod did not wish to kill John, because he regarded him as a just and holy man. Matthew says Herod wished to kill John, but feared the people, because they considered John a prophet. Matthew’s difference here may be due to a different tradition which he considered superior to Mark’s, or it may be due simply to the abbreviation he has made in Mark’s narrative. Mark’s account contains the somewhat improbable feature of the daughter of Herodias dancing before the drunken tetrarch and his companions; which Matthew omits. The Latin word σπεκουλάτωρ in Mark (vi, 27) is dropped in Matthew.

THE RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES AND THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND

(Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv, 13-21; Lk ix, 10-17)

Matthew assigns as the reason for Jesus’ departure in the boat the news of what had happened to John the Baptist. Mark, treating this latter as purely parenthetical, says Jesus and his disciples went away to escape the crowds. Luke, not having related the death of the Baptist, assigns still a different reason for Jesus’ withdrawal, saying that “the apostles” had returned, and Jesus went aside with them, apparently to hear their report. Luke says they retired to Bethsaida, where it seems out of place that the feeding of the five thousand should occur; this latter event being more appropriately located by Mark and Matthew in a “desert place.” Mark and Matthew both say the crowds went on foot; Mark says they preceded Jesus, Matthew and Luke, that they followed him when they knew of his departure. The deviations are easily accounted for by the desire of Matthew and Luke to improve the story of Mark. Luke’s mention of Bethsaida is accounted for by his desire to supply exact details wherever possible; perhaps also by the fact that the second feeding, which he omits, was related to have occurred in that place. Luke is apparently unaffected, in his placing of the five thousand in Bethsaida, by the fact that he represents Jesus as saying, “We are here in a desert place.” He may also have been misled in his location of the miracle by the mention, in Mark vi, 45 (which Luke omits), of the departure of Jesus and his disciples for Bethsaida. Luke transposes Mark’s statement of the numbers fed, to an earlier and presumably better position. Matthew adds, as in the feeding of the four thousand, that the numbers given were exclusive of women and children; apparently from his desire, or the desire of the tradition lying back of him, to heighten the impressiveness of the miracle. Mark’s Hebraism, συμπόσια συμπόσια, is omitted by both Matthew and Luke.

THE WALKING ON THE SEA

(Mk vi, 45-52; Mt xiv, 22-33)

Mark’s narrative seems to imply (vs. 46) that Jesus “meant to walk past them.” Matthew implies, on the contrary, that Jesus was coming to their help. Matthew “spiritualizes” the account by adding the experiment of Peter: “Peter can do it so long as he has faith.”[35] It has been observed that in this narrative, as in others which Matthew takes from Mark but which Luke omits, the verbal agreement is considerably closer than in the sections which Matthew and Luke both copy. Schmiedel has suggested that this points to a common document occasionally employed by Matthew and Mark but not by Luke. The hypothesis of a later assimilation of Matthew and Luke seems simpler. At all events, the very close agreement of Matthew and Mark in this narrative, up to the point where Matthew inserts the experiment of Peter, may possibly indicate that this latter is later than the body of Matthew’s Gospel. Whether so or not, its presence is easily accounted for by Matthew’s ecclesiastical point of view, the primacy of Peter being asserted by him in one other notable passage which occurs in Matthew alone. Probably Matthew has drawn these special passages about Peter from a source of his own, and, according to his custom, has here combined one of them with a narrative of Mark’s.

THE RETURN TO GENNESARET

(Mk vi, 53-56; Mt xiv, 34-36)

This section is omitted by Luke. There are no sayings in it. Matthew’s customary abbreviation is shown in his 44 words against Mark’s 72; but there is much close verbal correspondence in spite of this.

