Fatigue in Mark – or Damage to Mark?

It is an acknowledged fact that the various mss (manuscripts) of the Gospel of Mark contain inconsistencies, as can be seen in the very unusual variants at many places in the gospel. Many of these are considered to be changes (harmonizations) in later mss resulting from scribes greater familiarity with Matthew, and on this point in Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, Gordon Fee wrote:

By the very historical fact of the greater use of Matthew in the early Church as compared with Mark or Luke, the manuscript traditions of the latter two have far more variants that could be attributed to harmonization than does Matthew, and between them, Mark far more so than Luke. It is almost inevitable that this factor will weigh heavily in making textual choices in Matthew and Mark.

Although Fee comments here purely on the variants that look like harmonizations, there are many other difficult variants in Mark, as indicated by Peter Head:

It has sometimes been suggested that the text of Mark is relatively less secure than the other canonical gospels. It is the case that there are textual problems at the beginning and ending of the Gospel, as well as numerous other passages where significant disagreement remains among textual scholars. In a comparison of seven modern editions of the Greek New Testament, Mark’s text has fewer identical text verses than any other NT document (and was the only NT document where fewer than half the verses were printed in exactly the same form in all seven editions). This suggests, as Dewey noted, ‘Scholars have had greater difficulty in agreeing on the Markan text’ (when compared with the other Gospels).

While it is acknowledged that: “In the Gospels, for example, Mark has the largest amount of variation per page of text, while John has the least,” (Fee again), many of these variants are hard to explain except as mistakes, either by the original authors of the gospels, or by scribes misreading mss while copying them. Even in places where it appears that a scribe harmonized a copy of Mark (Mk) to either Matthew (Mt) or Luke (Lk), we do not know the text of the exemplar(s) that the scribe was using, or the conditions or instructions under which the scribe was working, and so cannot know what caused him to change what he saw in Mark to something else. For reasons such as these we can only hypothesize why any scribe might have created a variant reading, whether deliberately or by mistake, leading to several possible ways of explaining these differences, some of which are referred to below.

Fatigue in Mark?

In The Modified Augustinian Hypothesis (MAH) regarding Gospel origins (July 2007), James Deardorff presents a form of the Augustinian Hypothesis, one of a number of hypotheses put forward as a solution to the Synoptic Problem. As Deardorff describes it: 

The present hypothesis is closer to the Augustinian hypothesis than to any competing hypothesis; hence I call it the modified Augustinian hypothesis. It follows the "utilization hypothesis": that each gospel was dependent upon the gospel(s) that came before. So it accepts that Luke is dependent upon Matthew as well as Mark.

Deardorff then presents several groups of arguments against the MAH, which he counters in various ways, including: “The 'editorial fatigue' argument against Matthean priority by Mark Goodacre:”

As stated by Goodacre (1998), "Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout. Like continuity errors in film and television, examples of fatigue will be unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative." In our case, the writer of Mark made several types of changes as per MAH D.1.-4.: he characteristically omitted substantial chunks from his source (Matthew), added to the verses and pericopes that he retained, and made small alterations. Any of these steps could, through insufficient attention to detail, lead to logical difficulties further along in his text. By Goodacre's viewpoint, it was the writer of Matthew who added to, or altered, Mark, causing difficulties at times. In practice, an "early stage" mistake can be located almost anywhere within the text, with the ensuing difficulty occurring afterwards, but not necessarily immediately afterwards.

After discussing several: “Supposed examples of Matthean fatigue,” Deardorff then introduces some: “Counter examples: Fatigue in Mark relative to Matthew,” in which he attempts to show how a number of inconsistencies in Mark are the result of fatigue by the author of Mark (aMark) when using Matthew as his source, several of which are referred to in the following discussions on particular verses in Mark. However, in almost all of the cases examined below Deardorff's explanation of fatigue in Mark can be better explained in other ways, as discussed below.

A Proto-Mark?

Instead of fatigue, an alternative reason for the inconsistencies and variations in Mark is suggested by James Snapp, Jr. in ‘The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20’ (Summary available here). Snapp suggests that there was a Proto-Mark that did not include various passages that we see in Mark, and that this was seen and used by aMatthew or aLuke (respectively the authors of Matthew and Luke). As well as accounting for the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark, this suggestion would account for many variants in Mark and other inconsistencies by virtue of some people seeing and using Proto-Mark as a source, and others using Mark in the form that we know it. Snapp explains:

If we assume that Luke’s non-incorporation of a passage in Mark as evidence that Luke was unaware of its existence, then we would conclude that not only Mark 16:9 to 20, but also Mark 14:27 and 28 (where Jesus mentions that He will go before the disciples into Galilee) was missing in Luke’s copy of Mark. We would have to conclude that numerous substantial passages were absent from Luke’s copy of Mark. These passages include a 75-verse section, Mark 6:45 through 8:26. This leads to the natural conclusion that Luke did not use the Gospel of Mark as a source; instead, he used a much shorter preliminary draft of the Gospel of Mark, which may be called Proto-Mark. Luke may have been one of the first individuals in Rome in the early 60’s who requested from Mark a written record of Peter’s remembrances. In that case, the Gospel of Luke is only a valid witness to the text of Proto-Mark, not to the text of the Gospel of Mark.

If Luke had possessed the Gospel of Mark itself, he would have followed it much more closely than he does. His failure to do so implies that agreements between the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Mark are effects of both texts’ agreement with a Proto-Marcan text. Luke’s failure to use Mark 16:9 to 20, like his failure to use Mark 1:5 to 6, 1:16 to 20, 6:45 to 8:26, 9:15, 9:21 to 24, 9:28 to 29, 9:36, 10:1 to 10:12, 10:35 to 10:40, 12:32 to 34, 13:27, 14:27 and 28, 14:39 to 42, 14:50 to 52, 15:16 through 15:20, and 15:44 and 45, cannot validly be used to evaluate the presence or absence of the passage in the Gospel of Mark.

Did Matthew also use Proto-Mark? Matthew, despite his tendency to condense Mark’s narratives, conforms much more closely to the text of Mark than Luke does. This has been interpreted simply as evidence that Matthew used the Gospel of Mark, and not Proto-Mark. However, features found throughout the text of Matthew may indicate a different scenario: Matthew used Proto-Mark and the Gospel of Mark – usually preferring the latter, but not always. Traces of Matthew’s use of Proto-Mark survive as “Minor Agreements” – places where Matthew and Luke both echo Proto-Mark at points where, in the production of the Gospel of Mark, the reading of Proto-Mark was changed, either by addition, removal, or substitution.

Snapp essentially suggests that aLuke did not use Mark as a source, but instead used a 'Proto-Mark,' and that because aMatthew seems to have used more of Mark than did aLuke, he 'blended' Mark and 'Proto-Mark' to produce an intermediate text.

A Deutero-Mark?

A second alternative reason for the inconsistencies and variations in Mark is essentially the ‘reverse’ of that expounded above by Snapp: That Mark was followed by an edited version (a Deutero-Mark) in which the same passages that supposedly were added to Proto-Mark to form Mark were instead removed from Mark to form Deutero-Mark, and it was this that was seen and used by aMatthew and aLuke. This has all the explanatory power of the Proto-Mark theory, and avoids the problem that the Proto-Mark theory has in explaining why none of the later additions in Mark were used in Luke, and some were not used in Matthew. However, saying that a later Deutero-Mark omitted text that was previously in Mark does not address the issue of why that text was omitted, nor the question of why Matthew and/or Luke might have chosen the shorter text.

Damage to Mark?

As described above Snapp suggests that aMatthew and aLuke did not use some of the text that we see in Mark because they saw a shorter ‘Proto-Mark,’ and the ‘reverse’ suggestion (also above) is that instead they saw a shorter 'Deutero-Mark.' However, a third possibility is that aMatthew and aLuke saw a copy of Mark in which the text was not shorter as a result of deliberate changes to the text, but instead in which those same portions of text were either unreadable, or not present due to damage to the material of the ms. The idea that the copy or copies of Mark seen by aMatthew and aLuke might have been damaged (or showed signs of having been copied from a damaged exemplar) should not come as a great surprise. Not only does Mark have different endings (see Mark 16:9-20 - The Origin of the Long Ending), but, as Snapp states, there is no equivalent to Mk 6:45-8:26 in Luke (See The Great Omission), and the same applies to Mk 9:41-10:12, known as The Little Omission. Although various different explanations have been put forward for these phenomena, there is one possible explanation that is common to all: that there was damage to Mark.

Although we do not have a ms of Mark in which the text of the Great Omission is not present, there are other mss in which large blocks of text are missing due to damage similar to that under discussion. For example, not only does Codex P46 have damage at the beginning and end due to the seven outermost sheets having been lost, but two other sheets have also been lost from the interior of the codex, showing that damage to early mss resulting in the loss of whole blocks of text is not unknown. It is also the case that P46 and many other new testament mss contain other lacunae of various lengths resulting from tears or small holes in the material from which the mss were made, or due to the loss of material from the edges of a page. In addition, some of the earliest mss are so damaged that the extant portions are little more than small fragments. Even the early mss that we do have have only survived because of the dry climate in which they existed, and it is virtually certain that other early mss are completely lost to us, and possibly became unusable very early in their lives.

If a very early ms of Mark did have damage in large 'blocks' as suggested above, then the lacunae and edge damage we see in other mss indicate that we cannot rule out similar additional damage in that ms of Mark. In addition, many of the oldest NT mss were written in scriptio continua, with the result that many words were split across two lines, with the beginning of a word at the end of one line, and the end of the same word at the beginning of the next. As a result, any damage to the edge of one of these early mss could easily have lead to the loss of letters from the middle of a word.

