THE CHANGES OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE NARRATIVE OF MARK[21]
THE BAPTISM OF JESUS
(Mk i, 9-11; Mt iii, 13-17; Lk iii, 21-22)
Matthew adds to Mark’s account the conversation in which John objects to
baptizing Jesus, and Jesus quiets his scruples (Mt iii, 14-15). This
reflects the later time, when the superiority of Jesus to John had been
historically demonstrated, and when the baptism might have given offense
by seeming to imply a need of forgiveness. The item approaches the point
of view of the similar addition in the Fourth Gospel. Matthew, who has
added this item here, is the only evangelist who says that John’s baptism
was εἰς μετάνοιαν (iii, 11). Matthew’s added conversation
appears, still more elaborated, in the Gospel of the Hebrews. Luke (iii,
21) adds that Jesus was praying during his baptism, which may be an
accommodation to the custom of the early church. Mark says the voice from
the sky was addressed to Jesus; Matthew represents it as addressed to the
crowd, perhaps to give more public honor to Jesus. The Gospel of the
Ebionites adds to Mark’s “in thee I am well pleased,” the quotation from
the Psalms, “this day have I begotten thee”; and certain MSS contain the
same words in the text of Luke, omitting “in thee I am well pleased.”
These variations show the freedom of the early tradition, but its
unanimity in the idea that the baptism was Jesus’ messianic consecration.
Matthew and Luke replace Mark’s σχιζομένους, a word not
elsewhere found, with a word common in such connections.
THE CALLING OF THE FIRST DISCIPLES
(Mk i, 16-20; Mt iv, 18-22; Lk v, 1-11)
Luke postpones this account, and in connection with it gives the story of
the miraculous draft of fishes, unknown to Mark and Matthew. The reason is
not apparent, especially since the transposition involves Luke in some
anachronisms. Matthew follows Mark’s account closely,[22] retaining even
the parenthetical and appended explanation in vs. 16. He omits Mark’s
words, “with the hired men,” perhaps because of his general tendency
toward condensation, perhaps because the departure of James and John from
their father is rendered less critical by Mark’s mention of the hired men.
JESUS IN THE SYNAGOGUE AT CAPERNAUM
(Mk i, 21-28; Mt vii, 28-29; Lk iv, 31-37)
Luke omits “and not as the scribes,” because his readers would not
understand the allusion. He replaces Mark’s awkward phrase ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ
by the good Greek phrase ἔχων πνεῦμα δαιμονίου ἀκαθάρτου.
He omits Mark’s mention of Galilee at the end of
his account, because he has inserted it at the beginning. Matthew’s
omission of the whole story may be controlled by his unwillingness,
elsewhere manifested, to represent the demons as recognizing Jesus as the
Messiah.
THE HEALING OF PETER’S MOTHER-IN-LAW
(Mk i, 29-31; Mt viii, 14-15; Lk iv, 38-39)
Mark calls Peter by the name of Simon, as is uniform with him up to the
time Jesus gives him the name of Peter at his calling of the twelve.
Matthew calls him Peter, by which name he knows him from the beginning.
Luke’s displacement of the call of Peter involves him in the anachronism
of having the healing take place in his house before he becomes a
disciple.
THE HEALINGS IN THE EVENING
(Mk i, 32-34; Mt viii, 16-17; Lk iv, 40-41)
Mark says “In the evening when the sun was set.” Matthew has reduced the
redundancy of this expression by saying merely “When it was evening.” Luke
has caught the point of Mark’s expression, namely, that the Sabbath was
over, and so has reduced the pleonasm by saying only “The sun having set.”
Mark says they brot all the sick to Jesus and he healed many. Matthew
improves this by saying they brot many and he healed all. Luke goes a step
farther and says they brot all, and he healed every one. No explanation is
necessary for these changes except the natural desire to avoid the
implication that there were some whom Jesus did not heal, and to make the
statement of his cures as positive and inclusive as possible. Matthew
mentions only the possessed, Mark puts the sick and the possessed in the
same class, Luke gives a separate paragraph to each. Both Matthew and Luke
avoid Mark’s irregular and unusual form ἤφιεν.
THE RETIREMENT OF JESUS
(Mk i, 35-38; Lk iv, 42-43)
Matthew omits, for reasons already given.[23] Luke avoids Mark’s strange
word, κωμοπόλεις. Where Mark says “Simon and those with him,”
Luke says “the crowd,” because in Luke’s story Simon is not yet a
disciple.
THE CALLING OF PETER
(Lk v, 1-11)
Luke here displays his freedom in working over the story of Mark. He
builds upon Mk i, 19, yet instead of saying that the fishermen were
mending their nets in their boats, he says they had gone out of their
boats and were washing their nets. He has apparently read Mk iv, 1, also,
and builds upon this the statement about Jesus’ going into the boat to get
away from the crowd (which statement he later omits when he comes to it in
Mark’s parable of the Sower). (There is a reminiscence here also of Mk
iii, 9.) After the draft of fishes, when he comes to the words of Jesus to
Peter, he picks up again a fragment of Mark’s account, tho still with an
addition and with a deviation in the wording; Mark says δεῦτε
ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων; Luke says
μὴ φοβοῦ· ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀνθρώπους ἔσῃ ζωγρῶν. Luke’s closing
statement, “They left all and followed him” is substantially, tho not
quite in wording, the same as Mark’s. No example could be more striking,
of Luke’s freedom in his treatment of Mark. He exercises this freedom,
however, in the narratives rather than in the words of Jesus; when he
comes to these latter, even in the midst of a narrative which he has
largely created out of mere fragments of Mark, he follows Mark
comparatively closely. In not many narratives does Luke go to quite such
lengths in his re-working as in this story and the account of the
rejection (initial preaching) at Nazareth. But this is typical of him, as
compared with Matthew’s treatment of the same source.
THE HEALING OF THE LEPER
(Mk i, 40-45; Mt viii, 1-4; Lk v, 12-16)
Matthew and Luke both omit Mark’s ἐμβριμησάμενος, for which they
have in this case double ground; it is an unusual word, and it implies
that Jesus was angry. Luke avoids Mark’s statement that the man directly
disobeyed Jesus’ command not to tell of his cleansing.
THE HEALING OF THE PARALYTIC
(Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26)
Both Matthew and Luke have supplied their own introductions. Both
substitute εἶπεν for Mark’s λέγει (Mk ix, 5) (a
correction which Luke invariably makes). Both use substitutes for Mark’s
κράβαττον. Luke avoids Jesus’ address to the man as τέκνον. In the words of Jesus to his critics and to the paralytic, both
follow Mark with general fidelity, and tho Mark’s vss. 5b-10 appear to
interrupt the story, both follow him in their inclusion of these verses.
