Since the purpose here is merely to indicate the relation of the framework of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke to that of Mark, the full content of this great interpolation of Luke’s does not need to be presented. Enough has been given to show how long and important a section it is. Thruout it Luke appears to forsake Mark, tho there seem to be evidences that for some of the material contained in this section and also to be found in Mark, Mark and Luke have been drawing upon a common source.[5]
After forsaking Mark for so long, Luke comes back to him, and to Matthew (who has not made this deviation at the same place), in the blessing of the children (Mk x, 13-16; Mt xix, 13-15; Lk xviii, 15-17), the danger of riches (Mk x, 17-31; Mt xix, 16-30; Lk xviii, 18-30), and the third prediction of sufferings (Mk x, 32-34; Mt xx, 17-19; Lk xviii, 31-34). Matthew has meantime inserted (Mt xx, 1-16) his parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, but has not allowed this insertion to influence his adherence to the Marcan order. Luke then drops out of the tripletradition in the passage concerning the request of James and John for chief seats in the kingdom, but Matthew continues to follow Mark (Mk x, 35-45; Mt xx, 20-28). After this brief omission of Luke’s, the three come together again in the story of the healing of Bartimaeus (Mk x, 46-52; Mt xx, 29-34; Lk, xviii, 35-43). Luke inserts his story of Zaccheus, unknown to the other evangelists (Lk xix, 1-10), and his parable of the Talents (Lk xix, 11-27), more or less closely parallel to Matthew’s parable (Mt xxv, 14-30).
THE JERUSALEM NARRATIVE
In their account of the happenings in Jerusalem, the three evangelists start out together in the story of the triumphal entry (Mk xi, 1-11; Mt xxi, 1-11; Lk xix, 28-38). Matthew and Luke then insert some material unknown to Mark (Mt xxi, 14-17; Lk xix, 39-44). Matthew follows Mark in the story of the cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14; Mt xxi, 18-19); Luke omits this, perhaps considering it a variant of the parable of the Barren Fig Tree given later by all three. The three continue together in the account of the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 15-18; Mt xxi, 12-13; Lk xix, 45-48), and Matthew gives with Mark the speech of Jesus concerning the withered fig tree (Mk xi, 20-26; Mt xxi, 20-22); Luke, having omitted the cursing of the fig tree, omits also this speech concerning it.
The three then give together the Pharisees’ question about Jesus’ authority for the cleansing of the temple (Mk xi, 27-33; Mt xxi, 23-27; Lk xx, 1-8). Matthew adds his parable of the Dissimilar Sons (Mt xxi, 28-32), and the three relate together the parable of the Evil Husbandmen (Mk xii, 1-12; Mt xxi, 33-46; Lk xx, 9-19). Matthew next gives the parable of the Wedding Feast (Mt xxii, 1-14) which Luke has given earlier, in his Great Interpolation(Lk xiv, 16-24). Matthew and Luke follow Mark again in the question about the tribute money (Mk xii, 13-17; Mt xxii, 15-22; Lk xx, 20-26) and the question of the Sadducees about marriage (Mk xii, 18-27; Mt xxii, 23-33; Lk xx, 27-40). Matthew continues to follow Mark in the question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34; Mt xxii, 34-40); Luke has included this also in his Great Interpolation (Lk x, 25-28); both Matthew and Luke omit the complimentary remarks of the scribe to Jesus given by Mark (Mk xii, 32-34). This omission does not hinder their following Mark in his next sections, the question of David’s son, and the speech against the Pharisees (Mk xii, 35-37; Mt xxii, 41-46; Lk xx, 41-44, and Mk xii, 38-40; Mt xxiii, 1-36; Lk xx, 45-47). Matthew’s largely expanded form of the latter of these two sections shows him to be here combining some other source with Mark.