Other evidence that NT scribes may have had to copy from damaged mss can be found in Περι αλυπιας (On Consolation from Grief) by Claudius Galenus (Galen of Pergamon), which includes a description of the problems he encountered when attempting to copy mss in the imperial public libraries in Rome. Jeremy Norman’s historyofinformation.com website explains:

Galen went to great trouble to copy of some these texts because the papyrus rolls were deteriorating as a result of the humid climate. It has long been known that papyrus may be preserved for centuries in dry climates such as the Egyptian desert, but deteriorates rapidly with humidity:

19 These (books), then, did not cause me a small pain when copying them. As it is, the papyri are completely useless, not even able to be un-rolled because they have been glued together by decomposition, since the region is both marshy and low-lying, and, during the summer, it is stifling.

Because we do not know the conditions under which the earliest ms (or mss) of Mark were kept, we have no way of knowing their state of preservation either when they were copied, or when aMatthew and aLuke saw and used them. It is therefore worthwhile examining the text of Mark to see if damage such as described above can explain not only the sometimes very odd variants we see in Mark, but also some of the differences between Mark and the other synoptic gospels.

Although not perhaps strictly ‘damage,’ it is also possible that dirt or other foreign material on the surface of a ms could result in text being misread, or simply becoming unreadable, which would force a copyist to interpret what the original reading was, with the result again being a variant. Zuntz documents an example of such a variant in An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides, in which an inexplicable colon and additional space follow βίον at one particular place in ms P, with a similar ‘colon’ in ms L. He describes his examination of L, in which he finds that:

the mark in L showed a strange, red hue different from any other punctuation-mark or letter on this or any other page.

He then asked for help from someone else, who also could not come up with an explanation, until:

she ran her hand over the place – and the ‘colon’ stuck to her finger… It was a tiny piece of straw – a residue from the production process similar to many others … embedded in the coarse paper.

The scribe of P had copied what was actually a flaw in the material of L, because he believed it was part of the text. In just such a way it is reasonable to believe that variants in New Testament mss might be the result of flaws, discolorations, or other ‘oddities’ in the material of an exemplar, rather than any actual textual differences. 

There is also the issue that both copyists and original authors writing on papyrus may have to had to deal with preexisting holes and other imperfections in the material on which they were writing, as Brice C. Jones describes in ‘Scribes Avoiding Imperfections in Their Writing Materials:’ 

I am interested in the ways in which ancient scribes negotiated faults in their writing medium, whether they were holes, relaxed fibers, creases, or the like. Surprisingly, this line of inquiry has never been systematically addressed. Yet such material features and scribal phenomena provide an opportunity for us to ask some basic questions about scribes and their writing materials. For example, how often did scribes use damaged papyri? Was the damage due to the manufacturing process or to some post-manufacture cause? In what ways did scribes avoid these damages? Are there any observable patterns? Are such phenomena limited to documentary papyri or do we also find the practice in literary manuscripts?

He concludes:

Damage comes in many different forms and we are rarely able to determine the precise circumstances that led to it. But this should not deter us from imagining how such damage might have taken place. For example, newly purchased rolls or sheets of papyrus had to be transported from the shop where they were bought to the place of writing. It is altogether possible that some papyri were damaged in some way or another in route to their destination. This is especially true of letters, which often had to withstand various travel conditions. And moisture was always a problem since “papyrus, tough material that it is, decays almost as quickly as paper if it is allowed to grow damp.” … In the case of reused documents (including palimpsests), damage was probably made during the “first life” of these papyri, and the second user just dealt with what he or she had.

The above indicates that damage, or even imperfections, marks, etc. can result in copyists being unable to see exactly what was the text in an exemplar, and creating (possibly unique) variant readings as a result. Given that possibility, can damage explain not only what Deardorff sees as fatigue in Mark, but also some variants in Mark that are otherwise very hard to explain?

Relocated Markan Text in Matthew

In his Hermeneia commentary on Matthew, Ulrich Luz wrote:

The analysis of the individual texts will show that Matthew is quite familiar with the Gospel of Mark, that he anticipates future material in his editing, and that in many cases he uses words from omitted verses in Mark at another place. It is as if the evangelist, in spite of his many abridgments, wanted to use as much of Mark’s text as possible.

Although Luz does not couch what he sees in Matthew in so many words, what he is stating is that short sections (“words from omitted verses”) of Mark do exist in Matthew, but are re-located from their expected position to a different location in Matthew. Luz is not here referring to the re-ordering of complete pericopes, such as the topical grouping of material from several places into the the five discourses in Matthew, but instead to small sections of text being lifted out of their location in Mark and inserted into a different pericope in Matthew, sometimes even before their ‘correct’ location. For example:

Luz suggests that this is due to aMatthew abridging the text of Mark, but nevertheless still wanting to use the text he had removed from Mark elsewhere in Matthew, which on the face of it would be a very strange procedure to adopt. Instead, a more plausible suggestion would seem to be that aMatthew moved these pieces of text simply because he did not know where they were supposed to be located, e.g. because they were loose in the copy of Mark that he used, or because they came from another source and were later added to Mark by assimilation from Matthew or Luke.

Disagreements in Order: Matthew and Luke vs. Mark

In addition to the differences in order noted above, an interesting fact regarding the order of pericopes in Matthew and Luke is noted by Streeter in the synopsis to Chapter VII of The Four Gospels:

The relative order of incidents and sections in Mark is in general supported by both Matthew and Luke; where either of them deserts Mark, the other is usually found supporting him.

He then expands on this later in the same chapter, using it to support Markan priority:

The order of incidents in Mark is clearly the more original; for wherever Matthew departs from Mark's order Luke supports Mark, and whenever Luke departs from Mark, Matthew agrees with Mark. The section Mk.iii.31-35 alone occurs in a different context in each gospel; and there is no case where Matthew and Luke agree together against Mark in a point of arrangement…

A curious fact, of which an explanation is suggested later, p. 274, is that, while in the latter half of his Gospel (chap. xiv. to the end) Matthew adheres strictly to the order of Mark (Mk.vi.14 to end), he makes considerable rearrangements in the first half. Luke, however, though he omits far more of Mark than does Matthew, hardly ever departs from Mark's order, and only in trifling ways.

On the other hand, wherever Luke substitutes for an item in Mark a parallel version from another source, he always gives it in a different context from the item in Mark which it replaces.

Daniel B. Wallace describes what is known as Streeter's ‘argument from order’ this way:

The basic argument is both positive and negative: (1) positively: when all three gospels share pericopae, Matthew and Luke agree in the order of those pericopae a great deal; (2) negatively: when either Matthew or Luke departs from the order of Mark in the arrangement of pericopae, they never agree against Mark. To put this another way: in the narratives common to all three, Matthew and Luke agree in sequence only when they agree with Mark; when they both diverge from Mark, they both go in different directions.

The most common explanation for the differences in order is that this is simply due to choices by aMatthew and/or aLuke. Wallace continues:

… a careful examination of Mark 1:1–6:6 and the parallels in Matthew and Luke reveals that the reasons for Luke’s/Matthew’s departures from Mark’s order are well-suited to their various literary purposes, while the supposition that Mark rearranged the material does not fit any easily detected pattern in his gospel.

A problem with this reasoning is that it is basically circular. We have no specific knowledge of the “literary purposes” of any of the synoptic authors (unfortunately none of them felt it necessary to describe for us what they were trying to do regarding their selection and ordering of material), and so cannot say what agrees with those purposes, and what does not. Even Lk 1:3 cannot be used to suggest that aLuke knew what the ‘correct’ order was, as the NET notes:

An orderly account does not necessarily mean that all events are recorded in the exact chronological sequence in which they occurred, but that the account produced is an orderly one. This could include, for example, thematic or topical order rather than strict chronological order.

In the absence of knowledge of the ‘literary purposes’ we are left to infer them from what we see regarding the agreements and disagreements in the actual texts of the gospels, as we have nothing else to go on. However, this does not mean that ‘literary purposes’ (as deduced from the text itself) is the only explanation. The points made by Streeter (above) also suggest another explanation. On the assumption that both aMatthew and aLuke knew and used Mark, then if aMatthew saw a damaged copy of Mark with both local damage (e.g. to edges) and with some portions dislocated, we would expect to see not only omissions of Markan text in Matthew, but differences in order due to aMatthew including  portions of Mark that were loose and out of order. If the same ms of Mark was then later used by aLuke, some of the dislocated text may have become further damaged, making it basically unusable, leading to aLuke omitting more of Mark while at the same time having fewer differences of order because more of the loose material was actually missing, not re-located. In addition, because of the ‘many’ accounts referred in Lk 1:1, aLuke may have been in a better position to re-construct the original order of Mark than aMatthew.

Difficult Variants in Text Unique to Mark

Each of the three synoptic gospels contain text that is not in the other two, and in Matthew this ‘Sondergut’ (unique) text consists of approximately 210 verses (20%), while in Luke it is 550 verses, or 43% of Luke. In his ‘Introduction to the New Testament’ Raymond Collins notes that in contrast the Markan Sondergut: 

… consists of two short miracle stories (7:32-37; 8:22-26), three short narratives (3:20-21; 4:26-29; 14:51-52) and a few isolated logia.