ABOUT THE THINGS THAT DEFILE

(Mk vii, 1-23; Mt xv, 1-20)

Mark has an editorial comment about the scrupulosity of the Jews. It may be a later addition in his narrative, at least this may be the case with the words καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, which make it apply to the whole people and not simply to the Pharisees; or it may have seemed to Matthew to be somewhat exaggerated and have been omitted by him on that account. Its omission improves the connection in Matthew’s narrative, and might be sufficiently accounted for by Matthew’s tendency to omit superfluous or negligible portions of Mark’s stories. In his vs. 11 (Matthew has transposed several verses) Mark has the Aramaic word κορβᾶν, omitted by Matthew. In Mark’s vs. 19 occurs the phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. The construction is loose, the nearest verb with which the participle can be connected being the λέγει of the first part of the preceding verse. This alone might have induced Matthew to omit it; still more, the implication, that Jesus had in this saying abolished the distinction between clean and unclean. Nor is it surprising that Matthew should omit, among Mark’s list of the things that come out of a man’s heart and “defile him,” his mention of the “evil eye.”

THE CANAANITISH WOMAN

(Mk vii, 24-30; Mt xv, 21-28)

Matthew omits Mark’s statement that Jesus was not able to be hid. It may have seemed to him an unworthy limitation of the power of Jesus. Mark also recounts a clever answer of the woman, “The dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs”; and Jesus, for the cleverness of her reply, as he says, grants her wish. It is not strange that Matthew replaces this by Jesus’ words, “Great is thy faith.”

THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND

(Mk viii, 1-10; Mt xv, 32-39)

Matthew follows Mark closely. He seems in vss. 37 and 38 to be quoting from his own account of the previous feeding. This item brings out a tendency of Matthew to repeat in one place phrases which he has used in another.

THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN

(Mk viii, 11-13; Mt xii, 38-39; Mt xvi, 1-4; Lk xi, 29; xii, 54-56)

Doublets in both Matthew and Luke indicate the presence of this section in both Mark and Q.[36]

THE SAYING ABOUT YEAST

(Mk viii, 14-21; Mt xvi, 5-12)

Matthew omits the rebuke to the disciples in Mark (viii, 17, 18). He apparently manufactures a saying of Jesus in his vs. 11, in order to introduce therewith his own editorial statement of vs. 12.

THE CONFESSION OF PETER AND THE FIRST PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS

(Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22)

Matthew spoils the question of Jesus by obtruding his own estimate of him in the words “The son of man” in vs. 13. Upon Peter’s answer, he adds Jesus’ words of commendation, and makes Jesus reciprocate by telling Peter who he (Peter) is, and that the church shall be founded upon him. The addition may be later than Matthew. If not, it betrays the ecclesiastical interest, and especially the interest in the primacy of Peter, which comes out elsewhere in Matthew. Matthew and Luke correct Mark’s statement, “after three days he shall rise again,” to “on the third day,” so making the prediction agree more accurately with the facts, and giving a Greek method of reckoning instead of the Hebrew. It is not surprising that Luke omits the rebuke to Peter; Matthew’s inclusion of it seems strange. Both omit Mark’s statement that “Jesus spoke the word openly,” because, as Hawkins suggests,[37] if this meant that he spoke to the crowd, it is contradicted by Mark’s vs. 34; if it meant that he told them clearly about the resurrection, it would seem strange that the disciples did not understand.

THE DEMANDS OF DISCIPLESHIP

(Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27)

Mark’s redundant expression ὀπίσω ἀκολουθεῖν is corrected by each of the others, in a different way. The phrase καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in Mark’s vs. 35 sounds like a later addition; it would hardly have been omitted by Matthew and Luke if it had stood in their source. Matthew makes Jesus say that “the son of man is about to come”; Mark and Luke say “when the son of man comes”; Matthew betrays his own attitude, or the attitude of his time, to the long-expected parousia. Mark’s extremely awkward order of words, τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων,[38] each of the other evangelists corrects in his own way.

THE TRANSFIGURATION

(Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36)

Mark says “he was changed in form” (μεταμορφώθη), which Luke improves to “the appearance of his countenance was different” (τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον). Both Matthew and Luke change Mark’s “Elias and Moses” to the chronological order. Luke adds that these spoke of the approaching entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and adduces, as an excuse for the disciples’ not understanding, or for Peter’s apparently foolish remark, that they were heavy with sleep. Matthew and Luke change Mark’s Aramaic ῥαββεί into Greek words, Luke using the ἐπιστάτα which is peculiar to him.

THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIJAH

(Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13)

Mark says Elias has come (in the person of John the Baptist), and they have done whatever they would with him, “as it was written of him.” Matthew understands, rightly, that this last is a reference to the Old Testament, and not knowing where or what had there been written of the Baptist, omits it. Perhaps the statement is a later addition to Mark.

THE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC BOY

(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43a)

Mark says that when the crowd saw Jesus they were amazed. This might seem to be a parallel to the amazement of the Israelites on seeing Moses’ countenance when he came down from the mount. But Matthew and Luke have omitted it. They also omit Jesus’ direct address to the demon,[39] and Jesus’ statement, “This kind cometh not out except with prayer.” This may reflect the custom in ecclesiastical exorcisms, and may have been added by a later hand, or omitted by Matthew and Luke because as matter of fact Jesus had not prayed and therefore the saying did not fit the case.

THE SECOND PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS

(Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43b-45)

In the second prediction of sufferings Matthew and Luke both avoid Mark’s οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ (Mk ix, 30). It seems to be a part of Mark’s Geheimnis-Theorie; but since Matthew and Luke both include some of Mark’s other references to this theory, this fact is not a sufficient explanation of its omission, which may perhaps be attributed to the growing reverence for Jesus. Luke’s vs. 44a, θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους, is without parallel in Mark (or Matthew). Luke has also omitted a part of Mark’s prediction, “and they shall kill him,” which he would hardly have done if he were here following Mark, or if the clause had stood in his copy of Mark. These facts may be taken to indicate that Luke is here following another source. The words quoted from vs. 44a would be very unlikely to be added by Luke himself.[40] Matthew seems to follow Mark, making his customary abbreviation and changing Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day.” In another instance already noticed both Matthew and Luke make the same change in Mark’s statement. Luke may here be following Q. But the absence of any agreements between him and Matthew as against Mark would rather indicate his use of a peculiar source. There are no doublets to substantiate the supposition of the use of Q.

THE STRIFE ABOUT RANK

(Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48)

The section on the strife about rank probably stood in both Mark and Q, but the resemblances are too general for one to draw definite conclusions as to the exact source relationship.

MINOR PASSAGES

It will be sufficient if we look with less detail thru a few more passages of the triple tradition, to note the changes made by Matthew and Luke in the text of Mark.

In the case of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50) Luke says “he followed not with us” instead of “he followed not us”; the assumption of authority upon the part of John is thereby lessened.

In the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9; Lk xvii, 1-2) Matthew has combined Mark’s saying about the hand and his separate saying about the foot, into one. The saying stood in Mark and Q. In the discussion about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 11-12; Mt v, 31-32; Lk xvi, 18; xix, 9) Matthew has rearranged the order of Mark, and has added “except for adultery,” as he has done in another place; he has omitted Mark’s reference to the woman divorcing her husband, as this would mean nothing to his Palestinian readers.

In the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii, 15-17) Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s statement that Jesus was angry.

In the saying concerning the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30; Lk xviii, 18-30) Mark makes Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good?” Matthew changes this to “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” tho his following words, “There is One who is good,” betray the fact that he had Mark’s reading before him. Matthew shows his Jewish affinities by making Jesus say that the questioner may “enter into life,” by keeping the commandments. Both Matthew and Luke omit one commandment which Mark quotes, because it is not found in the Decalogue. Matthew changes Mark’s order of the commandments to agree with the Old Testament. Matthew, having called the questioner a youth, omits from his reply to Jesus the words, “from my youth up.” Both omit Mark’s vs. 24, which is practically a duplicate of the previous verse. Luke, having included the idea of “sisters” in his word for family, omits sisters, but, with his characteristic interest in women, adds “wife.”