Luke’s discourse against the Pharisees recorded in this place agrees closely with Mark’s, but he has given in his eleventh chapter much of the non-Marcan material which Matthew gives in this place (Lk xi, 39-50). Matthew then inserts the lament over Jerusalem (Mt xxiii, 37-39) which Luke has given at an earlier and less appropriate point (Lk xiii, 34-35). Matthew deserts, but Luke follows, Mark in the story of the widow’s mite (Mk xii, 41-44; Lk xxi, 1-4). All three continue together in the prediction of the destruction of the temple (Mk xiii, 1-4; Mt xxiv, 1-3; Lk xxi, 5-7), and in the signs of the parousia (Mk xiii, 5-9; Mt xxiv, 4-8; Lk xxi, 8-11). Thruout the remainder of the “Little Apocalypse” Matthew has an occasional expansion of Marcan material, and Luke makes an occasional omission, but it is obvious that Matthew and Luke are here, in the main, following Mark closely (Mk xiii; Mt xxiv; Lk xxi). There follow in Matthew severalsections not duplicated in Mark, as the saying about the days of Noah (Mt xxiv, 37-41), the parables of the Watching Servant (Mt xxiv, 42-44), the True and False Servant (Mt xxiv, 45-51), the Wise Virgins (Mt xxv, 1-13), the Talents (Mt xxv, 14-30), and the parable of the Judgment (Mt xxv, 31-46). Luke has given to the “Little Apocalypse” an ending of his own (Lk xxi, 34-36); the material which Matthew has inserted continuously in his xxiv, 37-xxv, 30, Luke has scattered over his seventeenth, twelfth, and nineteenth chapters; the Matthean parable of the Judgment is duplicated in neither Mark nor Luke. Luke adds a summary of the activity of Jesus in Jerusalem (Lk xxi, 37-38).
THE STORY OF THE PASSION
Here the three evangelists start out together with the machinations of the rulers (Mk xiv, 1-2; Mt xxvi, 1-5; Lk xxii, 1-2). Luke drops out the account of the anointing in Bethany, which Mark and Matthew relate (Mk xiv, 3-9; Mt xxvi, 6-13), Luke having related a similar event in an earlier chapter (Lk vii, 36-50). The three then go on together in the story of the bargain of Judas with the priests (Mk xiv, 10-11; Mt xxvi, 14-16; Lk xxii, 3-6), and the account of the preparation for the Passover (Mk xiv, 12-17; Mt xxvi, 17-20; Lk xxii, 7-14). Luke then brings forward Mark’s story of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, apparently feeling that it fits better here than as given by Mark; except for the transposition of Luke’s xxii, 21-23 (= Mk xiv, 18-21; Mt xxvi, 21-25), the three agree in their account of the prediction of the betrayal and the institution of the Supper. Luke then adds a section of seven verses (Lk xxii, 24-30) on the strife about rank in the coming kingdom, which Mark and Matthew havegiven earlier (Mk x, 42-45; Mt xx, 25-28). After this interruption of the common order the three go on with the prediction of the denial by Peter (Mk xiv, 26-31; Mt xxvi, 30-35; Lk xxii, 31-34). Then come, tho interrupted by here and there a slight addition peculiar to Matthew or Luke, and with transpositions of verses or small sections more frequent than in other parts of the Gospels, the scene in Gethsemane, the arrest, trial, execution, and burial of Jesus, and the story of the empty grave (Mk xiv, 32-xvi, 8; Mt xxvi, 36-xxviii, 10; Lk xxii, 39-xxiv, 11); thus bringing us down to the mutilated end of Mark’s Gospel.
Matthew and Luke have thus taken, between them, with trifling exceptions, the entire Gospel of Mark. The historical framework of the Synoptic Gospels goes back to Mark.
THE PRIORITY OF MARK
We add here a brief statement of the theory that Mark’s Gospel is an abstract of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tho this theory is no longer defended, it may be worth while to summarize the more general considerations which have led to its abandonment.
1. It is impossible, upon this theory, to account for the omission by Mark of so much of the material that stood before him in Matthew and Luke. He has omitted most of the parables and sayings. He has added no narrative. He has therefore made an abstract in which much is omitted, nothing is added, and no improvement is introduced. No reason can be assigned for the making of such a Gospel by abstracting from the fuller and better Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The abstract not only adds nothing of its own, but fails to preserve the distinctive character of either of its exemplars.