Luke’s change of Mark’s vs. 7 is a fine example of his ability to make an
improvement in the sense with the least possible change in the wording.
Mark reads, τί οὗτος οὕτως λαλεῖ; βλασφημεῖ· Luke changes to
τίς ἐστιν ὃς λαλεῖ βλασφημίας; The latter fits much better into
the question, “Who has power to forgive sins except God?” Mark has made
Jesus, in his dispute with his critics, say “Which is easier, to say, ...
or to say, rise, take up thy bed and walk?” Matthew and Luke make him
leave out the clause “take up thy bed,” reserving this for Jesus’ actual
address to the man a little later, whereas Mark uses it in both places.
Luke heightens the effect of his story by saying “He took up that upon
which he had been carried,” instead of “he took up his bed.” This may be a
heightening of the contrast, or perhaps a hint that he did not know
exactly what Mark’s κράβαττον was, tho he has elsewhere replaced
it by κλινίδιον.[24]
THE CALLING OF LEVI (MATTHEW)
(Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32)
Matthew and Luke both correct Mark’s unusual if not ungrammatical use of
ὅτι in the sense of why. Mark says “Why does he eat with
publicans and sinners?” Matthew improves by reading, “Why does your
master eat,” etc. Luke improves still more by directing the question to
the disciples in such manner as to include Jesus, “Why do ye eat,” etc.
THE QUESTION ABOUT FASTING
(Mk ii, 18-22; Mt ix, 14-17; Lk v, 33-39)
Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s verb ἐπιράπτει, a word found
nowhere but in this verse of Mark’s (ix, 21). At the end they avoid Mark’s
clumsy expression, “The wine and the bottles will be destroyed,” and say,
“The wine will be spilled and the bottles destroyed.”[25] They both omit
the last part of Mark’s vs. 19, an obvious pleonasm and possibly a later
insertion. Luke’s addition in his vs. 39 does not fit well, but is
bracketed by Westcott and Hort and is probably an insertion. More
difficult (and so far as I see impossible) to explain is Luke’s suggestion
that the patch to be put on the old garment is cut out of a new one—an
unusual procedure, certainly. He may possibly have been misled into this
statement by his desire to heighten the contrast between old and new.
THE WALK THRU THE CORN
(Mk ii, 23-28; Mt xii, 1-8; Lk vi, 1-5)
Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s expression ὁδὸν ποιεῖν, which
sounds as if Mark meant to say that Jesus made a new path thru the corn.
They add, what Mark forgets to say, that he and his disciples ate the
grain. Luke adds that they rubbed it in their hands. They are led to these
corrections by the fact that the justification of Jesus by the example of
David has to do, not with making a road thru the grain, but with eating on
the Sabbath and, perhaps, eating something which it would not ordinarily
have been proper for him to eat. Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s colorless
and unnecessary “when he had need,” and his historically difficult
reference to Abiathar.[26] All three have the clause, “and to those that
were with him,” but each in a different place. Luke improves the order of
the clauses in Mark’s 26th verse. Matthew adds to the words of Jesus the
reference to the priests profaning the temple and yet being guiltless. The
addition is suggested by David’s eating the shewbread, but does not fit
the case so closely, since Jesus was not defending himself against the
charge of profaning a holy place. Both Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s saying
that “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Sir John
Hawkins suggests that the saying may have been offensive to Jewish ears.
This may account for Matthew’s omission of it; and Luke may have omitted
it because he and his readers had not much interest in discussions about
the Sabbath. But it is perhaps still more likely that the sentence is a
later addition to Mark.
THE MAN WITH THE WITHERED HAND
(Mk iii, 1-6; Mt xii, 9-14; Lk vi, 6-11)
Luke changes Mark’s σάββασιν to σαββάτῳ, perhaps because
he is not acquainted with the Hebrew (Aramaic) usage of the plural of this
word in the sense of the singular. Both Matthew and Luke avoid the direct
statement of Mark in his 5th verse that Jesus was angry.
THE CROWD AND THE HEALINGS
(Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19)
Matthew’s treatment of Mark is influenced by the fact that just before his
Sermon on the Mount he has, in iv, 25, given a somewhat similar statement.
Luke’s transposition has been noticed.[27]
THE CALLING OF THE TWELVE
(Mk iii, 13-19; Mt x, 2-4; Lk vi, 12-16)
Characteristic of Luke is his “He was continuing all night in prayer.”[28]
The addition by Matthew and Luke of the words ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) is held by some to indicate their use of a Marcan
text different from ours. The order of the names is not the same in any
two of the three lists. Both Matthew and Mark avoid an anacoluthon of Mark
in his vs. 16, and omit the appellative “Boanerges,” with its
translation. Matthew and Luke follow Mark in naming Matthew, tho in their
account of his call in Mt ix, 13, and Lk v, 27, Luke follows Mark in
calling him Levi. Luke changes Mark’s “Simon the Canaanite” to “Simon the
Zealot.” Matthew alone gives the name of Lebbaeus, Mark alone says
Thaddeus, Luke alone names Judas the son of James. No simple explanation
suggests itself as covering all these deviations. Matthew or Luke or both
may have been influenced by a similar list of names in Q or some other
non-Marcan source; but that both of them are here following Mark is
rendered practically certain by their addition of the appended
parenthetical statement concerning Judas, with which all three accounts
close.
THE PHARISAIC ACCUSATION AND JESUS’ DEFENSE
(Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23)
The discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the
section in both Mark and Q, and is therefore postponed to a later
time.[29]
THE TRUE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS; THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER; THE PURPOSE OF THE PARABLES
(Mk iii, 31-iv, 12; Mt xii, 46-xiii, 15; Lk viii, 4-10, 19-21)
Luke has done more than Matthew to turn Mark’s narrative into good Greek,
tho Matthew has also improved it. The agreement of Matthew and Luke in the
addition of αὐτὸν in Mt xiii, 4, and Lk viii, 5, where it does
not occur in their exemplar (Mk iv, 4), is sometimes held to indicate a
text of Mark containing this word. The hypothesis of assimilation seems
simpler; or in this case even accidental agreement would not be strange.
