The Not So Great Omission

The Great Omission, and Matthew

The Great Omission is the name generally given to a section of the gospel of Mark (Mk) (approximately 75 verses long), which is not present in Luke (Lk). There are several theories as to why this section has no parallel in Luke, and its exact boundaries vary according to which explanation is favored. The beginning is variously given as Mk 6:45, 47, or 48, with the end located at Mk 8:10, 21, 26, or 27a depending on the explanation. Most references give the boundaries of the omitted text as Mk 6:45-8:26, and in Luke a parallel of this text would best fit where we see the first half of Lk 9:18.

Although it is readily acknowledged that these verses of Mark have no parallel in Luke, little is generally made of the fact that only half of these verses have complete parallels in Matthew (Mt) either. The rest either have no parallel in Matthew at all, or only some parts of them are paralleled in Matthew. As B. Ward Powers points out in the introduction to The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels:

Mark is the shortest Gospel, and yet Mark’s account of any given pericope is almost always the longest… Just under one quarter of the Gospel [of Mark] consists of material that could not have been derived from either Matthew or Luke, because it is simply not there. To state this data in the Markan Priority way, these verses consist of Markan material that was not then used by either Matthew or Luke in their respective Gospels. This comprises for the most part a wealth of small but vivid details not found in Matthew or Mark, details that had lodged in Mark’s memory from the preaching of Peter and with which he enlivened his stories.

This is a good description of what we see in the Matthean parallels to Mk 6:45-8:26. On the assumption of Markan priority, aMatthew (the author of Mt) removes many small details from Mark, and on pp 120-122 Powers lists much of the material “that is found only in Mark and Matthew,” including the following “Complete Pericopes,” all of which are within the scope of the Great Omission:

Mk 6:53- 6:56E Healings at Gennesaret

Mk 7:1-23 Tradition of men

Mk 7:24-30 The Syrophoenician woman’s daughter

Mk 7:31 By the sea of Galilee

Mk 8:1-10 Four thousand are fed

Mk 8:14-21 Leaven of the Pharisee’s

Powers refers to the above pericopes as having "complete parallels" in Matthew, and so does not note that the following significant portions of these pericopes in Mark actually have no parallel in Matthew:

Mk 6:45-56 6:47d-48a, 48d, 51b-52, 53b-54a, 55b-56a

Mk 7:1-23 7:2-7:5a, 8a-9a, 13b, 16-17a, 18c-19a, 19c, parts of 7:22-23

Mk 7:24-30 7:24b-26a, 27b, 29b, 30

Mk 7:31-37 7:31b-36, 37b

Mk 8:1-10 8:1a, 3b, 7b

Mk 8:11-21 8:12b, 13b, d, 14c, 17d-81a, 19b, 20b-21a

Mk 8:22-26 No parallels in Matthew

Powers also does not mention Mk 7:32-37 and 8:11-13 (some verses of which arguably do have parallels in Matthew), and Mk 7:22-26, which may actually ‘share’ a parallel with Mk 7:32-37. The lack of comment from Powers may be because (on the assumption of Markan priority) this lack of text in Matthew can be considered to be simply legitimate editorial activity by aMatthew, either by removing extraneous detail from Mark, or in some cases simply choosing to not include particular pericopes. However, even on this assumption aMatthew does appear to make some very strange changes to the text of Mark, changes that in some cases make little sense. Not only does aMatthew appear to remove seemingly completely innocuous details from the text of Mark, he then adds different, also seemingly innocuous details, and swaps some of the Markan verses for no apparent reason.

An alternate explanation for the action by aMatthew, one that makes sense of the strange differences between Mark and Matthew, is that aMatthew saw a damaged ms of Mark (i.e. with text missing and/or hard to read, as discussed in Fatigue in Mark – or Something Else?), in the same way that the Great Omission itself can be explained by aLuke seeing more extensive damage to his (possibly even the same) copy of Mark. The most significant of these differences between Mark and Matthew are discussed below (all English text taken from the KJV (as being representative of the Byzantine text) unless specified otherwise).

Mark 6:45-46 (Matthew 14:22-23a): Leaving the Five Thousand

Mk 6:45-46 and Mt 14:22-23a describe where Jesus and the disciples went after the feeding of the five thousand, including their means of travel (a ship). Consequently, the absence in Luke of any parallels to these verses (right at the beginning of the Great Omission) means that the events of Lk 9:18-27 (following the Great Omission) take place either in the same desert area mentioned in Lk 9:10, 12 as the location of the feeding, or in a different, undefined, location suggested by Lk 9:18 beginning with “And it came to pass…” without the people and the disciples having been sent away as in the parallels at Mk 6:45-46 and Mt 14:22-23a. However, even though Mk 6:45-46 do have parallels in Matthew, it is also not clear in Matthew where the disciples and, we assume, Jesus, went, as in Mt 14:22 we read:

And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. [Mt 14:22]

This is a close parallel to Mk 6:45, except that in Mark a destination place name is given: εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν (to the other side, to Bethsaida), while in Matthew it is not. Even though the destination is named in almost all mss of Mark, the immediately preceding words differ significantly. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes:

6.45 εἰς τὸ πέραν {A}

The phrase εἰς τὸ πέραν is omitted by several witnesses (P W f syr), no doubt because of the difficulties involved in the geography (Bethsaida was in the domain of Philip the tetrarch, and consequently was east of the Jordan River).

However, this is only part of the story, as Wieland Willker identifies nine variant readings at this point in the mss:

                                    πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν P45vid, W, Sy-S

                                          a Bethsaida q ("a" = "from"!)

              trans fretum a Bethsaida b, i

αὐτὸν                      πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν 118  (Lake: "αὐτὸν nunc habet partim deletum")

αὐτὸν εἰς                          Βηθσαϊδάν f1

αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν D, N, Σ, Φ, F, f13a,b, Lat

αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν     εἰς Βηθσαϊδάν     Θ, 28, 565, 700, Or, sapt, bo, Sy-P

αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ πέραν                               f13C (Mt?)

           εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν 01, A, B, K, Π, L, Λ, 33, 157, 1071, 579, 892, 1142, Maj, Sy-H

As the last of these variants shows, the majority of mss do have them going “to the other side, to Bethsaida,” (εἰς τὸ πέραν πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν) but other variants have: “to Bethsaida,” “from Bethsaida,” “the other side of Bethsaida,” and just “to the other side.” The conflicts in these variants cannot be resolved just on the assumption of scribal mistakes during copying, nor is it in any way clear which variant is original on this basis. Willker comments:

In Mk 6:1 Jesus is in Nazareth. Then he went about among the villages teaching. Where the feeding of the five thousand took place is not said in Mark. In Lk 9:10 it is in or near Bethsaida (east coast), Matthew assumes the same, because Mt 14:34 says (after the feeding): "When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret" (west coast).

But Mark says: "he made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead to the other side, to Bethsaida". This indicates a place on the west coast for the feeding. If a scribe wanted to harmonize this with Mt/Lk he could do several things:

a) he omitted εἰς τὸ πέραν to indicate that they just went to Bethsaida "nearby" (P45, W, Sy-S)

b) he changed the "to" into "from" (b, i, q).

c) he omitted πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν (f13C)

On the other hand it has been suggested (e.g. Burkitt, Lagrange) that εἰς τὸ πέραν is a harmonization to Mt 14:22. Also, in Mk 6:53 it is said (like Mt 14:34): "When they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret".

Willker’s commentary focuses on trying to figure out how these various readings could have arisen as a result of scribes being influenced by what they saw in either Matthew or Luke. However, although he identifies various possible scribal changes, and each one individually may seem plausible, taken as a whole they are inexplicable without some additional causal process.

Along with other verses Willker gives the text of Mt 14:22, but he does not specifically note that no location on the other side is given in this verse. Because Mt 14:22 is a close parallel to Mk 6:45, on the assumption of Markan priority it is reasonable to assume that aMatthew saw Mk 6:45, and that it contained εἰς τὸ πέραν and/or πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν. Then, as Mt 14:22 does not mention Βηθσαϊδάν, and Luke has no parallel to Mk 6:45, it is also reasonable to assume that Βηθσαϊδάν was not named in Mark. However, if so it is hard to see why later scribes would decide to add Βηθσαϊδάν to Mk 6:45, and even if they did, that would only explain three of the variants (εἰς τὸ πέραν and/or πρὸς Βηθσαϊδάν).

The problem is that all mss og Mark except f13 contain Βηθσαϊδάν in Mk 6:45, making it most likely that Bethsaida was originally named in Mark, but if so then why would it not have been included in Mt 14:22? One possibility is that the copy of Mark used by aMatthew was damaged at this point, and this possibility is supported by the fact that although Luke has no parallel to Mk 6:45, Bethsaida is mentioned in Lk 9:10 (but not in the parallels to Lk 9:10 at Mk 6:32 and Mt 14:13). From this it seems likely that in aLuke’s copy of Mark (possibly the same copy used by aMatthew, but with more extensive damage), he had a loose fragment of Mark from the Great Omission that referred to Bethsaida, and inserted it into his narrative at what seemed to be the most appropriate point.

However, if aLuke saw and used Bethsaida, why did aMatthew not include it? It is possible that, like aLuke, he also saw a reference to Bethsaida as the destination. However, unlike aLuke, he also knew from Mk 6:53 (which has no parallel in Luke) that they actually ended up in Gennesaret. If aMatthew saw damage to Mark just before Bethsaida then it is likely that he was unsure of what aMark had intended here, and felt that the safest option was simply to leave out the name.

Mark 6:47-48 (Matthew 14:23b-25): What Was the Wind Doing to the Ship?

Matthew has no parallel to the end of Mk 6:47 and the beginning of 6:48: “on the land. And he saw them toiling in rowing;” There is no obvious reason why aMatthew would go to the trouble of removing these details if he saw them in Mark (and also swapping Mk 6:47b and c), and nothing to indicate that this could simply be him misreading his copy of Mark. On the other hand, if some of the the details were missing in his copy of Mark (i.e. because of a lacuna at this point) then what aMatthew did see could have read: 

And when even was come, the ship was in the midst of the sea, and he alone [Mk 6:47]  for the wind was contrary unto them: [Mk 6:48a]  and about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking upon the sea, and would have passed by them. [Mk 6:48b]

This would have made no sense, as it gives no information as to what effect the contrary wind was having. In an attempt to resolve this issue aMatthew could have simply removed the reference to the contrary wind, but what we see instead is that he re-located the reference to Jesus being alone and added that the ship was “tossed with waves,” with the result that Mt 14:23b-25 actually reads as shown above.

This change is best seen as an attempt to fix the problem of the contrary wind apparently having no effect, since if aMatthew had seen Mk 6:47-48 as we do then the relocation and addition just noted would have been completely unnecessary. As aMatthew can surely have had no objection to mentioning that the disciples were rowing, it is most likely that the text: “on the land. And he saw them toiling in rowing” was either not in the copy of Mark that he used, or at least unreadable.

Mark 6:49-50a (Matthew 14:26): Did the Disciples see Jesus?

In Mk 6:50a we read: “For they all saw him, and were troubled,” while Mt 14:26b has just “they were troubled.” However, in many Western mss (D, Θ, 565, 700, 989, 1668, a, b, c, d, ff2, i, q, r1) Mk 6:50a reads just: “And they were troubled,” and the omission of “For they saw him” (γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον) can be considered to be a Western non-interpolation. There is no theological reason for such an omission, and Willker comments:

It is possible that the term has been omitted because it is redundant (it has been noted already in verse 49: οἱ δὲ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν). A deliberate insertion is difficult to explain.

Although what Willker suggests is possible, it is also possible that the omission was due to a lacuna in the copy of Mark from which the Western mss descend, and that aMatthew also used. However, this is not the only issue at this point, because in Matthew “they were troubled” (ἐταράχθησαν) has been moved from the end of the verse to the middle. This suggests that, in addition to not seeing γὰρ αὐτὸν εἶδον in Mark, aMatthew was uncertain of how ἐταράχθησαν related to the rest of the text, and chose to directly connect the disciples being troubled (or terrified) with them seeing Jesus walking on the water.

Mark 6:50b-52 (Matthew 14:27-33): Just How Amazed Were The Disciples?

As shown above, Mk 6:50b has a close parallel in Mt 14:27, and Mk 6:51a reads: “And he went up unto them into the ship; and the wind ceased,” with the close parallel at Mt 14:32 reading: “And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.” However, there are no parallels to Mk 6:51b-52 in Matthew, and instead there are unique additions at Mt 14:28-31 (Peter walking on the water) and 14:33. Although overall approximately 45% of the text in Matthew is unique to Matthew, this is usually in the form of additional complete ‘stand alone’ passages, and it is unusual to see several verses unique to Matthew inserted into a passage based on one in Mark, as here. It is even more unusual to see simple narrative text in Mark apparently removed, but then replaced in Matthew by something else, and what is particularly interesting in this case is that Mk 6:51b-52 contain difficult variants.