In ‘The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze’ Mark Goodacre notes even fewer examples than does Collins: 

There is little material that is present in Mark but absent in both Matthew and Luke. This is in stark contrast to the substantial amount of material unique to Matthew and the even greater amount of material unique to Luke... This state of affairs makes the handful of verses that Mark shares with neither of the other Synoptics all the more interesting. The main examples are the following:

Mark 7.33-36: Healing of a Deaf Mute

Mark 8.22-26: Blind Man of Bethsaida

Mark 14.51-52: Man Running Away Naked

The question that we inevitably find ourselves asking is whether it seems more likely that these are passages that have been omitted by Matthew and Luke (Markan Priority) or whether these are passages that have been added by Mark to Matthew and Luke (Markan Posteriority). It has to be said that Markan Priority seems more likely.

The impression left by both Collins and Goodacre is that the Markan Sondergut is considerably smaller than that in either Matthew or Luke, but in reality both considerably understate the percent of the text of Mark that is unique to Mark. When the text of all the verses that are unique to Mark is combined with the text of the verses at least half of which are unique to Mark, it totals to the equivalent of around 155 verses, or nearly a quarter of Mark, and in addition there are nearly 200 sentences or phrases that are unique to Mark in other verses.

That there is text in Mark that is not present in either Matthew or Luke is not in itself remarkable on any synoptic theory. For example, if Mark was written after both Matthew and Luke then these would simply be additions by aMark, while if Mark was first then both aMatthew and aLuke simply chose to omit these pieces of text in Mark. The problem lies in the nature of the unique text. While in Matthew and Luke the unique text is largely in complete pericopes or groups of verses, in Mark it is mainly small (and often inconsequential) details scattered throughout the whole of the gospel. Depending on the synoptic theory it quite easy to see the unique text in Matthew and Luke as either additions or deletions, while much harder to see the unique text in Mark as either. As noted above, Goodacre, who only sees the Markan Sondergut in terms of complete verses, fails to note this distinction.

In particular, some of the omissions in Matthew and Luke of text in Mark, in particular where variants exist in Mark, are hard to explain. The nature of some of these variants in Mark is such that there is no obvious reason for scribes making copies of Mark either to have made a mistake (e.g. by misreading), or to have changed the text deliberately. In addition, by definition these variants also cannot be assimilations from either Matthew or Luke, as neither Matthew nor Luke contain any corresponding text. Even in the absence of variants, it is sometimes very hard to explain why both aMatthew and aLuke would omit exactly the same piece of Markan text, or alternatively, why aMark would add what is often a trivial detail to a shorter passage from either Matthew or Luke. 

If instead an old ms of Mark was passed from person to person, and became progressively damaged as it changed hands, then people seeing the ms later on would have seen a more damaged (and so harder to re-construct) text. Any copies of the ms would then reflect the state of the text at the time the copy was made, leading to the later co-existence of different variants in the various textual families. Some of these variants are discussed below.

Note: Unless otherwise stated, the discussions below assume Markan priority, i.e. that Mark was written before both Matthew and Luke, and the English text of the gospels is taken from the KJV, as being representative of the (generally) longer text. Where the text of specific papyri or uncials are being compared their text is given using majuscule letters, but may or may not be written in scriptio continua, depending on the point that is being made.

Mark 1:1-3 - As it is Written

Not only do Mk 1:1 and 2b have no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, but both Matthew and Luke begin their respective baptism narratives with parallels to Mk 1:4, 1:2a, and 1:3, in that order. This agreement regarding the rearrangement of the beginning of Mark suggests that what aMatthew and aLuke saw may not have been the same as what we see in Mark today, and is supported by the fact that the whole of Mk 1:2 has parallels at Mt 11:10 and Lk 7:27, suggesting that perhaps Mk 1:2b is a later addition to Mark. As described in Mark 1:1-3 - The Short Beginning, there is a possibility that Mk 1:1-3 were not original, or perhaps that the original beginning of Mark was lost at the same time that the original ending was lost (e.g. by the loss of at least some of the outermost sheet of a codex).

Mark 1:12-13 - The Temptation

Matthew and Luke parallel each other closely in the Temptation passage, while the version in Mark is much shorter, with only Mt 4:1-2 and Lk 4:1b-2 having parallels in Mark. Even in these few verses there are some significant differences between the synoptics: In Matthew Jesus is tempted in the wilderness for an unspecified time, and then fasts 40 days and 40 nights. In both Mark and Luke Jesus is tempted in the wilderness for 40 days, and in Luke he “ate nothing”’ while Mark has nothing about fasting or being hungry. In both Matthew and Luke Jesus is led by the Spirit, whereas in Mark he is driven out. Also, Mark has Jesus tempted by “Satan” (Satana), whereas both Matthew and Luke have “the devil” (tou diabolou), as shown here:

Although there is no suggestion of Markan fatigue here, not only are there significant differences between Mark and the other two synoptics, but there are some difficult variants in Mark, as indicated above by the square brackets. First, while Luke and most mss of Mark have “forty days” in Mk 1:13, a few also have “and forty nights,” which appears to be an assimilation to Matthew. This addition is today found in the Jubilee Bible 2000, which is based on the Reina-Valera, a Spanish translation from 1602, and the Douay–Rheims Bible, a translation of the Vulgate. John Gill reported that this addition existed in three of the versions:

“The Vulgate Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic versions add, "and forty nights": for so long was he there.” (Exposition of the Entire Bible)

It also exists in a few Greek mss: L, M, f13, 33, 579, and 892, but as none of these are early it seems likely that they have one or other of the versions as their ancestors, and that this variant perhaps did not exist in any early Greek ms.

Although “and forty nights” appears to be a simple case of assimilation, there is another variant that does not. While Mark has two references to the wilderness, Matthew and Luke each have only one, with Matthew having the first (into the wilderness - εἰς τὴν ἔρημον), and Luke having the second (in the wilderness - ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ). As aMatthew and aLuke each appear to have considered that only one mention of the wilderness was necessary, why does Mark have two? Also, why in Matthew was “forty days” moved until after the tempting? If Mark was the last synoptic to be written then the second mention of the wilderness in Mark could be seen as aMark copying the phrase from Luke, but if so then why would Mark not also contain any mention of Jesus being hungry, or indeed any of the following verses that have close parallels in Matthew and Luke, but which do not exist in Mark?

On the other hand, assuming Markan priority then there are two possibilities for what aMatthew and aLuke saw in Mark:

The latter is perhaps more likely, because although the majority of mss begin Mk 1:13 with: “And he was there in the wilderness,” some only have “And he was in the wilderness,” while others only have “And he was there.” The existence of these variants indicates uncertainty regarding the originality of “in the wilderness” in Mark, and the differences between Matthew and Luke suggest that in this case it is an assimilation to Luke. However, it is hard to explain why someone would add a second reference to the wilderness almost immediately after the first, and, although there is no extant ms evidence for this, it could indicate that there was a ms in which “into the wilderness” was not present. For example, if there was damage in the area of Mark 1:12-13, these verses could have read approximately:

And immediately the spirit … forty days, being tempted by Satan;

If this was close to the text in the copy of Mark seen by aLuke, then a combination of this and the text of Mt 4:1 could have led to what we see in Lk 4:1b-2.

Mark 1:40-44 - The Leper

There is a well-known variant in Mark 1:41. The NIV here reads:

Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. "I am willing," he said. "Be clean!"

In contrast, the NET (here following the KJV) reads:

Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I am willing. Be clean!”

and adds this note:

The reading found in almost the entire NT ms tradition is σπλαγχνισθείς (splancnisqei", “moved with compassion”). Codex Bezae (D), {1358}, and a few Latin mss (a ff2 r1*) here read ὀργισθείς (ojrgisqei", “moved with anger”).

As being indignant (or angry) and being moved with compassion are almost opposites, how did these two variants occur? The note in the NET suggests that “moved with anger”:

… also could have been prompted by the man’s seeming doubt about Jesus’ desire to heal him (v. 40). As well, it is difficult to explain why scribes would be prone to soften the text here but not in Mark 3:5 or 10:14 (where Jesus is also said to be angry or indignant). Thus, in light of diverse mss supporting “moved with compassion,” and at least a plausible explanation for ὀργισθείς as arising from the other reading, it is perhaps best to adopt σπλαγχνισθείς as the original reading. Nevertheless, a decision in this case is not easy. For the best arguments for ὀργισθείς, however, see M. A. Proctor, “The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus” (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999).

It is hard to explain not only this variant, but also several others in Mk 1:40-44, all of which center on the inclusion or exclusion of one or more words, and for which damage to Mark provides a ready explanation. This is discussed in full in Mark 1:41 - Angry or Compassionate?.

Mark 4:23-25 - Hearing, Having, and Giving

In Mk 4:23-25 we read (subdivided for ease of comparison with Matthew and Luke, and with the last two clauses of Mk 4:24 reflecting the order of the Greek):

If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. [Mk 4:23]

And he said unto them, [Mk 4:24a] Take heed what ye hear: [Mk 4:24b]

with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: [Mk 4:24c]

[and] shall more be given. [Mk 4:24d] unto you that hear [Mk 4:24e]

For he that hath, to him shall be given: [Mk 4:25a]

and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. [Mk 4:25b]

Both the parallels in Matthew and Luke are significantly shorter, reading:

For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, [Mt 13:12a, c.f. Mk 4:25a]

and he shall have more abundance: [Mt 13:12b, c.f. Mk 4:24d]

but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. [Mt 13:12c, c.f. Mk 4:25b]

Take heed therefore how ye hear [Lk 8:18a, c.f. Mk 4:24b]:

for whosoever hath, to him shall be given [Lk 8:18b, c.f. Mk 4:25a];

and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have. [Lk 8:18c, c.f. Mk 4:25b]

Matthew has no parallel to any of Mk 4:23-24c, 24e, and reverses the parallels to Mk 4:24d and 25a, while Luke has no parallel to Mk 4:24a,c-e. If aMatthew and aLuke saw the text of Mk 4:23 where we see it there is no obvious reason for them to have omitted it, as this phrase is used in both Matthew and Luke in other places. For example, both Matthew and Luke have parallels to the phrase at Mk 4:9, and while most mss of Luke have no parallel to Mk 4:23, various mss (several corrected) have the parallel located slightly earlier, at the end of Lk 8:15.