2. If Mark had wished to make such an abstract, it is impossible to explain why in practically every instance he follows, as between Matthew and Luke, the longer narrative, while his own narrative is longer than either of those he copied. In the story of the healing of the leper, for example, Matthew (viii, 1-4) has 62 words, Luke (v, 12-16, without his introduction) has 87, and Mark (i, 40-45) has 97. In the healing of the paralytic (Mk ii, 1-12; Mt ix, 1-8; Lk v, 17-26) Matthew has 125 words, Luke 172, and Mark 190. In the calling of Levi (Matthew, in the Gospel of Matthew) Matthew has 92 words, Luke 93, and Mark 110 (Mk ii, 13-17; Mt ix, 9-13; Lk v, 27-32). In the parable of the Sower (Mk iv, 1-9; Mt xiii, 1-9; Lk viii, 4-8) Matthew has 134 words, Luke 90, and Mark 151. In the interpretation of that parable (Mk iv, 13-20; Mt xiii, 18-23; Lk viii, 11-15) Matthew has 128 words, Luke 109, and Mark 147. Many more such instances might be given. In every case the additional words of Mark contain no substantial addition to the narrative. They are mere redundancies, which Matthew and Luke, each in his own way, have eliminated.
3. Mark contains a large number of otherwise unknown or unliterary words and phrases. For example, σχιζομένους, i, 10; ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ, i, 23; κράβαττος, ii, 4, and in five other places; ἐπιράπτει, ii, 21; θυγάτριον, v, 23; vii, 25; ἐσχάτως ἔχει, v, 23; σπεκουλάτωρ, vi, 27; συμπόσια συμπόσια, vi, 39; [εἰσὶν τινὲς ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων, ix, 1; εἷς κατὰ εἷς, xiv, 19; ἐκπερισσῶς, xiv, 31. Such expressions might easily have been replaced by Matthew and Luke with the better expressions which they use instead of these; they could hardly have been substituted by Mark for those better expressions.
4. Mark contains many broken or incomplete constructions; as in iii, 16+; iv, 31+; v, 23; vi, 8+; xi, 32; xii, 38-40; xiii, 11, 14, 16, 19; xiv, 49. Such constructions would be easily corrected by Matthew and Luke; they would not easily be inserted into the narratives of Matthew and Luke by Mark.
5. Mark has many double or redundant expressions, of which Matthew has taken a part, Luke sometimes the same part, sometimes another. Such instances may be found in Mark’s Gospel at ii, 20, 25; iv, 39; xi, 2; xii, 14; the corresponding passages in Matthew and Luke will show their treatment of these redundancies.[6]
6. Mark uses uniformly καὶ, where Matthew and Luke have sometimes καὶ, and sometimes δὲ. Mark’s use shows him to be nearer the Hebrew or Aramaic. No explanation can be given for his substitution of this monotonous conjunction in the place of the two conjunctions used by Matthew and Luke. The variation in Matthew and Luke of Mark’s one conjunction is entirely natural.
7. Mark has many Aramaic words, which he translates into Greek; see especially iii, 17; v, 41; vii, 11; vii, 34. It would be easy for these to be dropped out by writers making use of Mark’s material for Hellenistic readers; but very unnatural for Mark to have inserted these Aramaic words into the Greek texts of Matthew and Luke.
8. Mark’s narrative thruout is more spirited and vivid than either Matthew’s or Luke’s. It would be much easier for these graphic touches to be omitted for various reasons by Matthew and Luke, even tho they found these before them in their Gospel of Mark, than for Mark to have added these touches in copying the narratives ofMatthew and Luke. One may mention especially the details about the appearance and dress of the Baptist (Mk i, 6); the four men carrying the litter (ii, 3); the statement, “He looked around upon them with wrath, being grieved at the hardness of their hearts” (Mk iii, 5); the names of persons, and their relatives, unknown to the other evangelists, the description of the Gadarene demoniac, the additional details of the conversation between Jesus and the parents of the epileptic boy (ix, 20-24), and many similar items.
