Part VI: Internal Semantic Evidence
6.1 Comparison of Semantic Content of Matthew and Mark
6.2 Comparison of Large-Scale Sequence
Footnotes to Part VI
There is another domain where we might find evidence of Matthew depending on Mark, namely the similarities and differences in content (as opposed to wording). Critics allege that a comparison of parallel pericopes shows that Mark consistently has the more primitive form, while Matthew amplifies or edits the Marcan original in accordance with his catechetical predilections. Since we do not insist on the converse, namely that Mark used Matthew as a source, we need not contest the evidence of Mark’s independence of Matthew. We only need to show that there is nothing in the content of Matthew that is inconsistent or even incongruous with the supposition of Matthaean priority. If there is nothing here that contradicts Matthaean independence of Mark, there is little basis for overturning the historical testimony of Matthaean priority.
Following the sequence of Matthew, we will compare each part of this gospel with its Marcan parallels, to see whether the relative additions and omissions in semantic content strongly indicate Marcan priority, or if these differences may be credibly explained on the supposition of independence from Mark. We will also look briefly at those parts of Matthew that have no Marcan parallel, to see if their exclusion by Mark is also consistent with Matthaean priority.
While comparing the content of the two gospels, we will also look at similarities and differences in the sequence of material within each section. Lastly, we will examine the large-scale sequence of gospel material as a whole, to see if that compels or strongly indicates any conclusion as to the question of literary dependence.
For the most part, we will ignore the Matthaean-Lucan double tradition, since we are concerned only with Matthaean priority with respect to Mark, so we reserve judgment on the existence and nature of Q. Further, since there is a strong probability that Luke used Mark as a source, any establishment that Matthew is independent of Mark would imply a strong likelihood of independence from Luke. Those dissatisfied with this omission will have to await the second volume for a conclusion to our Synoptic analysis.
We now begin our comparison of the content (not wording) of the first two gospels, following the sequence of Matthew. Our aim is to determine: (1) if the Matthaean version of Marcan material shows unequivocal signs of being derivative or dependent on Mark; and (2) if the authenticity of the uniquely Matthaean material is in any way impugned by its omission in Mark.
6.1.1 Infancy Narrative
6.1.2 Preaching of John the Baptist
6.1.3 Temptation of Christ
6.1.4 Sermon on the Mount
6.1.5 First Miracle Cycle
6.1.6 Call of Levi or Matthew
6.1.7 Second Miracle Cycle
6.1.8 Mission of the Twelve
6.1.9 First Teaching Cycle (Mt. 11-13)
6.1.10 Rejection at Nazareth
6.1.11 Death of John the Baptist
6.1.12 Third Miracle Cycle
6.1.13 Jesus Revealed as Messiah
6.1.14 Final Journey to Jerusalem
6.1.15 Entry into Jersualem
6.1.16 Second Teaching Cycle
6.1.17 Eschatological Discourse
6.1.18 Passion Narrative
6.1.19 Resurrection Narrative
Notably, Matthew has an infancy narrative but Mark does not. Does this suffice to show that Mark is prior to Matthew?
Mark wrote for Roman catechesis, and the infancy narrative of Matthew is concerned entirely with Hebrew prophecy. The genealogy from Abraham to David to Jesus shows the fulfillment of messianic promises to the seed of Abraham and the royal line of David. For Roman catechumens, this would require a lengthy digression explaining these promises. Likewise, the virgin birth could only be understood in the context of Hebrew prophecy. It would not add to the proof of Christ’s divinity, already well established by his public deeds, but it could have confused the Romans, who were all too familiar with vulgar stories of deities consorting with humans. The early Church sometimes delayed teachings (e.g., the Trinity, the Eucharist) that would cause new converts to stumble. Worse, if they defected before baptism, they might reveal these teachings to authorities and provoke persecution.
The flight to Egypt, the massacre of infants, and the final settlement in Nazareth are more fulfillments of Hebrew prophecy. The episode of the Magi might be mistaken to endorse pagan astrology.
As noted previously, we have no reason to think that Mark was writing a bios, so there would be no necessity for him to include an infancy narrative. The Gospel of John and many apocryphal gospels lack such narratives, though they were certainly written well after these stories were accepted by Christians. It was common among the ancients to show little interest in a hero’s childhood. Matthew and Luke report nothing else from childhood besides the finding of the child Jesus in the temple. The absolute independence of the narratives in Matthew and Luke shows that a plurality of traditions existed early.
Lastly, Mark’s written gospel could be based on an existing oral gospel tradition of apostolic preaching, which recounted the deeds and teachings of Christ from the baptism by John until the discovery of the empty tomb. The infancy narrative simply was not part of this tradition.
In short, the supposition of Matthaean priority in no way implies that Mark ought to have included an infancy narrative.
Both Matthew and Mark introduce John the Baptist with the words of Isaiah, found in triple tradition. Mark, however, avoids specifically Jewish controversies. We should not be surprised that he omits the Matthaean reference to the Pharisees and Sadducees (Mt. 3:7-10), since gentiles need not be cautioned against taking pride in their descent from Abraham.
Matthew mentions fire
twice in Mt. 3:11-12, providing continuity with what Jesus said to the Pharisees in Mt. 3:10. His agreement with Luke in the use of fire indicates that even in the uniquely Matthaean material follows an older tradition, independent of Mark. Conversely, Mark’s omission of
fire
in Mk. 3:8 would seem to be consequent to his omission of the address to the Pharisees that would have provided context. Thus Matthew seems to give the more primitive reading.
The extensive agreement of Matthew 3:8-12 with Luke shows that Matthew had access to another early tradition besides Mark. This raises the question as to whether even the material he shares with Mark might come from this other tradition. Whether we call it Q or something else, if Matthew had this source, it may have easily contained some of the so-called Marcan material.
The Matthaean dialogue at Jesus’s baptism is omitted by Mark, who establishes the superiority of Christ simply by John’s statement about the One mightier than I.
(Mk. 1:7)
Mark says Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee.
(Mk. 1:9) Matthew only mentions Galilee, having already established that Jesus lived in Nazareth. (Mk. 2:23)
As John Rist notes, even when the gospels agree in content, they vary in sequence for no discernible reason. Matthew describes John’s clothing immediately after the quote from Isaiah, while Mark puts this later.[2] There seems to be no reason for this change on the assumption of direct literary dependence, but such variations in order are typical of oral tradition.
The temptation of Christ is barely mentioned by Mark, in contrast with the threefold temptation narrative in Matthew. Each of Jesus’s answers to the tempter is a quote from Scripture, responding to the devil’s twisted use of prophecy. Such material was primarily of Jewish interest, so Mark instead gives only the bare essentials: Jesus fasted for forty days; he was tempted, and ministered by angels.
Mark also omits Matthew’s citation of Isaiah in explaining Jesus’s move to Capernaum, though he retains the fact of the move.
The extensive agreement of Matthew 4:1-11 with Luke proves that Matthew had access to an early source, independent of Mark. Thus he might actually be giving a more primitive version than Mark.
After the call of the disciples, Matthew briefly mentions the wonders Jesus performed in Galilee (Mt. 4:23-25), and moves to the magnificent Sermon on the Mount. None of this material is paralleled in Mark.
A major theme of the Sermon is to establish the distinction and relation between the Old and New Covenants. This is especially true of the material from Matthew 5:17 to 5:48. Even the beatitudes closely parallel Hebrew prophecy. The end of the passage is clearly addressed specifically to Jews, as it includes unflattering comparisons with the pagans. (Mt. 5:46-47)
In Matthew 6, the Sermon contrasts proper behavior with that of the Pharisees. The seventh chapter also addresses Jewish material, some of which could be construed as hostile to gentiles (Mt. 7:6), but much of it would have been acceptable even to Roman converts.
Hardly any of the content of the Sermon is found anywhere at all in Mark. The simile of salt (Mt. 5:13) is mentioned by Mark, but only much later (Mk. 9:49-50) and with somewhat different meaning, so this could be accidental. Otherwise, Mark only preserves those parts of the discourse that are repeated elsewhere in Matthew, so we should say he omitted the Sermon wholesale, if he even knew of it.
In all probability, the Sermon on the Mount, at least in its Matthaean form, was unknown to St. Mark. If he had known of it, he surely could have used at least some of its material, as St. Luke certainly did (with strong verbatim textual dependence in places). His complete omission of its specific content strongly implies that it was not part of the Gospel oral tradition known to him.
We are left with the likelihood that the Sermon on the Mount is original to Matthew or to a source known only to St. Matthew and not St. Mark. The organization of the sermon, pulling together sayings of Jesus into a continuity linked by theme, is more suggestive of written composition than oral tradition. This judgment is corroborated by the frequency of vocabulary not found elsewhere in the Gospel, again suggesting a written source. The fact that the verbatim parallels in Luke are spread in diverse places, though St. Luke generally prefers to lump teachings together, may suggest that the Sermon is a reworking of shorter texts.
It is conceivable that St. Mark deliberately omitted the Sermon, on the grounds that it did not fit into the design of his Gospel, which was oriented toward Roman catechumens. The Sermon contains some of the most difficult and challenging teachings of Christianity, so these might have been reserved for later education.[3] After all, Mark excludes many parables that definitely were part of the Gospel tradition. If St. Mark’s design is to reveal Christ’s majesty gradually, he cannot begin with the revelation of the Sermon. Instead, he begins Jesus’s ministry with unexplained miracles, making us wonder, Who is this man?
In any case, we lack firm reasons for denying that the Sermon on the Mount is an authentic apostolic tradition. It could be that this particular tradition obtained written form in Palestine or Syria without spreading to Rome, or that this tradition was deliberately excluded from Mark for reasons of literary or catechetical design.
It is plausible that the Sermon of the Mount was a real historical event, occurring once or perhaps multiple times, and that much of the content of this sermon was organized in writing at an early date. There are no mountains in Galilee, but Aramaic (tuwr) and Hebrew (har) each use a single word for both hills and mountains, so we may take the Greek ορος (mountain
) as an imprecise translation of an older tradition. Preaching from a hilltop was practical, as it enabled the speaker to be seen and heard from a greater distance. As the hearers of Christ often numbered in the hundreds or thousands, there may have been several hilltop sermons, some common themes of which have been distilled in the written Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew closes the Sermon by remarking how the people were astounded at Christ teaching with power, not as the scribes and Pharisees. (Mt. 7:28-29) Mark uses a similar expression (omitting the Pharisees) in a different context, but located right after the omitted Sermon. (Mk. 1:22) In Mark, this was in response to Jesus preaching in the synagogue in Capernaum, a city he had not yet mentioned, but was already mentioned by Matthew much earlier, shortly before the Sermon on the Mount. (Mt. 4:13) Conceivably, Matthew copied this from Mark as he returned to this source after the Sermon. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, there is no evidence of literary dependence on Mark in Mt. 4:1-17, so he had not been following Mark in the first place.
After the Sermon, Matthew relates some miracles, some of which are also told by Mark, but in different order. Again, it is doubtful that Matthew is following Mark at all.
Matthew’s version of the healing of the leper is more succinct and polished, omitting unnecessary details found in Mark. (Mt. 8:1-4; Mk. 1:40-45) The subsequent healing of the centurion’s slave, however, is absent from Mark, though it is found in Luke with similar wording. The cure of Simon’s mother-in-law has many similarities and differences between Matthew and Mark, with no way to determine priority.[4] Matthew’s independence of Mark in surrounding pericopes gives us cause to think that even here he may be following a source other than Mark.
Mark consistently refers to the chief apostle as Simon rather than Peter before Jesus changes his name. The more anarchic usage by Matthew contradicts Marcan priority, for it is improbable that, copying from Mark, he would change the name of Simon to Peter
or Simon Peter
at random.
Both Gospels make brief reference to other healings in the evening. (Mt. 8:16-17; Mk. 1:32-34) Mark omits Matthew’s quote from Isaiah, but adds that Jesus forbade the demons to reveal his identity. This is in keeping with the Marcan design of gradual revelation of the mystery of Christ. Harsh sayings, such as let the dead bury their dead,
(Mt. 8:21) are omitted by Mark (but not Luke), particularly in the early parts of the Gospel. Again it would seem Matthew has the more primitive reading.
The next two Matthaean miracles are situated much later in Mark. First is the calming of the storm at sea. (Mt. 8:23-27; Mk. 4:35-41) Mark adds physical details such as Jesus sleeping astern on a cushion. This difference in content is unremarkable, as Matthew has a low degree of verbal similarity with Mark here, interspersed with matches of Luke against Mark. This is more suggestive of a common oral tradition than literary dependence.
Next comes the healing of the Gadarene demoniacs. It is probable that the accounts of Matthew 8:28-34 and Mark 5:1-20 refer to the same events. For one thing, both accounts immediately follow the calming of the storm at sea. Second, there is much coincidence in detail, such as the peculiar request by the demons to enter swine, and the reaction of the swineherds. The degree of verbal similarity is low, attributable to a merely oral common tradition. Matthew’s account is a hasty summary, with basic facts such as that two demoniacs were cured that day. Possibly, two demoniacs were cured that day, per Mt. 8:28; but only one was cured in the fashion described by the details of Matthew 8:29-34 and Mark 5:1-20. We recall from our study of oral traditions that it is common for a plurality of persons to be reduced to one in later tellings for narrative simplicity, which again argues for the primitivity of the Matthaean version. Geography tells us that both Gospels describe an event in the territory of the Gadarenes, immediately southeast of the Sea of Galilee, though some versions have Gerasenes, which was often used to refer to Palestinian gentiles in general.
This renders unnecessary the hypothesis that Matthew’s two demoniacs
is a conflation of the Capernaum demoniac (Mk. 1:23-28) and the Gerasene (Mk. 5:1-20), on account of both demoniacs having similar dialogue. There is no other verbal agreement between Matthew and Mk. 1:23-28, however, and as Rist points out, this conflation implies that Matthew would have scrapped the Capernaum story and deliberately botched the Gerasene.
(Rist, 1978, p.27) Such incompetence is especially implausible given that, supposing Mark was his source, Matthew has just made an elegant précis of the healing of the leper. More likely, Matthew had neither Marcan pericope before him, and the repetition of dialogue by the demoniacs is merely the result of common oral tradition.