In the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk xviii, 31-34) the agreement between Mark and Matthew is very close throughout. The only agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is in their substitution of εἶπεν for λέγει. Both Matthew and Luke change Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day.” Three words in Mark’s vs. 34 are reproduced in Luke alone; ἀναστήσεται, ἀποκτενοῦσιν, ἐμπτύσουσιν. Matthew has added καὶ σταυρῶσαι.

In the request for seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28) Mark makes James and John ask Jesus directly; Luke omits the incident; Matthew puts the burden of the ambitious request upon the mother instead of upon the sons; tho he betrays the fact that he is remaking Mark, by making Jesus direct his reply to the men.

In the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk xviii, 35-43) Mark says “the son of Timaeus,” perhaps in explanation of the Aramaic name. Matthew specifies two men instead of one, giving no names; it has been suggested that he may have been misled by Mark’s “Bartimaeus” and “the son of Timaeus,” tho the Jewish affinity of Matthew’s Gospel makes this unlikely. Since “the son of Timaeus” did not serve to identify the man to their readers, Matthew and Luke omit the phrase. Mark’s graphic statement that the man threw off his cloak and ran to Jesus was unsuited to the dignity of the Later Gospels. Matthew and Luke again substitute the Greek κύριε for Mark’s ῥαββουνί. They omit his ὕπαγε, which seems out of place.[41]

In the preparation for the entry into Jerusalem (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi, 1-11; Lk xix, 28-38) Mark represents Jesus as telling the disciples who go after the colt, to explain that Jesus has need of him and that he will return him soon. Luke omits the latter item; Matthew changes it to mean that when the disciples have explained to the owner that Jesus needs the animal, the owner will quickly send it to Jesus. The growing reverence for Jesus easily explains the change and the omission. Matthew undoubtedly represents Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon two beasts, the ass and her foal; the strange phenomenon is explained by his attempt to harmonize the event with an Old Testament prophecy. The prophecy, however, for that matter, had only one beast in mind. Mark says Bethany (in some texts Bethany and Bethphage), Matthew Bethphage, and Luke Bethany and Bethphage; the two names in Luke, and in certain texts of Mark, are probably to be explained as the harmonizing effort of some copyist.

In the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19), the statement of Mark, “For it was not the time for figs,” may have been omitted by Matthew because seeming to imply an unreasonable expectation on the part of Jesus. Or it may be a later addition to Mark. Matthew says that the disciples noticed “immediately” that the tree had withered, whereas Mark says they observed this the next day. Matthew’s change may have been in the interest of heightening the miracle. Upon his observation here he has hung his statement about the wonder of the disciples in his vs. 20. Luke omits this miracle; probably because he considers the parable of the Fig Tree which he gives in xxi, 29-31 (taking it from Mk xiii, 28-29 = Mt xxiv, 32-33) a variant of, or an improvement upon, the same story.

The speech about the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-25; Mt xxi, 20-22) Luke omits because he has omitted the miracle upon which it depends. The saying about faith apparently stood in both Mark and Q, since Matthew has a doublet upon it. This may have been an additional reason for Luke’s omission of it here, since he has incorporated it in his xvii, 6.[42]

In the question about authority (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8) the intervention of the fig tree story in Mark (and Matthew) obscures the point of the question about Jesus’ authority, which was directed toward his action in cleansing the temple. There is very close agreement among the three in the question of Jesus to his questioners (Mk xi, 30; Mt xxi, 25; Lk xx, 4), tho both Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s anacoluthon at the beginning of the following verse.

In the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx, 9-19) Mark says, “They took him and killed him and cast him out”; Matthew and Luke say, “They cast him outside the vineyard and killed him,” presumably influenced in this correction by the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion outside the city.[43] Matthew puts into the mouth of the questioners one saying which Mark ascribes to Jesus; the questioners are thus convicted by their own testimony.