LUKE’S GREAT INTERPOLATION: ITS NON-USE OF MARK
Thruout this Great Interpolation, Luke entirely forsakes Mark.[7]Out of the two hundred and fifty-two verses of the interpolation, there are about thirty-five which contain material also to be found in Mark. But thirteen of these thirty-five verses are doublets. And of these doublets, the member which appears in the interpolation seems never to agree in its setting with the verse in Mark to which it is parallel, whereas the verse which, outside the interpolation, constitutes the other member of the doublet does so agree. In the case of five of these doublets, the member standing outside the interpolation is also more closely similar to Mark in wording than the half standing in the interpolation. The thirteen verses containing the doublets therefore came apparently from some other source than Mark.
Nine other brief sayings in the interpolation have a parallel in Mark, and also in Matthew. But the similarity in each case is greater between the Marcan and Matthean than between the Lucan and Marcan forms, and thusindicates that these Lucan verses were not drawn from Mark, tho Matthew’s parallel verses apparently were.[8]The placing of these nine verses in Luke is unlike that in Mark, but their placing in Matthew is exactly similar to Mark’s. In twenty-two out of the thirty-five verses of the Great Interpolation that are paralleled in Mark there are thus but three expressions, at the most, that can possibly be held to indicate that Luke is here following Mark.
Two more such expressions are found in the remaining thirteen verses. Four of these contain the discussion about the Great Commandment, paralleled in Mk xii, 28-34, and Mt xxii, 34-40. The connection is identical in Matthew and Mark, but very different in Luke. The same is true of the introductory question of the scribe. Mark and Matthew assign to the questioner the Old Testament quotation which Luke assigns to Jesus. The commendation of the questioner, common to Mark and Luke, and the addition, also common to them against Matthew, of ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ἰσχύος σου (ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ ἰσχύϊ σου) would naturally point toward a dependence of Luke upon Mark, but are not strong enough to counterbalance so much evidence in the opposite direction.
The next seven verses (xi, 15, 17-23) contain the defense of Jesus against the charge of having a devil. Mark and Luke agree but slightly, Matthew and Luke very closely. Matthew has 136 words, Luke 139, Mark only 98, whereas the narratives which Luke takes from Mark are invariably abbreviated by Luke. Matthew and Luke have the same setting, Mark a different one. Matthew follows Mark against Luke in the little parable of theStrong Man Armed; Luke has no parallel. Matthew has conflated two sources, one of which was Mark, but Luke has forsaken Mark for the other source.
The remaining two verses, the parable of the Mustard Seed (Lk xiii, 18-19; Mk iv, 30+; Mt xiii, 31+) show the same features as those just considered. We conclude that thruout his Great Interpolation, Luke, while having some matter paralleled in Mark, was not following Mark, but some other source.
THE ORDER OF MARK’S GOSPEL COMPARED WITH THAT OF MATTHEW AND THAT OF LUKE
In the treatment of the framework of the Synoptics, something has been said of the way in which Matthew and Luke treat the order of the material which they have taken from Mark. The subject, however, calls for a more careful analysis.
At the opening of the 3d chapters of Matthew and Luke, these writers begin their use of Marcan material. Thru the story of John the Baptist, the baptism and temptation of Jesus, and his first preaching in Galilee, Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order, with the trifling exception that Luke has brot forward to his 3d chapter the account of John’s imprisonment, which in Mark is not given till his 6th chapter and in Matthew till his 14th, Matthew’s order here being the same as Mark’s. Luke’s insertion of the genealogy of Jesus between the baptism and the temptation of Jesus does not constitute a deviation from the order, but only an addition to the material, of Mark. In Luke’s 4th chapter (16-30) he brings forward an incident which Mark relates much later (Mk vi, 1-6), the incident also being much worked over by Luke. Matthew, on the contrary, follows Mark in next relating the call of the first disciples; Luke continues his deviation in order by postponing this till later.[9]
Luke then comes back to Mark’s order (Mk i, 21-38; Lk iv, 31-43), and follows it thru four sections: the incident in the synagogue at Capernaum, the healing of Peter’s wife’s mother, the healings in the evening, and the retirement of Jesus. Of these four sections, Matthew omits the first, presumably because he considers himself to have given, in his Sermon on the Mount, a much fuller account of the effect of Jesus’ preaching than is conveyed by the words of Mark. The second and third of the four sections Matthew postpones till after his Sermon on the Mount. The last one, about the retirement of Jesus, he omits, because he has no place for it, since he has not recorded the preaching at Capernaum and the incident attached to it, out of which the retirement came.