Both Gospels have Jesus healing a paralytic upon his return from the sea of Galilee. There are only minor differences, insufficient for determining priority. Matthew and Luke, though not Mark, add that the healed man went into his house
(Mt. 9:7), using the exact same words, suggesting that Mark need not have been the written source of Matthew.
The tax collector called to discipleship by Jesus is named Levi, son of Alphaeus, according to Mark (and Luke), but he is named Matthew in the Gospel of Matthew. Given the evident importance of this episode, it is plausible that Levi was an earlier name of one of the Twelve. If St. Matthew is the author of the First Gospel (or its source), his self-identification as a tax collector would be an act of apostolic humility, reinforced later
when he says Matthew the publican
(Mt. 10:3) in the list of the Twelve. Tax collectors in Judea were notorious as extortioners, so merely holding that occupation caused a person to be disgraced, along with his family, and interaction with them was considered ritually impure.
Mark’s omission of the name Matthew (which means gift of God
) is not difficult to understand, for we have seen that he avoids anachronism in the use of names, as shown by his treatment of Simon. Nonetheless, the Marcan account strongly suggests that Levi was one of the Twelve Apostles, for his call is quite similar to that of the first four. Moreover, by following Jesus he becomes a disciple, and at this early stage, the only disciples of Jesus were of the Twelve. Matthew’s Gospel only once refers to the Twelve as αποστολοι (Mt. 10:2), and there the author intends the literal meaning, one who is sent out.
All three Synoptics mention that the apostle James (the Less) is a son of Alphaeus. As Alphaeus was not an especially common name, the identity of Levi with Matthew indicates that Matthew and James may have been brothers, like other pairs of apostles. That they are not named consecutively means little, since Peter and Andrew were not always paired.
The identification of Matthew as a tax collector comports well with the tradition that he authored the First Gospel, or at least the logia on which it was based, for he is the only disciple who came from a somewhat wealthier and more educated social class. Thus he is most likely to have been fully literate, unlike the other apostles, and could make written records of Jesus’s works and teachings, combining his own notes and memories with oral traditions.
If the Gospel of Matthew (or its source) were not written by the Apostle, the naming of the tax collector as Matthew is inexplicable. Some have supposed that the anonymous author did this out of some special devotion to St. Matthew. It is highly implausible, however, that the author of Matthew, being knowledgeable about Jewish attitudes, would make his object of veneration into a tax collector if that were not really so. Yet once we admit the accuracy of the identification, there is no longer grounds for denying Matthaean authorship on this point.
Mark and Matthew mostly agree in their accounts of the dinner in the house of Levi, with few differences. Mark adds: For they were many, who also followed him.
(Mk. 3:15) Matthew alone quotes Hosea 6:6. This indicates nothing about priority.
Although Mark usually avoids discussion of specifically Jewish controversies, he retains this confrontation with the Pharisees, since it pertains to the gradual revelation of the identity and mission of Jesus. The question about fasting is answered by Jesus’s reference to himself as the bridegroom. He is not asserting a general rule of behavior, but suggests that his very presence merits a departure from normal law, however sacred. So we should not be surprised that the Marcan text actually expands upon the Matthaean version slightly, making sure the metaphor is clearly understood. Thus mourn
(Mt. 9:15) is replaced with fast
(Mk. 3:19), and Mark adds, As long as they have the bridegroom they can not fast.
(Mk. 3:19) We should consider the Matthaean version to be more primitive, since it is a more difficult reading, while Mark has clarified the metaphor with more obvious language.
There is some ambiguity as to who is asking the question.
Then came to him the disciples of John, saying: Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but thy disciples do not fast? (Mt. 9:14)
And the disciples of John and the Pharisees used to fast; and they come and say to him: Why do the disciples of John and of the Pharisees fast; but thy disciples do not fast? (Mk. 2:18)
They say to him: Why do the disciples of John fast often, and make prayers, and the disciples of the Pharisees in like manner, but thine eat and drink? (Lk. 5:33)
Only Matthew is clear about who is asking the question. In Luke, it might be the same Pharisees and scribes
as before (Lk. 5:30), and Mark is altogether unclear. We might say that Matthew and Luke both tried to clarify Mark, except there is no reason for Matthew to suppress the role of the Pharisees, nor for Luke to add mention of prayer, if they relied solely on Mark. More likely, there were multiple variations of this tradition.
Matthew gives a brief cycle of miraculous cures, some of which have Marcan parallels, but in different places.
The first two miracles, paralleled in Mark, are interwoven as a single narrative in both Gospels. Mark gives a much more detailed version, which includes only 21% (29/136) of Matthew’s words verbatim, or 31% (42/136) including different grammatical forms. If Matthew were following Mark, it is strange that he should omit not the pertinent fact that Jairus (unnamed in Matthew) was an official of the synagogue. (Mk. 6:22) In Mark, Jairus first says that his child is at the point of death (Mk. 6:23), rather than dead. (Mt. 9:18) This is not a case of Matthew magnifying
a miracle, however, for even in Mark the girl actually dies, but this is not made known until later. (Mk. 6:25)
Rather, Matthew, like many ancient authors, has a tendency to insert narration into dialogue, making speakers say things they could not have yet known. Mark, on the other hand, strives for realistic dialogue, usually phrasing things as the person might have said it. Thus in Matthew the official states that the girl had died, though he did not know this yet, and he simply affirms, she will live,
(Mt. 9:18) rather than petition, as in Mark, that she may get well and live.
(Mk. 9:23) There are many places where Matthew inserts narrative omniscience in dialogue and Mark does not. This aspect of Matthew’s style is a sign of primitivity.
Mark gives more detailed physical descriptions of the healings of the woman with a hemorrhage and Jairus’s daughter. Thus he directs attention to the mystery of Jesus’s identity, emphasized in the admonition not to tell anyone that the child had been raised. (Mk. 6:43) This is not contradicted by Matthew 9:24, since we know from elsewhere in the Gospels that such warnings were often ignored.
The healing of two blind men in Matthew 9:27-31 superficially resembles the healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46-52. The points of similarity are that Jesus heals the blind, on account of faith in the recipient, and he is petitioned as Son of David.
These are weak points, as Jesus healed many blind people, in various ways, to teach different things, and he always, explicitly or implicitly, made faith a condition of this temporal salvation, as a type of the eternal salvation to come. The Messianic title Son of David
is used often in Matthew, so this too is a weak similarity.
There is good reason to deny that Matthew and Mark refer to the same event, apart from their lack of verbal similarity. In Matthew, Jesus is said to have touched the eyes of the blind men, while Mark, so fond of colorful details in his miracle stories, omits this basic fact. Why should Matthew add this to Mark, especially if, as some critics assert, such physical action diminishes the miracle? The dialogues are completely dissimilar in semantic content. Matthew ends with Jesus warning not to tell anyone, while the cured run off and spread the word anyway. Mark tells us that Bartimaeus follows Jesus. The differences are much stronger than the similarities, so there is no basis for referring both accounts to a common origin. Besides, Matthew already has a parallel to the Bartimaeus story in the correct location in Mt. 20:29-34.
Some suppose that Matthew combined the Bartimaeus story with that of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mk. 8:22-26), because the latter story has Jesus lay hands on the man’s eyes, though only after spitting upon them. Rather than accuse Matthew of such bizarre and unmotivated editing, it seems more probable that many oral stories of Jesus healing the afflicted included him laying on hands or being addressed as Son of David, and the similarities are coincidental. The relation between Mark and Matthew here is mediated by oral tradition, not literary dependence.
The healing of the mute man in Matthew 9:32-34 is absent from Mark. It is often claimed that this is a variation of the story in Matthew 12:22-24 (where the man is both blind and mute), mistakenly presented by Matthew as a distinct occurrence. In support of this claim, we find a similar by the Pharisees that Jesus cast out devils by demonic power. (Mt. 9:34, 12:24) The comment is also found in Mark 3:22, without specific mention of a mute man. On the other hand, the Pharisees’ remark could be a stock phrase used in many oral stories. It is not a strong coincidennce that both demoniacs were mute, as muteness was commonly considered a sign of possession. Jesus surely healed a plurality of mute people, as proven by Mt. 15:29-21 and its parallel in Mk. 7:31-37. Matthew’s insertion of the Pharisees’ comment in Mt. 9:34 may be another instance of narration in the form of direct quotation, to express the Pharisees’ unchanging opinion of Jesus’s expulsions of demons. As in oral traditions (and writings derived therefrom, such as the Gospel of Thomas), we find memorable phrases applied at will in various contexts.
Just prior to the mission of the Twelve, Mark mentions the rejection at Nazareth, which is much later in Matthew (and much earlier in Luke). Matthew instead gives a much more relevant prelude. Jesus, feeling compassion for the crowds who lacked a shepherd, says to the Twelve: The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.
(Mt. 9:37-38)
Matthew 10:2-4 names all the Apostles for the first time. Mark had already done so earlier (Mk. 3:16-19) when they were chosen. Mark now states that the disciples were sent two by two. (Mk. 6:7) In Matthew, the same may be indicated by naming them in pairs: Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew…
Mark mentions authority over unclean spirits
(Mk. 6:7), while Matthew says more fully, authority over unclean spirits to drive them out and to cure every disease and every illness.
(Mt. 10:1) Mark does not deny that the Apostles cured the sick, and even mentions this in Mk. 6:13. He omits the content of Matthew 10:8-9 and the comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. (Mt. 10:15)
Matthew continues with many more sayings about discipleship (Mt. 10:16-42), but Mark turns immediately to Herod’s opinion of Jesus. This awkward transition (from the deeds of the disciples to Herod speaking of Jesus) suggests that Mark has omitted some material, which Matthew gives more fully. Matthew says Jesus warned his disciples of coming persecutions, both immediately and in the end times. Mark instead situates this dialogue in a later eschatological discourse (Mk. 13:9-13), where it is absent from the Matthaean parallel. (Mt. 24:9-14) If Matthew relied on Mark, we should say either that here he moved a piece of dialogue from much later in Mark than where he was currently reading, or that, when he at last reached Mark 24, he was astute enough to remember that he had already used these phrases much earlier from another source, and did not repeat them. Far more parsimonious is it to suppose that Matthew recounts a primitive tradition in the context of commissioning the disciples, while Mark has placed it in another context, as is common with oral traditions. The absence of repetition in either Gospel suggests that each Evangelist was drawing from his own sources independently in both locations.
The question of which location is historically correct
is inapt, as these are not stenographic accounts of Christ’s teaching. Undoubtedly, he repeated such warnings and themes on many occasions, and certain memorable phrases were retained by disciples in recitations of these teachings. These same phrases could then be applied when reciting any occasion where Jesus taught on such a theme.
Matthew’s context seems to be more primitive, for Mark’s use of the same material in a strictly eschatological discourse forces him to omit the verse, Behold, I am sending you as sheep in the midst of wolves,
(Mt. 10:16) which would not fit in his context. The subsequent verses on persecutions (Mt. 10:17-22; Mk. 13:9-13) admit double meaning, and can be used in either context. For Matthew, the concern is primarily with the immediate mission of the Apostles, though there is also clear reference to events that would occur later in the first century.
The eschatologies of Matthew and Mark focus on the respective communities they are addressing. In Matthew, Jesus warns that the disciples will not finish the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes
(Mt. 10:23), indicating that the evangelization of the Jews will not be finished until the end time. Mark instead says that the gospel must first be preached to all nations.
(Mk. 13:10)
The rest of the Matthaean discourse on persecution (Mt. 10:24-33) is absent from Mark, save perhaps for a very weak parallel between Matthew 10:33 and Mark 8:38.
Matthew continues with conditions of discipleship. (Mt. 10:34-39) Mark will articulate conditions of discipleship only much later (Mk. 10:23-45), as the mystery of Jesus begins to be revealed. Even here there is only weak correspondence with Matthew,so that these may be independent gleanings from oral tradition. Some common ground is found in the exhortation to take up one’s cross; in Matthew 10:38 it is phrased negatively, whereas in Mark 8:34 it is phrased positively. Also the saying, Whoever finds his life will lose it…
(Mt. 10:39) is clarified and expounded in Mark, who adds and the gospel
(Mk. 8:35), so Matthew’s reading seems more primitive. There is no Matthaean analogue of What does it profit a man…
(Mk. 8:36), which would be a strange omission of a Jewish saying if Matthew had Mark as a source.
Matthew 10:40-42, a list of rewards of discipleship, is absent from Mark, except for the last verse whoever shall give to drink…,
paralleled in Mark 9:40. The fact that this last reward was known to Mark (and many others were known to Luke) suggests that even the uniquely Matthaean content draws upon authentic tradition, since the other rewards are similar in form.
Following the mission of the Twelve, Matthew presents some discourses of Jesus in the first teaching cycle since the Sermon on the Mount. None of Matthew 11 appears in Mark, though it is mostly paralleled in Luke. Much of this chapter pertains to the relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, in the context of Hebrew prophecy. The last parts of this discourse, with its apocalypse (Mt. 11:20-24) and glimpse of the Son (Mt. 11:25-30), are compatible with Mark’s design, so their omission suggests that he was unaware of this content.
The story of picking grain on the sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8) is found much earlier in Mark (2:23-27), grouped with other encounters with the Pharisees. Matthew gives the fuller treatment, with additional material. (Mt. 12:5-7)
Mark gives two indications that his version is less primitive than that of Matthew. First, Mark includes a placemarker telling readers where to find the cited story of David. This is usually mistranslated, when Abiathar was high priest
(Mk. 2:26), but in fact the Greek preposition επι (on, above
) is used. This points the reader to the episode of Scripture where Abiathar became high priest. Indeed, the story of the holy bread (1 Sam. 21) prefaces the story of Abiathar’s ascension to the high priesthood. (1 Sam. 22-23) The quoted phrase in Mark, then, is not a qualifier of the time that David acted, but a parenthetic comment directing the reader to the place in the text above where Abiathar was made high priest. There is no error
in Mark that needs correcting by Matthew. Since the phrase about Abiathar is not found in Luke, otherwise dependent on Mark here, some suppose it to be a later gloss. In any event, the placemarker is a case of redaction, absent from Matthew.