The lack of any parallel to Mk 4:24a in Matthew is not surprising. Not only is it not needed at this point because of the context, but aMatthew seems to have been much less fond of the phrase than aMark (there are 23 instances in Mark, but only 11 in Matthew). However, it is much more unusual for Luke to not contain the phrase, as it appears in 40 other places in Luke. This suggests that aLuke would have included Mk 4:24a if he had seen it in his copy of Mark, and a reasonable conclusion is that Mk 4:23-24a was not present (or perhaps was not in situ) in the copy of Mark seen by both aMatthew and aLuke.

It is also possible that the end of Mk 4:24 may not have been seen in situ by aMatthew and aLuke either, as neither have parallels to Mk 4:24c,e, and only Matthew has a parallel to Mk 4:24d, albeit located between parallels to Mk 4:25 a and b. This possibility is supported by the fact that a significant number of mss of Mark omit Mk 4:24d (καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν), 4:24e (τοῖς ἀκούουσιν), or both:

Omit Mk 4:24e:   01, B, C, L, Δ, 700, 892, 122*, 161*, Lat(aur, c, f, ff2, i, q, r1, vg), bopt

Omit Mk 4:24d:   G, 205, pc100

Omit both:             D, W, 565, 579, 873, 1534, 2206, 2207, 2474, 2808, b, d, e, l, vgmss, sams

In addition, although in f13 Mk 4:24d-e is present, Mk 4:24c is omitted instead.

Metzger commented as follows regarding the variants in Mk 4:24:

The omission of καὶ προστεθήσεται ὑμῖν [Mk 4:24d] seems to have been accidental, owing to homoeoteleuton. The words τοῖς ἀκούουσιν [Mk 4:24e] appear to be a gloss inserted to explain the connection of the saying with βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε [Mk 4:24b]. One Latin manuscript and the Gothic version read "shall be added to you who believe."

Wieland Willker notes the multiple occurrences of homoeteleuton here: υμιν; υμιν; ακουουσιν, and although he states that this is ‘interesting,’ he does not comment further. However, it appears that he is not convinced by the arguments for either the inclusion or omission of Mk 4:24e:

It is interesting to note the many occurrences of h.t. at this variation unit. It is possible that the words τοῖς ἀκούουσιν fell out due to h.t., too: .ιν -..ιν. The omission by D et al. is either due to h.t. or it is a harmonization to Mt. If it is h.t., which is probable, then the witnesses are indirect support for the txt reading. Possibly the words have been added to make a connection with the βλέπετε τί ἀκούετε. This is supported by the addition of the words by f13 at Lk 8:18 directly after ἀκούετε. Nevertheless the construction sounds a bit awkward and seems rather unmotivated. It is also possible that the words have been omitted as confusing. Güting (TC Mark, 2005, p. 247): "the phrase appears difficult to understand and disturbing". He thinks that the promise of such an extreme reward was considered problematic.

Although the lack of Mk 4:24d and/or Mk 4:24e in some mss could be the result of homoeoteleuton, this is no more than a supposition. In addition, the suggestion that scribes made three different omissions (d, e, or both) all as a result of homoeoteleuton is unreasonable. Consequently, it is necessary to invoke a different mechanism to explain the lack of Mk 4:24e, and in Metzger’s case he deems it more likely that Mk 4:24e was a later addition. In a similar way, homoeoteleuton does not explain what we see in f13, in which Mk 4:24c is omitted instead. Although the critical view is that all of Mk 4:24 (except 4:24e) is original, the existence of these different variants supports the possibility that aMatthew and aLuke saw a significantly shorter version of Mk 4:24.

Mark 4:35-41 - What Happened to the Other Boats?

In Mk 4:34 Jesus explains some parables to his disciples, and then in the evening (Mk 4:35) he suggests that they go to the other side (of the lake), so they then leave the crowd and board a boat. However, despite leaving the crowd behind, we read: καὶ ἄλλαι πλοῖα ἦν μετ' αὐτοῦ (NA27, and other boats were with him) at the end of Mk 4:36. Then, in Mk 4:37-41 a storm comes up and Jesus calms it, but there is no further mention of the other boats. Although Deardorff does not comment on this, the fact that aMark introduces the other boats and then apparently forgets to say what happened to them could suggest fatigue.

However, this is not quite the same as the other cases of fatigue suggested by Deardorff, because in this instance there is no mention of any other boats being with them in either Matthew or Luke. Consequently, if Mark followed Matthew and Luke then this is a seemingly inexplicable small detail added by aMark to an existing passage, which he seems to immediately forget as the disciples then act as though there is no-one else near them who could help.

Even assuming Markan priority there is no obvious reason for aMark to have created this redundant detail, and it appears that both aMatthew and aLuke thought so too, as neither included it in their respective gospels. This trivial detail recording the mere existence of other boats seems inexplicable on any synoptic theory, although it would make perfect sense if aMark had been making the point that there were NO other boats with them, as conjectured by Alex Pallis in ‘Notes on St. Mark and St. Matthew:’

Why record that the Lord was accompanied by other vessels when they do not come into play in any way? But there would be an object in mentioning it if the contrary were stated, for the absence of other boats which might render help would account for the terror of the disciples.

Although there is no ms support for the inclusion of οὐκ (not) in the phrase καὶ ἄλλα πλοῖα [οὐκ] ἦν μετ’ αὐτοῦ, there are a significant number of extant variant readings at exactly this location, for no obvious reason, hinting at the possibility of other readings for which we have no ms evidence. The extant Greek readings (with spacing adjusted for comparative purposes) are:

          καὶ ἄλλαι                                   πλοῖα                   ἦν  μετ' αὐτοῦ   (03, NA27)

          και αλλα                                    πλοια                 ησαν μετ αυτου    01

          και αλλα  δε                              πλοια                   ην   μετ αυτου    02

          καὶ ἄλλα  δὲ                               πλοῖαρia             ἦν  μετ' αὐτοῦ   (Byz)

          καὶ ἄλλα                                    πλοῖα   πολλαί    ἦν   μετ' αὐτοῦ   33

          και αλλαι δε                               πλοιαι πολλαι  ησαν μετ  αυτου   D

          καὶ ἄλλα                                                 πολλαί ἦσαν μετ' αὐτοῦ   W

          καὶ ἄλλα                                                                                P45 (the remaining words are not extant)

          τὰ ἄλλα       τὰ οντα                  πλοῖα                        μετ' αὐτοῦ    Θ, 565

          τὰ ἄλλα  δὲ τὰ οντα                  πλοῖα                        μετ'  αὐτοῦ   700

          τὰ ἄλλα       τὰ οντα μετ' ὐτοῦ πλοῖα                                              f1, 28

Although some of the variants are no more than spelling (or pronunciation) differences, the above suggests that scribes seem to have had a remarkably hard time accurately copying what, on the face of it, is such a simple phrase. It is hard to believe that anyone would choose to make deliberate changes of this magnitude, involving apparent word addition, change, and order, unless they were unsure of the correct reading. As Willker (under)states: “These changes are slightly unusual, because they are not inspired from context or parallels.”

Something was definitely unusual about these six words, but what? As with the other examples discussed here, ms damage can explain not only why οὐκ might have been lost (or perhaps been unreadable), how ἦσαν might have been read as ἦν, or πλοῖαρia shortened to πλοῖα, but also other differences given above. Of course, not knowing what the original (undamaged) text might have been makes this conjecture, but damage does provide an explanation for variants that otherwise do not appear to have one.

Mark 6:14-29 - Herod

In Mk 6:14-16, Mt 14:1-2, and Lk 9:7-9 Herod hears of Jesus. Then, in Mk 6:17-29 and Mt 14:3-12 (but not in Luke) the narrative is interrupted by a ‘flashback’ telling the story of Herod beheading John, and then continues with the disciples burying John after they heard about it.

Of this 16-verse section of Mark, only Mk 6:14-17 have any parallel in Luke, and even in these verses the parallels have significant peculiarites. The parallels begin unremarkably at Lk 9:7, following on directly from the parallels to the previous verses in Mark, i.e. with no discontinuity. However, although Mk 6:16a is paralleled at Luke 9:9a, there is no parallel to Mk 6:16b (either in Matthew or Luke), and instead there is a unique addition at Lk 9:9b. This latter is possibly due to extreme uncertainty over the wording of Mk 6:16b, with Willker recording no less than 13 different variants at the end of this verse, and stating: “It is clear that this large number of variants has its cause in a difficult original reading.”

Mk 6:17 then has parallels in both Matthew and Luke, but while the parallel at Mt 14:3 continues the Herodian narrative, the parallel to Mk 6:17 is at Lk 3:19-20, just before Jesus is baptized by John. Not only are there no equivalents at the corresponding locations in either Mark or Matthew, but here it is interruptive, making it unlikely that aLuke would chose to put this text here if he had another viable option. There is then a large ‘gap’ in the Lukan version of the Markan narrative, continuing at Lk 9:10 with a parallel to Mk 6:30.