Luke then inserts (v, 1-11) his account of the calling of Peter. He then returns to Mark’s order (Mk i, 40-45; Lk v, 12-16) in the healing of the leper; this incident Matthew has postponed till after his Sermon on the Mount. Matthew again brings forward the account of the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac, which Mark does not relate till his 4th and 5th chapters. But after these deviations he again coincides with Mark and Luke in the healing of the paralytic, the calling of Levi, and the question about fasting. Matthew again forsakes Mark’s order by bringing forward the mission of the twelve to a place much earlier than it occupies in Mark’s narrative. Having done this he falls again into the Marcan order, which Luke has been still following, and relates in the same order with Mark the walk thru the corn and the healing of the withered hand.
Luke has thus far shown few deviations from Mark’s order, Matthew many. These deviations of Matthew’s seem mostly to have been occasioned by his insertion ofso much non-Marcan material in his Sermon on the Mount. Luke now makes a slight transposition; he relates with Mark the story of the healings and the crowd, and the calling of the twelve, but in the reverse order; he has thus secured a better introduction to his Sermon on the Level Place (beginning Lk vi, 20). After the conclusion of that sermon, and the inclusion of much non-Marcan material, in Luke; and after the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, and the insertion by him of much Marcan material which in Mark’s Gospel comes at later points, Matthew and Luke come back to Mark’s order in the Beelzebul controversy. Matthew continues with Mark in the story of the family of Jesus, come to take him home, the parable of the Sower, and the interpretation of that parable. Luke also follows Mark’s order thruout these three sections, tho he has placed all three of them at an earlier point in his Gospel, and has transposed the first section.
Beginning again with the storm on the lake and the Gadarene demoniac, Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order thru two long sections. Matthew, in copying Mark’s earlier narrative, omitted his healing of the paralytic, his call of Levi (Matthew), and his report of the discussion about fasting, where these occurred in Mark’s 2d chapter. He therefore inserts them here in his 9th chapter. After the insertion of these Matthew comes back to the order of Mark in his story of the daughter of Jairus. Luke, having followed Mark’s order in the earlier narrative where Matthew deviated from it, follows it here uninterruptedly thru the three sections about the storm on the lake, the Gadarene demoniac, and the daughter of Jairus. After omitting Mk vi, 1-6, the story of the rejection at Nazareth, which Luke has given in anexpanded form much earlier, Luke again follows Mark’s narrative thru two sections on the sending out of the disciples and the judgment of Herod concerning Jesus. He omits the death of the Baptist, perhaps under the impression that this will be inferred from his leaving him in prison in an earlier chapter, but goes on with Mark again in the account of the return of the disciples and the feeding of the five thousand. Matthew has come back to Mark’s order at Mk vi, 14 (Mt xiv, 1), and follows it without deviation or interruption thru about seventy verses; after which, tho omitting several small sections of Marcan material, and inserting some non-Marcan matter, he continues to follow the Marcan order to Mk ix, 48; thus following Mark’s order, in spite of additions and omissions, thru more than three of Mark’s chapters, without deviation. Luke has fallen out at Mk vi, 45, and takes nothing from Mark again till he reaches Mark’s viii, 27; at which point, without having made any insertion of his own peculiar material, he again takes up Mark’s narrative, and follows it from Mk viii, 27, to Mk ix, 8 (= Lk ix, 18, to ix, 36); then making another omission of a few Marcan verses, he continues to follow Mark up to Mk ix, 40. In spite of Luke’s omission of several brief Marcan sections, and of more than three Marcan chapters at another point, Luke has thus not disturbed the Marcan order from Mk vi, 6, to Mk ix, 40.