Second, Mark omits an oblique reference to a statement by Hosea. (Mt. 12:7) Instead, he makes the meaning plain by quoting Jesus: The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
(Mk. 2:27) This helps the early part of the Gospel establish a mystery about the person of Jesus, who claims to be Lord of the sabbath, which was ordained by God. If there were any dependence between Mark and Matthew, it is more plausible that Mark would clarify the obscure Hosean reference than that Matthew should make a clear meaning obscure.
Mark retains the cure of the man with the withered hand (Mt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6), but omits the explanatory discourse by Jesus. (Mt. 12:11-12) This explanation presumes a knowledge of Jewish sabbath customs, which did permit pulling sheep out of a pit. Mark keeps only the essential point of the explanation, the lawfulness of doing good and preserving life. (Mk. 3:4) For emphasis, he contrasts this with doing evil and destroying life. St. Mark also notes the complicity of the Herodians in the conspiracy against Jesus, a point he will resume later. In this pericope, both Evangelists give evidence of independence from each other.
The brief transition in Matthew 12:15-16 possibly corresponds to Mark 3:7-12, drawing on common oral tradition. If this is so, we nonetheless find personal detail added by Mark (Mk. 3:9), suggesting an apostolic source. It would be consistent for Mark to exclude Matthew’s quote of Isaiah even if it were known to him.
Following a cursory mention of a healed demoniac (Mt. 12:22), Matthew turns to the accusations of the Pharisees. St. Mark does not mention the demoniac directly, so it is not clear if he is describing the same events in Mk. 3:22-27. Rather, he might be providing a general reply of Jesus to an oft-repeated accusation of the Pharisees, along with claims of insanity made by Jesus’s relatives. Mark does not include the Matthaean reference to the activity of Jewish exorcists, (Mt. 12:27) though that verse could also be understood to refer to the apostles, who cast out demons, and will finally share in Christ’s judgment. The saying about blaspheming against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31-32) is condensed and explained by Mark (Mk. 3:28-30), so that Matthew here seems to give the more primitive
version.
An apocalyptic discourse (Mt. 12:33-45) is omitted by Mark, though it may be proposed that Mark 8:11-13 refers to the same demand for a sign as in Matthew 12:38-42. That correlation is weak, however, since the demand for signs was common among the Jews, as the Apostle says, For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom.
(1 Cor. 1:22) There is no contradiction between Jesus’s refusal to give any sign to this generation,
(Mk. 8:11) and his ironic mention of the sign of Jonah
(Mt. 12:39), for he surely knew that this was not what the Pharisees meant by a sign, so his refusal of their demand still stood. Taken as a whole, this Matthaean discourse describes the relationship between the evil generation
of Israel and the Messiah, a theme that is not relevant to Mark’s purpose.
Both Gospels contain Jesus’s saying about his true family. (Mt. 12:48-50; Mk. 3:33-35) In Mark, this occurs immediately after the saying about the Holy Spirit, suggesting ignorance of Mt. 12:33-45, and further indicating that the weakly similar Mk. 8:11-13 and Mt. 12:38-42 do not refer to the same event. The true family
pericope has only one significant difference in semantic content, which is found in all the best manuscripts, namely that Mark says God
where Matthew says my heavenly Father.
Mark’s version need not be more primitive, for at this stage in his narrative he wishes to downplay the divinity of Christ, unfolding the mystery progressively.
The two Gospels continue from here to a set of parables (Mt. 13:1-53; Mk. 4:1-34), both opening with the parable of the sower and concluding with that of the mustard seed, but otherwise varying in content. Mark shows greater attention to chronology, saying On another occasion…
(Mk. 4:1) in place of Matthew’s On that day…
, which might be taken to refer to the day of the events of the previous chapter. In fact, Matthaean expressions such as at that time
or on that day
generally do not refer to any larger chronology, but are just generic openings for each narrative pericope. Matthew’s imprecision about time here makes more sense on the assumption that he wrote independently of Mark. If he had Mark before him, there would be no reason to muddle the chronology and seem to imply that the events of chapters 12 and 13 all occurred on the same day.
The substance of the parable of the sower is identical in both Gospels, but Mark gives a more succinct account of Christ’s explanation of why he taught in parables. (Mt. 13:10-17; Mk. 4:10-12) Mark here omits the saying To anyone who has, more will be given
(Mt. 13:12), but gives it a bit later, at the end of the parable of the lamp. (Mk. 4:21-25) He gives only a condensed version of Matthew’s citation of Isaiah, and he does not mention the privilege of the disciples with respect to the prophets.
The Matthaean claim that Jesus spoke in parables because seeing they see not
(Mt. 13:13) is compatible with Mark saying, everything comes through parables, so that ‘they may look and see but not perceive.’
(Mk. 4:11-12) Mark likely uses so that
(‘ινα) in the sense of: so that the prophecy would be fulfilled,
for the prophecy of Isaiah immediately follows. Such usage is found more explicitly in John (15:25, 18:9, 18:32), while in Mark the reference to prophecy is only implied. When people act so that
a prophecy might be fulfilled, this only signifies an effect, not an intent. The quote from Isaiah in both Gospels exemplifies this: in order that they may not be converted and forgiven.
(Isa. 6:9) This need not mean that the grace necessary for conversion is deliberately withheld, but simply that the lack of conversion is an effect of not perceiving or understanding. Similarly, the Marcan so that
indicates that the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy is an effect of Jesus’s teaching in parables, not that the teaching in parables is a deliberate withholding of knowledge, for the crowds, unlike the disciples, would not appreciate the meaning if it were explained to them. This agrees with the Matthaean use of because
(‘οτι): Because to you it is given to know… but to them it is not given.
(Mt. 14:11) Therefore do I speak to them in parables, because seeing they see not…
(Mt. 14:13)
The apostles are often portrayed as slow to understand the Master, who nonetheless shows great confidence in their potential, even when rebuking them. In Christ’s explanation of the parable of the sower, we find only minor differences between the two Gospels. Mark’s version is more plainspoken, as he repeatedly says, the people who hear
in place of Matthew’s poetic singular, he who hears the word.
Mark also states thirty, sixty, and a hundredfold
(Mk. 4:20) in ascending numeric order, unlike Matthew, and he explicitly names the evil one
as Satan.
In Mark, this explanation is followed by a fuller parable of the lamp (Mk. 4:21-23), which in the Sermon on the Mount is little more than a saying. (Mt. 5:15) After that comes the parable of a seed growing secretly, which is unique to Mark. (Mk. 4:26-29) In Matthew, the interpretation of the sower parable is followed by the parable of weeds among the wheat. The length of this parable and its eschatological explanation may have been sufficient cause for St. Mark to exclude it even if it were known to him.
Both Mark and Matthew retain the parable of the mustard seed, which is similar in theme to that of the sower. Matthew continues with more parables, but Mark simply says, With many such parables, he spoke the word to them as they were able to understand it. Without parables he did not speak to them…
(Mk. 4:33-34) This is roughly paralleled by Matthew: All these things Jesus spoke in parables to the multitudes; and without parables he did not speak to them.
(Mt. 13:34) In both cases, the primary sense is that the use of parables was on account of the people’s limited understanding, but Mark alone says many such parables,
indicating awareness of others in this cycle. This suggests that Matthew and Mark drew upon a common tradition, which Matthew used more fully. This would account for the common sequence of their shared parables. Mark omits Matthew’s quote of the Psalmist’s prophecy. (Mt. 13:35) The later Matthaean parables, like that of the mustard seed, are metaphors for the kingdom of heaven, which is why Mark may have been content to relate only that of the mustard seed.
Matthew 13:51-53, omitted by Mark, pertains to the disciples’ authority to interpret the Old and the New Covenants, explaining the relation between the two implicitly, for understanding Christ’s teachings implies an understanding also of the Old Law.
Our conjectures regarding Mark’s motives for including or excluding materials are of course speculative. In some cases, we should be willing to admit that there is no obvious explanation. The motives of subtle editorial decision-making are often elusive, even to the author himself, and such decisions may sometimes be arbitrary or inconsistent. It should be remembered that we are only making a plausibility argument that credible explanations for such omissions or additions are possible without recourse to Matthaean dependence on Mark. We cannot prove Matthaean priority or independence on the basis of such conjectures, but we may show that the conclusion of Marcan priority is neither demanded nor strongly indicated by the semantic evidence.
The rejection at Nazareth is recorded by both Evangelists (Mt. 13:53-58; Mk. 6:1-6), though Mark first relates the stilling of the storm and the healing of demoniacs, Jairus’s daughter, and the woman with a hemorrhage (Mk. 5:1-43), all of which had already been related earlier by Matthew. (Mt. 8:23-34, 9:18-26) Both Gospels allude to Nazareth as Jesus’s own country
(πατριδα αυτου). πατρισ literally means of one’s fathers,
i.e., it is the place of one’s ancestors. Matthew’s use of this expression shows he did not take this as contradictory with the fact of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem. Nazareth is where Jesus was raised since infancy and where St. Joseph and much of his family lived and died.
St. Mark generally places less emphasis on the disciples than Matthew, so it is noteworthy that here he mentions the presence of the disciples while Matthew does not. Here, however, they are mentioned in connection with an apparent failure, so this is consistent with the generally humiliating portrayal of the disciples used by St. Mark or his source.
Only Mark mentions the sabbath and gives an expansion of the incredulous questions of the Nazarenes, emphasizing the magnitude of Jesus’s ability. (Mk. 6:2) Considering this greater attention to detail, we should not take lightly his identification of Jesus as the carpenter
rather than the carpenter’s son.
It is not too surprising that Jesus should have adopted his father’s trade, though to Mark’s readers this may have indicated an astonishing humility. Combined with the peculiar identification of Jesus by the Nazarenes as the son of Mary
rather than the son of Joseph, this suggests that St. Joseph had already died by this point in time. The Nazarenes did not have knowledge of the virgin birth, and St. Mark usually takes care to phrase direct quotes as the original subject would have said them.
Mark, unlike Matthew, mentions that Jesus was unwelcome even among his own kin. Indeed, the so-called brethren
of Jesus, be they half-brothers or cousins, are not counted among his disciples until after the Resurrection. At one point they had even declared him insane. Mark notes that Jesus did in fact heal a few sick people, indicating that lack of faith in the Nazarenes, rather than lack of ability in Christ, was the reason for the absence of miracles. Matthew’s omission of this clarification would be perplexing if he had Mark as a source, and it contradicts the thesis that Matthew dilutes difficult readings in Mark.
After the rejection at Nazareth, both Gospels relate Herod’s opinion of Jesus, though Mark first mentions the mission of the Twelve. From here onward the sequence of materials do not differ remarkably between Gospels.
Mark mentions other opinions that identified Jesus with Elijah or other prophets, highlighting the mystery of Jesus’s identity. The omission of these opinions by Matthew, supposing he had Mark, serves no apparent purpose.
Although Mark certainly knew that the death of John the Baptist occurred before Herod gave his opinion (see Mk. 6:16), he nonetheless keeps the same sequence as Matthew, relating this death afterward. Perhaps, unable to determine the exact chronology of this occurrence (which would not have been witnessed by the apostles), he kept the sequence of his source. This indicates that Matthew and Mark had a common source, as with other material about the Baptist.
In Mark, the death of the Baptist is consistently blamed solely on Herodias, whereas Herod feared John as a prophet and was sad when he was forced to keep his oath to execute him. Matthew, by contrast, says: Although willing to kill him, he [Herod] feared the multitude, because they held him as a prophet.
(Mt. 14:5) This seems inconsistent with Herod’s later sadness (Mt. 14:9), if we insist that Herod could never have changed his mind. If Matthew had Mark as a source, he has turned clear text into apparent inconsistency without explanation. More likely, Matthew renders a more primitive reading of a common written source, which Mark has redacted into a clearer narrative.
Mark explains to his gentile audience why Herod’s marriage was unlawful. He mentions which classes of people were present at the banquet. He adds an oath of Herod, I will grant you… even to half of my kingdom
(Mk. 6:24), emphasizing the unconditionality of Herod’s promise. The rest of Mark’s narrative contains the same substance as in Matthew, but is more verbose for dramatic effect.
It is often claimed that the power and force of Mark’s narrative demonstrates that it is an original composition, and thus could not be dependent on Matthew or any other text. This argument ignores the necessity that, unless a story is purely of the author’s imagination, all narrative writers make use of existing stories, oral or written. In pericopes such as these, there is only weak verbatim similarity between Gospels, so that both Evangelists may have used common oral or possibly written sources, but freely composed narratives in their own words, invoking their own memories or creativity. This, we have seen, was common practice not only in oral traditions, but also in the composition of texts in predominantly oral cultures.
Both Gospels introduce the next miracle cycle with the return of the disciples, who had been commissioned to preach prior to the apparent digression on the death of John.
The same facts are related more clearly in Mark than in Matthew. In Mark, Jesus tells the disciples Come apart into a deserted place, and rest a little.
(Mk. 6:31) Then they all go in a ship to a deserted place apart.
Matthew says Jesus withdrew in a boat to a deserted place apart
upon hearing of John’s death. (Mt. 14:13) Matthew does not explicitly mention the disciples until they approach Jesus in the evening, when the deserted place is now teeming with crowds. (Mt. 14:15) Matthew’s omission might give the impression that the disciples did not come with Jesus in the boat. In fact, it is probable that the disciples went with Jesus everywhere, even when they are not mentioned. The boat was likely a fishing boat requiring more than one man. Matthew, like Mark, uses ιδιος (apart
) rather than μονος (alone,
as in the walking on water), so he is not indicating absolute solitude, but separation from the crowds. Also, from Matthew’s version, one might think that Jesus withdrew because of the death of John, rather than to give the disciples a rest from the crowds. If Matthew had Mark’s text before him, it is a mystery why he should deliberately obscure these points. Far more likely is that the Evangelists had a common written tradition, which Mark in this case has clarified by his redaction.
Some may think that Matthew has made a mistake in saying that Jesus now heard of John’s death, forgetting that the death of the Baptist was a flashback from Herod’s current opinion that Jesus was John raised from the dead. Yet we have no grounds for supposing that the death of John was much earlier, so Matthew’s account is consistent.
