Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §8.4
Other examples could be offered. 210 None of this is intended to deny that
Matthew and Luke knew Mark as such and were able to draw on his version of
the tradition at a literary level and often did so; in terms of written sources, the
case for Markan priority remains overwhelmingly the most probable (§7.3). Nor
have I any wish to deny that Matthew and Luke regularly edited their Markan
Vorlage. Sometimes by substantial abbreviation. 211 Sometimes by adding material
to make a better 212 or a further point. 213 Sometimes to clarify or avoid misunderstandings.
214 At the same time, however, it would be improper to ignore the
fact that in a good number of cases, illustrated above, the more natural explanation
for the evidence is not Matthew's or Luke's literary dependence on Mark,
but rather their own knowledge of oral retellings of the same stories (or, alternatively,
their own oral retelling of the Markan stories).
Students of the Synoptic tradition really must free themselves from the as-
210. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1.29-31/Matt. 8.14-15/Luke 4.38-39);
the cleansing of the leper (Mark 1.40-45/Matt. 8.1-4/Luke 5.12-16); Jesus' true family (Mark
3.31-35/Matt. 12.46-50/Luke 8.19-21); precedence among the disciples (Mark 10.35-45 =
Matt. 20.20-28; but Luke 22.24-27); the healing of the blind man/men (Mark 10.46-52/Matt.
20.29-34/Luke 18.35-43). Why do the lists of the twelve close disciples of Jesus vary as they do
(Mark 3.16-19/Matt. 10.2-4/Luke 6.13-16)? Presumably because in the process of oral transmission,
confusion had arisen over the names of one or two of the least significant members of
the group (see below §13.3b). The sequence of Mark 12.1-37/Matt. 21.33-46, 22.15-46/Luke
20.9-44 could be orally related, but the extent and consistency of verbal link suggest a primarily
literary dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark. The constancy of verbal link among the
three accounts of the feeding of the five thousand likewise probably indicates an editing rather
than a retelling process (Mark 6.32-44/Matt. 14.13-21/Luke 9.10-17); but John's version (John
6.1-15), where almost the sole verbal links are the numbers (cost, loaves and fishes, participants,
baskets of fragments), surely indicates oral retelling. The character of the sequel (Mark
6.45-52/Matt. 14.22-33/John 6.16-21) points clearly in the same direction. And though Matthew's
dependence on Mark for the passion narrative is clear, the alternative version used by
Luke may well indicate a tradition passed down orally independent of the Mark/Matthean (literary)
version (see further below §17.1).
211. See above chapter 7 n. 17. Lord notes that performances of often very different
lengths are a mark of oral tradition (Singer of Tales 109-17).
212. E.g., Matt. 12.5-7, ll-12a adds precedents more apposite to the two cases of Sabbath
controversy than were provided in Mark 2.23-28 and 3.1-5 (Matt. 12.1-8 and 9-14); cf.
Luke 13.10-17; see below §14.4a.
213. E.g., the Matthean additions to explain why Jesus accepted baptism from the Baptist
(Matt. 3.14-15) and in his presentation of Peter as the representative disciple (Matt. 14.28-
31; 16.17-19), and the Lukan addition of a second mission (of the seventy[-two]) in Luke 10.1-
12, presumably to foreshadow the Gentile mission (cf. 14.23 in §8.5e below).
214. Cf., e.g., Mark 6.3a, 5a with Matt. 13.55a, 58; Mark 10.17-18 with Matt. 19.16-17
(cited above chapter 7 n. 20, with further bibliography). In both cases Matthew's respect for the
Markan wording is clear, even when he changed it, presumably to prevent any unwelcome implication
(see my Evidence for Jesus 18-22).
222