Sources of the Synoptic Gospels Part 4

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 pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstance of the other boats. Matthew subst.i.tutes the comparatively common word, tho I believe not common in exactly this connection, se?s??, for Mark's rare word ?a??a?. 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 ? ?????? (Mk's vs. 19) into ? ?e??, is not easily explained if Luke understood Mark to refer to Jesus by his ? ??????. As the latter word, however, is ambiguous, and as Mark seems to use it more often than the other evangelists with reference to G.o.d, Luke _may_ have so understood his narrative here. But as the man went and told, not what G.o.d, 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 ??????. 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 ????t????. Their subst.i.tution of the "ta.s.sel 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 subst.i.tutes pa?a???a for Mark's e????; 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 n.o.body 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 e?se????, coming as it does after the ????? e?? t?? ????a? 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 resume 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 pa.s.sages 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 t?p?? may indicate the latter. The subst.i.tution by Matthew and Luke of ??????t?? for Mark's ????, 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 ??e??? for ??e?e? 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 ??e?e? in Mark's vs. 14, his vs. 16 is a mere repet.i.tion of this verse (Matthew omits the parallel to Mark's vs. 16), may indicate either that ??e??? is the original reading of vs. 14, or that Luke, finding ??e?e? 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 pa.s.sage 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 spe?????t?? 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 a.s.signs 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, a.s.signs 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, s?p?s?a s?p?s?a, 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 doc.u.ment occasionally employed by Matthew and Mark but not by Luke. The hypothesis of a later a.s.similation 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 a.s.serted by him in one other notable pa.s.sage which occurs in Matthew alone. Probably Matthew has drawn these special pa.s.sages 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 ?a? p??te? ?? ???da???, 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 ?????, omitted by Matthew. In Mark's vs. 19 occurs the phrase ?a?a????? p??ta t? ??ata.

The construction is loose, the nearest verb with which the participle can be connected being the ???e? 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