In the KJV Mk 6:51b reads: “and they were sore amazed in themselves beyond measure, and wondered,” while the NET has just: “They were completely astonished.” These differences result from the inclusion or exclusion of four words: καὶ λίαν [ἐκ περισσοῦ] ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἐξίσταντο [καὶ ἐθαύμαζον], about which Metzger writes:

6.51 λίαν [ἐκ περισσοῦ] ἐν ἑαυτοῖς {C}

The Committee recognized that the double superlative, λίαν ἐκ περισσοῦ, is altogether in the style of Mark and is supported by a variety of witnesses that represent a broad geographical spread. At the same time, however, because ἐκ περισσοῦ is lacking in important witnesses (א B L Δ 892 al), it was judged appropriate to enclose the phrase within square brackets.

6.51 ἐξίσταντο {B}

The shorter reading is to be preferred, for the expanded reading ἐξίσταντο καὶ ἐθαύμαζον appears to be a heightening of the narrative by copyists who recalled the account in Ac 2.7, where the same pair of verbs appears.

In the case of the first variant, essentially there are two different superlatives. Some mss have one, some the other, and some both. Willker comments:

In this verse the Byzantine reading looks like a conflation of the two other readings. It is possible that one of the two expressions was an alternative reading, suggested in the margin, which subsequently got into the text. On the other hand it could be that scribes felt that the double superlative is a bit too much and reduced it to one expression.

Willker has a similar comment about the cause of the second variant:

Basically it is also possible, as in the previous case that one of the two expressions was an alternative reading, suggested in the margin, which subsequently got into the text.

The idea of their being two alternative marginal readings (for no particular reason) just at this one place in Mark is hard to believe. On the other hand, under the hypothesis of damage to Mark having two lacunae close together is perfectly reasonable, and any lacunae could then be the cause of the marginal readings. With lacunae preventing the exact reading from being clear, scribes created different variants when copying Mark, and, later, the variants were conflated. If there was ms damage at this point then it is not unreasonable for aMatthew to have later seen a larger lacuna at this point in Mark, and chosen to ‘fill in the gap’ by adding another ‘water’ passage at Mt 14:28-31, 33.

Mark 6:53-56 (Matthew 14:34-36): Healings in Gennesaret

While this passage as a whole has a parallel in Matthew, Mk 6:53b, 55b-56a do not. Although this could be due to damage to aMatthew’s copy of Mark, on this hypothesis there is nothing to suggest that aMatthew had tried to reconstruct what was missing, so suggesting that aMatthew could have simply made an editorial decision to omit some of the detail he saw in Mark. However, there is a variant at the end of Mk 6:56a that suggests that damage in Mark is more likely.

Most mss have the people laying the sick in the marketplaces (ἀγοραῖς), but several Western mss have ‘streets:’ D, 565, 700, 2542 (πλατείαις), and a, b, d, f, i, l, q, r1, vg (plateis). What is notable is that both Greek words end with the same three letters (αις), suggesting that ms damage at this point could have resulted in the rest of the word being mis-read by different copyists. This would have then led to the two different mss traditions as a result of different interpretations of what the whole word might have been. If aMatthew later saw the same copy of Mark then there may have been more damage at that time, leading to him including less of this passage in his gospel.

Mark 7:1-16 (Matthew 15:1-11): What Defiles a Man?

As noted above, Powers includes Mk 7:1-23 in his list of complete pericopes that have a parallel in Matthew but not in Luke. However, if by this he is implying that every verse of Mk 7:1-23 has a parallel in Matthew, then he is incorrect as Matthew has no parallels to Mk 7:2-5a, 8-9a, 13b, 16-17a, 18c-19a, and 19c, i.e. nearly one-third of the pericope. Instead (on the assumption of Markan priority), aMatthew has inserted approximately 3 ½ verses (Mt 15:12b-15a, 20b) of text not present in Mark, and also swapped his parallels of Mk 7:6b-7 with those of Mk 7:9b-13a.

As in the cases described above, these differences, and the variants in this pericope in verses that have no parallel in Matthew, can be explained as being due to damage affecting what aMatthew saw of these verses. For example, Mk 7:2 reads differently in other bibles, e.g.:

And they saw that some of Jesus' disciples ate their bread with unclean hands, that is, unwashed. (NET)

And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault, (KVJ)

The root of this difference can be found in the last three words of this verse. There are three basic variants:

NA27 … ὅτι κοιναῖς Χερσίν τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις ἐσθίουσιν  τοὺς ἄρτους

Byz       …        κοιναῖς Χερσίν τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις εσθίοντας           ἄρτους εμέμψαντο

D           …        κοιναῖς  χερσί,  τοῦτ' ἔστιν ἀνίπτοις ἐσθίοντας           ἄρτους κατέγνωσαν

In total there are eight different variant readings based on the above three, depending on what word follows ἀνίπτοις, whether τοὺς is present, and what, if anything, follows ἄρτους (more accurately, what follows ἄρτο, as some variants have ἄρτον instead). In a similar way to what we see in the previous example, these variants all begin at a point where it appears that there could have been damage to a ms of Mark, perhaps resulting in the end of Mk 7:2 reading just: ἐσθίο … ἄρτο…, and with scribes then having to decide how to complete the verse when making copies.

Regarding Mk 7:3-4, although there are no mss of Mk that are extant in this area in which these verses (which are unique to Mark) are not present, it is still possible that they were not in an early ms seen by both aMatthew and aLuke. However, it is also possible that they were omitted by aMatthew because, as the NET notes: “Verses 3-4 represent parenthetical remarks by the author, giving background information.”

What aMatthew appears to have done with Mk 7:5-13 is particularly interesting: Matthew has no parallels to Mk 7:5a, 8-9a and 13b, with parallels only to Mk 7:5b-7 and 9b-13a, and those in a different order. The text in Matthew begins with parallels to Mk 7:5b-6a, but then instead of following with Mk 7:6b, there are parallels to the next block from Mark (edited versions of vv. 7:9b-13a), with Matthew then ‘backtracking’ by continuing with parallels to Mk 7:6b-7.