The placement of the feeding of 5000 by both Evangelists, shortly after the mission of the twelve, and immediately after the death of the Baptist, may follow a traditional sequence. There are strong verbal differences among the synoptics for the pericopes of the mission of the Twelve and the feeding of 5000, so the identity in sequence is better explained by a common tradition than by a common literary source. The death of the Baptist might also have a traditional place in sequence, for the end of John’s mission signified that the way of the Lord had been prepared, so the next stage of revelation could begin. The feeding of the five thousand was considered a seminal event by early Christians, as it was a prodigy reminiscent of the manna from heaven. Its twin elements, bread and fish, became central symbols of the Christian religion. Bread had the Eucharistic significance of Jesus as the bread of life, and the fish, as the catacombs tell us, symbolized Christians, and even Christ himself. Indeed, the strongest verbal similarity among the synoptics in this pericope is in the consecration
verse, which has liturgical overtones. (Mt. 5:19)
The miraculous feeding of five thousand men and their families is sufficiently astounding that no stylistic embellishment is necessary, so Matthew gives a matter-of-fact account. Mark adds a few phrases to emphasize the magnitude of the miracle. He gives a sense of scale by quoting the disciples that two hundred days wages worth of food would be needed. (Mk. 6:37) For dramatic effect, he prolongs the dialogue with Jesus’s question in Mk. 6:38, inviting meditation on the words Go and see.
Mark also adds how the crowd sat down in groups, by fifties and by hundreds. It would be peculiar for Matthew to omit this if he had Mark, given its reminiscence of the gathering of the Israelite tribes in the desert. Attentive to detail, Mark specifies that the fish were also divided among the crowds, though that is implicit in the Matthaean account.
Although it is mainly Mark who highlights the magnitude of the miracle, Matthew does add one emphasis not found in Mark, namely that the five thousand
did not count women and children. This is not a disagreement with Mark, who simply says five thousand men
(ανδρες).
Both Gospels continue with the miracle of walking on water. Mark adds the detail that the disciples were headed toward Bethsaida (Mk. 6:45), and clarifies that Jesus meant to pass by the disciples, rather than display his power to them. Strikingly, he omits Peter’s walking on the water (Mt. 14:28-31), with its brief display of supernatural faith, possibly suppressed by St. Peter’s humility. He instead focuses on the disciples’ lack of faith, not understanding the miracle of the loaves. If their hearts had not been hardened, they would have seen that Jesus revealed his identity through that miracle, and would not be astonished at this latest wonder. The astonishment described by Mark is consistent with Matthew, who says they then did him homage and recognized him as a Son of God. The difference is one of emphasis, as Mark faults the apostles for not having recognized Jesus earlier. His omission of their homage may be further explained by his desire to reveal Jesus gradually, culminating in Peter’s confession as the beginning of apostolic faith.
The crossing of the sea is completed at Gennesaret, between Bethsaida and Capernaum. St. Mark adds a few details, such as bringing the sick on mats. The subsequent series of events (Mk. 7, Mt. 15) pertains to matters that are superficially of Jewish interest, but result in teachings of universal importance. Thus Mark includes them, though he takes care to explain the ritual washings of the Jews to his gentile audience. (Mk. 7:3-4) Interestingly, Mark places Isaiah’s prophecy at the beginning of Jesus’s response. This is a permissible stylistic liberty, as oral histories did not attempt to give dialogue verbatim, but only to preserve the substance of an exchange.
The distinction between Matthew 15:4, For God said, ‘Honor your father…’
and the Marcan parallel, For Moses said…
(Mk. 7:10) provides no basis for determining priority. Matthew’s version, here as elsewhere, is more Hellenized, and only Mark retains the Hebrew word qorban. Although Matthew is more concerned with Jewish issues, his literary style is more Greek.
On the other hand, Matthew probably has the more primitive version of the verse not what enters one’s mouth…
(Mt. 15:11), in contrast with Mark’s Nothing that enters one from outside can defile…
(Mk. 7:15) Mark’s broader language brings out the universal applicability of the teaching, not only to food (as concerned the Jews), but to anything external that enters us through any means. The sense is that spiritual corruption comes from within. Mark omits the uprooting of the Pharisees (Mt. 15:13), as this would not be of much concern to gentiles. Again Mark downplays the role of St. Peter, as he does not identify this apostle as the one who asks Jesus to expound this parable. (Mt. 15:15; Mk. 7:17) St. Mark makes explicit for his gentile audience that all foods are thereby considered clean. (Mk. 7:19) He does not give this as a direct quote of Jesus, who showed no intention of abolishing Jewish ritual while he was on earth, but rather as a consequence of the Master’s teaching. For emphasis, he gives a more expansive enumeration of the sins of the heart. (Mk. 7:21-22)
Mark tells us the episode of the Canaanite woman took place in the district of Tyre (Mk. 8:24), and afterward Jesus traveled by way of Sidon. (Mk. 8:31) Matthew gives only a vague geographical reference to Jesus’s travels to the region of Tyre and Sidon.
(Mt. 15:21) Mark uses the region’s Greek name of Syrophoenicia, and specifies that this was the woman’s ethnicity by birth, while Matthew identifies her only as a woman of Canaan.
Again Mark is more exact, as the region of Canaan had been Hellenized for centuries, and it would be strange for Matthew to muddle this if he had Mark as a source. Matthew has the woman address Jesus as Son of David,
implausibly for a gentile, again showing how Matthew, like many ancient authors, inserts narrative omniscience into dialogue. Mark, more realistic with direct quotes, relates the woman’s petition as an indirect quote. (Mk. 7:26)
Mark omits Christ’s initial refusal to hear the woman and the annoyed reaction of the apostles, both given in Matthew. Here Matthew’s reading, the more difficult, is likely more primitive, and Mark has toned down the severity for his gentile audience. Similarly, the restriction of the Messiah’s earthly mission to Israel (Mt. 15:24) is rephrased positively, Let the children be fed first,
(Mk. 8:27) implying that the gentiles will be fed
afterward, being part of the divine plan from the beginning. Mark does not explicitly clarify who are the children and who are the dogs, for that would only accentuate the Jewish contempt for gentiles. The conclusion of the story is the same in both Gospels, but Matthew emphasizes the importance of the woman’s faith, while Mark focuses on what the woman says.
Matthew gives a brief transition, mentioning numerous miracles performed by Jesus near the Sea of Galilee, while Mark gives the return path more exactly, and focuses on a specific healing, that of a mute man in the Decapolis. Mark also gives the Aramaic word ephphatha (Mk. 8:31), showing knowledge of some Aramaic tradition independently of Matthew.
Some exegetes propose that the feeding of the 4000 is a variant of the feeding of the 5000, on account of its similarity to the first multiplication of loaves and its omission by Luke. Yet there is no inherent implausibility in supposing that two distinct events are intended. Jesus repeated many of his other works when faced with the same circumstances; he healed many blind people as he encountered them, and cast out many demons for he encountered many. The evangelists agree that Jesus could hardly go anywhere without being followed by great crowds, even when he withdrew to deserted places. So it is hardly surprising that the circumstances prompting the multiplication of loaves might arise more than once. While each Evangelist generally avoids mentioning two miracles that are so strongly similar, an exception here is understandable due to the magnitude of the wonder. The similarities (between the feeding of 5000 and 4000) of giving thanks and breaking bread do not imply identity of occasion, for these were standard Jewish customs. There are also certain differences, for here (with the 4000) the Master summons the disciples, instead of the disciples approaching him (as with the 5000). They simply ask where they could get such food, expressing their own inability to provide. This question need not imply ignorance of the previous miracle, only a lack of presumption that he should repeat it, or perhaps surprise that such a wonder might be performed for gentiles, as the chronology and the un-Jewish blessing of the fish suggest.
St. Mark, careful about such matters, insists that this was a distinct miracle, opening with the line, In those days when there again was a great crowd without anything to eat…
(Mk. 8:1) Matthew omits this qualifier, needlessly clouding the issue if he were following Mark. Again, Matthew alone states that women and children were not counted, though this is implicit in the Marcan four thousand.
Matthew says Jesus next proceeded to the district of Magdala (or Magadan, plausibly a variant of the same name, found in many manuscripts), while Mark alludes to the parts (μερη) of Dalmanutha.
The Talmud identifies two cities named Magdala: Magdala Gedar and Magdala of fishes.
Magdala Gedar is said to be across the Jordan, in the territory of the Gadarenes. The second Magdala was a large fishing town near Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee, and the Talmud says it was destroyed by the Romans on account of the immoral behavior of its inhabitants. The name Dalmanutha is unknown outside of Mark, and even its etymology is obscure. Some have supposed it comes from a Hebrew original, Zalmon, transmuted in a manner typical of Syriac Aramaic. This lack of confirming evidence does not imply that Dalmanutha is fictitious, for our knowledge of ancient Galilee is fragmentary, and Magdala of Galilee, once thought fictitious, has since been excavated. If Mark or his source did not know a place name, there would be no need to invent one, for simple omission would suffice, as in many other pericopes. Dalmanutha need not be the name of a city; Mark seems to suggest it is a name or nickname of a region.
We mentioned previously that it was unlikely that Mark 8:11-12 corresponds to the demand for a sign in Matthew 12:38-42. Its placement instead instead indicates that that parallels Matthew 16:1-4. Matthew gives a longer version than Mark, though not by much if we exclude Mt. 16:2-3, which is omitted from many ancient manuscripts and might be a gloss. Only Matthew mentions the Sadducees here (Mt. 16:1), whereas Mark mentions them only once in his entire Gospel. (Mk. 12:18) Mark avoids digression into Jewish matters as much as possible; thus he never mentions the sign of Jonah
in his Gospel, though it is found repeatedly in Matthew and Luke. He does add the personal details of Jesus entering the boat and going to the other shore. (Mk. 8:13) Where Matthew says the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees,
(Mt. 16:6) Mark has the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.
(Mk. 8:15)
Both Gospels have the disciples perplexed by this last statement, and Jesus rebukes them for their lack of understanding. Mark ends with the question How do you not yet understand?
(Mk. 8:21) Matthew adds that the disciples then finally understood, if only because Jesus explained more fully. (Mt. 16:12)
Mark makes room for one more miracle, the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida. Like most Marcan miracle accounts, this is full of colorful detail. Since Jesus restored
the man’s sight, we infer that, as was often the case in those days, the man was not blind from birth. This explains how he was able to describe people as looking like trees that walk. The gradual healing adds realism to the story consistent with medically cured blindness, and also symbolizes progressive enlightenment.
Both Gospels agree that Peter’s confession is an important event in Christian revelation; even Mark does not suppress the apostle’s role here. While the disciples, according to Matthew, had already called Jesus the Son of God after the walking on water (Mt. 14:33), Peter alone is credited with a supernatural faith, beyond impression by physical miracles, For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
(Mt. 16:16)
Peter does not confess Jesus as Messiah out of awe for miracles, relying on human reasoning. The other disciples do, so they are here silent, since reason can never produce the certitude of faith. Jesus’s statement indicates that Peter did not merely opine that Jesus is the Messiah, but actually saw that he is the Messiah, a revelation only God can grant. Only with Peter’s confession do we have the true beginning of supernatural Christian faith, which gives knowledge that Jesus is Lord, as opposed to probable opinion or strong belief. Peter expresses this faith by the simplicity of his statement, made without qualification, condition, or fear of equivocation.
In Matthew, Peter confesses that Jesus is the son of the living God.
This indicates a stronger affinity between Jesus and God the Father, a unique sonship by nature. Mark does not mention the divine commission to Peter as head of the church, again presenting the apostle with as little glory and as much humiliation as possible. Thus, when Peter tries to dissuade Christ from accepting the cross, Mark omits the apostle’s concern for Jesus’s safety (Mt. 16:22) The Master’s rebuke, Get behind me Satan,
(Mk. 8:33) sounds more severe in Mark, without the qualification that Peter behaved satanically in the sense of acting as an obstacle. (Mt. 16:23)
As the mystery of Jesus begins to be revealed, Mark finally starts to declare the more radical teachings of Christianity, already disclosed earlier in Matthew. Mark mentions the crowd that accompanied the disciples, to signify that these demands are for all Christians, not just the heroic. He includes the phrase and that of the gospel,
(Mk. 9:35) to make clear that following Christ means following his words.
Mark gives slightly milder wording about the last judgment, the Son of Man will be ashamed
(Mk. 9:38), instead of then will he render to every man according to his works
(Mt. 16:27), though the basic meaning is the same.
The revelation culminates in the transfiguration of the Lord, where Jesus is shown to his disciples in his divine glory. St. Matthew resorts to Old Testament imagery, describing the Lord’s face as shining like the sun, and his clothes as white as light. St. Mark avoids the simile of light, and instead says the whiteness of Jesus’s clothes was beyond anything earthly. By shunning comparisons, he emphasizes the utter transcendence of the event as surpassing description.
Peter’s strange suggestion to build three tabernacles is explained only by Mark: For he knew not what he said: for they were struck with fear.
(Mk. 9:6 [Vulg. 9:5]) Only St. Peter himself could provide information about his interior confusion.
There are some omissions in Mark relative to Matthew. Mark does not describe the cloud as bright, consistent with his avoidance of similes of light. He omits the Father’s phrase, with whom I am well pleased.
(Mt. 17:5) Matthew here repeats a phrase used at the baptism of Jesus. (Mt. 3:17, Mk. 1:11) Mark’s omission here may be motivated by his desire to give direct quotations realistically, or to make the command listen to him
sound more forceful by shortening the sentence.
Matthew alone mentions that Jesus touched the disciples, saying, Arise, and fear not.
(Mt. 17:7) Perhaps Mark omission is deliberate, so his audience would remain in awe and fear of divine majesty. Even in Matthew, Christ gives a personal invitation, signified by touching, only to the apostles, and this privilege need not be extended to others. The apostles only raised their eyes, such was their reverence.
The disciples questioned Jesus about the coming of Elijah, and the reply recorded by Mark includes: it is written of the Son of Man that he must suffer many things and be despised.