The insertion of πάλιν in Mk iv, 1, not in Matthew and Luke, has
been suggested by Weiss to be the work of an editor who saw the confused
character of the geographical references since Mk iii, 7.[30]
THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER
(Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15)
Matthew changes Mark’s Σατανᾶς to ὁ πονηρὸς. The latter
is used by Matthew in this sense five times, and not at all by Mark and
Luke. The change may therefore be regarded as stylistic. Luke’s addition
of “lest they should believe and be saved” sounds like a Christian
addition, and may be explained by the development of the Christian
doctrine. Mark’s loose and unliterary addition of “and the desires for the
rest of the things,” after the “cares of the world and the deceitfulness
of riches,” Luke very naturally corrects into “the cares and wealth and
pleasures of life.” In iv, 19, Mark uses the participle εἰσπορευόμεναι in a somewhat inexact manner: “The cares of the world and
the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for the rest of the things,
coming in, choke the word.” Luke’s change may be accounted for by his
desire to improve the style; which he does without discarding Mark’s
misplaced participle. For he says, “And by the cares ... as they [i.e.,
the people who have heard the word] proceed, they are choked and rendered
unfruitful.” Probably Schmiedel’s statement, in his article in the
Encyclopedia Biblica, that this instance alone would prove literary
relation between Mark and Luke is too strong; especially considering the
fact that Luke’s participle is not precisely the same as Mark’s; but the
deviation is certainly an interesting one. In the earlier part of the
passage Matthew and Luke both omit Mark’s reference to the dulness of the
disciples. The omission is due to their customary deference to the feeling
of a later time.
A GROUP OF DETACHED SAYINGS
(Mk iv, 21-25; Mt v, 15; x, 26; vii, 2; xiii, 12; Lk viii, 16-18; vi, 38)
The divergences in wording, the fact that the verses found together in
Mark are separated in both Matthew and Luke, and the additional fact of
doublets in Matthew or Luke for all but one of Mark’s verses, indicate
beyond a doubt that these verses stood in both Mark and Q.
THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED
(Mk iv, 30-32; Mt xiii, 31-32; Lk xiii, 18-19)
This section also stood in both Mark and Q. Luke is perhaps independent of
Mark here, preferring to follow Q. Matthew seems, as often, to try to
combine the two sources, showing some resemblances to Mark as against
Luke, and others to Luke as against Mark. The passage is narrative only in
Mark, parable only in Luke, and a combination of narrative and parable in
Matthew. The anacoluthon in Mk iv, 31, is avoided by Matthew and Luke.[31]
THE STORM ON THE LAKE
(Mk iv, 35-41; Mt viii, 23-27; Lk viii, 22-25)
Matthew and Luke omit the statement that other boats accompanied the one
in which Jesus sailed. Perhaps, as Hawkins suggests, they wondered how
these weathered the storm. Or, since the point of narrating the story has
to do only with the boat in which Jesus sailed, they may simply have seen
no advantage in relating the circumstance of the other boats. Matthew
substitutes the comparatively common word, tho I believe not common in
exactly this connection, σεισμὸς, for Mark’s rare word λαῖλαψ. Matthew and Luke omit the statement that Jesus was “asleep on
the cushion”; it has been suggested that they may have considered the use
of the cushion as an effeminacy unworthy of Jesus; or more probably they
have omitted it as of no consequence. They both omit the direct address of
Jesus to the sea, as they often omit his words of address to the demons.
They do not wish to represent the disciples as distrustful; so while Mark
says “Master, dost thou not care that we perish?” Matthew says “Save,
Lord; we perish,” and Luke simply “Master, we perish.”
THE GADARENE DEMONIAC
(Mk v, 1-20; Mt viii, 28-34; Lk viii, 26-39)
The name of the locality is different in each account. Some texts,
however, make Matthew agree with Mark; others make him agree with Luke;
while still other texts do the same for Luke with reference to Mark and
Matthew. The exact location, or the proper name for it, may have been in
dispute. Matthew shortens Mark’s narrative, as almost invariably. Luke
shows himself to be no mere copyist; in view of Mark’s statement that
after the demoniac’s cure they found him “clothed,” he supplies in his
original description of the demoniac the statement which Mark does not
have, that the man wore no clothes. Matthew and Luke again omit Jesus’
command to the demon to come out of the man. Luke includes Jesus’
question, “What is thy name?” But to make it plain that this question is
addressed to the man and not to the demon, he changes Mark’s statement,
“for we are many,” into his own editorial explanation, “for many demons
had entered into him.” Matthew and Luke are involved in a slight
difficulty by their abbreviation of Mark. For while Mark makes those who
have seen the cure of the demoniac tell their neighbors about him “and
about the swine,” Matthew and Luke omit this latter item. It therefore
appears from Matthew and Luke that the Gadarenes requested Jesus to depart
from their coasts lest their demoniacs should be cured; in Mark they asked
him to depart because they did not wish their property destroyed. Luke’s
change of Mark’s ὁ κύριος (Mk’s vs. 19) into ὁ θεός,
is not easily explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his
ὁ κύριος. As the latter word, however, is ambiguous, and as Mark
seems to use it more often than the other evangelists with reference to
God, Luke may have so understood his narrative here. But as the man went
and told, not what God, but what Jesus, had done for him, Luke can hardly
have so misunderstood Mark; and Luke’s change may be due to his feeling
that Jesus did not call himself κύριος. This indeed seems to be
the only place where Mark puts this self-designation into the mouth of
Jesus. Matthew and Luke seem consistently to avoid it.
THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS AND THE WOMAN WITH THE ISSUE OF BLOOD
(Mk v, 21-43; Mt ix, 18-26; Lk viii, 40-56)
This curious insertion of one miracle within another might be held to be
enough in itself to prove the literary dependence of the three synoptists.
Luke’s change of Mark’s vs. 23 is explained by the anacoluthon in Mark.