Essentially, in Matthew the parallels to Mk 7:6b-7 and 9b-13a are swapped. Although aMatthew was of course free to move around any of the text of Mark if he so chose, there appears to be little to be gained by having done so here. It is conceivable that aMatthew might have wanted to move the references to tradition in Mk 7:5b and 9b closer together, but in that case why did he not include Mk 7:8, which also refers to tradition? Metzger writes:

7.7–8 ἀνθρώπων. ἀφέντες … ἀνθρώπων. {A}

The Greek text that lies behind the AV, "as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do," which is absent from the oldest and best witnesses, is doubtless a scribal addition, derived from ver. 4. The fact that the longer reading is found at two different places — at the beginning of ver. 8 (D Θ al) and at the end of ver. 8 (K X Π f 33 700 892 al) — likewise indicates its secondary nature.

The whole of Mk 7:8 is omitted in Sy-S, and on this Willker notes:

Diatessaron: The verse is not commented upon in Ephrem's commentary, but it is in the Arabic Diatessaron. Here it comes without the addition. This is certain, because after verse 8, verse 9 is given (ch. 20):

8. Relinquentes enim mandatum Dei, tenetis traditionem hominum.

9. Bene facitis, delinquentes in praeceptum Dei, ut traditionem vestram servetis?

The above quote from Willker highlights the similarities between the Latin text of the shorter variant of Mk 7:8, and that of Mk 7:9b, which in Greek (with Mt 15:3b for comparison) read as follows:

Mk 7:8                                               ἀφέντες τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ κρατεῖτε τὴν παράδοσιν   τῶν ἀνθρώπων

Mk 7:9b                              Καλῶς ἀθετεῖτε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ          ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε

Mt 15:3b Διὰ τί καὶ ὑμεῖς παραβαίνετε τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ         διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν

Both the closeness of the text of these two verses of Mark, and the uncertainty over the location of the additional text in Mk 7:8 noted above, invite the suggestion that one verse may be original, and the other based upon it. As Sy-S omits the whole of Mk 7:8, and the text of Mt 15:3b is closer to Mk 7:9b than to Mk 7:8, it appears that it is Mk 7:8 that is not original, and so may not have been seen by aMatthew. Metzger notes this variant at the end of Mk 7:9:

7.9 στήσητε {D}

It is most difficult to decide whether scribes deliberately substituted στήσητε ("establish") for τηρήσητε ("keep"), as being the more appropriate verb in the context, or whether, through inadvertence in copying and perhaps influenced subconsciously by the preceding phrase τὴν ἐντολὴν τοῦ θεοῦ, they replaced στήσητε with τηρήσητε.

This variant (involving the words στήσητε and τηρήσητε) is yet another possible example of ms damage leading to scribes seeing part of a word (in this case just ...ήσητε), and having to decide the most appropriate way to complete the text when copying, rather than the ‘traditional’ suggestion of choosing to replace one complete word with another. In this context it appears that either aMatthew could not decide what word to use, or saw additional damage that prevented him from knowing what might even be possible, because Mt 15:3b has no parallel to this last word of Mk 7:9b.

Matthew has no parallel to Mk 7:13b: “which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.” W omits “and many such like things do ye,” and some Western mss (D, it, vgmss, Sy-Hmg) precede Mk 7:13b with: “the foolish one,” which is also not in Matthew. As with other variants described above, these differences can be viewed as aMatthew, and scribes copying Mark, seeing varying degrees of damage to Mark at this point.

Although Mk 7:14-15 do have parallels in Matthew, both parallels omit some of the Markan text:

Mk 7:14  Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος πάλιν τὸν ὄχλον ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς Ἀκούσατέ μου πάντες καὶ σύνετε

Mt 15:10 Καὶ προσκαλεσάμενος           τὸν ὄχλον εἶπεν    αὐτοῖς Ἀκούετε                       καὶ συνίετε

Once again, aMatthew appears to have simply not seen (or been unable to read) some of the text of this verse in his copy of Mark, and the variants in Mk 7:14 support this possibility: The majority of mss of Mark have πάντα instead of πάλιν, while neither word is present in 565, 579, pc, c, samss, bomss, and the majority have Ἀκούετε, in common with Matthew. In the absence of damage at these points in Mark there appears to be no rational reason for these variants to exist, and so, although not conclusive, the existence of these variants does support the damage hypothesis.

In Mt 7:15 aMatthew also appears to have removed small portions of the text of Mk 7:15 for no obvious reason. He adds nothing apart from referring to the mouth (στόμα, στόματος), and even this addition may simply be the result of not being to read εἰς αὐτὸν.

Mk 7:15a  οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν

Mt 15:11a  οὐ                             τὸ                          εἰσερχόμενον  εἰς        τὸ   στόμα   κοινοῖ           τὸν ἄνθρωπον

Mk 7:15b  ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά   ἐστιν τὰ                         κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον

Mt 15:11b ἀλλὰ τὸ                                ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ στόματος τοῦτο κοινοῖ       τὸν ἄνθρωπον

Mk 7:16, which has no parallel in Matthew, is not present in several mss of Mark. Metzger again:

7.16 omit verse {A}

This verse, though present in the majority of witnesses, is absent from important Alexandrian witnesses ( א B L Δ* al). It appears to be a scribal gloss (derived perhaps from 4.9 or 4.23), introduced as an appropriate sequel to ver. 14.

Willker writes:

First it should be noted that this sentence was widely used as [sic] concluding remark after reading the Gospel lection. It has thus often been added at the end of a pericope in the lectionaries.

This sentence appears safe at: Mt 11:15; 13:9, 13:43; Mk 4:9, 4:23; Lk 8:8; 14:35

579 has this addition at Lk 8:15 (with many), 12:21 (with many), 15:10 (with QC), 16:18 (alone) and 18:8 (alone)! The addition also appears at Mt 13:23, Mt 25:30, Lk 21:4.

As this sentence does appear at other places in Matthew, it is likely that if aMatthew saw it at this point in Mark he would have included it. However, given its use in marking the end of a lection, it is perhaps more likely that it had not been added to the copy of Mark used by aMatthew, than that it had been lost through damage.

Overall, the differences between Mk 7:1-16 and Mt 15:1-11 can be seen as aMatthew seeing the two blocks of text dislocated in his ms of Mark, and, not knowing the order in which aMark had written them, using them in his text in the way that seemed to him to be the best fit, while also dealing with several lacunae in the text he was trying to copy.