(Mk. 9:12 [Vulg. 9:11]) Matthew does not invoke prophecy here, though he does mention that the Son of Man shall suffer. (Mt. 17:12) Usually it is Mark who omits prophecy, but here perhaps he wants to emphasize that the suffering and humiliation of Christ, especially scandalous to Romans, was divinely ordained. Mark also maintains an aura of mystery by dwelling on the disciples’ confusion about what rising from the dead meant, and by not explicitly naming John the Baptist as the coming of Elijah. This last omission may have also helped avoid giving the impression that some reincarnation was intended.
Both evangelists relate the same cure of a boy demoniac, as evidenced by the placement of the narrative, similar details such as the boy falling into water and fire, and the disciples’ inability to cure him. Mark contributes a wealth of detail to his account, much of it horribly vivid. At the end, he gives Jesus’s explanation of the disciples’ failure in simple practical terms, i.e., that it cannot be cast out except by prayer. Matthew, more expansively, says Jesus rebuked the disciples for their lack of faith with the simile of the mustard seed. This emphasis on faith is not contradictory of Mark, for prayer is an expression of faith. Matthew also mentions fasting, while this is omitted in most early manuscripts of Mark. Seeing that this pericope has only an oral
degree of similarity, we cannot make inferences about priority on this basis.
Jesus began a final journey through Galilee that would eventually lead to Jerusalem, though the disciples, Mark says, were kept ignorant of the eventual destination. Matthew relates the prediction that the Messiah would rise on the third day (Mt. 17:22), which by Jewish reckoning, counts the day of death, so Jesus’s death on a Friday would imply a resurrection on Sunday. Mark says he will rise after three days,
(Mk. 9:31) following normal grammatical usage, though obscuring the fact that the day of death counts as the first day. The gospels are different yet consistent here, and likewise in their descriptions of the apostles’ reactions. Matthew describes a state of grief among the apostles, consistent with Mark’s assertion that they did not understand the saying, for if they did, they should rejoice at the coming victory over death. The apostles appear to be of the same mind as Peter, expecting a temporal messianic victory, and viewing the death of their Master as unequivocal defeat, regardless of what may follow.
Mark omits the episode about payment of the temple tax (Mt. 17:23-26), as this is less relevant to a gentile audience. Also, he tends to suppress material that would exalt Peter in any way. Mark’s awareness of the temple tax episode may be indicated by the fact that he mentions its location of Capernaum (Mt. 17:23) at the head of the next episode, the discussion of who was greatest in the kingdom.
The debate among the apostles, as related by Mark, portrays the twelve in a more negative light, noting only their initial silence in response to their Master’s question about what they were debating. Only Matthew relates that they eventually did come forward with the question. Jesus’s reply is the same in substance in both Gospels, though using different words. Mark also adds a saying closely identifying Jesus with the Father who sent him (Mk. 9:37 [Vulg. 9:36]), implying that a full revelation of the Christian mystery is near.
In the middle of Jesus’s teaching about childlike humility (Mt. 17:3-6; Mk. 9:36-37, 42), Mark rather awkwardly inserts John’s question about another exorcist (Mk. 9:38-41), which is only obliquely relevant. The saying, For whoever is not against us is for us,
(Mk. 9:40) resembles a saying in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 12:30), but with very different context. Whether the similarity is accidental or a saying from oral tradition is used in two different contexts, there is no evidence here of dependence between the Gospels.
Early in his gospel, Mark has avoided discussion of divine judgment and damnation, but now that Jesus has revealed himself as the Christ (Mk. 10:41) and he marches toward the full revelation of his mission in Jerusalem, Mark shows the severity of Christ as judge, sometimes even exceeding Matthew in this respect. While aiming for brevity, he nonetheless makes explicit in each instance that the fire meant is that of Gehenna, which is unquenchable. He also clarifies for his audience that life
refers to the kingdom of God, where life is eternal. He even cites Isaiah to explain to the Romans what Hell really means. (Mk. 9:48)
As we mentioned much earlier, the simile of salt in Mark bears only incidental resemblance to that in the Sermon on the Mount. (Mt. 5:13; Mk. 9:49-50) Mark’s simile has a quite different meaning, referring to the refinement by fire through which disciples of Christ must pass. He no longer hides the severity of Christ’s demands.
St. Matthew, in an apparent extension of the discourse on the little ones,
adds more parables which Mark does not use. Mark is not attempting to write a comprehensive catechism on proper Christian behavior, but focuses on those doctrines that pertain to the person of Jesus Christ. Here it is much more parsimonious for Mark to have omitted this material in its entirety, rather than to suppose that Matthew used Mark, pruning his phrases for no apparent purpose save brevity, yet at the same time adding extensive material of his own, showing no regard for brevity.
The teaching on marriage and divorce (Mt. 19:3-12; Mk. 10:1-12) has similar content in Matthew and Mark, but the dialogue is structured differently. In Matthew, the Pharisees ask if a man may divorce his wife, and Jesus replies by citing Genesis. The Pharisees follow up by asking about Mosaic bills of divorce, to which Jesus says this was because of their hardness of heart. In Mark, the Pharisees ask about divorce, and Jesus replies by asking what Moses commanded. The Pharisees mention the bills of divorce, and Jesus replies about their hardness of heart, followed by the citation of Genesis. Such restructuring of dialogue is a liberty commonly allowed in oral compositions, but this pericope shows a strong degree of verbatim similarity, suggesting a dependence mediated by written tradition. Thus the reordering is more likely to be a deliberate editorial choice by at least one evangelist. The initial response in Matthew 19:4 seems like a non sequitur to the question presented (though it was good rabbinic practice to respond first with Scripture), while Mark’s order has a clearer logic and makes for a better flow of dialogue. This makes it probable that his is the less primitive
version of the written tradition. Conversely, if Matthew had Mark before him, his reordering of the material would serve no apparent purpose.
St. Mark emphasizes the universality of the teaching by omitting phrases particular to Jewish practice which might cloud the issue. In Matthew, the Pharisees are asking a narrow question, namely if a man may divorce his wife for any reason
(Mt. 19:3), i.e., even for frivolous causes, as was a common detestable practice among Jews at that time. Jesus, in his reply, answers a broader question, namely whether a man may divorce, period. Mark omits for any reason
from the question, to match the breadth of scope of the response. As was often the case, Jesus did not answer the question that was put to him, but responded by challenging the underlying premise with a more radical teaching. Similarly, Mark omits the Matthean exception
about unlawful
marriages, which refers to those incestuous relations that are prohibited by the Mosaic law, and thus not true marriages from the beginning. St. Mark excludes this Jewish reference so that it might not be misinterpreted as a loophole for divorce. The severe Christian teaching on divorce was one of the defining characteristics of the new religion. The difficult teaching on celibacy (Mt. 10:10-12), however, was only a counsel to be accepted by those who are fit for it, so Mark’s omission of this does not imply ignorance of the teaching, as he was writing for a broader audience of catechumens.
Both Gospels have the blessing of the children, but Mark, true to form, humbles the apostles even further by mentioning their Lord’s indignance toward them. This is consistent with Petrine influence, as none but an apostle would dare to humiliate them, and only their chief could speak on behalf of the rest. St. Mark here adds the saying about receiving the kingdom as a little child, which Matthew had in the discourse at Capernaum. (Mt. 18:4) Matthew thus has two incidents with children where Mark has one, suggesting Matthew has the more primitive version. Mark adds some personal warmth, noting that Christ embraced the children and laid on hands in blessing.
Both Gospels have the rich young man pose a question to Jesus, but with different wording. Mark has: Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit (κληρονομησω) eternal life?
(Mk. 10:17) In Matthew we have: [Good] Teacher, what good shall I do that I may have (σχω, aor. subj. of εχω) eternal life?
(Mt. 19:16) The Vulgate and many early Greek manuscripts include ‘good’ next to ‘teacher,’ but the better Greek manuscripts omit it.
Jesus replies, according to the better manuscripts, Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good.
(Mt. 19:17) Other manuscripts assimilate this (to varying degrees) to Mark, which reads, Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.
(Mk. 10:18)
Mark chooses the term inherit,
indicating that salvation is received as a gift, not something earned. This reading, being more theologically exact, would seem to be less primitive than that of Matthew, who would have no reason to suppress the term. Christ’s reply in Mark makes better sense than that of Matthew, as a refusal to be addressed as Good Teacher
is consistent with his humility, but it is perplexing that he should object to being asked about the good. The difficulty of Matthew’s reading is a point in favor of its primitivity, or at least its independence of Mark. Moreover, Mark explicitly states that the One is God, whereas in Matthew it is only implied. Mark does this with Matthaean allusions to God, Satan, Gehenna, and other subjects only indirectly named. This again suggests the Matthaean version is primitive.
Mark’s emphasis on the distinction between the person of Christ and that of God the Father might be explained by his attention to his Roman audience. He takes care to show that Jesus is not the son of some anthropomorphic god, but of an utterly transcendent and unique God who is the source of all goodness. Roman Christians, more so than Jewish converts or even Greeks (who had some sense of divine transcendence), faced the danger of raising Christ’s humanity to the status of divinity. Thus St. Mark distinguishes the human from the divine, explaining that only the divine is good, while the human nature of the teacher, which is all the young man perceived, was not the divine good.
Christ refers the young man to the commandments, which to a Jew meant the entire Torah, not just the Decalogue. Thus Matthew mentions the precept in Leviticus that you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
St. Mark cites five moral commandments of the Decalogue, as well as you shall not defraud,
perhaps for its relevance to Roman society. In both cases, the choice of examples suggests that the answer to the man’s second question in Matthew, which ones?
(Mt. 19:18) is the moral commandments, as opposed to ritual or civil laws. Mark mentions that the man has followed the law from his youth. This is not at odds with Matthew’s description of him as a young man, for Jews were instructed in the law from early childhood, as Josephus tells us.
Compared to Matthew, Mark gives a generally fuller description of Jesus’s subsequent discussion with his disciples. (Mt. 19:25-30; Mk. 10:23-31) As usual, he adds details of body language and personal reactions. (Mk. 10:23-24) He dwells a bit longer on the difficulty of the wealthy entering heaven, to counteract Roman esteem for the affluent. He describes more fully the rewards promised to the disciples, making explicit that the hundredfold reward will be received in this life, consisting of a hundredfold houses, brothers, sisters, and lands, via solidarity with the Church. It is clear that Mark is speaking of the Church in this life, since he also enumerates persecutions among the rewards.
These promises are not a guarantee of earthly prosperity, but of the blessings of a united Church. Those who abandon all for Christ will find brothers and sisters in Christ everywhere, be welcomed into any home as their own, and have all the lands of the earth to evangelize.
St. Mark does not mention the apostles sitting in judgment of the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt. 19:28), since this is of less interest to his audience. The saying about the first who shall be last and the last who shall be first dangles awkwardly at the end of Mark’s narrative (Mk. 10:31; Mt. 19:30) , for he omits the explanatory parable that follows in Matthew. Mark’s omission leads us to believe that Matthew’s knowledge of this tradition does not depend on Mark.
In the third prediction of the Passion, Mark again adds detail about the physical positions and reactions of individuals. The only other noteworthy difference from Matthew is in the last verse. Where Matthew writes that the Son of Man will be handed over to the Gentiles to be mocked and scourged and crucified,
(Mt. 20:19) Mark has, the Gentiles, who will mock him, spit upon him, scourge him and put him to death.
(Mk. 10:34) As usual, Mark shows more chronological realism in dialogue, for it is unlikely that Jesus would have disclosed the manner of his death so explicitly, given the later surprise of the apostles. Matthew’s use of crucified
inserts narrative omniscience into a direct quote, as was his wont and that of other authors in antiquity. We have already addressed the apparent difference in the reckoning of the three days.
Once again, the apostles are treated more harshly in Mark. Omitting Matthew’s mention that it was technically the mother of the sons of Zebedee who requested their exaltation, he instead places the blame squarely upon James and John. He puts the question in their mouths, as the ambition originated in them, not their mother. Mark gives an amplified version of Jesus’s initial response, using parallelism between the cup that I drink
and the baptism with which I am baptized.
(Mk. 10:38-39) St. Mark also explicitly names the sons of Zebedee as James and John, inserting the two names twice. This pericope has strong verbatim similarity, indicating a shared written source. If Matthew used Mark, we might say he softened the harsh treatment of James and John, even to the point of suppressing their names. The omission of the quoted parallelism, however, would remain unexplained, and the hypothesis of a dependence of Mark on Matthew (or his source) is also plausible.
Matthew briefly mentions the cure of two blind men in Jericho (which need not have been simultaneous), in the same place where St. Mark provides the details of the cure of blind Bartimaeus. From our study of oral traditions, the plurality of persons in Matthew is actually a point in favor of primitivity. Matthew, unlike Mark, mentions no intercession of the apostles to call the blind man. He does, however, report the touching of their eyes, a physical detail not found in Mark, usually more attentive to these matters. This suggests that the healing of Bartimaeus might actually be a third incident, inserted by Mark where the tradition calls for a healing of the blind. This again argues for the independence of Matthew from Mark.
St. Matthew relates that Jesus entered Jerusalem sitting upon an ass, and a colt,
(Mt. 21:2-7) in fulfillment of Zechariah 9:9, while Mark only mentions a colt. (Mk. 11:2-7) This is supposed to be evidence of Marcan priority, for Matthew has inserted his own misinterpretation of Zechariah into the narrative. According to some modern scholars, Zechariah 9:9 uses Hebrew parallelism, to be rendered, an ass, a colt
referring to a single animal, a young donkey. Yet the Septuagint renders this with the conjunction και (and
), so the Greek means, upon an ass, and a colt.
The preposition επι (upon
) is used only once, but both nouns are inflected similarly, so επι applies to the colt as well. Thus Matthew’s understanding of Zechariah, whether mistaken or not, antedated him by centuries, and would have been widely known among literate Jews, so his use of this interpretation is no evidence against Matthaean priority.[5]
In any event, we have no solid ground for regarding the Septuagint rendering as mistaken. It was common in antiquity to ride one beast with another in tow, in order to change mounts when one animal tired. If one of the animals is a colt, the other would likely be its mother. So there is nothing inherently implausible in the interpretation made by the Septuagint translators, who were much closer to the thought, language and culture of Zechariah than we are. Jesus would have rode only one or the other animal at a given time; perhaps he was upon the colt when entering Jerusalem, so only that animal was deemed noteworthy by Mark or his source, especially as his audience is uninterested in obscure Hebrew prophecy. Perhaps the colt, on which no one has ever sat,
(Mk. 11:2) could not bear a rider the entire three-mile journey from Bethpage, so it was saved for the final leg.