Matthew and Luke naturally avoid Mark’s θυγάτριον. Their
substitution of the “tassel of his garment” for “his garment” is unusual,
since it seems to indicate their closer definition of the kind of cloak
worn by Jesus. The change may serve to heighten the appearance of
reverence in the woman. Luke substitutes παραχρῆμα for Mark’s
εὐθὺς; the latter is Mark’s uniform word for “immediately,” used
by him forty-one times against Matthew’s eighteen and Luke’s seven; the
former is Luke’s favorite word, being used ten times by him, twice by
Matthew, and never by Mark. Matthew and Luke omit the question of the
disciples to Jesus, “Sayest thou, Who touched me?” as possibly implying
lack of respect upon their part. They also omit Mark’s parenthetical
statement that John was the brother of James; this had been mentioned
often enough already. Luke’s abbreviation of Mark involves him in the
difficulty of saying that Jesus allowed nobody to go into the house with
him, except the three disciples and the parents of the child, whereas Mark
expressly says that he allowed only those to go with him into the death
chamber. Matthew, not mentioning the death chamber, has a reminiscence of
it in his participle εἰσελθὼν, coming as it does after the
ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν οἰκίαν of his previous verse. In this story also
Luke has read Mark thru carefully; and finding that Mark inserts “she was
twelve years old” after the statement that she arose and walked, prefers
to put this into the more appropriate place as part of the introductory
narrative; he is thus enabled at the same time to make the connection in
the latter part of the story much better by saying that as soon as the
girl sat up Jesus commanded her parents to give her something to eat; a
command which in Mark follows only after several other items. Luke thus
makes the giving of food to the girl a part of the means used for her
recovery.
THE INITIAL PREACHING IN NAZARETH
(Mk vi, 1-6; Mt xiii, 53-58; Lk iv, 16-30)
Luke’s working over of the account in Mk vi, 1-6, has already been
considered.[32] He has preferred to put it at the beginning of Jesus’
ministry, as a sort of introductory résumé of the reception which Jesus
received at the hands of the Jews, and his consequent turning to the
gentiles. The anachronism involved is seen in the fact that Jesus says,
“Ye will say to me, ... what we have heard done in Capernaum do also here
in thine own town”; whereas, in Luke’s own account the wonders in
Capernaum have not yet occurred. The words, “No prophet is accepted in his
own country,” do not fit so well here as where Mark has them (vi, 4)
following upon the question, “Is not this the carpenter, ... and are not
his sisters here with us?” and where Mark adds to the word “country” the
words “and among his own kinsmen and in his own house.” Luke does not add
that Jesus was not able to do many wonders there, partly because he is
speaking of his preaching only, but still more because he always avoids
such statements about the inability or limitation of Jesus.
THE SENDING OUT OF THE DISCIPLES
(Mk vi, 6-13; Mt ix, 35; x, 1, 9-11; Lk ix, 1-6)
Luke has a second sending out of disciples in his 10th chapter.
Considering his usual avoidance of duplicates, it seems probable that he
took one of these accounts from Mark and one from Q, and that the account
therefore stood in both Q and Mark. The account in Luke’s chap. 10 is
closely akin to one part of Matthew’s parallel section, and his account in
his 9th chapter is more closely akin to other verses of Matthew’s account.
These latter verses of Matthew agree more closely with Mark’s account
than do his other verses. It seems clear therefore that Matthew has
combined the account of the sending out of the disciples which he found in
Q with that which he found in Mark. This combination of material from his
two sources is characteristic of him, as the careful separation of it is
characteristic of Luke.[33]
Comparing here the passages of Matthew and Luke which were apparently
taken from Mark, Luke and Matthew correct the anacoluthon of Mark’s vss. 8
and 9. Matthew and Mark mention the healing but once; Luke three times.
Mark says the disciples are to take nothing, except a staff; Luke and
Matthew say they are to take nothing, not even a staff. Mark seems to
contemplate a mission chiefly to houses, not so much to cities, tho his
word τόπος may indicate the latter. The substitution by Matthew
and Luke of κονιορτός for Mark’s χοῦν, as well as other
minor and verbal deviations, may easily be accounted for by their
acquaintance with the account in Q. Harnack suggests that Mark’s
permission of the staff, which is denied in Matthew and Luke, may indicate
a relaxation of the rule, arising in actual practice. If so, Matthew and
Luke, because they here follow Q, may represent a more original form of
the saying.[34]
THE JUDGMENT OF HEROD CONCERNING JESUS
(Mk vi, 14-16; Mt xiv, 1-2; Lk ix, 7-9)
Matthew and Luke correct Mark’s “Herod the king” into “Herod the
tetrarch,” tho Matthew a few verses later falls back into the error which
he has corrected. Mark says that Herod himself surmised that Jesus was
John the Baptist risen from the dead (tho some texts read ἔλεγον
for ἔλεγεν in vs. 14). Matthew follows Mark in this by saying
distinctly that Herod “said to those about him, it is John,” etc. Luke
says Herod had heard of the things Jesus did, “and was perplexed because
it was said that John was risen.” Luke may here have been following one
text of Mark and Matthew another text. The fact that with ἔλεγεν
in Mark’s vs. 14, his vs. 16 is a mere repetition of this verse (Matthew
omits the parallel to Mark’s vs. 16), may indicate either that ἔλεγον is the original reading of vs. 14, or that Luke, finding ἔλεγεν there, corrected it into his own statement which upon the face of
it is much better. Luke does not represent Herod as personally making any
such statement about John, but says merely that when Herod heard of the
deeds of Jesus and of the explanation that was popularly given for them,
he desired to see Jesus.
THE DEATH OF THE BAPTIST
(Mk vi, 17-29; Mt xiv, 3-12)
Luke has omitted this because he has long ago finished with the Baptist
(in iii, 19-20). The passage seems to be parenthetical in Mark, to explain
Herod’s statement that he has killed John the Baptist. Mark says Herod did
not wish to kill John, because he regarded him as a just and holy man.
Matthew says Herod wished to kill John, but feared the people, because
they considered John a prophet. Matthew’s difference here may be due to
a different tradition which he considered superior to Mark’s, or it may be
due simply to the abbreviation he has made in Mark’s narrative. Mark’s
account contains the somewhat improbable feature of the daughter of
Herodias dancing before the drunken tetrarch and his companions; which
Matthew omits. The Latin word σπεκουλάτωρ in Mark (vi, 27) is
dropped in Matthew.
THE RETURN OF THE DISCIPLES AND THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE THOUSAND
(Mk vi, 30-44; Mt xiv, 13-21; Lk ix, 10-17)
Matthew assigns as the reason for Jesus’ departure in the boat the news of
what had happened to John the Baptist. Mark, treating this latter as
purely parenthetical, says Jesus and his disciples went away to escape the
crowds. Luke, not having related the death of the Baptist, assigns still a
different reason for Jesus’ withdrawal, saying that “the apostles” had
returned, and Jesus went aside with them, apparently to hear their report.
Luke says they retired to Bethsaida, where it seems out of place that the
feeding of the five thousand should occur; this latter event being more
appropriately located by Mark and Matthew in a “desert place.” Mark and
Matthew both say the crowds went on foot; Mark says they preceded Jesus,
Matthew and Luke, that they followed him when they knew of his departure.