Mark 7:17-23 (Matthew 15:12-20): The Meaning of the Parable

As noted above, in Matthew there are only partial parallels to Mk 7:17-19. Mt 15:16 contains a close parallel to Mk 7:18a, but Mt 15:17 then only contains parts of Mk 7:18b-19:

Mk 7:18b   οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ ἔξωθεν εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐ δύναται αὐτὸν κοινῶσαι

Mk 15:17a οὐ νοεῖτε ὅτι πᾶν τὸ              εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα

Mk 7:19    ὅτι οὐκ εἰσπορεύεται αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἀλλ’ εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν καὶ εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκπορεύεται καθαρίζων πάντα τὰ βρώματα

Mt 15:17b                                                εἰς τὴν κοιλίαν   χωρεῖ                        καὶ εἰς        ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται

As with various other parallels noted above, it appears from this that aMatthew did not see all the text of Mk 7:18b-19. He follows the wording of Mark exactly, except where it appears he had to make sense of gaps, or perhaps unreadable letters, in the text he was following. Metzger notes this variant at the end of Mk 7:19:

7.19 καθαρίζων {A}

The overwhelming weight of manuscript evidence supports the reading καθαρίζων. The difficulty of construing this word in the sentence prompted copyists to attempt various corrections and ameliorations.

Willker identifies mss containing three different “corrections and ameliorations,” and in all cases the word replacing καθαρίζων is exactly the same, except that the last two letters (ων) are replaced by either two or four others: καθαρίζον, καθαρίζει, and καθαρίζεται. After quoting several people regarding the confusion over these endings, Willker writes:

Overall, I think it is correct what Iver Larsen wrote (BGreek, 1st Nov. 2009):

"The reading [καθαρίζον] does not give good sense. It is unlikely to be a deliberate correction, but rather a careless mistake by a copyist who couldn't see the forest (καὶ λέγει) for the trees (the embedded discourse from Οὕτως to ἐκπορεύεται)."

καθαρίζον arose from (a) indistinguishable sound and/or (b) plausibility of the reading in the immediate context of the words of v. 18, 19.

καθαρίζων therefore has to be understood as a comment by the evangelist. Note again that Mt leaves it out.

As Willker states, Matthew does not contain the last few words of Mk 7:19, with the omitted section beginning with the disputed word just referred to, strongly suggesting that aMatthew saw enough damage at this point for him to not attempt to re-construct what might have been in Mark.

Matthew contains parallels to Mk 7:20-23 at Mt 15:18-20. Although at first sight it looks as though aMatthew may also have seen shorter forms of these verses as a result of damage to his ms of Mark, it does look as though in this case aMatthew is mainly just shortening the long list seen in Mk 7:21-22, with the possible exception of Matthew 15:20a. However, for no obvious reason aMatthew then returns to the subject of washing in Mt 15:20b, which could indicate that he saw one or more fragments of Mk 7:3-4, 8, and wanted to add something from these verses before moving on to the next pericope from Mark.

Mark 7:24-31 (Matthew 15:21-29a): A Greek Woman (From Canaan or Syrophenicia?)

It is clear from the above table that aMatthew knew Mk 7:24a, as Mt 15:21 is a close parallel to it. What is not so certain is whether he knew Mk 7:24b-26. It is immediately obvious that there is nothing in Matthew that parallels Mk 7:24b: There is nothing about Jesus entering a house and trying to keep hidden, but being found anyway. It also appears that aMatthew may not have seen Mk 7:25, as Mt 15:22b appears to an elaboration of Mk 7:26b only. In addition, because aMatthew indicates that the woman was a local (“of Caanan … of the same coasts”) he appears to have completely ignored Mk 7:26a. Although Mark and Matthew appear to disagree on the nationality of the woman, this is generally regarded as a minor difference, or just two different ways of indicating nationality:

Called by Matthew “a woman of Canaan” and by Mark, “a Greek”. There is no contradiction here because the term Greek was commonly used to distinguish Gentiles from Jews. (Susan McGeown)

... Mark says that the woman was ‘a Greek, born in Syro-Phoenicia’ (v.26). Since she obviously was not a Greek by nationality, ‘Greek’ is probably equivalent here to ‘Gentile’ (in distinction from Jew) or to ‘Greek-speaking’. By nationality the woman was a Syrophoenician. In those days Phoenicia belonged administratively to Syria. So Mark probably used Syrophoenician to distinguish this woman from Libyo-Phoenicians of North Africa. (Wessel, The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version - Volume 8, Matthew, Mark, Luke [Zondervan, Grand Rapids MI, 1984], p. 682) (www.answering-islam.org)

There is no conflict between the accounts. The explanation has to do with the fact that the two writers - Matthew and Mark - are directing their respective documents to different segments of that ancient society. Thus, they adapt their terminology to understanding of their targeted recipients. (www.answering-islam.org)

Mk 7:24-26 would be perfectly understandable if Mk 7:26a did not exist, so why is it there? As Jesus was somewhere in the area of Tyre and Sidon, then in the absence of any information to the contrary, we would naturally assume that the woman was local to that area as well. However, it appears to have been important to aMark to point out not only that she was Greek, but she was Syrophenician in nationality, and, presumably, this would have indicated to his readership something different from her just being local to the area. In Matthew this distinction is lacking, indeed aMatthew actually reinforces the fact that she was local by stating that "a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts." If aMatthew did in fact see all of Mk 7:24-26, then he has (curiously, perhaps) not only significantly shortened these verses, but changed some important details, and added new details not found in Mark. Although aMatthew could be deliberately changing what was in Mark, it is equally possible that he simply did not see Mk 7:26a.

Matthew then continues with Mt 15:23-25, three verses that have no parallel in Mark, and much has been made of both Jesus and the disciples being so hard on the woman because she was a gentile. However, this is only the case in Mt 15:24, where we have Jesus indicating that he is sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, a verse that has no parallel in Mark. Also, in Matthew it is only implied that the woman was a gentile (by stating the fact that she was a local), whereas in Mark this is indicated more or less explicitly by stating that she was a Greek. Despite this she is treated with more civility in Mark than in Matthew, which contains the three unique verses shown above.