In the question of the Sadducees about the resurrection (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40) Mark says, quite correctly, “The Sadducees, who (as is well known) say there is no resurrection”;[44] Matthew not so happily represents them as making this statement to Jesus; Luke corrects still further, being apparently unacquainted with the tenets of the Sadducees as a class, and so says, “Certain of the Sadducees came, denying that there is any resurrection.” It is one of the instances, perhaps comparatively few, where Mark would better have been left as he was. To make the contrast between this world and the next stronger Luke adds in his vs. 34, “the sons of this world marry and are given in marriage.” He also attempts to explain the apparently incomplete statement, “God is not of the dead but of the living,” by adding “for all live to him.”[45]

In the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii, 34-40; Lk x, 25-28), Matthew’s addition, “Upon these two commandments hang all the law, and the prophets,” is perhaps an old Christian formula, which seems to fit remarkably well in this place.

In the question about David’s son (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx, 41-44), Luke corrects Mark’s statement, “David said in the Holy Spirit,” with “David says in the book of Psalms”; Mark is nearer to Jesus, Luke writes for the convenience of his readers who might wish to look up the reference.

In the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-7; Lk xx, 45-47), Mark’s “Beware of the Pharisees, who love to walk about in robes, and greetings in the market” is not positively ungrammatical, since the infinitive and the noun may both be the object of the verb. But it is a loose construction; Luke corrects it by the insertion of a second verb governing the noun.

In the predictions of distress (Mk xiii, 9-13; Mt xxiv, 9-14; Lk xxi, 12-19), Mark’s προμεριμνᾶτε, a word not found elsewhere in the New Testament or Septuagint, is avoided by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s passage (xxiv, 10-12) about the false prophets who shall deceive many, and the love of many growing cold, whether attributed to the evangelist, or to the tradition lying just behind him, reflects the conditions of his times.

In the saying about the distress in Judaea (Mk xiii, 14-20; Mt xxiv, 15-22; Lk xxi, 20-24), Mark’s construction of a neuter noun with a masculine participle, a construction according to the sense (βδέλυγμα ... ἑστηκότα), his unusual construction of εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν meaning “in the field,” and his equally strange combination of words ἔσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι εκεῖναι θλίψις, οἵα οὐ γέγονεν τοιαύτη, are all replaced by Matthew and Luke. Luke omits ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, because it is not applicable to his readers. He adds “until the times of the nations are fulfilled,” apparently upon Paul’s hypothesis that the end could not come till the gospel had first been preached to all the nations (Rom xi, 11, 15, 31). This is Luke’s substitute for the explanation which Matthew has copied from Mark, that the Lord has shortened the days for the sake of the Christians. In the speech about the parousia (Mk xiii, 24-27; Mt xxiv, 29-31; Lk xxi, 25-28), Matthew has added εὐθέως. This is Mark’s favorite adverb, and its addition by Matthew where it is lacking in Mark is hard to understand. Perhaps, as Bacon says, Matthew the Palestinian wishes to encourage the hope of the speedy coming of Jesus, while Mark the Roman wishes to discourage it; but the reasons for this are not perfectly clear. Schmiedel considers the omission of the εὐθέως in Mark as a sign of his secondary character at this point.

In the passage about the time of the parousia (Mk xiii, 30-32; Mt xxiv, 34-36; Lk xxi, 32-33), Luke omits Mark’s statement that “the son” does not know the time; because he always avoids any implication of a limitation in the knowledge of Jesus.[46] In the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv, 12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14), Luke omits the “my” in the question which Jesus tells the disciples to ask, “Where is my chamber where I shall,” etc.; perhaps, as Hawkins[47] suggests, because it may have seemed to him a somewhat harshly expressed claim.

In the institution of the Last Supper (Mk xiv, 22-25; Mt xxvi, 26-29; Lk xxii, 15-20), Luke adds (xxii, 19-20) words which seem to be taken from Paul’s account in I Cor xi, 25. Westcott and Hort regard them as interpolated from that epistle. Matthew adds, in his vs. 28, as he has added in his account of the purpose of John’s baptism, “for the remission of sins.”