The deviations are easily accounted for by the desire of Matthew and Luke
to improve the story of Mark. Luke’s mention of Bethsaida is accounted for
by his desire to supply exact details wherever possible; perhaps also by
the fact that the second feeding, which he omits, was related to have
occurred in that place. Luke is apparently unaffected, in his placing of
the five thousand in Bethsaida, by the fact that he represents Jesus as
saying, “We are here in a desert place.” He may also have been misled in
his location of the miracle by the mention, in Mark vi, 45 (which Luke
omits), of the departure of Jesus and his disciples for Bethsaida. Luke
transposes Mark’s statement of the numbers fed, to an earlier and
presumably better position. Matthew adds, as in the feeding of the four
thousand, that the numbers given were exclusive of women and children;
apparently from his desire, or the desire of the tradition lying back of
him, to heighten the impressiveness of the miracle. Mark’s Hebraism,
συμπόσια συμπόσια, is omitted by both Matthew and Luke.
THE WALKING ON THE SEA
(Mk vi, 45-52; Mt xiv, 22-33)
Mark’s narrative seems to imply (vs. 46) that Jesus “meant to walk past
them.” Matthew implies, on the contrary, that Jesus was coming to their
help. Matthew “spiritualizes” the account by adding the experiment of
Peter: “Peter can do it so long as he has faith.”[35] It has been observed
that in this narrative, as in others which Matthew takes from Mark but
which Luke omits, the verbal agreement is considerably closer than in the
sections which Matthew and Luke both copy. Schmiedel has suggested that
this points to a common document occasionally employed by Matthew and Mark
but not by Luke. The hypothesis of a later assimilation of Matthew and
Luke seems simpler. At all events, the very close agreement of Matthew and
Mark in this narrative, up to the point where Matthew inserts the
experiment of Peter, may possibly indicate that this latter is later than
the body of Matthew’s Gospel. Whether so or not, its presence is easily
accounted for by Matthew’s ecclesiastical point of view, the primacy of
Peter being asserted by him in one other notable passage which occurs in
Matthew alone. Probably Matthew has drawn these special passages about
Peter from a source of his own, and, according to his custom, has here
combined one of them with a narrative of Mark’s.
THE RETURN TO GENNESARET
(Mk vi, 53-56; Mt xiv, 34-36)
This section is omitted by Luke. There are no sayings in it. Matthew’s
customary abbreviation is shown in his 44 words against Mark’s 72; but
there is much close verbal correspondence in spite of this.
ABOUT THE THINGS THAT DEFILE
(Mk vii, 1-23; Mt xv, 1-20)
Mark has an editorial comment about the scrupulosity of the Jews. It may
be a later addition in his narrative, at least this may be the case with
the words καὶ πάντες οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, which make it apply to the
whole people and not simply to the Pharisees; or it may have seemed to
Matthew to be somewhat exaggerated and have been omitted by him on that
account. Its omission improves the connection in Matthew’s narrative, and
might be sufficiently accounted for by Matthew’s tendency to omit
superfluous or negligible portions of Mark’s stories. In his vs. 11
(Matthew has transposed several verses) Mark has the Aramaic word κορβᾶν, omitted by Matthew. In Mark’s vs. 19 occurs the phrase καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα. The construction is loose, the nearest verb
with which the participle can be connected being the λέγει of the
first part of the preceding verse. This alone might have induced Matthew
to omit it; still more, the implication, that Jesus had in this saying
abolished the distinction between clean and unclean. Nor is it surprising
that Matthew should omit, among Mark’s list of the things that come out of
a man’s heart and “defile him,” his mention of the “evil eye.”
THE CANAANITISH WOMAN
(Mk vii, 24-30; Mt xv, 21-28)
Matthew omits Mark’s statement that Jesus was not able to be hid. It may
have seemed to him an unworthy limitation of the power of Jesus. Mark also
recounts a clever answer of the woman, “The dogs under the table eat of
the children’s crumbs”; and Jesus, for the cleverness of her reply, as he
says, grants her wish. It is not strange that Matthew replaces this by
Jesus’ words, “Great is thy faith.”
THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR THOUSAND
(Mk viii, 1-10; Mt xv, 32-39)
Matthew follows Mark closely. He seems in vss. 37 and 38 to be quoting
from his own account of the previous feeding. This item brings out a
tendency of Matthew to repeat in one place phrases which he has used in
another.
THE DEMAND FOR A SIGN
(Mk viii, 11-13; Mt xii, 38-39; Mt xvi, 1-4; Lk xi, 29; xii, 54-56)
Doublets in both Matthew and Luke indicate the presence of this section in
both Mark and Q.[36]
THE SAYING ABOUT YEAST
(Mk viii, 14-21; Mt xvi, 5-12)
Matthew omits the rebuke to the disciples in Mark (viii, 17, 18). He
apparently manufactures a saying of Jesus in his vs. 11, in order to
introduce therewith his own editorial statement of vs. 12.
THE CONFESSION OF PETER AND THE FIRST PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS
(Mk viii, 27-33; Mt xvi, 13-23; Lk ix, 18-22)
Matthew spoils the question of Jesus by obtruding his own estimate of him
in the words “The son of man” in vs. 13. Upon Peter’s answer, he adds
Jesus’ words of commendation, and makes Jesus reciprocate by telling Peter
who he (Peter) is, and that the church shall be founded upon him. The
addition may be later than Matthew. If not, it betrays the ecclesiastical
interest, and especially the interest in the primacy of Peter, which comes
out elsewhere in Matthew. Matthew and Luke correct Mark’s statement,
“after three days he shall rise again,” to “on the third day,” so making
the prediction agree more accurately with the facts, and giving a Greek
method of reckoning instead of the Hebrew. It is not surprising that Luke
omits the rebuke to Peter; Matthew’s inclusion of it seems strange. Both
omit Mark’s statement that “Jesus spoke the word openly,” because, as
Hawkins suggests,[37] if this meant that he spoke to the crowd, it is
contradicted by Mark’s vs. 34; if it meant that he told them clearly about
the resurrection, it would seem strange that the disciples did not
understand.
THE DEMANDS OF DISCIPLESHIP
(Mk viii, 34-ix, 1; Mt xvi, 24-28; Lk ix, 23-27)
Mark’s redundant expression ὀπίσω ἀκολουθεῖν is corrected by
each of the others, in a different way. The phrase καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in Mark’s vs. 35 sounds like a later addition; it would hardly
have been omitted by Matthew and Luke if it had stood in their source.