Mt 15:26-28 then follows Mk 15:27-29 quite closely, yet even here the two accounts end with complementary, but very different, details. It is possible that aMatthew wanted to shorten, or otherwise tidy-up or ‘improve’ what he saw in Mark, but his text does not really support this suggestion. Although Matthew certainly does differ from what we see in Mark, in some places aMatthew adds details that do not exist in Mark, and changes other details for no obvious reason, while paralleling Mark almost exactly in several verses. Nevertheless, it is of course possible that aMatthew changed the account in Mark in just such a way (for example to emphasize or introduce details that were important to him). However, the differences in the accounts can all be explained by suggesting that what aMatthew saw was incomplete because of damage to his copy of Mark, with the differences being a direct result of him having to create a coherent account without having available the portions of the story that we see as unique to Mark.

Finally, Mt 15:29a parallels Mk 7:31b closely, but there is no parallel to either Mk 7:31a or 31b, in both cases for no obvious reason. 

Mark 7:32-37 (Matthew 15:29b-31): A Deaf Mute (or Various Other People?) Healed

Mk 7:32-37 contains the story of Jesus healing a deaf mute. At the equivalent place in Matthew there is also a healing story, but here Jesus heals many different people of various infirmities, including some people that were dumb. What is most notable about these two accounts is not their differences (they are almost entirely different, with Matthew containing nothing from Mk 7:32-36), but that they occur in exactly the same place in the narratives in Mark and Matthew. It appears as though aMatthew rejected the healing story in Mark, maybe because Jesus had to touch the deaf mute and spit (where he spat is uncertain because of variants at this point), but rather than just omitting the pericope completely (as happens elsewhere), it seems that aMatthew wanted to still have a healing story here, and so created one of his own.

However, there is an interesting 'coincidence' in the two stories. In Mt 15:30 the list of infirmities healed by Jesus is given as: “lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others,” so specifically including that referred to in Mk 7:37: “he maketh both the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.” It is also interesting to note that there is nothing in Matthew from either Mk 7:31b or Mk 8:1a. In other words, not only does most of Mk 7:32-37 not have any parallel in Matthew, but this whole passage is ‘bracketed’ by text that is not in Matthew either.

It appears that aMatthew constructed a new healing story around the only part of Mt 7:31b-8:1a that he saw in his copy of Mark, which is that Jesus healed a mute, or perhaps a deaf mute, and that whatever people were present were "beyond measure astonished." However, the healing in Matthew is then ‘supersized’ by the addition of Mt 15:30, in which it is made clear that “great multitudes” (large crowds - ὄχλοι πολλοὶ) bring people to be healed, and in Mt 15:31a, where “the multitude” (τὸν ὄχλον) is mentioned again. It is as though aMatthew read Mk 7:37a, and felt he had to create a large enough healing story to justify the strong reaction of the people.

Mark 8:1-9 (Matthew 15:32-39a): Feeding the Four Thousand

It has been pointed out that this pericope and the similar Feeding of The Five Thousand can be considered to be a doublet, and that it is their similarities that caused aLuke to omit this pericope from his gospel. However, even though the majority of this pericope has a parallel in Matthew, some parts (mainly small details) have no parallel in Matthew, while a few small details not in Mark have been added. Perhaps the most interesting point relates to the mentions of the multitude in Matthew. In Mark the feeding begins with a ‘scene setting’ in Mk 8:1a which has no parallel in Matthew, and instead the preceding healing passage runs directly into the feeding, paralleling Mk 8:1b. Although in Matthew Jesus is explicitly named here, he is not named in Mark (despite 'Jesus' being present in the KJV and other bibles). 

Because Matthew does not include the reference to the multitude (crowd) here, it is somewhat jarring to then read in Mt 15:32b that they had been with Jesus for three days and did not have anything to eat. It appears that it is this reference to the multitude (τὸν ὄχλον) that caused aMatthew to add Mt 15:30 (the multitudes bringing people to be healed), with v. 15:30a being based on what he saw of Mk 7:37a, so ‘supersizing’ the previous healing story, and also (in the absence of any parallel to Mk 8:1a) setting the scene for the feeding of the four thousand.

As with all the differences discussed above, the differences here between Mark and Matthew can individually be seen as perfectly plausible edits by aMatthew, with this kind of change of wording being typical of his supposed behavior. Nevertheless, when the extent to which aMatthew does NOT change details in the text of Mark is taken into account, it is easier to see the differences as being the result of him using a damaged copy of Mark. In particular, Mt 15:32b is an exact copy of Mk 8:2 (in both wording and order), even though aMatthew could have removed the detail that the multitude had been with him for three days, and so saved himself the trouble of inventing some of the details we see in Mt 15:30.

This suggests that aMatthew did not change the wording of Mark simply because he preferred his own turn of phrase, but tried to stay faithful to his source except where the condition of his copy of Mark forced him to deviate, as we then see in Mt 15:32c (the parallel to Mk 8:3) in which there is no mention in Matthew of the people being sent home, or the distance they had travelled. As in so many other places, although the differences can be explained as deliberate edits by aMatthew, they can also be explained as aMatthew simply seeing lacunae in Mk 8:3, in particular not seeing the final six words (καί τινες αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἥκασιν) of this verse. It also appears that scribes copying Mark were unsure of the ending of this verse, as according to Willker, in Byzantine mss ἀπὸ is not present and ἥκασιν is rendered as ἥκουσιν (also as εἰσιν in some mss, and omitted in f13).

There is nothing in Mt 15:33-34 to suggest that aMatthew saw lacunae in the parallels at Mk 8:4-5, although there are differences. One of the things that does seem to be characteristic of aMatthew is that where Mark has Jesus or the disciples asking or answering, Matthew has just has Jesus or them saying something, and this is the case in Mark 8:4-5 and Mt 15:33-34, where in Mark the disciples answer Jesus, and then he asks them something, while in Matthew the disciples say something to Jesus, and then he says something to them. In neither case can this be construed as aMatthew seeing lacunae in Mark, and instead this appears to just be a normal mode of expression for aMatthew.

There is an odd addition to the end of Mt 15:34, where after replying to Jesus that they had seven loaves, the disciples add “and a few little fishes.” It appears that aMatthew has added a parallel to Mk 8:7a here (and ignored Mk 8:7b), instead of placing a parallel to the whole of Mk 8:7 after Mt 15:36, where it would be expected. As Mk 8:7 contains the only mention of fish in the whole story of the feeding of the four thousand it seems very unlikely that aMatthew would have removed everything in Mk 8:7 except that the fish existed, particularly as by re-locating the mention of the fish to the end of Mk 15:34 it then required him to add “and the fish” in Mt 15:36. This is yet another example in which the simplest explanation is that aMatthew saw damage in Mark, with what he saw of Mk 8:7 perhaps reading just: “And they had a few small fishes,” but still chose to insert the fish into his version of the feeding as best he could, rather than completely ignoring them.