Beginning with Mk x, 1, Matthew follows Mark, tho making an insertion of 16 verses, up to Mk xi, 11, at which point he transposes a few verses. Luke has come in at Mk x, 13, and has followed up to Mk x, 34, at which point he makes an omission of ten Marcan verses. Going on with Mark at Mk x, 46, he continues to follow him (tho inserting his story of Zaccheus and his parable ofthe talents) to Mk xiii, 9, omitting, however, Mark’s story of the cursing of the fig tree and the speech of Jesus attached to this incident in Mark’s Gospel. After the transposition of a few Marcan verses in Mt xxi, 12-13, Matthew also continues Mark’s order, beginning with Mk xi, 20, down to Mk xiii, 9.
From Mk xiii, 9, to xiii, 32, both Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s order. At Mk xiii, 33-37, they come upon a section which Matthew postpones and which Luke has previously inserted. After the insertion of some non-Marcan matter common to Matthew and Luke, and of some matter peculiar to each, both Matthew and Luke go on with the Marcan material, beginning where they left off at Mk xiv, 1. Luke omits Mk xiv, 3-9, because of a duplicate or variant of the passage which he has inserted in his 7th chapter; except for this omission (which does not affect Matthew), the three proceed in the same order down to Mk xiv, 17, where Luke again transposes a few verses, but Matthew follows without deviation. From here on to the end of Mark’s Gospel, Matthew follows practically without deviation, tho adding much matter of his own. Luke makes a transposition of the story of Peter’s denial, and of one or two other items; except for which he also follows Mark’s order substantially as he finds it.
This statement of the relative order of Marcan material in the three Synoptic Gospels has been made in a way to facilitate comparison in the large, and give a general idea of how faithfully Matthew and Luke have followed the order of Mark. For purposes of studying the matter in more detail, Table I is appended. The sections are given and numbered as they occur in Mark, and also as they occur in Matthew and Luke.
TABLE I
Showing Changes Made by Matthew and Luke in the Order of Marcan Material
A comparison of the number in the Table which a given section bears respectively in Matthew and Mark or Luke and Mark will show the number and extent of the changes which Matthew and Luke have permitted themselves in their disposition of Marcan material.
DEDUCTIONS FROM THE TABLE
An examination of the preceding table will show how generally both Matthew and Luke have followed the order of Mark.
Of the 87 Marcan sections retained by Luke, only 11 sections (Nos. 6, 12, 21, 22, 23, 42-47) are seriously misplaced. From sec. 35 to the end, the order is particularly well preserved, the only changes being in the placing of 49 before 48, and 74 before 73. Luke’s displacements are usually made in the interest of a better historical or literary sequence; some of them may also be occasioned by his large omissions of Marcan material and his large insertions of peculiar matter.
Matthew has made rather a larger number of changes in the order of his Marcan material; due perhaps to his habit of combining his Marcan and his other matter, and to his wish to present most of his sayings-material in one block (chaps. v-vii). His notable transpositions occur near the beginning of his Gospel, just before or after the insertion of his Sermon on the Mount, and in that section (the sending out of the twelve) where he has made his most obvious conflation of Marcan and other matter. From sec. 37 to the end, however, changes in order are extremely few. The insertion of 8 between 54 and 55 may be only an apparent dislocation, since the saying about salt may here not have been derived from Mark but from Q. The placing of the cleansing of the templebefore the cursing of the fig tree (secs. 62, 63) may be due to his wish to bring the cursing of the fig tree into immediate connection with the remarks to which it gave rise; the transposition is an improvement. From here on to the end the sections occur precisely as in Mark, except that 21 is inserted between 74 and 75; apparently owing to the influence of Q. The table will also show that Matthew and Luke practically never concur in forsaking the order of Mark. It also warrants the assertion often made of late years that Matthew is more faithful to the content of Mark, permitting himself fewer omissions, but Luke is more faithful to his order.