The two Gospels differ inconsequentially in their reports of the exclamations of the crowds, giving no evidence of priority. Both Gospels say that many people spread their garments in the way, but continue differently:
…others cut down branches (κλαδους) from trees and strew (εστρωννυον) them in the way. (Mt. 21:8)
…others [spread] (εστρωσαν) leafy boughs (στιβδας), cutting them from their fields. (Mk. 11:8)
In Mark’s version, the verb is not repeated, so the implication is that soft vegetation was spread much like the garments, serving as a sort of carpet. Matthew instead mentions branches cut from trees, so he gives the verb strewn.
Matthew may know of another tradition, found in the Gospel of John, that palm branches were lain before Jesus, except he, unlike John, says that the branches were cut down.
This would be impossible in Jerusalem, where no date palms grew, though palm branches were brought there for ceremonial use. By combining the Marcan
and Johannine
traditions, Matthew has made a confusing result, seeming to say that palm branches were cut down on the spot. Possibly, Matthew intended trees other than palms, in which case there is a third tradition. In any case, Matthew seems to show some independence of Mark, so his knowledge of the Marcan
tradition need not have come from Mark, just as he surely did not know the Gospel of John.
Matthew alone mentions that the whole city was moved,
(Mt. 21:10) which could refer to an actual earthquake, or it might indicate that the city was figuratively shaken by the coming of the Messiah. The reaction of the people (asking Who is this?
) suggests the latter.[6]
There is a more significant divergence in the sequence of events. Matthew gives the following sequence:
Mark instead gives this sequence:
The first discrepancy is easily resolved by supposing that Matthew simply omitted the first return to Bethany, for it has no narrative relevance. This omission gives the impression that the expulsion of the money changers occurred on the first day in Jerusalem, though Matthew never says this. Mark, more concerned with chronological realism, gives the full sequence of events. This requires him to insert the expulsion of the money changers, a textual tradition, in the middle of the oral tradition story of the fig tree. Thus Matthew likely gives the more primitive sequence of the Gospel tradition, which Mark edits in order to be more chronological.
Matthew keeps the two fig tree events together, and says the tree withered immediately
(παραχρημα) after being cursed. This is the only place in Matthew where that word is used, so we might guess that he used it merely to mean soon
(as a literal breakdown of the word allows: near [an] event
). In Luke and Acts, however, it always means immediately
or instantly,
and the same is true of its occasional usage in the Septuagint, where it translates pithowm (from a root meaning to open the eyes, i.e., an instant). Nonetheless, we find that Matthew in general does not intend terms hyper-literally, so the withering could have been immediate
in a relative sense. Ordinarily, it takes weeks or months for a tree to wither, so to do so overnight could be considered immediately.
In both cases, Matthew’s topical ordering makes for better reading, while Mark has more chronological realism. Matthew’s chronological imprecision does not contradict the supposition that he was an apostle or eyewitness, for ancient narratives often were more concerned with meaning than chronology. Even if he were not an eyewitness or an apostle himself, his topical arrangement and non-mingling of oral and textual tradition here is evidence of independence from Mark’s edition.
The small differences between Gospels in the cleansing of the temple may be explained by their different audiences. Matthew omits the words for all peoples
from the citation of Isaiah, perhaps because he did not consider the mission of the gentiles to begin until after the Resurrection. Mark uses the full citation from Isaiah, since he wishes to emphasize the inclusion of the gentiles, but he omits the subsequent quote from the Psalmist (Mt. 21:16) as less relevant. Indeed, he glosses over the controversy with the priests in a single verse (Mk. 11:18), observing only how the conspiring priests feared Jesus and the crowds were in awe of him, yet omitting all the other data recorded by Matthew. (Mt. 21:14-17) As usual, Mark adds some physical detail, namely that no one was permitted by Jesus to carry anything through the temple area. (Mk. 12:16)
Having already addressed the chronology of the cursing and withering of the fig tree, we may now further compare the content of the two narratives. First, we note that Mark alone specifies Peter as the speaker. (Mk. 11:21) If Matthew had Mark as a source, there would be no reason for him to suppress this datum, especially as he tends to mention Peter by name more often than Mark does. St. Mark includes an additional saying about the disposition necessary for prayer. (Mk. 11:25) Its verbal resemblance to Matthew 6:14 is too weak to indicate direct copying, so it is likely that both evangelists drew upon a common oral treasury of sayings of Jesus.
We next find a teaching cycle with verbal similarity indicating a common textual tradition. In Matthew, it immediately follows the cleansing of the temple. This cycle opens with a challenge to Jesus’s authority, followed by parables, and closes with questions about paying tribute to Caesar and the resurrection.
When Jesus’s authority is questioned, Mark adds that this was after yet another entry into Jerusalem, i.e., another day. (Mk. 11:27) Mark here mentions chief priests and scribes and elders,
while Matthew omits the scribes. (Mt. 21:23) Mark’s language is also cleaner and easier to read, which again argues against Matthew having him as a source. As usual, Mark scrupulously avoids putting narrative voice into dialogue. He does not follow Matthew in having the priests and elders explicitly say to themselves that they feared the crowd. (Mt. 21:25-26)
Three parables follow in Matthew, only one of which is found in Mark.
If St. Matthew were adding parables to his Marcan source, we should expect them to be added to the end, but that is not what we find. On the other hand, it is simpler to see why Mark would omit the first and third parables. All three parables pertain to the judgment on Israel. Since this is of limited relevance to Mark’s audience, he retains only one of these, namely the second, which most clearly indicates that the kingdom promised to the Jews will be given to the gentiles. That Mark has excluded parables is further indicated by the use of the plural: He began to speak to them in parables.
(Mk. 12:1) Thus it is more parsimonious to suppose that Matthew gives the more primitive edition of this cycle.
In the shared parable of the wicked husbandmen, Mark alone makes clear that the first three servants were sent by one. Matthew alone has the elders condemn themselves in speaking the answer. Mark is more realistic with dialogue, and has Jesus answer his own question, which is more in keeping with the telling of a parable. The end of the parable is shorter in Mark, but all the essentials are retained. Rist notes that Matthew and Luke agree that the heir was killed after being cast out of the vineyard, while Mark seems to indicate the heir was killed in the vineyard.[7] This and other material indicates that Matthew did not need Mark for this parable.
In the pericope about paying taxes to Caesar, Mark has more condensed introductory verses, and a different arrangement of the opening statement of the questioners:
Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth; and you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status.(Mt. 22:16)
Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion; for you do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth.(Mk. 12:14)
The Marcan version flows much more elegantly and logically as a single sentence in Greek. This suggests that the Matthaean arrangement is more primitive, as further indicated by the proximity of its two clauses mentioning truth. This difference, like the other minor differences of this parable, can just as easily be explained in terms of Matthaean priority as Marcan priority.
The term Herodians
used by Matthew and Mark to describe these speakers (Mt. 22:16, Mk. 12:13) is found only one other place in the New Testament, or anywhere else in first-century literature for that matter. That other instance is Mark 3:6, where the Pharisees conspire with the Herodians,
presumably partisans of Herod Antipas, or else devotees of Herod the Great. They are unmentioned in the Matthaean parallel. (Mt. 12:14) If this peculiar term were an invention of Mark, its usage by Matthew would be evidence of Marcan priority. Yet we have little cause for this supposition, as the only other fairly contemporary source that discusses either Herod at length is Flavius Josephus (b. 37).[8] It could well be that the term Herodian
was in fairly common usage among Palestinian Jews in the time of Herod Antipas, and Josephus, who has only limited knowledge of this period, was ignorant of it. We cannot identify Herodian
as a Marcan redactional word if it is a proper noun practically necessitated by Gospel content, i.e., paying taxes to Caesar. (Sec. 5.3) If the partisans of Herod were to be mentioned at all, it may be unremarkable for someone other than Mark, whether it be Matthew or a common written source, to use that term.
Matthew opens the pericope on the Sadducees with On that day…
This generic opening need not be a chronological link with the preceding story. Mark omits this, perhaps out of his concern for chronological realism. Matthew says: On that day Sadducees approached him, saying that there is no resurrection.
(Mt. 22:23) Some have argued that this phrasing of the verse proves Matthew did not know that all Sadducees disbelieved in the resurrection. This is illogical, for if I said, Some Communists approached the teacher, saying that capitalism is exploitative,
it would be clear that I mean that on that particular occasion, the Communists expressed their views to the teacher, to see how he would respond. St. Mark adds a placemarker referring the reader to the Book of Moses, upon the bush (επι του βατου).
(Mk. 12:26) Here επι points to a place in the text, just as it did earlier in Mark, concerning Abiathar.
Jesus’s response to the question about the greatest commandment receives a fuller treatment in Mark than in Matthew. His citation of the commandment to love God includes an explicit exhortation to monotheism (Mk. 12:29); and the scribe’s lengthy response (Mk. 12:32-33) emphasizes the importance of monotheistic faith over sacrifices and burnt offerings. This material is particularly edifying to a gentile audience.
Christ’s teaching about the Son of David is treated cursorily in Mark (12:35-37a), retaining the essential substance, while omitting the dialogue form. (cf. Mt. 22:41-46) Mark also emphasizes the crowd’s delight at hearing this messianic message, rather than the scribes’ fear to ask Jesus more questions.
The lengthy denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees recorded by Matthew (Mt. 23:1-36) receives only a few verses in its Marcan parallel. (Mk. 12:37b-40) Mark gives a general warning against clerics or scribes who desire prestige and wealth. He lists a few of their same characteristics mentioned by Matthew, and adds a couple more. One of the traits added by Mark is the devouring of houses of widows, which makes a nice transition to a story found in Mark but not Matthew, namely that of the poor widow’s contribution. In plutocratic Rome, this narrative would be especially edifying. It is more plausible that Mark should add the devouring of houses of widows as a transition than that Matthew should omit this from his lengthy diatribe if he had Mark as a source.
Both evangelists relate an eschatological discourse of Jesus (Mt. 24, Mk. 13), also found in Luke, known as the synoptic apocalypse. In Matthew, this continues the theme and tone established in the latter part of the denunciation of the Pharisees, whereas in Mark this is an abrupt transition from the story of the widow. The strong verbal similarities indicate that the evangelists have a shared written tradition. The content could be from a single discourse of Christ, or perhaps some sayings with similar themes were grouped together at an early stage. In any event, the internal sequence of the discourse makes good logical and chronological sense.
The disciples’ question to Jesus (Mt. 24:3) is a logical follow-up to his prediction of the temple’s destruction. (Mt. 24:2) Mark specifies which disciples questioned Jesus. (Mk. 13:3) His answer about the beginnings of sorrows
is similar in both gospels, but there are diverging emphases in their accounts of his prophecy about persecutions. Mark indicates that both Jewish and gentile authorities would be persecutors, as he mentions synagogues and governors. He also notes that persecution and division will occur even within families, with children working the death of their parents, which would be especially astonishing to Romans. Matthew alone mentions false prophets here. In general, the two gospels here show a common written tradition, but reordered and selected differently.
Both gospels mention the abomination of desolation,
though Matthew alone explicitly names the Book of Daniel. Thus the parenthetic let the reader understand
fits better in Matthew than in Mark. St. Mark omits the prophetic imagery of Matthew 24:26-28, being mostly redundant with what precedes and follows.
The lesson of the fig tree is recorded identically by both Evangelists (Mt. 24:32-33, Mk. 13:28-29), but otherwise Mark abbreviates the remainder of the discourse. He omits the analogy to the days of Noah (Mt. 24:37-39) and the metaphor of the thief. (Mt. 24:43-44) Instead, he relates a metaphor of servants left on watch. (Mk. 13:34-36) This is completely different, in content and wording (no verbatim agreements), from the Matthaean parable (also in Luke) about faithful and unfaithful servants. (Mt. 24:46-51) The latter is the first of a new cycle of parables in Matthew (continuing in Matthew 25), which is completely omitted by Mark, possibly because they are all variations on the same theme of judgment.
Rist argues that Matthew did not merely follow Mark and add some extra material, for we find that he omits Mk. 13:33-37 in its place and instead scatters versions of that material throughout Mt. 24-25. This indicates that he derived his Marcan
material from a source other than Mark. In fact, since the ‘Markan’ sections are fitted excellently into non-Markan contexts, there is every reason to suppose that the Matthew-source is not Mark.
[9]
The passion narrative is undoubtedly an early tradition, as it is found in mostly the same sequence in all three synoptic gospels, yet most parts of it have only moderate or weak verbal similarity. Even Luke here does not closely follow the wording of Mark, suggesting that there was a robust oral tradition from which all three evangelists could draw independently. Nonetheless, there are portions with strong verbatim similarity between Mark and Matthew, namely the betrayal and arrest of Jesus (Mt. 26:21-56, Mk. 14:18-52), and the events while Jesus was upon the Cross. (Mt. 27:38-54, Mk. 15:27-39)
First, we have some oral tradition about the conspiracy against Jesus. Here Matthew has Jesus explicitly tell the disciples that the son of man shall be delivered up to be crucified.
(Mt. 26:2) Again, this is narrative omniscience inserted into dialogue, so it is unsurprisingly omitted by Mark. What is in doubt here is not that Jesus could foreknow his Crucifixion, but that he would now say this so explicitly to his disciples, including Judas, and that they would still act the way they did in the days to come. Matthew is not especially concerned with chronological realism in dialogue. Matthew alone names Caiaphas as the chief priest, while only Mark mentions the subsequent Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
In the anointing at Bethany, Mark as usual contributes physical detail, describing the kind of perfume and mentioning the breaking of the jar. Matthew says that those who were angry at the woman were the disciples.