In the account of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk xiv, 32-42; Mt xxvi, 36-46; Lk xxii, 39-46), Luke’s vss. 43-44 are lacking in many manuscripts, and are probably a later addition. Luke and Matthew, probably from the growth of the tradition, and from the wish not to omit anything from this solemn scene, represent Jesus as addressing Judas, but do not agree in the words ascribed to him.

In the account of the arrest (Mk xiv, 43-54; Mt xxvi, 47-58; Lk xxii, 47-55) Mark has the words “but that the scriptures might be fulfilled,” without attaching the “that” to anything. Matthew fills out his incomplete sentence by writing, “All this happened that the scriptures,” etc. Luke omits the flight of the disciples, because the appearances of the risen Jesus which he recounts take place in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke omit the reference to the young man in the linen garment, either because they did not understand it, or knew it would have no meaning for their readers, or both. Mark says the crowd who came to arrest Jesus came “from the chief priests”; Luke has apparently overlooked the preposition, and so represents the chief priests themselves as taking part in the arrest.

To Mark’s mocking “Prophesy!” addressed to the blindfolded Jesus by the soldiers, Luke and Matthew add the words, clearly explanatory, “Who is he that struck thee?”

In the denial of Peter (Mk xiv, 66-72; Mt xxvi, 69-75; Lk xxii, 56-62), Matthew and Luke omit two obscure and strange words of Mark, προαύλιον in vs. 68 and ἐπιβαλὼν in vs. 72. In the treatment of Jesus by Pilate, Luke adds the charge that Jesus had stirred up the people not to pay tribute to Caesar; it is probably a reflection of the anarchistic charges made against Christians in Luke’s time. Matthew’s addition of Pilate’s hand-washing is probably due to his desire, or the desire of the tradition back of him, to relieve the Roman authorities of responsibility for the death of Jesus.

In the story of the journey to the crucifixion (Mk xv, 21; Mt xxvii, 32; Lk xxiii, 26-32), the omission of the names of Rufus and Alexander is probably due (as already said) to the fact that these men were unknown to Matthew and Luke and their readers, and added no weight to the testimony of Simon their father. Luke’s extremely vivid touch of Jesus’ address to the “Daughters of Jerusalem” can be explained only as a part of his special material for this portion of the life of Jesus.

In the story of the crucifixion (Mk xv, 22-32; Mt xxvii, 33-44; Lk xxiii, 33-43), Luke’s words, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do,” are omitted in many manuscripts, are bracketed by Westcott and Hort, and are probably a later addition. Matthew corrects Mark, who says a man came with a sponge, saying, “Let him be,” etc.; Matthew makes the crowd address the “Let him be” to the man with the sponge.

Luke apparently differs much more than Matthew, from Mark, in his story of the crucifixion, and the events that led up to and followed it. This can be explained by his possession of special sources for these last days of Jesus, and his desire to use material from these sources with his Marcan matter. Transpositions are especially frequent.

In his xxii, 18, e.g., Luke makes a transposition of Mk xiv, 25. This may be taken as typical of his procedure throughout these sections. Mark gives the reference to the approaching betrayal before the institution of the Supper; Luke, after that institution. Mark places the prediction of the denial of Peter after Peter has left the room; Luke, before his leaving. Similar transpositions are made in the story of the rending of the veil. In all, Luke makes some twelve or thirteen such transpositions in Mark’s passion narrative. Matthew follows Mark closely, both in matter and in wording.

Comparing Luke’s use of Mark in the other parts of his Gospel with his use of him in these last sections, Hawkins[48] finds that “the verbal correspondence with the Marcan source is about twice as great in the Lucan account of the ministry as in the Lucan account of the passion.” The amount of actually new material in Luke’s passion section is about three times as great as the amount of new material which Luke introduces into any other correspondingly large section of Marcan narrative.

