Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§7.3 The Sources
of abbreviation of Matthew. But Synoptic analysis indicates that in much of the
common material Mark's episodes are actually longer than Matthew's. 17 Such a
finding is more obviously to be explained by Matthew abbreviating Mark's prolixity
in order to make room for all the other sayings material which he had to
hand, rather than by Mark expanding individual episodes while omitting all the
extra teaching provided by Matthew, including, for instance, the Sermon on the
Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the kingdom parables of Matthew 13. Why would an
Evangelist who stresses the role of Jesus as Teacher 18 omit so much of the teaching
set out in Matthew's Gospel? 19 In addition, the more detailed differences between
Matthew and Mark, in the great majority of cases, are best explained as
Matthew's improvement on Mark's style or Matthew's avoidance of dubious implications
which could be drawn from Mark's language. 20 Here no more than in
historical study do we deal in certainties; but much the most probable explanation
of the available evidence continues to postulate Markan priority.
Doubts persist as to whether the NT Mark as such was the source used by
the other two Synoptic Evangelists. Should we speak rather of an earlier Mark
(Ur-Markus), or of different editions of Mark? 21 Most have been content to affirm
that the Matthean and Lukan source was as near to the canonical Mark as
17. The linked stories of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5.1-20/Matt. 8.28-34/Luke 8.26-
39) and Jairus' daughter and the woman with the haemorrhage (Mark 5.21-43/Matt. 9.18-26/
Luke 8.40-56) look like examples of heavy abbreviation of Markan redundancy, especially by
Matthew. Similarly with Matthew's treatment of the death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.17-29/
Matt. 14.3-12) and possibly with Matthew's and Luke's treatment of the healing of the epileptic
boy (Mark 9.14-29/Matt. 17.14-21/Luke 9.37-43; see below, §8.4c[iii]).
18. See below, §8.1b.
19. See further Stein, Synoptic Problem 49-51.
20. E.g., most would consider it more likely that Matthew has modified Mark in each of
the two following cases, rather than vice-versa.
Matt. 13.58
And he did not do many deeds of power there,
because of their unbelief.
Matt. 19.16-17
Then someone came to him and said,
'Teacher, what good deed must I do to
have eternal life?' And he said to him, ' Why do
you ask me about what is good? There is only one
who is good.'
Mark 6.5
And he could do no deed of power there, except
that he laid his hands on a few sick people and
cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.
Mark 10.17-18
A man ran up and knelt before him, and asked
him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to
inherit eternal life?' Jesus said to him, ' Why do
you call me good? No one is
good but God alone.'
See the full data collected by Hawkins, Horae Synopticae 117-25; also Stein, Synoptic Problem
52-67; and below, chapter 8 n. 214.
21. So, e.g., Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels 284-86; Theissen and Metz, Historical
Jesus 26. Earlier discussion is reviewed in Kümmel, Introduction 61-63.
145