The variants in Mark described above, coupled with the major differences in the synoptic parallels, strongly suggest that aLuke had a ms of Mark in which Mk 6:16b and 18-29 were missing, and although Mk 6:17 was present it was not connected to the rest of the ms. If aLuke actually saw this small out-of-place piece of Mark, then it would be natural for him to try to include it where John was mentioned early in Mark, i.e. in the area of the baptism. While Luke has no parallels to Mk 6:18-29, Matthew does, but even here there are many gaps in the narrative, with no parallels in Matthew to Mk 6:20b, 21b, 22b, 24b-25a, 27b. This would also suggest significant damage to Mark, which led later to the verses being missing completely when the ms was seen by aLuke. Variants in this area of Mark also point to other people seeing differing degrees of damage. For example, in the KJV Mk 6:20 reads:

For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

However, the NET gives the same verse as:

because Herod stood in awe of John and protected him, since he knew that John was a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard him, he was thoroughly baffled, and yet he liked to listen to John.

The NET then notes:

In place of ἠπόρει (hporei, “he was baffled”) the majority of mss (A C D Ë1 33 Ï lat sy) have ἐποίει (epoiei, “he did”; cf. KJV’s “he did many things.”) The best mss (אB L [W] Θ 2427 co) support the reading followed in the translation. The variation may be no more than a simple case of confusion of letters, since the two readings look very much alike. The verb ποιέω (poiew, “I do”) certainly occurs more frequently than ἀπορέω (aporew, “I am at a loss”), so a scribe would be more likely to write a more familiar word. Further, even though the reading ἐποίει is the harder reading in terms of the sense, it is virtually nonsensical here, rendering it most likely an unintentional corruption.

As the NET points out, the majority of mss have a “virtually nonsensical” reading, with the most likely original ἠπόρει being replaced by ἐποίει. This error suggests difficulty in reading one or two letters, which could easily have been caused by slight ms damage in an exemplar. As Luke has no parallel to “and observed him; and when he heard him, he [was baffled][did many things], and heard him gladly,” it would appear that this damage became more extensive before the ms was seen by aLuke. Other variants, centering around whether particular words are included or not, also support the possibility of damage in this area of Mark.

In Mk 6:22, depending on the ms, the woman who danced for Herod was either:

τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ       ῾Ηρῳδιάδος   (his daughter Herodias)

τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος  (the daughter of Herodias herself)

τῆς θυγατρὸς           τῆς ῾Ηρῳδιάδος   (the daughter of Herodias)

The NET suggests that the first variant is “likely original,” despite being historically incorrect. However, it is perhaps more likely that ms damage led to a scribe seeing a hard to decipher version of the third variant, and the other two then resulted from attempts to correct it. There is a similar problem in Mk 6:23, with αὐτῇ πολλά (“to her insistently”) in some mss, and either or both words not present in others, again suggesting omissions due to hard to read text.

Mark 6:31-35 - After Herod

In all three synoptics, after the return of the apostles Jesus goes to a ‘private’ place, presumably to pray after having been told about John’s death (even though in Luke he had not just been told about it!). The problem noted by Deardorff is that there is confusion as to whether the disciples went with Jesus. In Matthew it seems clear that they did not:

When Jesus heard of it, he departed thence by ship into a desert place apart: and when the people had heard thereof, they followed him on foot out of the cities. [Mt 14:13]

And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick. [Mt 14:14]

And when it was evening, his disciples came to him,… [Mt 14:15a]

There are no significant variants here: Jesus goes on his own, by boat, to a desert/deserted/isolated (translations vary) place. Many people follow him, and he heals their sick. The disciples then join him in the evening, having (we assume) followed on foot. However, in the parallel at Mk 6:31-35 there is confusion, with either Jesus alone, or Jesus and the disciples, taking the boat trip and being followed. Then Jesus alone gets out of the boat and teaches the people, and is later joined by the disciples, who had, perhaps, been sitting by themselves in the boat all day. In some bibles it is clear who gets in the boat, reading: “Let's go off by ourselves,” “Come with me,” and “Let’s go,” while others (like the KJV) are ambiguous: “Come away by yourselves,” and “Come away, all of you.” The problem is rooted in the fact that in Mk 6:32-33 different mss refer either just to Jesus, or to the disciples (with or without Jesus). Willker summarizes the situation as:

31 He said to them, "Come away to a deserted place all by yourselves …

32 And they/he went away in the boat to a deserted place …

33 Now many saw them/him going and recognized them/him, and they hurried there on foot from all the towns and arrived ahead of them/him.

34 As he went ashore, he saw a great crowd; and he had compassion for them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things.

35 When it grew late, his disciples came to him.

Mk 6:31 is translated differently according to how the variants in Mk 6:32-33 are viewed. In addition, many Western mss (D, a, c, d, ff2, i, r1, r2, vgmss, Sy-S, Sy-P, aeth) have a different variant in Mk 6:31 itself, reading ‘Δεῦτε ὑπάγωμεν,’ ‘Venite eamus,’ or its equivalent. Willker again:

The phrase Δεῦτε ὑμεῖς αὐτοὶ κατ’ἰδίαν [Deute hymeis autoi kat’ idian] is a bit difficult and equivocal. Literally it says "Come, you yourself, privately, by yourself". Δεῦτε means "Come" or "Come now" or "Come on". It is not clear if this means the disciples alone or the disciples plus Jesus. The Western text is clarifying this by changing the text to "Come, let us go" (Δεῦτε ὑπάγωμεν).

Other mss and witnesses (f13a,b, 2, 22, 157, 700, Maj-part(E, F, G, H, V, Y, G), Erasmus, Lut) have Jesus leaving on his own: (ἀπῆλθεν) with Willker commenting:

In verse 32 some witnesses have the singular, which means that Jesus is separating himself from the disciples: "And he went away in the boat …" This is also the reading of Luther: "Und er fuhr da in einem Schiff zu einer Wüste besonders." Luther used the Greek text of Erasmus. ἀπῆλθεν [he went away] is probably either a typical unintentional scribal error or it is an intentional change due to the interpretation of verse 31, that Jesus is sending his disciples away.

The variant continues to verse 33, where again some manuscripts have the singular ("him"), but the support is not consistent. Only 700 has the singular in all three cases. In verse 34 it is Jesus alone, who is acting. Then, in verse 35 it is said that his disciples came to him, but it is unclear from where.

Deardorff’s explanation for these variants revolves around the apparently illogical sequence of having Jesus and the disciples go by boat, and the disciples then being ‘lost’ somewhere, and only arriving in the evening. Indeed, the variants in these verses (including others in Mk 6:33) do appear to suggest ‘fatigue’ errors by aMark when adapting the sequence in Matthew, that were later corrected in various ways, although the subsequent combinations of variants are harder to explain. In contrast, if Mark preceded Matthew, it is almost impossible to provide a rational explanation (save for a very strange lapse in concentration) for aMark having written such an illogical sequence of events that there were multiple different attempts to make sense of it. Then again, if there were no problems with the original in Mark (e.g. having they/them in Mk 6:32-33), why would:

Damage can explain all of the above. If Mk 6:45-8:26 was not present in the ms of Mark seen by aLuke, then it could be that aLuke saw the most extreme stage of the damage, with aMatthew seeing a less damaged ms containing the majority of this passage. aMatthew may nevertheless have seen some damage close by, in the area of Mk 6:31-33, and therefore had to change the details of the passage on the basis of what he saw. If there was damage in this area, then a perfectly reasonable explanation for the different variants of these verses in Mark is that copyists attempted to repair the damage in various ways. With damage to Mark in this area we should then not be surprised to see different versions of the passage in both Matthew and Luke, with, for example, aLuke having apparently not having seen Mk 6:30b-31 (and perhaps Mk 6:33-34), nor having any mention of Jesus (with or without the disciples) travelling by ship.

Mark 6:45 - Sailing to Bethsaida or to Gennesaret?

Deardorff notes the following geographic inconsistency in Mark, and suggests that, in his preoccupation to add detail, aMark forgot where he had previously indicated that Jesus was heading:

Just before the walking-on-water incident, both Matthew and Mark indicate that Jesus instructed his disciples to go in their boat to the other side of Lake Galilee. However, Mk 6:45 adds that they were to go to Bethsaida, while Matthew fails to specify any particular destination. Just after this incident, when they had crossed over, both Matthew (Mt 14:34) and Mark (6:53) mention that they reached land at Gennesaret, not Bethsaida! (Bethsaida is on the northeast corner of the lake, while Gennesaret is on the northwest side, seven miles distant.)

Thus it appears that the writer of Mark made a typical addition ("to Bethsaida") to the text he was copying from Matthew in order that his gospel would seem more original due to possessing increased detail (MAH-D.3.), while omitting Peter's walking-on-water attempt. But then when he resumed following Matthew, he copied/translated Mt 14:34 and its Gennesaret destination without alteration into the first part of Mk 6:53, apparently forgetting that this would conflict with his Bethsaida insertion. A preoccupation with adding his next insertion ("and moored to the shore"), to the last part of Mk 6:53, may have contributed to his editorial fatigue here. 