SUMMARY ON MATTHEW’S AND LUKE’S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE

The manner in which Matthew and Luke have treated the Gospel of Mark has been brought out in the concrete and detailed examples that have been considered. No single motive, especially no one so-called “tendency” of either writer explains all his modifications of his Marcan source. Both Matthew and Luke omitted what seemed to them superfluous, as well as whatever appeared to them to conflict with the higher veneration for Jesus which had developed in their times. Luke especially omitted what would have no significance or interest for his Greek readers—disputes with the Pharisees, questions of Jewish law, and other Judaistic features. Both Matthew and Luke treated the actual words of Jesus, as recorded in Mark, with great respect. But the narrative, and in a less degree the parables, they felt free to work over as they would. Matthew shows much greater fidelity to his source than Luke. But both of them reconstructed sentences or whole stories, changed bad constructions into good ones, added what material they would, Matthew combining this with his Marcan material while Luke kept it for the most part distinct. Not every change which they made suggests its explanation to us, and we cannot be certain that in most of them we have the actual motive operating in the mind of the evangelist. But the method of their procedure, the kind of motives that influenced them, the degree of freedom which they took in the re-working of their material from Mark, and their habits with reference to the relation of this Marcan material to the other matter which they wished to combine with it, have been sufficiently established.[49]

CHAPTER V

HAVE WE THE GOSPEL OF MARK IN ITS ORIGINAL FORM?

The number of instances in which Matthew and Luke agree in their changes of Mark has given rise to the theory that Matthew and Luke did not use our Mark but an earlier form. A certain number of such agreements might be passed over as merely accidental. A certain number more might be assigned to assimilation. But if the agreements of Matthew and Luke in their corrections of Mark are so numerous and so striking as to be quite beyond accounting for in these ways, the assumption would be justified that Matthew and Luke used, not our copy of Mark, but one in which the text ran as it now does in those passages where Matthew and Luke agree against Mark.

There are some indications that we do not have the Gospel of Mark in its original form. The conclusion is lacking. This however throws no light on an Ur-Marcus, since the conclusion was lacking in the Mark used by Matthew and Luke.[50]

There are many signs of apparent transposition in our Mark. The insertion of one miracle into the midst of another, as in the case of Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the issue of blood (v, 21-43), might be held to be such a transposition. The incident of the Beelzebul dispute (iii, 20-30) is inserted between the coming of the family of Jesus (iii, 21) to take him home with them, and Jesus’ statement (iii, 31-35), which is the sequel of their coming, about his true brotherhood. The speech about the cursing of the fig tree (xi, 20-26) intervenes between the cleansing of the temple (xi, 15-19) and the demand of the scribes (xi, 27-33) as to the authority by which Jesus has done so unwonted a thing. After this question about authority, and before Jesus’ reply to it, or before the description of the discomfiture of the scribes at the reply, seriously interrupting the connection, comes the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen.[51]

After the story of the transfiguration the prediction of Jesus’ sufferings comes in between the Scribes’ question about Elijah and Jesus’ answer to that question (Mk ix, 11-13). Loisy thinks Mk xiv, 28, out of place. It certainly disturbs the connection. Jülicher considers Mk xiv, 25, to be later and less original than its parallel in Mt xxvi, 29. The saying in xiv, 9, about the name of the woman being known wherever the story of Jesus is told has been suggested as the remark of some preacher or commentator à propos of the occurrence, and not a saying of Jesus. Wellhausen has even suggested that the whole story in xiv, 3-9, may be a later addition. The saying, “Ye shall say to this mountain” (xi, 23) should probably be placed in Galilee, presumably at Capernaum, where with a wave of his hand Jesus could point to both mountain and sea—not in Jerusalem where Mark gives it. Schmiedel considers Mk xiv, 58, secondary. It has been argued, or almost assumed, that the second feeding of the multitude could not have been written by the same hand that described the first, nor the events narrated in the first thirty-four verses of chap. iv have been written in their present order. If one is at liberty to subtract what he will from the Gospel of Mark, and to rearrange its parts somewhat, he can undoubtedly make a much more readable and better arranged Gospel of it than it now is.