THE OMISSIONS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[10]
OMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH MATTHEW AND LUKE
The omission of the stories of the healing of the deaf-and-dumb man and the blind man (Mk vii, 31-37; viii, 22-26), is sufficiently accounted for by the character of those accounts. The crassness of the means used and the apparent difficulty of the cures offended the growing sense of the dignity of Jesus.
The exceedingly patronizing answer of the scribe to Jesus in Mk xii, 32-34 is probably omitted by Matthew and Luke for the same reason. The parable of the Seed Growing of Itself (Mk iv, 26-29) may have been omitted because it so closely duplicated other material in both Matthew and Luke;[11]it has been suggested also that it might have a discouraging effect, or at least not a stimulating one, upon the missionary activities of the early church.
The first visit of Jesus to the temple (Mk xi, 11) is mentioned by Mark in three words only. No incident is connected with it, but Jesus is said to have looked about and, as it was late, to have gone back to Bethany. The incident may have dropped out because unsupported by any events or sayings; or the three words εἰς τὸ ἱερόνmay have crept into the text of Mark after its use by Matthew and Luke (the sense is equally good without them).
The mention of the man in the linen garment (Mk xiv, 51) and the names of Alexander and Rufus (Mk xv, 21) may have been omitted because neither Matthew nor Luke nor their readers would be acquainted with these persons.
OMISSIONS MADE BY MATTHEW IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE
Matthew omits the account of the preaching of Jesus in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mk i, 21-28) because he wished to give a much more detailed account of Jesus’ preaching, in his Sermon on the Mount. This explanation becomes a practical certainty when we observe that the statement which Mark and Luke make concerning the effect of the sermon in the synagogue, “They were astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes,” is used by Matthew to describe the effect of the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew’s omission of the flight of Jesus (Mk i, 35-38) is probably due to its failure to fit into his story, as this has been changed on account of the insertion of the Sermon on the Mount. The retirement takes place from Capernaum, as a result of the enthusiasm aroused by Jesus’ preaching there. Matthew does not represent Jesus as preaching in Capernaum. He brings Jesus to Capernaum in chaps. 8 and 9, not however to preach, but to work miracles. Jesus closes this series of healings with the statement (Mt ix, 37-38), “The harvest is great but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the lord of the harvest that he send forth laborers into his vineyard.”The retirement does not follow naturally upon this series of healings, much less upon these words, and so is omitted.
The omission of the story of the unknown exorcist (Mk ix, 38-41), as Wernle remarks,[12]is not so easy to explain. It may be observed, however, that by its omission Matthew secures a better connection between the two sayings of Jesus which are thus brought into succession: “He that receiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me,” and “but he that causeth one of these little ones that believe in me to stumble, it is better for him,” etc. (Mt xviii, 5, 6).
The story of the widow’s mite (Mk xii, 41-44) Matthew may have omitted because he lacks the connection for it which is supplied in the Gospel of Mark. Mark makes Jesus speak of the Pharisees who “devour widow’s houses,” and immediately after this introduces the incident of the widow’s self-sacrifice. Matthew has omitted the incident because he has not the proper occasion for it.[13]
Matthew’s other omissions have been accounted for under the omissions common to him with Luke. The sum total of them is very small and in general they are easily accounted for.
OMISSIONS MADE BY LUKE IN THE MARCAN NARRATIVE[14]
Luke omits the circumstantial account of the death of the Baptist (Mk vi, 17-29); he has long ago inserted the account of his imprisonment (Lk iii, 19-20), wishing to finish with John before beginning with Jesus. “But the circumstantial account did not fit in that place.”[15]
The longest omission of continuous Marcan material is made by Luke in omitting the whole of Mk vi, 45 to viii, 26. This long omission immediately precedes the long insertion of special Lucan material, indicating a possible difficulty in combining the two sources at this point. Quite without this, however, there are more or less obvious reasons for Luke’s omission of every section in this long passage. He avoids[16]the repetition of the same story, and may have regarded Mark’s feeding of the four thousand (Mk viii, 1-10) as a repetition of the feeding of the five thousand which Luke has already copied from him.