Although Deardorff states that Mk 6:45 gives Bethsaida as the destination, Mk 6:53 states that Jesus and the disciples actually arrived at Gennesaret. The reality is that the destination given in Mk 6:45 is not as certain as Deardorff suggests, with there being at least 11 different variants at this point. Although the majority of mss do have them going “to the other side, to Bethsaida” (εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν), other variants have: “to Bethsaida,” “from Bethsaida,” “the other side of Bethsaida,” and just “to the other side.” Willker discusses these variants (See: ‘Mk 6:45-46 (Mt 14:22-23a): Leaving the Five Thousand’ in The Not So Great Omission in Matthew), but does not identify a definite original variant, stating only that the NA27 (majority) reading is “probably original.” The problem is that it is very hard to see how either Matthew 14:22 or any one of the known variants in Mark could have led to all the others, only one of which (the majority reading) Deardorff addresses. Instead, if aMatthew saw a damaged copy of Mark in which it was unclear whether Jesus and the disciples were going to or coming from Bethsaida, then it is understandable why aMatthew would choose to not include the name of their destination.

Mark 6:46-8:26 – The Great Omission

Many of the peculiarities regarding the text of these verses, their shorter versions in Matthew, and their non-appearance in Luke, are covered in detail in The Great Omission and The Not So Great Omission. Some details relevant to the ‘fatigue’ issue are discussed below.

Mark 7:2-9a - You Hypocrites

Deardorff does not comment on these verses as they do not suggest fatigue in Mark. Instead, on the MAH this would appear to be a case of aMark expanding on Matthew. Of Mk 7:2-9a, only vv. 5b-7 have any parallel in Matthew, and only (possibly, see The Great Omission) Mk 7:6b has any parallel in Luke. This is consistent with the hypothesis of a damaged copy of Mark being seen by both aMatthew and aLuke, with aMatthew having not seen Mk 7:2-5a and 7:8-9a, and aLk having perhaps seen just a fragment of these verses.

The possibility of damage here in Mark having been seen by aMatthew is supported by the fact that in Mt 3b-6 and 7-9 are swapped in comparison with Mark, suggesting some dislocation of the text of Mark at this point. This is supported by variant readings in Mk 7:2, 4, and 8 that are suggestive of these verses being loose or missing due to damage.

Mark 7:17 - The Missing Parable

Deardorff makes the point that:

At Mk 7:17 Jesus' disciples ask him about "the parable." However, the previous saying in Mark: "the things which come out of a man are what defile him" is no parable. It is plain talk, as it refers to things coming out of a man, such as evil words, evil thoughts and evil actions. So why did the writer of Mark improperly call it a parable?

The answer supplied by Deardorff is that Mark is here missing any parallel to Mt 15:13-14, which does contain a parable, and that the parable was omitted by aMark because of fatigue. However, as Mk 7:17 is within the boundaries of the Great Omission, it is at least as likely that the parable originally was in Mark, and that what we see is an early stage of the damage that later led to the Great Omission in Luke.

Mark 8:14b - The Extra Loaf of Bread

Still within the scope of The Great Omission, Deardorff notes that although Mk 8:14a, 15-17 has close parallels at Mt 16:5-8, there is an apparent addition at Mk 8:14b:

Did the disciples remember to bring along a loaf of bread? In Mk 8:14a Mark continues to parallel Matthew rather closely, in saying the disciples had forgotten to bring bread (loaves) along (Mt 16:5). However, in 14b an exception is mentioned: they did bring one loaf; no such statement is in Matthew. But Mk 8:15-17 again parallels Matthew very closely (Mt 16:6-8), in repeating twice more that the disciples had no bread (no loaves). Thus the practice or habit of the writer of Mark of inserting a minor detail into the text of Matthew he had been following (MAH-D.3.), initiated the problem. His continued following of the Matthean text subsequently, and failure to adjust his subsequent text to conform to the added detail, generated the Markan fatigue.

Deardorff then suggests: “To refute this, it needs to be argued that one loaf is the same as no loaf at all for feeding twelve men. However, in view of Jesus' capability of multiplying a small amount of bread into a vast amount, that argument cannot stand.” As in other cases already covered, if aMatthew was using a damaged copy of Mark, then it is easy to see how this small detail could have been missing (or unreadable) in what aMatthew saw.

Mark 8:22-26 - Healing a Blind Man

In Mk 8:22-26 Jesus goes to Bethsaida and heals a blind man by spitting in his eyes and touching him, and when that has only a partial effect, Jesus touches him again. None of this pericope has any parallel in either Matthew or Luke, and it has been suggested that this is because neither aMatthew not aLuke liked the idea of Jesus having to spit, or needing two attempts, to effect a healing. However, either or both could have easily removed these details without removing the whole pericope. Instead, because these verses are at the end of The Great Omission it is more likely that aLuke did not include them for the same reason (whatever that was) that he did not include any parallels to Mk 6:46-8:21 either.

In both Mk 8:21b and Mt 16:11a Jesus asks the same question: “How is it that you do not understand.” However, while in Mark the question is just left unanswered and Jesus then goes to Bethsaida, aMatthew (like aLuke) has no parallel to Mk 8:22-26, but instead adds Mt 16:11b-12, in which Jesus explains what he meant in Mk 16:6, and the disciples finally understand. It appears from this that aMatthew knew that something was expected between his parallels to Mk 8:21 and 27, but had no idea what it should be. This suggests that Mk 8:22-26 was unreadable in his copy of Mark, perhaps because he saw significant damage to the ms at this point.

The idea of damage at this point is supported by the variants in both Mk 8:25 and 26, which together suggest that these verses marked the ‘trailing edge’ of a damaged portion of a ms. Willker identifies 7 variants in Mk 8:25, being variations of: "he made him look up (or look clearly)," "he began to see clearly," and "he saw clearly," while the NET notes the following variants at the end of Mk 8:26:

Codex Bezae (D) replaces “Do not even go into the village” with “Go to your house, and do not tell anyone, not even in the village.” Other mss with some minor variations (Θ Ë13 28 565 2542 pc) expand on this prohibition to read “Go to your house, and if you go into the village, do not tell anyone.” There are several other variants here as well. While these expansions are not part of Mark’s original text, they do accurately reflect the sense of Jesus’ prohibition.

Finally, while in Mk 8:27 Jesus and his disciples go out “into the towns of Caesarea Philippi,” in the parallel at Mk 16:13 they actually arrive in the area, and then: “came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi,” because in Matthew they had not previously come to Bethsaida. The evidence of the variants in Mk 8:25-26, the lack of any parallels to Mk 8:22-26, and the fact that both Matthew and Luke begin paralleling Mark immediately afterwards, all point to a ms of Mark damaged at this point being seen by aMatthew, with greater damage being later seen by aLuke.

Mark 9:14-30 - The Exorcism of a Boy

This 17-verse passage in Mark has parallels in both Matthew and Luke, but both the parallels are much shorter, at Mt 17:14-22a (8 ½ verses) and Lk 9:37c-43a (6 ½ verses) respectively. Although in both Matthew and Luke the basic information is the same, a lot of the details in the initial ‘scene setting’ are missing, as is most of the information regarding how the boy was affected, the belief of the boys’ father, and what Jesus did after he exorcised the spirit. In Mark the passage begins with three verses none of which (apart from a small section of Mk 9:14) have any parallel in either Matthew or Luke, followed by two verses with close parallels in both. The rest of the passage, Mk 9:19-30, then begins:

He answereth him, and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him unto me. [Mk 9:19]

And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. [Mk 9:20]

After continuing with a conversation between Jesus and the boys’ father, and Jesus then curing the boy, the passage ends with Jesus and the disciples leaving:

his disciples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? [Mk 9:28b]

And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer[ and fasting]. [Mk 9:29]

And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. [Mk 9:30]

The parallel in Matthew takes up just 6 verses. It begins in almost exactly the same way, but then has only a very brief statement that Jesus cured the boy, and an added verse about the disciples faith:

Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you? bring him hither to me. [Mt 7:17]

And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. [Mt 7:18]

Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? [Mt 7:19]

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. [Mt 7:20]

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting. [Mt 7:21]

And while they abode in Galilee, [Mt 7:22]

The parallel in Luke is even shorter. It also begins with a close parallel to Mk 9:19, but then adds some detail from Mk 9:20 and has just a brief statement regarding the cure:

And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither. [Lk 9:41]

And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father. [Lk 9:42]

And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. [Lk 9:43a]

What is striking is not that both aMatthew and aLuke decided to keep the passage but shorten it, but that:

It is not just a case of aMatthew and aLuke agreeing against Mark: They also agree on where to exclude text from Mark, and where to re-write Mark, but do not agree on which small details to retain or (in the case of Matthew) add.

On the other hand, if Mark was written after both Matthew and Luke then we have an equally odd situation, in that Mark chose to add many unnecessary minor details to something that both Matthew and Luke contain in much shorter form. For example, (depending on the synoptic theory) either aMatthew re-locates some small details of the boy from Mk 9:22a (while ignoring the similar small details in Mk 9:20-21, 22b), or aMark re-locates the small details (that do not exist in Luke) from the end of Matthew 17:15, and adds many similar small (and unnecessary) details to it.

Whether Mark was written first or last, the details of these differences between the synoptics appear hard to explain. However, if both aMatthew and aLuke saw damage in this area of Mark then these differences make sense. If The Great Omission in Luke (75 verses of Mark, ending at v. 8:27, that are ‘missing’ from Luke) was due to damage in the copy of Mark used by aLuke, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that Mark may have also been damaged a little further on, that damage in some of these verses led to multiple variants in copies of Mark, and that later, aMatthew and aLuke saw a fragmentary version of Mk 9:14-30 that only included Mk 9:14b, 17a-20a, 22a, 25b, 26a, and 28b-30a.

For example, in Mk 9:15 most mss have the crowd simply greeting Jesus, but in D, it (b, c, d, ff2, i, k), DiatessArabic they rejoice when they greet him. This Western reading appears to be due simply to reading προσχέροντες instead of προστρέχοντες, i.e. a difference of just a few letters. While this could be dismissed as just a typical scribal error, it is possible that the error was due to ms damage at this point.