(Mt. 26:8) Mark does not mention that they are disciples, which is odd, considering his usually harsh treatment of the apostles. He nonetheless preserves Jesus’s full response, retaining teachings about the right use of wealth, an important lesson for the Romans.
Another apparent oddity is that Mark, usually attentive to such details, does not specify that thirty pieces of silver were paid to Judas Iscariot. (Mt. 26:15) As it seems unlikely that Judas would have handed his Master over for such a small sum, some may suppose that Matthew conceived of this price because of its prophetic significance, expounded later. (Mt. 27:9-10) On the other hand, this may have been only an advance payment, which would be consistent with Mark 14:11. We should not be surprised that there are more variations in the early oral tradition about Judas, as we have seen that atrocity stories tend to be transmitted in an informal uncontrolled
mode.
The last of these oral pericopes is the preparation for the pasch, where Matthew and Mark are largely in agreement. Mark focuses on narrative and physical details, and omits yet another prediction of the passion found in Matthew. (Mt. 26:18) Mark clarifies for his gentile audience that the paschal lamb was sacrificed on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (Mk. 14:12), which is to say on 14 Nisan. The mention of a man carrying a water jar (Mk. 12:13) is consistent with this, for carrying burdens was permitted on holidays.
A strongly textual tradition begins with Christ’s prediction of his betrayal. Matthew adds a verse where Judas is explicitly singled out. (Mt. 26:25) While Matthew may once again be putting into dialogue what belongs in narration, i.e., that Christ knew his betrayer, we once again note that this unique material pertains to Judas, for which there was likely an uncontrolled oral tradition.
The words of Institution have strong verbatim agreement between the gospels, though not absolutely. Early liturgies had different rendering of these words, as the purpose was not so much to replicate the ipsissima verba first spoken by Christ, but to express what is occurring at consecration. The Gospels were intended mainly to be catechetical, not liturgical, so we find further variations in wording designed to clarify teaching. Thus St. Mark omits the word eat
found in Matthew, possibly to avoid scandalizing the Romans by confusion with Bacchan cultic cannibalism. In the consecration of the wine, only Matthew mentions the remission of sins. (Mt. 26:28)
Matthew gives the more difficult reading, and likely the more primitive, when Jesus says, scandalized in me
(Mt. 26:31) and Peter replies scandalized in you.
(Mt. 26:33) Mark in both cases simply says scandalized.
As usual, Mark’s gospel gives the more humiliating portrayal of Peter, recounting Jesus’s rebuke of the apostle more fully. Mark also specifies that the cock was to crow twice.
The agony in the garden of Gethsemane has only a few variations between gospels. Mark omits some redundant phrases, and he names James and John where Matthew says the sons of Zebedee.
Strikingly, Mark has Jesus address Peter by his old name of Simon, as a form of rebuke. (Mk. 14:37)
The textual tradition closes with the betrayal and arrest of Jesus, again with strong verbatim agreement. Mark mentions the scribes as a distinct group. He omits Jesus’s rebuke of the disciple who cut off the high priest’s servant’s ear. Mark includes a seemingly irrelevant detail about a man wearing only a linen cloth and fleeing naked, which has given rise to countless conjectures without solid foundation.
Matthew and Mark refer to Christ’s accusers differently, though there is strong textual similarity between Mt. 26:21-56 and Mk. 14:18-52.
| Matthew | Mark |
|---|---|
| the chief priests and the elders of the people (Mt. 26:3) | the chief priests and the scribes (Mk. 14:1) |
| the chief priests and elders of the people (Mt. 26:47) | the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. (Mk. 14:43) |
| Caiaphas the high priest… the scribes and the elders (Mt. 26:57) | the high priest… all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes (Mk. 14:53) |
| the chief priests and the whole council (Mt. 26:59) | the chief priests and the whole council (Mk. 14:55) |
| all the chief priests and the elders of the people (Mt. 27:1) | the chief priests… the elders and the scribes and the whole council (Mk. 15:1) |
| the chief priests (Mk. 15:10) | they (Mt. 27:18) |
| the chief priests and the elders (Mt. 27:20) | the chief priests (Mk. 15:11) |
As usual, Mark refers to the scribes more frequently, but Matthew does not object to mentioning them, as proved by Mt. 26:57, so there would be no reason to suppress this if he were following Mark. We should say that Matthew likely gives the more primitive reading, especially in the first two parallels, where there is a shared written tradition.
Mark contributes the physical detail of Peter warming himself by the fire with the servants of the high priest (Mk. 16:54), and twice mentions that the witnesses testimonies did not agree. He condenses the high priest’s question, taking care to phrase the dialogue realistically for a Jewish priest, saying the Blessed One
instead of God.
The response, You have said so
(Mt. 26:64) in Jewish usage, was a way of saying Yes,
while indicating that this affirmation would not have been given had the question not been asked. (It is not the wiseacre response it sounds like in English.) Mark phrases the affrimation more simply, I am,
for his gentile audience. He omits the redundant, He has blasphemed!
(Mt. 26:65) from the high priest’ response. Mark also adds the physical detail that Jesus was blindfolded, and blows were dealt to him by the guards.
Peter’s threefold denial of Jesus is treated similarly by both Evangelists; St. Mark adds a few natural details, and clarifies that Peter’s speech identified him as a Galilean. He also specifies that the cock crow was actually the second crow. Some Marcan manuscripts omit mention of the first crow, but they agree in characterizing the crow after Peter’s third denial as the second.
Lacking the legal authority to enforce their death sentence, the Sanhedrin convened the following morning to discuss their course of action before the competent authorities. St. Mark does not need to identify Pilate as the governor, as he was undoubtedly already a notorious figure. The Matthaean digression on Judas is also omitted. St. Mark instead continues immediately with the questioning by Pilate.
The sentencing is recorded similarly by both Evangelists, though with some differences. Mark notes the specific crime that Barabbas had committed, and declines to include the digression about Pilate’s wife. Also, Mark has Pilate twice refer to Jesus as the king of the Jews,
which is likely to be the governor’s actual wording, given the inscription above the cross. Matthew does not attempt to relate direct quotations as the speaker would have said them, but instead plays on the similarity of names between Jesus Barabbas, and Jesus called Messiah. Mark’s audience is unconcerned with the Hebrew concept of blood guilt, so Mark omits the Matthaean verses in which Pilate absolves himself and the Jews assume the blood guilt for Christ. The Jews are condemned according to their own custom, but in reality all men are culpable for Christ’s death, insofar as all have sinned. This is made clear by the blameworthy behavior of the disciples.
Jesus was led into the praetorium by the soldiers; Mark specifies that the palace (i.e., of Herod) was used as the praetorium, emphasizing the regal circumstances, as does his description of the cloak as purple.
Matthew here gives the more realistic description, saying Jesus was dressed in a scarlet military cloak, that is, the trabea, a short red cloak worn by Roman soldiers. Matthew thus shows his independence of Mark.
It is possible that Matthew and Mark are in fact referring to the same cloak, despite their different characterizations of its color. The Salii, who were the dancing priests of Rome, wore an ancient style of Roman military uniform, dating back to the tribal era. This practice was continued well into the imperial age. Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes the cloaks as robes striped with scarlet and bordered with purple, which they call trabeae
(Dionysius, Antiquities, v.1, Loeb ed., 70:2, p.515), while Plutarch refers to their color simply as purple.
The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the garb as a short, red military cloak.
Why such variation? Clearly, Dionysus gives the most complete description, from which we explain the others. Most of the cloth was scarlet, but there were purple borders in unspecified locations. Now, if a cloak was bordered in gold, we might call it a gold cloak to distinguish it from normal cloaks; it is common practice to name an object according to its peculiar feature. Similarly, in the Roman era, purple was a very expensive dye, so any garment containing it would be identified as a costly special item. It went without saying that a military cloak should be red, since this was always the Roman military color, but the purple was unusual, so Plutarch called it a purple tunic
(i.e., a short knee-length garment). (Life of Numa 13:4) In our day, we see nothing special about purple, so we would describe the cloak according to its predominant color, as Britannica does. If one of the six hundred soldiers happened to have an old style Roman cloak or something similar, this may have been put on Christ as a mockery of his regal claim. Mark notes the purple in the cloak to emphasize its regal significance, while Matthew identifies it by its predominant color.
Strangely, it is only Matthew and not Mark who contributes the physical detail of Christ holding the reed. This detail may have been unknown to Mark, since we are here dealing with oral tradition of events not witnessed by the apostles, or he may have wished to avoid scandalizing his Roman audience with the appearance of cowardly cooperation with one’s persecutors. This is in fact the only place where Christ actively participates in his Passion, rather than passively assent to the cup which has been given Him. He could not have been physically forced to grasp the reed, so this was clearly a voluntary participation in his own mockery. It may signify that while, as man, he passively submitted to these mockeries and sufferings, nonetheless he retained divine sovereignty, by which he actively willed that these things should happen.
There are several noteworthy differences in the accounts of the remainder of the Passion. Matthew only briefly mentions the carrying of the Cross, while Mark adds the names of the sons of Simon the Cyrenian, and the fact that Simon had just come in from the country. Matthew describes the wine as being mixed with gall, which can refer to any bitter or unsalutary component. He uses this inexact term to show the fulfillment of prophecy. Mark precisely identifies the gall
as myrrh, used as a narcotic. He also does not mention Jesus even tasting the wine, to make clear that he did not take the drug. Mark clarifies the purpose of casting lots, and specifies that the Crucifixion took place during the third hour,
between nine o’clock and noon. (Mk. 15:25)
Matthew writes: And they put over his head his cause written: This is Jesus the King of the Jews.
(Mt. 27:37) Mark, with more exactitude, says, the inscription of his cause was written over: The King of the Jews.
(Mk. 15:26) Only the latter part of the inscription gives the cause, namely the crime of claiming to be king.
The passers-by and the chief priests taunt Jesus in turn. In both cases, Matthew includes a reference to Christ as Son of God, not found in Mark. The passers-by challenge him to come down from the Cross if you are the Son of God.
(Mt. 27:40) The chief priests say: He trusted in God: let Him now deliver him if He will have him, for he said, I am the Son of God.
(Mt. 27:43) Again, Matthew likely inserts narration into quotations, for it is unlikely that the priests would acknowledge that Jesus trusted in God. These phrases are borrowed from Hebrew prophecies, which may be considered fulfilled as they accurately convey the implications of the mockery by the chief priests.
The last words heard from the Cross are cited entirely in Aramaic by Mark, but Matthew writes Eli, Eli,
in Hebrew. Since Mark tends to be more literal in his direct quotations, we expect that the Aramaic version is an exact rendering, while Matthew writes Eli
to clarify which word was mistaken for the name Elijah.
Upon the death of Christ, Matthew mentions an earthquake and a resurrection of the saints, neither of which are found in Mark. Matthew is reporting the resurrection of the saints achronologically. The earthquake caused the opening of some tombs, from which the resurrection of the saints later occurred, sometime after the resurrection of Christ. (Mt. 27:53) As we shall see, resurrection narratives were not part of the general oral Gospel tradition, so this is uniquely Matthaean material. Still, the omission of the earthquake by Mark is puzzling. Obviously some remarkable prodigy occurred at Calvary, or else the centurion’s exclamation, recorded by Mark no less than Matthew, would be without adequate explanation.
A possible solution is that Mark does refer to the earthquake by implication, when he mentions the rending of the veil of the temple from top to bottom. (Mk. 15:38) As discussed previously, St. Jerome wrote that the Hebrew Gospel mentioned the breaking of the temple lintel instead of the rending of the veil. Likewise, the Talmud mentions that the Temple doors began to open by themselves c. AD 30. The earthquake may have cracked the lintel, causing the veil to split as the doors swung open. This might even have been visible from the Mount of Olives. Around that same year, the Sanhedrin moved out of its building near the Temple to a more humble structure. It is politically implausible that Herod Antipas would disgrace the Sanhedrin, so they must have relocated voluntarily. This puzzling behavior would be quite rational if their building became unsound due to earthquake damage. It is impossible to verify the occurrence of this earthquake geologically, though there was a seismic event in the same time frame (AD 26 to 36) as the Crucifixion, perhaps the same one that caused ruin in Asia Minor in AD 29. The splitting of the veil is of great relevance to gentiles, as the sanctuary has been opened to all.
St. Mark adds some personal details about the disciples. He relates that the second Mary is the mother of the younger James
(Mk. 15:40), indicating that James the son of Zebedee is older. We also gather from Mark, by comparison with Matthew, that the wife of Zebedee is named Salome. Mark presents Joseph of Arimathea as a noble counsellor
seeking the kingdom of God, who goes boldly
before Pilate. (Mk. 15:43) Mark relates Pilate’s surprise that Jesus had already died, and he alone gives the centurion’ss report.
Matthew says the tomb was Joseph’s, but Mark does not, perhaps because it was no longer. Mark mentions that the linen was purchased, and identifies the other Mary
(Mt. 27:61) as the mother of Joses. (Mk. 15:47)
The Matthaean account of the guard stationed at the tomb is intended to refute an existing Jewish rumor that the body of Christ had been stolen by the disciples. St. Mark omits this, perhaps because for him it would be a needless digression, as it addresses a scandalous rumor unknown in his community.
Mark and Matthew open their resurrection narratives similarly (Mt. 28:1, Mk. 16:1-2), though Mark clarifies that the women approached the tomb in the morning. Only Matthew mentions an earthquake (Mt. 28:2), though apparently here he means not a seismic event, but the supernatural removal of the stone. Matthew alone mentions the guards, having established their presence previously. There are some trivial differences in wording, and in Mark’s gospel, Peter is singled out by name. (Mk. 16:7)
Here the common Gospel tradition ends. After this, there is no common material, not even a word or phrase, among the synoptics. All their stories of the appearances of the risen Christ come from fully independent sources, without overlap. In most cases, they do not even seem to describe the same occurence. For what it is worth, even the longer ending
of Mark has no verbal parallels with Matthew. While both Evangelists agree that Christ’s tomb was found empty by the women and that an angel announced his Resurrection, the synoptic tradition does not relate any of the appearances of the risen Christ, nor even the women’s report of the empty tomb to the disciples (though it is implied by Mk. 16:7 and Mt. 28:7-8).