The demand for a sign is a doublet in Matthew; Luke has taken it once with Matthew from Q and therefore does not care to take it with him here again from Mark (Mk viii, 11-13). The dispute about things that defile (Mk vii, 1-23) had no significance for a gentile writer or his gentile readers. As early as his 4th chapter, Luke has represented Jesus as turning from the Jews, who had rejected him, to the gentiles; he cannot therefore use Mark’s story of the Canaanitish woman, (Mk vii, 24-30), with its apparently narrow national outlook: “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”[17]The crossing of the lake to Gennesaret has in Mark (vi, 53-56) no particular incident connected with it, merely the statement that many people came to Jesus and were healed. It may have been omitted by Luke because he has a duplicate in viii, 22-25.The omission of this item was no particular loss to Luke’s account; but with its omission the incident of the walking on the water also fell out. The latter may have been omitted also because of its implied aspersion upon the disciples. Luke may have been the more ready to drop this, as his interest in the miracles of Jesus is confined more largely to the healings, the miracles peculiar to Luke being entirely of this kind.
Luke omitted the discussion of Jesus with the Pharisees about Elias (Mk ix, 9-13) because it had no interest for his gentile readers. The omission of the saying about offenses (Mk ix, 42-48) is accounted for by Luke’s having a parallel for the first part of it in another connection; the last part, about cutting off the hand or the foot, may have seemed to him, with his Greek taste, too harsh a saying to be attributed to Jesus.
Luke omitted the journey thru Judaea (Mk x, 1) (or Perea) because in its place he has given a long account (Lk ix, 51-xviii, 14) (again his great interpolation) of the journey thru Samaria. The terminus of both journeys and their place in the story are the same. The question about marriage and divorce (Mk x, 2-12) is again connected with a Pharisaic dispute; Luke has also given his own briefer version of the same item (xvi, 18); for either or both of these reasons he omits it here. The request of James and John for chief seats in the kingdom (Mk x, 35-45) Luke omits because it reflects upon the motives of those disciples; Matthew perceives the same objection to it, but, more faithful to his sources he gets over the difficulty by attributing the request to the mother, instead of to the disciples. Mark’s discussion about the disciples’ failure to bring bread (Mk viii, 14-21) Luke may have omitted because of its implication of carelessnesson the part of the disciples. Luke also uniformly avoids any implication of lack of knowledge on the part of Jesus, and this incident includes one such.[18]
The question about the great commandment (Mk xii, 28-34) Luke may have omitted because it also is connected with a dispute with a scribe. Or if Luke’s passage (x, 25-28) be considered a parallel to it, this is enough to account for its omission here. On this latter supposition, Luke has used the saying as an introduction to his story of the Good Samaritan. The cursing of the fig tree (Mk xi, 12-14) Luke apparently regarded as a misunderstanding of the parable of the Fig Tree, which he gives. Whether so or not, it is of the same kind as the other miracles which Luke omits, in that it is not a miracle of healing. The anointing in Bethany (Mk xiv, 3-9) has a parallel in the anointing (both in the “house of Simon”) by the sinful woman, which Luke has related in his 7th chapter (vss. 36-50). “The second session of the sanhedrim he has combined with the first.”[19]
Concerning the great omission of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26), it should be added that his Gospel is now considerably longer than Mark’s and even than Matthew’s. He had much material of his own to incorporate. Rolls of papyrus were of an average length, and not capable of indefinite extension. Luke could not include all Mark’s material without omitting much that he has derived elsewhere. If it was necessary or convenient for him to make an omission amounting in length to the matter he has passed over in Mark, it was much easier and simpler for him to omit an entire section of that length, than togo here and there thru Mark to make his necessary total of eliminations. This consideration, with the character of the material omitted, sufficiently accounts for the “great omission.”[20]