Matthew makes Jesus say that “the son of man is about to come”; Mark and
Luke say “when the son of man comes”; Matthew betrays his own attitude, or
the attitude of his time, to the long-expected parousia. Mark’s extremely
awkward order of words, τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων,[38] each of
the other evangelists corrects in his own way.
THE TRANSFIGURATION
(Mk ix, 2-8; Mt xvii, 1-8; Lk ix, 28-36)
Mark says “he was changed in form” (μεταμορφώθη), which Luke
improves to “the appearance of his countenance was different” (τὸ εἶδος τοῦ προσώπου αὐτοῦ ἕτερον). Both Matthew and Luke change Mark’s
“Elias and Moses” to the chronological order. Luke adds that these spoke
of the approaching entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and adduces, as an
excuse for the disciples’ not understanding, or for Peter’s apparently
foolish remark, that they were heavy with sleep. Matthew and Luke change
Mark’s Aramaic ῥαββεί into Greek words, Luke using the ἐπιστάτα which is peculiar to him.
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIJAH
(Mk ix, 9-13; Mt xvii, 9-13)
Mark says Elias has come (in the person of John the Baptist), and they
have done whatever they would with him, “as it was written of him.”
Matthew understands, rightly, that this last is a reference to the Old
Testament, and not knowing where or what had there been written of the
Baptist, omits it. Perhaps the statement is a later addition to Mark.
THE HEALING OF THE EPILEPTIC BOY
(Mk ix, 14-29; Mt xvii, 14-21; Lk ix, 37-43a)
Mark says that when the crowd saw Jesus they were amazed. This might seem
to be a parallel to the amazement of the Israelites on seeing Moses’
countenance when he came down from the mount. But Matthew and Luke have
omitted it. They also omit Jesus’ direct address to the demon,[39] and
Jesus’ statement, “This kind cometh not out except with prayer.” This may
reflect the custom in ecclesiastical exorcisms, and may have been added by
a later hand, or omitted by Matthew and Luke because as matter of fact
Jesus had not prayed and therefore the saying did not fit the case.
THE SECOND PREDICTION OF SUFFERINGS
(Mk ix, 30-32; Mt xvii, 22-23; Lk ix, 43b-45)
In the second prediction of sufferings Matthew and Luke both avoid Mark’s
οὐκ ἤθελεν ἵνα τις γνοῖ (Mk ix, 30). It seems to be a part of
Mark’s Geheimnis-Theorie; but since Matthew and Luke both include some
of Mark’s other references to this theory, this fact is not a sufficient
explanation of its omission, which may perhaps be attributed to the
growing reverence for Jesus. Luke’s vs. 44a, θέσθε ὑμεῖς εἰς τὰ ὦτα ὑμῶν τοὺς λόγους τούτους, is without parallel in Mark (or
Matthew). Luke has also omitted a part of Mark’s prediction, “and they
shall kill him,” which he would hardly have done if he were here following
Mark, or if the clause had stood in his copy of Mark. These facts may be
taken to indicate that Luke is here following another source. The words
quoted from vs. 44a would be very unlikely to be added by Luke
himself.[40] Matthew seems to follow Mark, making his customary
abbreviation and changing Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day.”
In another instance already noticed both Matthew and Luke make the same
change in Mark’s statement. Luke may here be following Q. But the absence
of any agreements between him and Matthew as against Mark would rather
indicate his use of a peculiar source. There are no doublets to
substantiate the supposition of the use of Q.
THE STRIFE ABOUT RANK
(Mk ix, 33-37; Mt xviii, 1-5; Lk ix, 46-48)
The section on the strife about rank probably stood in both Mark and Q,
but the resemblances are too general for one to draw definite conclusions
as to the exact source relationship.
MINOR PASSAGES
It will be sufficient if we look with less detail thru a few more passages
of the triple tradition, to note the changes made by Matthew and Luke in
the text of Mark.
In the case of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41; Lk ix, 49-50) Luke says
“he followed not with us” instead of “he followed not us”; the assumption
of authority upon the part of John is thereby lessened.
In the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48; Mt xviii, 6-9; Lk xvii, 1-2)
Matthew has combined Mark’s saying about the hand and his separate saying
about the foot, into one. The saying stood in Mark and Q. In the
discussion about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 11-12; Mt v, 31-32; Lk xvi,
18; xix, 9) Matthew has rearranged the order of Mark, and has added
“except for adultery,” as he has done in another place; he has omitted
Mark’s reference to the woman divorcing her husband, as this would mean
nothing to his Palestinian readers.
In the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii,
15-17) Matthew and Luke omit Mark’s statement that Jesus was angry.
In the saying concerning the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30;
Lk xviii, 18-30) Mark makes Jesus say, “Why callest thou me good?” Matthew
changes this to “Why askest thou me concerning that which is good?” tho
his following words, “There is One who is good,” betray the fact that he
had Mark’s reading before him. Matthew shows his Jewish affinities by
making Jesus say that the questioner may “enter into life,” by keeping the
commandments. Both Matthew and Luke omit one commandment which Mark
quotes, because it is not found in the Decalogue. Matthew changes Mark’s
order of the commandments to agree with the Old Testament. Matthew, having
called the questioner a youth, omits from his reply to Jesus the words,
“from my youth up.” Both omit Mark’s vs. 24, which is practically a
duplicate of the previous verse. Luke, having included the idea of
“sisters” in his word for family, omits sisters, but, with his
characteristic interest in women, adds “wife.”
In the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk
xviii, 31-34) the agreement between Mark and Matthew is very close
throughout. The only agreement of Matthew and Luke against Mark is in
their substitution of εἶπεν for λέγει. Both Matthew and
Luke change Mark’s “after three days” to “on the third day.” Three words
in Mark’s vs. 34 are reproduced in Luke alone; ἀναστήσεται, ἀποκτενοῦσιν, ἐμπτύσουσιν. Matthew has added καὶ σταυρῶσαι.
In the request for seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28) Mark
makes James and John ask Jesus directly; Luke omits the incident; Matthew
puts the burden of the ambitious request upon the mother instead of upon
the sons; tho he betrays the fact that he is remaking Mark, by making
Jesus direct his reply to the men.