This scenario is supported by the great number of variants at the end of Mk 8:7. Although NA27 has καὶ ταῦτα παρατιθέναι as the end of the verse, Metzger notes these other two variants:

8.7 εὐλογήσας αὐτά {B}

The reading εὐχαριστήσας (D 1009 it,) appears to be a scribal assimilation to ver. 6. Of the other readings the one chosen for the text has the best external support. Several witnesses omit the pronoun either as superfluous (in view of the following ταῦτα) or perhaps as inappropriate (Jesus blessed God’s name, not the fishes).

Athough Metzger does not detail the “other readings,” Willker identifies a total of 13 different variants in just the three final words, as well as noting that the Byzantine mss also omit αὐτὰ two words earlier. He writes:

The 01* reading implies that Jesus himself gives out the fishes, so also some witnesses in the previous verse 6. Very probably an accidental error.

The large number of variant readings in this sentence is interesting. There are two differences in meaning. One difference is the reading of C et al. in the imperative mood:

txt he said that these too should be given out.

C et al.: he said: "Give out these too!"

This is probably a natural change because indirect speech with εἶπεν is comparatively rare. There would be no reason to change direct speech so universally.

The other difference is if the manuscripts read καὶ (τ)αῦτα (= "also these") or not. It is possible that the short reading is at least in part accidental due to parablepsis in the Byzantine reading from καὶ to the καὶ at the beginning of verse 8. On the other hand the addition of καὶ ταῦτα would be only natural and a deliberate omission is difficult to imagine. Also the two different insertion points before and after παρατιθέναι are suspicious.

The situation here is very confusing if it is assumed that one of these variants was original, and all the others are the result of a scribe replacing the original reading by something else. However, if there was no single clear original reading because of damage to the ms of Mark, then it is easy to see how multiple variants could arise with there being no clear path leading from one to another.

In Mt 15:38 we see an addition that has no parallel in Mk 8:9, adding “men, beside children and women and children” after “four thousand.” Although these words do not appear in Mark, they do appear in Mt 14:21, in the pericope of the feeding of the five thousand. Because the wording of Mt 14:21 and 15:38 are so close, it appears that problems with what aMatthew saw of the text of Mk 8:9 caused him to base Mt 15:38 on 14:21 instead.

Mark 8:10 (Matthew 15:39b): Dalmanutha or Magdala

After the feeding of the four thousand, in both Mark and Matthew Jesus boards a ship. However, in Mark he travels with the disciples to Dalmanutha, while in Matthew he goes (with no mention of the disciples) to Magdala. Metzger provides the following information:

Mk 8.10 τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθά {B}

Two sets of variant readings are involved. The reading τὰ μέρη, supported by almost all the uncials and by many important minuscules (א A B C K L X Δ Θ Π f f 33 565 700 al), is clearly to be preferred; its synonym τὰ ὅρια (which occurs in the parallel passage in Mt 15.39) and the readings derivative from τὰ ὅρια (τὰ ὄρη and τὸ ὄρος) lack adequate support. Dalmanutha (read by all uncials except D) is a place of uncertain location. Puzzled by the word, which occurs nowhere else, copyists replaced it by Μαγεδά́(ν) or Μαγδαλά, readings that occur in the parallel passage in Matthew (15.39).

Mt 15.39 Μαγαδάν {C}

The best external evidence supports Μαγαδάν, yet not only the site, but even the existence of such a place-name is uncertain. The parallel passage in Mk 8.10 has "the districts of Dalmanutha" (τὰ μέρη Δαλμανουθά), an equally unknown site and name. The well-known Semitic word for tower, in Greek Μαγδαλά(ν), is read in many manuscripts in place of Μαγαδάν or Δαλμανουθά. (See also the comment on Mk 8.10.)

Willker provides extensive additional comment on the name of the destination in both verses, which taken together simply tells us that the reason for the difference in the names is unknown. It could therefore be that the end of the verse in Mark was damaged, and aMatthew chose a destination that made sense to him.

Mark 8:11-12 (Matthew 16:1-4b): The Pharisees Ask For a Sign

In Mk 8:11-12 the Pharisees come to Jesus seeking a sign from heaven, but he replies that there will be no sign. In the parallel in Matthew it is the Pharisees and Saducees who come, and Jesus replies that there will be no sign, except for the sign of Jonas. There is also an addition that is unique to Matthew in which Jesus comments on the ability of his questioners to tell the next day’s weather by looking at the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times.

There is little here to suggest damage in Mark that aMatthew did not see, and instead there are unique additions in Mt 16:4, in particular aMatthew characterizing “this generation” as “evil and adulterous,” and adding the exception in v. 16:4b.

Mark 8:13-14a (Matthew 16:4c-5b): To the Other Side

While Mt 16:4 ends with a shorter version of Mk 8:13, in which Jesus simply leaves, rather than leaving by ship to go to “the other side.” However, there are multiple variants in Mk 8:13, with some omitting the fact that Jesus boarded a boat/ship, and others having various different word orders. Willker comments:

The main parallel is verse 10. It is possible that εἰς τὸ πλοῖον accidentally fell out or has been added as superfluous after ἐμβὰς. On the other hand it could have been added from verse 10.

Willker agrees that damage to Mark here is a possibility when he suggests “that εἰς τὸ πλοῖον accidentally fell out,” and led to aMatthew not including the detail about entering a ship. The alternative (that it is a later addition that was not seen by aMatthew) seems much less likely.

Mark 8:14b-21a (Matthew 16:5c-12): They Forgot the Bread.

Mt 16:5-12 parallels Mk 8:14-21a quite closely, except that Mk 8:14c, 17d, 19b, 20b-21a have no parallel in Matthew. There are no variants in Mark in which these portions of the passage are not present, so it is reasonable to assume that aMt saw Mk 8:14-21a substantially as we do. It is possible that aMatthew chose to re-purpose some of this passage elsewhere, as there is a parallel to Mk 8:18a at Mt 13:16. It does seem odd that aMatthew would omit the disciples answers to Jesus' questions, but it is also possible that aMatthew chose to omit some of the detail because he was unsure of what followed, as suggested below.

Mark 8:21b (Matthew 16:11-12): How Do You Not Understand?