As Rist observes, Matthew is able to continue his resurrection narrative fluidly and coherently past Mark 16:8 (Mt. 28:8), indicating that he was not dependent on Mark for the story of the empty tomb and subsequent events.[10]
Apart from the short-range differences in sequence discussed above, we may look at the overall sequence of the Gospels to see whether this indicates that Matthew used Mark as a source.
Matthew agrees with Marcan sequence from the preaching of the Baptist to the call of the disciples. (Mt. 3:1-4:22; Mk. 1:2-20) There is nothing remarkable about this, as the sequence of events follows a logical order, which could hardly be otherwise for anyone telling this story.
Matthew then departs from Mark with the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), which has some synoptic sayings, but organized differently, together with uniquely Matthaean material. The few parallels with Mark are weak enough to be incidental, merely the result of common oral tradition.
Chapter 8 of Matthew recounts some healings, but in a completely different order from Mark, with varying degrees of textual similarity. Again, there is no reason to suppose that he is following Mark, rather than drawing on oral tradition independently. We note that Luke, likewise ignores Marcan order for this material, possibly because he draws on the same independent source Q as Matthew.
Matthew 9:1-17 resumes Marcan order, agreeing with Mark 2:1-22, only to completely depart from this order again. If dependent on Mark, his use of this source is chaotic.
In Chapter 10, Matthew describees the commission of the disciples, followed by teachings to them. Among these is the description of persecutions in Mt. 10:17-25, which will be repeated in another form in Matthew 24:9-14, where it is paralleled in Mark. Why should Matthew insert this teaching again here in Chapter 10, where there is no Marcan parallel, unless he is not dependent on Mark for his narrative? Clearly, he is making use of non-Marcan sources here.
Chapter 11 has some material shared with Luke, mainly teachings to John’s disciples and others. There is no parallel with Mark.
Matthew 12:1-16 agrees in sequence with Mark, picking up where he left off (if Mark is his source), namely Mk. 2:23-3:12 (plucking grain, etc.).
A little later, Mt. 12:22-50 agrees with the sequence of Mk. 3:22-35. In the middle of this, Matthew inserts a mention of the sign of Jonah (Mt. 12:38-42), which has no Marcan parallel. Again, it is unintelligible why he should do this if he also has it in its Marcan location. (Mt. 16:1-4, Mk. 8:11-13)
Mt. 13:18-23 parallels Mk. 4:1-20, the parable of the sower and its interpretation. Then Mt. 13:31-35 parallels Mk. 4:30-34.
Matthew seems to ignore Mark 5. He has parallels to the Marcan stories here in Mt. 8:23-9:26, but only with weak verbal similarity.
After some uniquely Matthaean material (Mt. 13:36-52), the pericope of Mark 6:1-6a is paralleled by Mt. 13:53-58 (preaching at Nazareth).
If Matthew used Mark, we might depict his usage of Mark thus:
| Matthew | Mark | Topic |
|---|---|---|
| Mt. 1–2 | Infancy narrative | |
| Mt. 3:1–4:22 | Mk. 1:2-20 | Baptism, temptation, call of disciples |
| Mt. 5–7 | Sermon on the Mount | |
| Mt. 7:28-29 | Mk. 1:21-22 | Teaching at Capernaum |
| Mt. 8:1-4 | Mk. 1:40-45 | Cleansing of leper |
| Mt. 8:14-17 | Mk. 1:29-34 | Healings at Capernaum |
| Mt. 9:1-17 | Mk. 2:1-22 | Healing a paralytic; call of Levi; fasting |
| Mt. 10–11 | Commission of the Apostles; teachings | |
| Mt. 12:1-16 | Mk. 2:23–3:13 | Plucking grain on Sabbath; man with withered hand |
| Mt. 12:22-50 | Mk. 3:22-35 | Collusion with Beelzebul; true kindred |
| Mt. 13:18-23 | Mk. 4:1-20 | Parable of sower; interpretation |
| Mt. 13:31-35 | Mk. 4:30-34 | Use of parables |
| Mt. 13:53-58 | Mk. 6:1-6a | Preaching at Nazareth |
| Mt. 14:1-12 | Mk. 6:14-29 | Opinions about Jesus |
| Mt. 14:13–16:12 | Mk. 6:33–8:21 | Feeding of 5000 … leaven of Pharisees |
| Mt. 16:13–18:5 | Mk. 8:27–9:37 | Peter’s confession … true greatness |
| Mt. 19:1–28:8 | Mk. 10:1-16:8 | Crossing Jordan … Passion & Resurrection |
All other Matthaean-Marcan parallels would be coincidental, due to shared oral tradition. Without such a supposition, we would have a highly chaotic usage of Mark, jumping around and even backward without reason.
Is it credible that Matthew could have independently put these particular blocks of Marcan material in the same order? (We are assuming that the sequence within each block was already set by some common oral or written tradition.)
Obviously the baptism of Jesus would have to come first. The events at Capernaum and the call of Levi were known to be early. Even here we have a slight difference, as Matthew evidently considers the cleansing of the leper to belong with the healings at Caperanum.
The agreement in sequence for plucking grain on the Sabbath, collusion with Beelzebul, and the parable of the sower is more suggestive of direct dependence, as there is less reason to fix this chronologically. We should note, however, that this sequence is interrupted by other material in both Matthew and Mark.
The agreement that the preaching at Nazareth is relatively late also suggests some dependence, for Luke proves that another ordering is possible, though this may have been original to Luke.
The opinions about Jesus logically precede the revelation of himself as Messiah, with the great miracle cycle beginning with the feeding of the 5000. This in turn is followed by his revelation to his disciples, from Peter’s confession through the Transfiguration. Lastly, the events of the final journey to Jerusalem and the passion narrative must be presented in sequence in order to be intelligible. Even here, however, there are slight departures among the synoptics, especially regarding the return to Bethany. Matthew has some non-Marcan material, and Mark has the story of the widow’s mite.
All of the blocks shown above have at least some material with a textual degree of similarity. We cannot deny that Marcan priority would be a convenient, parsimonious explanation of this agreement in sequence. However, it is not the only feasible explanation. We should recall, from a comparison of wording and content, that there were many indications of Matthew’s probable ignorance or disregard of the Marcan version. Nonetheless, the sequence is preserved even when he is not copying from Mark. This is more suggestive of the alternate hypothesis that the common sequence is to be accounted by a common source or sources.
How large would the shared sources have to be in order to account for similarity of sequence? It seems they should cover:
Mk. 1:2-20
Mk. 2:1-4:34
Mk. 6:1-6a.
Mk. 6:14-16:8
The shared sources may have been oral in some cases, especially the earlier sections. Mk. 2:1-4:34 is just 1,641 words, well within the scale of oral recitations, allowing verbal variations. Some portions of this tradition may have been written prior to the canonical Gospels. [See Appendix A.]
The much longer sequence of Mk. 6:14-16:8 may have been subdivided into several independent sources, from which the large-scale sequence could be gleaned merely from the logical or historical order of events. Within this last section, we find several pieces of oral tradition interspersed with written sources. [See Appendix A.]
In particular, we note a common sequence of oral
pericopes is preserved in Mark 7 and Matthew 15. This could be explained by them being recited in the same order by an oral tradition. We have noted that, for much of the shared sequence of Mark 4-13, Matthew actually shows signs that he is not following Mark in content, and sometimes not even in sequence. As Rist notes, citing Antonio Gaboury, agreements in the order of pericopes covering Mark 4-13 is often accompanied by disagreements in order within pericopes.[11] The fact that Matthew retains Mark’s order even when he is not following Mark indicates that a basic order and structure for the Gospel tradition (or at least one of those traditions) had already been established. We do not need there to be a full-length written source, such as canonical Mark or some lost proto-Gospel, to account for the shared sequence of Mark and Matthew.
Could the sequence of events from the feeding of the 5000 onward (Mk. 6:32ff, Mt. 14:13ff) be retained in memory? Fixed sequence is more characteristic of written than oral tradition, yet we find that even some oral
pericopes in this final sequence (Mk. 6:14-9:37, 10:1-16:8; Mt. 14:1-18:5, 19:1-21:9, 21:23-28:8) have the same order. [See Appendix A.] If we subdivide this where there are breaks in Matthaean-Marcan pericope agreement, we have:
Mk. 6:32-8:21; Mt. 14:13-16:12, 1,309 words in Mark [NA 25]
Mk. 8:27-9:37; Mt. 16:13-18:5, 890 words in Mark
Mk. 10:1-11:10; Mt. 19:1-21:9, 1,046 words in Mark
Mk. 11:27-12:40; Mt. 21:23-23:36, 841 words in Mark
Mk. 13:1-16:8; Mt. 24:1-28:8, 2,591 words in Mark
The first four blocks are short enough for oral recitation, so we might account for the sequence agreement by access to a shared oral tradition. Then each Evangelist augmented this with written sources when available, particularly for the feeding of 5000/4000, Peter’s Confession, the Transfiguration, and the journey to Jerusalem.
The final block begins with a written tradition of the synoptic apocalypse sermon, followed by the Passion Narrative (Mk. 14:1ff, Mt. 26:1ff). While this last part is much longer than most oral narratives, we need not appeal to a shared written source for the similarity of sequence. After all, the sequence of events in the Passion Narrative has been learned by many Catholics for generations, even illiterates. It would be difficult to reorder any of these pericopes without breaking the internal logic of the narrative. The Last Supper and arrest of Jesus seems to have been written prior to our Gospels, and the same is true for the account of Jesus on the Cross. The rest, however, seems to have been mediated by oral tradition, and we should not be surprised that this content was given special care and emphasis, so that both Mark and Matthew can give complete accounts.
Evidence of an early fixed sequence of Gospel source material is found also the Matthaean-Lucan double tradition. John Kloppenborg found that this double tradition had over 50% verbatim agreement and over 30% concurrence in the sequence of pericopes. Kloppenborg considers the sequential concurrence to suggest that the common source Q was written, for it would be extraordinarily unlikely that two authors, drawing on a pool of oral sayings, would display so high a degree of sequential agreement, especially if nothing in the saying requires a particular ordering relative to other sayings.
While it is true that there is no intrinsic necessity for such ordering, it does not follow that the ordering must have been imposed in writing. Nonetheless, the verbatim similarities indicate that at least some parts of Q and Marcan
tradition were mediated by texts. Still, as Kloppenberg notes, the use of writing does not end oral tradition, for written texts were the subject of oral performances, which may account for the variations we find among the Gospels.
Matthew has (at most) 75 pericopes in Marcan sequence, and Luke has 87 such pericopes, for an average of 81. From a purely random sequence of 81 objects numbered 1-81, we can usually select about 13-14 that are in correct numerical order, or about 1/6 of the total. So sequential concurrences of 30% or higher are unlikely to be attributable to coincidence. Nonetheless, global statistics can be misleading if they belie uneven degrees of correlation for different parts of the Gospels.
In short, the sequential concurrences of Matthew and Mark are strongly suggestive of a common source that consists at least partly of written materials. Nonetheless, the verbal variations indicate that, in many cases, at least one of the Evangelists did not have the common written source before him, but knew it only through oral recitation. Two-source Marcan priorists generally insist that there was only one common written source to Matthew and Mark, namely the Gospel of Mark, either in its canonical form or in an earlier version. From the otherwise inexplicable dissimilarities discussed, Matthew’ knowledge of much of this Gospel must have been in oral form, but such a supposition is empirically indistinguishable from the thesis that Matthew and Mark both knew the same oral-textual tradition antecedent to both Gospels.
Matthew and Luke fail to agree against Mark in sequence, though they each deviate from Mark’s sequence of pericopes in seven places. Neither Matthew nor Luke give definite evidence of knowledge of an alternative sequence to Marcan material. Thus their sequence should come from Mark or his source. This source could be oral tradition, which often has sequences fixed in blocks of material short enough to account for the triple tradition parallels. The blocks composing the Passion sequence could easily be pieced together independently by the Evangelists, as there would have been only one sensible order for the blocks.
Marcan priority is certainly consistent with the sequential concurrences, and might even be suggested by them, but it is far from the only reasonable hypothesis consistent with these concurrences.
[1] Much of the text of this section is an extensively reworked draft from 2001.
[2] John M. Rist. On the Independence of Matthew and Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1978), p.19.
[3] According to the Mar Saba letter fragment attributed to Clement of Alexandria, St. Mark selected for his Roman gospel only those teachings and acts of Christ that were most useful for instruction of those learning the faith. When he came to Alexandria after St. Peter’s death, he composed a more spiritual gospel
for those who were more advanced. The existence, content and authorship of this later secret gospel
of Mark are hotly disputed. The only evidence of this gospel is in the Mar Saba letter, which is of questionable authenticity, being handwritten in a seventeenth-century book and having disappeared before the ink could be tested. The conjecture that secret Mark
(if it existed) was the original version of Mark is flatly contradicted by the Mar Saba letter.
[4] E.P. Sanders. Priorités et dépendances dans la tradition synoptique,
Rechervhes de Science Religeuse (1972) 60/4: 535-36.
[5]
On purely a priori grounds, we should expect that there was some appeal to prophecy in the common Gospel tradition known to Mark. Otherwise, there would be little reason to place so much emphasis on the mysterious discovery of the colt.
[6]
A literal earthquake cannot be strictly excluded, nor would the omission of such by Mark be mysterious. Large crowds can cause the ground to shake, and this can register as high as 1.0 on the Richter scale for frenzied crowds of 100,000. Given that Jews from the entire Roman Empire came to Jerusalem at Passover, a crowd of such size might have been present.
[7] Rist, op. cit., p.80.
[8] There are no mentions whatsoever of Herod in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Talmud gives mostly ahistorical, didactic tales regarding Herod the Great and his temple. The extant writings of Philo of Alexandria show little concern for the history of the Herods.
[9] Rist, op. cit., p.82.
[10] Ibid., pp.90-91.
[11] Ibid., p.13. See: Gaboury, Antonio. La structure des évangiles synoptiques (Brill, 1970).
[12] Kloppenborg, John S. Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), p.58.
| Home | Top | Prev | Next |
© 2020 Daniel J. Castellano. All rights reserved. http://www.arcaneknowledge.org