In the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk xviii, 35-43)
Mark says “the son of Timaeus,” perhaps in explanation of the Aramaic
name. Matthew specifies two men instead of one, giving no names; it has
been suggested that he may have been misled by Mark’s “Bartimaeus” and
“the son of Timaeus,” tho the Jewish affinity of Matthew’s Gospel makes
this unlikely. Since “the son of Timaeus” did not serve to identify the
man to their readers, Matthew and Luke omit the phrase. Mark’s graphic
statement that the man threw off his cloak and ran to Jesus was unsuited
to the dignity of the Later Gospels. Matthew and Luke again substitute the
Greek κύριε for Mark’s ῥαββουνί. They omit his ὕπαγε, which seems out of place.[41]
In the preparation for the entry into Jerusalem (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi,
1-11; Lk xix, 28-38) Mark represents Jesus as telling the disciples who go
after the colt, to explain that Jesus has need of him and that he will
return him soon. Luke omits the latter item; Matthew changes it to mean
that when the disciples have explained to the owner that Jesus needs the
animal, the owner will quickly send it to Jesus. The growing reverence for
Jesus easily explains the change and the omission. Matthew undoubtedly
represents Jesus as riding into Jerusalem upon two beasts, the ass and her
foal; the strange phenomenon is explained by his attempt to harmonize the
event with an Old Testament prophecy. The prophecy, however, for that
matter, had only one beast in mind. Mark says Bethany (in some texts
Bethany and Bethphage), Matthew Bethphage, and Luke Bethany and Bethphage;
the two names in Luke, and in certain texts of Mark, are probably to be
explained as the harmonizing effort of some copyist.
In the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19), the
statement of Mark, “For it was not the time for figs,” may have been
omitted by Matthew because seeming to imply an unreasonable expectation on
the part of Jesus. Or it may be a later addition to Mark. Matthew says
that the disciples noticed “immediately” that the tree had withered,
whereas Mark says they observed this the next day. Matthew’s change may
have been in the interest of heightening the miracle. Upon his observation
here he has hung his statement about the wonder of the disciples in his
vs. 20. Luke omits this miracle; probably because he considers the parable
of the Fig Tree which he gives in xxi, 29-31 (taking it from Mk xiii,
28-29 = Mt xxiv, 32-33) a variant of, or an improvement upon, the same
story.
The speech about the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-25; Mt xxi, 20-22) Luke
omits because he has omitted the miracle upon which it depends. The saying
about faith apparently stood in both Mark and Q, since Matthew has a
doublet upon it. This may have been an additional reason for Luke’s
omission of it here, since he has incorporated it in his xvii, 6.[42]
In the question about authority (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8)
the intervention of the fig tree story in Mark (and Matthew) obscures the
point of the question about Jesus’ authority, which was directed toward
his action in cleansing the temple. There is very close agreement among
the three in the question of Jesus to his questioners (Mk xi, 30; Mt xxi,
25; Lk xx, 4), tho both Matthew and Luke avoid Mark’s anacoluthon at the
beginning of the following verse.
In the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx,
9-19) Mark says, “They took him and killed him and cast him out”; Matthew
and Luke say, “They cast him outside the vineyard and killed him,”
presumably influenced in this correction by the fact of Jesus’ crucifixion
outside the city.[43] Matthew puts into the mouth of the questioners one
saying which Mark ascribes to Jesus; the questioners are thus convicted by
their own testimony.
In the question of the Sadducees about the resurrection (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt
xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40) Mark says, quite correctly, “The Sadducees, who
(as is well known) say there is no resurrection”;[44] Matthew not so
happily represents them as making this statement to Jesus; Luke corrects
still further, being apparently unacquainted with the tenets of the
Sadducees as a class, and so says, “Certain of the Sadducees came, denying
that there is any resurrection.” It is one of the instances, perhaps
comparatively few, where Mark would better have been left as he was. To
make the contrast between this world and the next stronger Luke adds in
his vs. 34, “the sons of this world marry and are given in marriage.” He
also attempts to explain the apparently incomplete statement, “God is not
of the dead but of the living,” by adding “for all live to him.”[45]
In the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii,
34-40; Lk x, 25-28), Matthew’s addition, “Upon these two commandments hang
all the law, and the prophets,” is perhaps an old Christian formula, which
seems to fit remarkably well in this place.
In the question about David’s son (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx,
41-44), Luke corrects Mark’s statement, “David said in the Holy Spirit,”
with “David says in the book of Psalms”; Mark is nearer to Jesus, Luke
writes for the convenience of his readers who might wish to look up the
reference.
In the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-7; Lk xx,
45-47), Mark’s “Beware of the Pharisees, who love to walk about in robes,
and greetings in the market” is not positively ungrammatical, since the
infinitive and the noun may both be the object of the verb. But it is a
loose construction; Luke corrects it by the insertion of a second verb
governing the noun.
In the predictions of distress (Mk xiii, 9-13; Mt xxiv, 9-14; Lk xxi,
12-19), Mark’s προμεριμνᾶτε, a word not found elsewhere in the
New Testament or Septuagint, is avoided by Matthew and Luke. Matthew’s
passage (xxiv, 10-12) about the false prophets who shall deceive many, and
the love of many growing cold, whether attributed to the evangelist, or to
the tradition lying just behind him, reflects the conditions of his times.
In the saying about the distress in Judaea (Mk xiii, 14-20; Mt xxiv,
15-22; Lk xxi, 20-24), Mark’s construction of a neuter noun with a
masculine participle, a construction according to the sense (βδέλυγμα ... ἑστηκότα), his unusual construction of εἰς τὸν ἀγρὸν meaning “in the field,” and his equally strange combination of
words ἔσονται γὰρ αἱ ἡμέραι εκεῖναι θλίψις, οἵα οὐ γέγονεν
τοιαύτη, are all replaced by Matthew and Luke. Luke omits ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, because it is not applicable to his readers. He adds
“until the times of the nations are fulfilled,” apparently upon Paul’s
hypothesis that the end could not come till the gospel had first been
preached to all the nations (Rom xi, 11, 15, 31). This is Luke’s
substitute for the explanation which Matthew has copied from Mark, that
the Lord has shortened the days for the sake of the Christians. In the
speech about the parousia (Mk xiii, 24-27; Mt xxiv, 29-31; Lk xxi, 25-28),
Matthew has added εὐθέως. This is Mark’s favorite adverb, and
its addition by Matthew where it is lacking in Mark is hard to understand.