DISCUSSION OF THE ANALYSIS OF MARK BY WENDLING AND VON SODEN

Two attempts have recently been made to resolve our Gospel of Mark into its constituent elements, which are sufficiently successful to be noticed here. The first is that of von Soden, in his Die wichtigsten Fragen im Leben Jesu, and the second Wendling’s Ur-Marcus.[52]

Von Soden[53] begins by distinguishing two strands of narrative, easily separable from each other by matter and style. The great differences between these two strands betray two different authors. As the clearest instance of the earlier strand, he takes Mk ii, 1-iii, 6, which he contrasts with iv, 35-v, 43. In the first, all the interest is centered in the words of Jesus; in the second, in the events themselves. “Let one compare the story of the Gadarene demoniac with its twenty verses and the debate about fasting with its five verses, and estimate the weight of the religious value of the thots expressed in the two sections.”

Von Soden next separates Mk vii, 32-37, and viii, 22-26 (the healing of the deaf man and the blind man), as quite distinct in character from such stories as those in ii, 1-12, and iii, 1-6. “In the former, the miracle of healing is itself the subject of the representation; in the latter, the miracle is merely a part of the story, whose real subject is Jesus’ forgiveness of sins and his violation of the Sabbath laws.”

In this way von Soden picks out his Kernstücke. To these Kernstücke certainly belong the group of narratives in i, 21-39; ii, 1-iii, 6; xii, 13-44; iii, 20-35; vi, 1-6; iv, 1-8; iv, 26-32; and x, 13-31; perhaps also vii, 24-30; vi, 14-16; i, 4-11. To these narratives which go back to Peter may also belong the brief notices concerning the stages of growth of the apostolic circle, in i, 16-20; iii, 13-19; vi, 7-13; viii, 27-ix, 1; and ix, 33-40.[54] To these passages von Soden adds xiii, 1-6, 28-37. He says that at the basis of the story of the days in Jerusalem, xi, 1-xii, 12, and the passion narrative in chaps. xiv and xv, lie narratives of a similar style; but these latter he does not include in his Kernstücke.

Von Soden then prints the passages which he thus refers to Peter (or the Petrine tradition), “undisturbed by all that our Gospel of Mark has interwoven with them.”[55] The result presents the Petrine nucleus of the Gospel as follows: John the Baptist and the Baptism of Jesus; a Sabbath in Capernaum; the offense of the Jews at Jesus’ forgiving of sins, his association with sinners, his breaking of the Sabbath, and the fact that his disciples do not fast; how the Jews attempt to take him; how Jesus meets the general misunderstanding; parables about the kingdom of God; the question as to who shall enter that kingdom; the development of the apostolic circle; glimpses into the future.

This makes (with the readjustment in the order of some of the sections) a remarkably straightforward and connected narrative. Von Soden’s remarks concerning it are well worth quoting:

These narratives are without any embellishment or secondary interest. They are plastic and concrete in every feature. The local coloring is strikingly fresh and yet in no way artificial. No edificatory remarks are inserted, no reflections, only deeds and striking sayings. No story requires its secret meaning to be explained by symbol or allegory. In no one of them does one feel any occasion to inquire for the meaning, which lies clear upon the surface. Situations and words are too original to have been invented. Everything breathes the odor of Palestine. There is no reminiscence of Old Testament stories. Miracles appear only here and there, and incidentally.... The christological or soteriological question never constitutes the motive of a story. Not once is there any expression from the language of the schools, especially from that of Paul. Words and sentences are reminiscent of the Aramaic. The figure of Jesus itself bears in every reference a human outline. He is stirred and astonished, he is angry and trembles, he needs recuperation and feels himself forsaken of God, he will not have the thotless, conventional designation “good” addressed to him, and confesses that he does not know when all which he sees to be approaching shall be fulfilled. His mother and his sisters fear that he may be out of his mind. This and much else is told with the greatest naïveté. So Jesus lived; so he expressed himself; thus they received him; thus the apostolic circle was formed and developed—this is what the writer intends to tell.[56]

These sections of Mark certainly have a very primary character; so far as their contents is concerned, they may well go back to the Petrine tradition.