The NET notes this variant in Mk 9:23: 

Most mss (A C3 Ψ 33 Ï) have τὸ εἰ δύνασαι πιστεῦσαι (to ei dunasai pisteusai, “if you are able to believe”), instead of τὸ εἰ δύνῃ (to ei dunh, “if you are able”; supported by א B C* L N* Δ Ë1 579 892 pc). Others have εἰ δύνῃ (or δυνάσαι) πιστεῦσαι (“if you are able to believe”; so D K Θ Ë13 28 565 al), while still others have τοῦτο εἰ δύνῃ (touto ei dunh, “if you can [do] this”; so [Ì45] W).

The NET suggests that the shortest reading (τὸ εἰ δύνῃ) is original, but: “that scribes had difficulty with the original wording here, and made adjustments in various directions.” The rationale appears to be that no-one, seeing one of the longer readings, would have any reason to shorten it. However, damage can easily explain why τοῦτο would either be shortened to τὸ or removed completely, why δύνασαι would be shortened to δύνῃ, and πιστεῦσαι would not be included.

Two other variants occur in Mk 9:24, with many mss omitting μετὰ δακρύων (with tears). Willker comments: “There is no reason for an omission,” but of course he really means “There is no reason for an omission” if the scribe saw it,  this does not take account of the possibility of damage at this location. This also applies to the omission of Κύριε later in the same verse, and the similar support for the two omissions (including P45 and W) suggests a common origin. In Mk 9:25 the omission of τῷ ἀκαθάρτῳ in some mss (also including P45 and W) also suggests the same origin.

The damage to these verses could have become more extensive (through use) by the time that aMatthew and aLuke saw this particular ms, so resulting in them not including these verses in their respective gospels.

Mark 9:41 - The Lost Reward

Deardorff discusses the ‘reward’ in Mk 9:41:

At Mk 9:41 we read: "For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward." This can be recognized as a parallel to Matthew's "And whoever gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water because he is a disciple, truly, I say to you, he shall not lose his reward" (Mt 10:42). In the Markan verse, one wonders what reward is being referred to that might be lost, as there is no mention of any reward in any of its previous verses. The verse is incoherent, as only in the following chapter of Mark is there mention of heavenly rewards. In the paralleled Matthean verse, however, different kinds of rewards are discussed in its previous two verses. The omission of these verses by the writer of Mark (MAH-D.1.), followed by his resumption of Matthean text that mentioned "lose his reward," produced this instance of editorial fatigue.

Deardorff suggests that because Mt 10:40-41 discuss “different kinds of rewards” the lack of this discussion in Mark is evidence of fatigue. However, if anything, this would be ‘reverse fatigue’ because it is the introduction of the rewards that is missing in Mark. However, Deardorff does not note that not only is Mt 10:40 paralleled at Mk 9:37b, neither refer to rewards as such, and the only earlier mention in Matthew is in Mt 10:41, which has loose parallels in Mark and Luke, neither of which mention rewards. As Lk 9:50c is a very close parallel to Mk 9:40, for aMark to have done as Deadorff suggests he would have had to deliberately ignore Mt 10:41 in favor of Lk 9:50c, but then follow it with an edited version of Mt 10:42. This seems unlikely.

While Deardorff gives the middle of Mk 9:41 as: “because you bear the name of Christ,” the KJV has: “in my name, because ye belong to Christ," and the Aramaic Bible in Plain English has: “in the name that you are one who belongs to The Messiah.” These variants, and others (Willker lists eight), depend on whether “in my name” is present, and whether the person belongs to “Christ” or “the Messiah.” It seems unlikely that the process of creating Mk 9:41 from Mt 10:42 would allow for the creation of so many variants, but there is evidence that instead the variants in Mk 9:41 caused problems for both aMatthew and aLuke.

The first point is that Mt 10:42 does not refer to someone giving water “in my name,” but instead “in the name of a disciple.” Then, there is no parallel to the person bearing the name of (or belonging to) Christ or The Messiah. The lack of parallels in Matthew to exactly the portion of Mark that has multiple variants strongly suggests that aMatthew had great difficultly trying to work out the text of Mk 9:41, and the fact that the whole of Mk 9:41 has no parallel in Luke suggests that aLuke had even greater trouble. This fits exactly the scenario of a damaged copy of Mark being seen by aMatthew, with aLuke later seeing more extensive damage at the same location.

Mark 10:52 - Did Bartimaeus Go or Stay?

Deardorff suggests that having Bartimaeus following Jesus in Mk 10:52b indicates that aMark was here following Mt 20:24b, and that he had ‘forgotten’ that in Mk 10:52a Jesus had told Bartimaeus to go his way, a detail that is not in either Matthew or Luke. However, it seems equally likely that aMark is simply suggesting that Bartimaeus chose to follow Jesus after he was dismissed.

Mark 11:3 - Returning the Colt

Deardorff writes:

At Mk 11:3 the two disciples tell the caretakers of the colt that Jesus needs it and "will send it back here immediately." This extra clause is not in the Matthean parallel (Mt 21:2-3).

He then suggests that aMark apparently later forgot to mention that the colt had been returned, because there is no equivalent text in Matthew. However, Deadorff’s initial premise is incorrect, because the end of Mt 21:3 reads: “and he will send them at once.” As Matthew refers to two animals, this can be seen as otherwise exactly equivalent to the end of Mk 11:3, so that if aMark was following Matthew there is no fatigue here. Instead, the closeness of the two verses suggests either that aMark was expanding on Matthew, or perhaps that what aMatthew saw in Mark was missing some of the words that we see:

And if anyone says anything to you, you will say, ‘The Lord needs them, and he will send them at once.” [Mt 21:3]

καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ τι   ἐρεῖτε                        ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτῶν χρείαν ἔχει       εὐθὺς        δὲ ἀποστελεῖ   αὐτούς

καὶ ἐάν τις ὑμῖν εἴπῃ Τί ποιεῖτε τοῦτο εἴπατε ὅτι Ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ  χρείαν ἔχει καὶ εὐθὺς αὐτὸν ἀποστέλλει        πάλιν ὧδε

And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it, and will send it here again at once.’” [Mk 11:3]

Neither Mark nor Matthew later make any mention of what happened to the animals after Jesus he entered Jerusalem. This may be a narrative inconsistency, but is not fatigue by aMark.

Mark 11:8-17 - Where Did the People Go?

In Mk 11:8-10 many people either went before or followed Jesus from the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. Then, very strangely, we read in Mk 11:11:

And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. [Mk 11:11]

None of Jesus’ followers seem to have entered Jerusalem with him. Instead, he looked around the temple completely uneventfully, and he and the disciples then returned to Bethany, with his followers having apparently disappeared somewhere. On the way into Jerusalem the next day Jesus curses the fig tree (Mk 11:13-14), causes havoc in the temple (Mk 11:15-18), leaves again (Mk 11:19), and by the following morning the fig tree had dried up (Mk 11:20-21). It is only in Mk that Jesus takes the initial look around Jerusalem, as Mk 11:11 has no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, and everything in the parallel passages all takes place on the same day. Deardorff comments:

This … is seen to be an alteration of the Matthean version because the writer of Mark, in making the alteration, lost track of the people involved. In the Matthean version, some at least of the people who followed Jesus into Jerusalem are implied to have been present to witness the cleansing of the temple, since at the end of that event the blind and lame among them were healed.

… Only on the following day, after Jesus' second entrance into the temple when the cleansing occurs according to Mark, is there suddenly a multitude of people present at the temple to hear him teach (Mk 11:18); where they came from is not mentioned. There had been no announcement that Jesus would appear in the temple on the very next day.

Deardorff then suggests that in adding Mk 11:11 aMark had ‘suffered from editorial fatigue’ because in that verse he made no mention of the people who had been with Jesus, only to have them re-appear in Mk 11:18. However, there is no indication in Mark that the multitude in the temple had any connection with the people who were with Jesus before he entered Jerusalem, a situation that aMark (if he was using Matthew) could have chosen to clarify by adding a parallel to Mt 21:10b-11 in Mk 11:15, or a parallel to Mt 21:14 immediately before Mk 11:18. Rather than aMark suffering from editorial fatigue, if aMark was following Matthew then this looks like a deliberate, but strange, choice by aMark. See Mark 11:11 The Missing Multitude for more on this issue.

Mark 11:13, 21-22 - The Fig Tree

Deardorff makes two different points regarding the fig tree, suggesting fatigue in both cases. He notes that in Mk 11:13b we are told that: "it was not the season for figs" (an explanation not in Matthew), but then Mark apparently follows Matthew by cursing the tree anyway. Although this explanation does not seem to justify having Jesus curse the fig tree, as one immediately follows the other it is highly unlikely that aMark would forget what he had just written, making fatigue highly unlikely. Then, in Mk 11:21-22 Peter speaks to Jesus about the tree, but Jesus then answers “them,” as if aMark had been following Mt 21:20, in which the disciples (not just Peter) speak to Jesus. However, even though it was Peter who spoke, it is not unreasonable for Jesus to then speak to the disciples (rather than just Peter) in the next few verses. Even though these examples may not be fatigue, it does seem that aMatthew found both problematical, as he edits the Markan text in both places.