Perhaps, as Bacon says, Matthew the Palestinian wishes to encourage the
hope of the speedy coming of Jesus, while Mark the Roman wishes to
discourage it; but the reasons for this are not perfectly clear. Schmiedel
considers the omission of the εὐθέως in Mark as a sign of his
secondary character at this point.
In the passage about the time of the parousia (Mk xiii, 30-32; Mt xxiv,
34-36; Lk xxi, 32-33), Luke omits Mark’s statement that “the son” does not
know the time; because he always avoids any implication of a limitation in
the knowledge of Jesus.[46] In the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv,
12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14), Luke omits the “my” in the question
which Jesus tells the disciples to ask, “Where is my chamber where I
shall,” etc.; perhaps, as Hawkins[47] suggests, because it may have seemed
to him a somewhat harshly expressed claim.
In the institution of the Last Supper (Mk xiv, 22-25; Mt xxvi, 26-29; Lk
xxii, 15-20), Luke adds (xxii, 19-20) words which seem to be taken from
Paul’s account in I Cor xi, 25. Westcott and Hort regard them as
interpolated from that epistle. Matthew adds, in his vs. 28, as he has
added in his account of the purpose of John’s baptism, “for the remission
of sins.”
In the account of Jesus in Gethsemane (Mk xiv, 32-42; Mt xxvi, 36-46; Lk
xxii, 39-46), Luke’s vss. 43-44 are lacking in many manuscripts, and are
probably a later addition. Luke and Matthew, probably from the growth of
the tradition, and from the wish not to omit anything from this solemn
scene, represent Jesus as addressing Judas, but do not agree in the words
ascribed to him.
In the account of the arrest (Mk xiv, 43-54; Mt xxvi, 47-58; Lk xxii,
47-55) Mark has the words “but that the scriptures might be fulfilled,”
without attaching the “that” to anything. Matthew fills out his incomplete
sentence by writing, “All this happened that the scriptures,” etc. Luke
omits the flight of the disciples, because the appearances of the risen
Jesus which he recounts take place in Jerusalem. Both Matthew and Luke
omit the reference to the young man in the linen garment, either because
they did not understand it, or knew it would have no meaning for their
readers, or both. Mark says the crowd who came to arrest Jesus came
“from the chief priests”; Luke has apparently overlooked the
preposition, and so represents the chief priests themselves as taking part
in the arrest.
To Mark’s mocking “Prophesy!” addressed to the blindfolded Jesus by the
soldiers, Luke and Matthew add the words, clearly explanatory, “Who is he
that struck thee?”
In the denial of Peter (Mk xiv, 66-72; Mt xxvi, 69-75; Lk xxii, 56-62),
Matthew and Luke omit two obscure and strange words of Mark, προαύλιον in vs. 68 and ἐπιβαλὼν in vs. 72. In the treatment of
Jesus by Pilate, Luke adds the charge that Jesus had stirred up the people
not to pay tribute to Caesar; it is probably a reflection of the
anarchistic charges made against Christians in Luke’s time. Matthew’s
addition of Pilate’s hand-washing is probably due to his desire, or the
desire of the tradition back of him, to relieve the Roman authorities of
responsibility for the death of Jesus.
In the story of the journey to the crucifixion (Mk xv, 21; Mt xxvii, 32;
Lk xxiii, 26-32), the omission of the names of Rufus and Alexander is
probably due (as already said) to the fact that these men were unknown to
Matthew and Luke and their readers, and added no weight to the testimony
of Simon their father. Luke’s extremely vivid touch of Jesus’ address to
the “Daughters of Jerusalem” can be explained only as a part of his
special material for this portion of the life of Jesus.
In the story of the crucifixion (Mk xv, 22-32; Mt xxvii, 33-44; Lk xxiii,
33-43), Luke’s words, “Father forgive them, for they know not what they
do,” are omitted in many manuscripts, are bracketed by Westcott and Hort,
and are probably a later addition. Matthew corrects Mark, who says a man
came with a sponge, saying, “Let him be,” etc.; Matthew makes the crowd
address the “Let him be” to the man with the sponge.
Luke apparently differs much more than Matthew, from Mark, in his story of
the crucifixion, and the events that led up to and followed it. This can
be explained by his possession of special sources for these last days of
Jesus, and his desire to use material from these sources with his Marcan
matter. Transpositions are especially frequent.
In his xxii, 18, e.g., Luke makes a transposition of Mk xiv, 25. This may
be taken as typical of his procedure throughout these sections. Mark gives
the reference to the approaching betrayal before the institution of the
Supper; Luke, after that institution. Mark places the prediction of the
denial of Peter after Peter has left the room; Luke, before his leaving.
Similar transpositions are made in the story of the rending of the veil.
In all, Luke makes some twelve or thirteen such transpositions in Mark’s
passion narrative. Matthew follows Mark closely, both in matter and in
wording.
Comparing Luke’s use of Mark in the other parts of his Gospel with his use
of him in these last sections, Hawkins[48] finds that “the verbal
correspondence with the Marcan source is about twice as great in the Lucan
account of the ministry as in the Lucan account of the passion.” The
amount of actually new material in Luke’s passion section is about three
times as great as the amount of new material which Luke introduces into
any other correspondingly large section of Marcan narrative.
SUMMARY ON MATTHEW’S AND LUKE’S TREATMENT OF THE MARCAN NARRATIVE
The manner in which Matthew and Luke have treated the Gospel of Mark has
been brought out in the concrete and detailed examples that have been
considered. No single motive, especially no one so-called “tendency” of
either writer explains all his modifications of his Marcan source. Both
Matthew and Luke omitted what seemed to them superfluous, as well as
whatever appeared to them to conflict with the higher veneration for
Jesus which had developed in their times. Luke especially omitted what
would have no significance or interest for his Greek readers—disputes
with the Pharisees, questions of Jewish law, and other Judaistic features.
Both Matthew and Luke treated the actual words of Jesus, as recorded in
Mark, with great respect. But the narrative, and in a less degree the
parables, they felt free to work over as they would. Matthew shows much
greater fidelity to his source than Luke. But both of them reconstructed
sentences or whole stories, changed bad constructions into good ones,
added what material they would, Matthew combining this with his Marcan
material while Luke kept it for the most part distinct. Not every change
which they made suggests its explanation to us, and we cannot be certain
that in most of them we have the actual motive operating in the mind of
the evangelist. But the method of their procedure, the kind of motives
that influenced them, the degree of freedom which they took in the
re-working of their material from Mark, and their habits with reference to
the relation of this Marcan material to the other matter which they wished
to combine with it, have been sufficiently established.[49]