In Mk 8:21b and Mt 16:11a Jesus says to his disciples: “How is it that ye do not understand?” In Mark this is followed by Mk 8:22-26, in which Jesus goes to Bethsaida and there heals a blind man. None of this takes place in Matthew, which, after paralleling Mk 8:21a in Mt 16:11a, adds text in Mt 16:11b-12 regarding “the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” that is unrelated to anything in the Markan version of this passage, but then parallels Mark again, starting at Mk 8:27.

If aMatthew simply chose not to include the healing of the blind man here then he could have skipped directly from Mk 8:21 to 8:27. Instead, the addition of Mt 16:11b-12 at exactly the place where a parallel to Mk 8:22-26 would be expected suggests that aMatthew knew that Mark had something at this point, but did not know exactly what it was. It is possible that aMatthew saw a fragment of Mk 8:22-26 mentioning a blind man, but not knowing how to include it at this point in his narrative, chose instead to include the blind man in his healing passage at Mt 15:30-31.

Mark 8:22-27a (Matthew 16:13a): Healing a Blind Man (or Not)

Each of Mk 8:22-25a contain minor variants that are essentially spelling errors that could perhaps suggest a few unreadable letters in these verses, but Mk 8:25b contains a more complex variant involving seven different readings suggestive of more extensive damage. This is followed by even more uncertain readings in Mk 8:26, which in NA27 reads:

καὶ ἀπέστειλεν αὐτὸν εἰς οἶκον αὐτοῦ λέγων μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς

And he sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even go into the village.”

The NET notes that:

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.

Taking the variant seen in NA27 as the original, Metzger suggests the following line of development for the variants noted above:

The development of the principal variant readings seems to have proceeded as follows:

(1) μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς ( א B L f syr cop, , )

(2) μηδενὶ εἴπῃς ἐν τῇ κώμῃ (it)

(3) μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ (A C … al)

(4) ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου καὶ μηδενὶ εἴπῃς (parent of the following)

(a) καί + ἐὰν εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς (Θ it, vg)

(b) εἴπῃς + εἰς τὴν κώμην (D)

(c) εἴπῃς + ἐν τῇ κώμῃ (Θ 565)

(d) καί + μηδὲ εἰς τὴν κώμην εἰσέλθῃς μηδὲ εἴπῃς τινὶ ἐν τῇ κώμῃ (124)

Reading (1), which is supported by early representatives of the Alexandrian, Eastern, and Egyptian text-types, appears to be the earliest form of text. Reading (2) arose in the interest of clarifying the import of (1), and reading (3) is obviously a conflation of (1) and (2). Reading (4), which is an elaboration of (2) with the help of an introductory phrase, appears to be the parent of several further modifications that are attested by Western and other witnesses.

Even if the line of development suggested by Metzger is correct, it does not explain why it was felt necessary to create so many variants. The NET also provides no insight, saying only: “While these expansions are not part of Mark’s original text, they do accurately reflect the sense of Jesus’ prohibition.” The key point here, as in other places, is that while there clearly must have been an original variant, and (it is reasonable to assume) that variant made sense when written, there is no explanation as to why there would be so many later changes. However, if the text of the original variant became obscured because of ms damage, then it makes perfect sense for various scribes to attempt to ‘correct’ the text in different ways, and it is possible that NONE of the variants we see are actually original.

An important point is that these verses come right at the end of the Great Omission. Assuming that aLuke did not see Mk 8:45-8:26 in his copy of Mark, then these verses must have been at the end of a section of ms that he did not have because it had become disconnected from the rest, and consequently it would have been natural for aMatthew (who did have it) to have seen increasing damage towards the end of the section, exactly as the variants in Mk 8:22-26 suggest. Exactly how much damage he saw is not known, but it appears to have been enough that he did not (possibly could not) include a parallel to it in Matthew. Assuming this to be the case, why did he instead add Mt 16:11b-12 as the reply to Jesus question from Mt 16:11a, the parallel to Mk 8:21b? It seems likely that, being mindful of the similar question in Mk 8:17 and the bread-related answer in Mk 8:18-20, aMatthew saw a need to provide an answer to his parallel to Mk 8:21, and did so with another answer related to bread, but clarifying that the bread was being used as a metaphor.

Conclusions

At a basic level, it is very easy to explain both the similarities and the differences between the three synoptic accounts: The authors of the accounts chose to include some material from their sources, exclude other material, and each made different choices regarding changing the material they did include. In other words, they were editors, not copyists. Although this sounds perfectly reasonable, in the absence anything written by the authors of Mark, Matthew, and Luke explaining the rationale behind their choices we can neither confirm nor deny this scenario. It is untestable, and therefore cannot be falsified, i.e. no-one can provide evidence that this did not take place.

Assuming that the synoptic authors edited their sources (sometimes even combining material from both synoptic and non-synoptic sources) allows us to ‘solve’ a lot of the issues regarding the differences between the synoptics. However, there are places where it is hard to provide any rational explanation for the edits that would have had to have been made to create some of the differences between the synoptics that we see today. One of these is the Great Omission in Luke. On the assumption that aLuke saw and used a copy of Mark that included Mk 6:45-8:26, it is undeniable that the exclusion of these 75 contiguous verses of Mark from his own account has no parallel anywhere else in Luke. This fact alone should give us pause, and make us consider that aLuke’s choice of action here is unique, and does not correspond to what we see as his editing practices anywhere else. Some other explanation is required, and although the suggestion of damage to the copy of Mark seen by aLuke (as suggested by Streeter in The Four Gospels) is not well regarded, it does provide a ready explanation for what we see in Luke.

As noted above, only half of the verses in Mark that are omitted by aLuke in the Great Omission have complete parallels in Matthew, with the remainder having either partial parallels, or no parallel at all. Although this is less extreme than the situation in Luke, it is nevertheless the case that, assuming that aMatthew saw and edited a copy of Mark, his edits here are unusually severe. It is also the case that these edits can be explained as the result of aMatthew seeing a copy of Mark that was damaged in the area of the same verses that are omitted in their entirety in Luke. Of course, short of finding a substantially complete early copy of Mark which omits large portions of vv 6:45-8:26 (and perhaps also the beginning and end), we are unlikely to ever be able to prove whether or not this is what actually happened.

References

Gill, John: Exposition of the Entire Bible

McGeown Susan: susanmcgeown.webs.com

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

Powers, B. Ward: The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels

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

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