Mark 12:38 - The Scribes Robes

Deardorff comments on aMark abbreviating Mt 23:5b:

The phrase "long robes" in the RSV translation should actually read just "robes" according to the Greek upon which it is based. So why should wearing robes be a contributory reason for receiving condemnation? To go about dressed in a robe was simply normal behavior. We see that the writer of Mark, within his large abbreviation, sub-abbreviated the invective of Mt 23:5 against the scribes and Pharisees, so as to eliminate mention of the phylacteries and fringes on the robes.

Although Deardorff is correct in that στολαῖς (stolais) can be translated as just “robes,” in this context it refers to a particular form of long robe or gown worn “as a mark of dignity” (Strongs – 4749). Consequently, aMark is not suggesting that the scribes wore just ‘everyday’ long clothing, but robes to mark them out as being above other people. There is no question of damage to Mark here, but even if Mark followed Matthew, aMatthew is simply using the correct term for the type of clothing worn by the scribes instead of providing specific details of the robes themselves.

Mark 13:3 - Who Did Jesus Speak to Privately?

Deardorff suggests that because “”Jesus speaks only (privately) to Peter, James, John and Andrew, whereas in Matthew it was to "the disciples,"" this represents fatique in Mark because what Jesus says should have been spoken to all the disciples. However, this reasoning is based purely on Deardorff’s opinion of the purpose of Jesus’ conversation. The fact that in Matthew and Luke Jesus spoke to all the disciples may indicate that aMatthew and aLuke agreed with Deardorff, but this is not a case of aMark ‘forgetting’ something in Matthew. Instead, whatever the synoptic theory, he made a specific choice to name just four disciples instead of including all of them.

Mark 16:9-20 – The Long Ending

Although the majority of mss of Mark end at Mk 16:20, a few end at Mk 16:8. Verses 9-20 are collectively known as The Long Ending, and a great deal has been written on the subject of why these different endings (and other text following Mk 16:8, e.g. the Short Ending and the Freer Logion) exist. Many commentators have suggested that the awkward ending of Mk 16:8 indicates that this was never intended to be the end of this gospel, and that the various other endings are attempts to ‘fix’ the problem by supplying an appropriate ending. Assuming that Mark originally ended after Mk 16:8, then damage to the end of an early ms of Mark (possibly the original) would explain the loss of whatever was intended to be the end, whether this was Mk 16:9-20 or something else.

Conclusion

There are many small pieces of text in Mark that, assuming Mark was the last synoptic to be written, appear to be inconsistent additions, and Deardorff suggests that some of them could be due to editorial fatigue causing aMark to ‘forget’ some of the details he had incorporated from Matthew. On the other hand, assuming Markan priority, the corresponding removals of the same small pieces of Markan text from parallels in Matthew and Luke appear unnecessary, and in some places cause nearby text to be altered for no apparent reason other than to fit in with the removals. These changes are most frequently considered to be editorial choices by the authors of Matthew and Luke, with no further explanation given, so leaving all reasons for the choices unstated.

Neither of these explanations are satisfactory, because while they both utilize a mechanism (fatigue and editorial choice) that could result in these changes, that is as far as they go. Without any underlying rationale to indicate why either of these mechanisms are the reason why these particular pieces of text were changed, but not others, each change has to be studied separately, with no chance of seeing any patterns that might emerge from taking a more holistic approach. There is also the problem that one of the main ‘canons’ of Textual Criticism is ‘Lectio brevior praeferenda’ (The shorter reading is best), and hence in the cases described above many people believe that the shorter readings found in Matthew and Luke (in particular where they seem to be derived from shorter variants in Mark), are more authentic than the longer readings in Mark.

However, some studies have indicated that this canon may not be based on solid ground. For example, in a response by James R. Royse to reviews of his book ‘Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri,’ he wrote:

Finally, I should note that Jongkind’s own study of Codex Sinaiticus has provided yet further evidence that early scribes tended to omit rather than to add. This adds to my conviction that the preference for the shorter reading is fundamentally mistaken. And I wonder if there is, or really ever was, any evidence at all that scribes tended to add. In any case, there is increasing evidence, from the work of Hernández on Revelation, of Head on the early less extensive papyri, and of Jongkind on Codex Sinaiticus, that omission was more common than addition, and thus that the scribal tendency underlying the preference for the shorter reading is illusory

… As extreme examples, we may think of the ways that Matthew and Luke, at least on the two-document hypothesis, handled the text of Mark. Clearly, their overall tendency was to expand. But that tendency to expand did not prevent Matthew and Luke from omitting on occasion, as at Mark 1:32, where each adopts one clause of a redundancy in Mark, or Mark 4:26–29, the parable of the seed growing secretly, where each of Matthew and Luke chooses to omit the passage entirely.

… But within the transmission of the New Testament (or the Septuagint or the Masoretic Text) there are many factors at work, and surely we cannot expect to explain the complications that we find by appeal to anything other than complex, sometimes conflicting, tendencies. However, despite such qualifications, I believe the evidence strongly supports the view that early scribes of the New Testament tended to shorten the text. And that is, if not the entire story, at least an important part of the story

What Royse does not comment on here is WHY scribes might tend to shorten the text, but one obvious possibility is that in the case of a scribe finding a particular piece of text unreadable or missing he would try his best to write something that made sense to him, even if it was shorter. As there is significant evidence pointing to the possibility of some people seeing a copy of Mark that was damaged (e.g. at the end), then we need to consider the possibility that there could have been damage in other areas of the text, and how scribes might have dealt with it. So, it makes sense to ask questions such as: “If an early (perhaps even the original) ms of Mark was damaged, how might this show up? What else might we see either in mss of Mark, or, on the assumption of Markan priority, in the other synoptics? What, if anything, can the known variants in Mark tell us when considering them en masse rather than individually? Although only a few variants are discussed above, there is a pattern. Each variant appears to be the result of small pieces of text (sometimes complete words, sometimes just a few letters) being missing in the exemplars from which some of our extant mss of Mark were copied.

Whether these exemplars were actually all the same ms, or different mss all derived from a single original damaged document, may never be known, but it is still worth examining how far the possibility of damage to Mark can take us towards a complete solution of the synoptic problem. Indeed, given that almost all the extant New Testament mss show signs of damage (with many being no more than small fragnments of a complete document), it is surprising that questions such as: “Can any of the otherwise hard to explain variants in ms ‘x’ be explained as a result of the scribe of ‘x’ seeing damage in his exemplar?” do not get asked by text critics. In particular, this should be one of the standard criteria employed by anyone who claims to use any form of eclecticism when using textual criticism to determine the original text of any disputed reading. The fact that it is not has a lot to do with the general dislike of conjectural emendation among text critics, which in no small measure is due to a widespread belief that in all cases the original text is to be found somewhere in the thousands of extant ms.

However, given what we see of the condition of the extant mss, it is hard to believe that IN ALL CASES the scribes of our earliest extant mss had access to pristine exemplars, especially given that the oldest gospel, Mark, was perhaps the most vulnerable because of what appears to have been its scarcity. The fact that damage to an exemplar provides a ready explanation for at least some of the otherwise hard to explain variants supports this view. It should be noted that if even just one of the above differences IS the result of damage, then the possibility of damage cannot be summarily rejected in any of the other cases. Then, at any point in Mark at which variants appear to be the result of ms damage due to text being missing or unreadable, it is more likely that longer variant readings are representative of the original text than shorter ones.

References

Carlson, Stephen C:  The Synoptic Problem Website

Collins, Raymond E.: Introduction to the New Testament

Croy, N. Clayton: Where the Gospel text begins: A non-theological interpretation of Mk 1:1 NovT 43 (2001) 106-127

Deardorff, James: The Modified Augustinian Hypothesis (MAH) regarding Gospel origins (July 2007)

Dewey, Joanna: The Survival of Mark's Gospel: A Good Story? (2004)

Elliott, J.K: Mark 1:1-3 – A later addition to the Gospel? NTS 46 (2000) 584-8

Epp, Eldon J. and Fee, Gordon D: Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993

Gill, John: Exposition of the Entire Bible

Goodacre, Mark: Fatigue in the Synoptics, and The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze

Goulder, Michael D: Luke’s Knowledge of Matthew, Minor agreements: Symposium Göttingen 1991

Head, Peter M: The Early Text of Mark

Hurtado, Larry: New Oxyrhynchus Manuscripts, July 2, 2013

Jones, Brice C: Scribes Avoiding Imperfections in Their Writing Materials

Luz, Ulrich: Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001)

Metzger, Bruce: A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: The Gospel According to Mark

Morison, James, D.D: Mark's memoirs of Jesus Christ: a commentary on the Gospel according to Mark

The NET Bible

Pallis, Alex: Notes on St. Mark and St. Matthew, 1932

Proctor, M. A: The ‘Western’ Text of Mark 1:41: A Case for the Angry Jesus  (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1999)

Royse, James R: Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri, Reviews by Juan Hernández Jr, Peter M. Head, Dirk Jongkind, and response by Royse, from the 2008 SBL Panel Review Session

Sanzo, Joseph E: Scriptural Incipits on Amulets from Late Antique Egypt, 2014

Snapp, James Jr: The Authenticity of Mark 16:9-20 April 8, 2014 (Summary)

Streeter, B.H: The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship, & Dates, 1924

Wallace, Daniel B: The Synoptic Problem: A discussion of Robert H. Stein’s: The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction 

Waltz, Robert: An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, and Eclecticism

Wasserman, Tommy: The 'Son of God' was in the Beginning (Mark 1:1) JTS 62 (2011) 20-50

Wikipedia: The Augustinian Hypothesis

Willker, Wieland: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels Vol 2 Mark

Zuntz, G: An Inquiry into the Transmission of the Plays of Euripides