Sectional Analysis

The many additions of Mark here are a pointer to Peter teaching his Gentile readers a context unknown to them. Matthew, in his higher context of a Jewish setting, does not need to explain these things. So did Matthew remove it all from Mark, or did Peter add it all to a common oral tradition? The latter is more likely -- for why ever, in a Jewish milieu of Palestine, would this series of explanations come to be attached in the first place? If anything at all here is from the original oral pericope, it is the first and last sentences.

Note how Matt and Mark treat these blocks in reverse order -- how does this make sense of Matt copying Mark? It doesn't -- it is a sign of a common oral tradition. Note as well that the "Corban" explanation is obviously less original, for of course Jesus would not be explaining an Aramaic word to his own hearers. Conceivably Matthew could copy this and leave it out, but it is more likely that we are hearing a Petrine reminisce designed to capture the hearer's imagination. Matthew also bears marks of originality in that he isolates "hypocrites" in a manner that better fits the riposte-challenge methods, also illustrated in Matthew 23, and Luke 11:44.

Hawkins [Hawk.HS, 119] sees Marcan priority in the change of the "Full well do you reject the commandment" to "Why do ye also transgress..." in that it replaces the "irony" with a "graver question." Little more needs to be said than that this is a ridiculous overread. It is no less "grave" to note that a command of God was rejected, and the nature of the issue (honoring parents) makes a rejection the same as a transgression, for both involve neglect.

Once again we can see a common oral tradition, supplemented in Mark by Peter's personal additions (the cry to hear, and going into a house).

This is the only place where Luke has a parallel -- Luke 6:39, where this is attached to the parable of the beam and the speck. Matthew has detached it from that context and used it here, and it is not found in his beam-speck parable (Matt. 7). The lack of it in Mark tells us that this was not part of the oral version of this pericope OR part of Ur-Matthew, and that it was removed when Matthew constructed his Greek Gospel. Peter's comment here is then setup and was not part of the original; the same for the remark about the Pharisees being offended.

The first thing this tells us is that Matthew is NOT out to remove all references to the disciples being dense, and that this is not just a Markan "theme" -- hence, one reason to assume Markan priority vanishes. The redundancy (why would we need to be told that it is the foods that come out of us? what else are we eating?) and the extended length of the list on Mark points to Matthean originality and Petrine illustrative commentary for preaching purposes.

The use of a different word for parts/borders points to an Aramaic core. Mark's repeated use of "little-daughter" is a sign of a dramatic oral performance, and his more detailed note about the woman's race and that Jesus was in a house (and the woman returned to hers) points to eyewitness testimony. Here also Matthew shows his own focus, emphasizing the "Son of David". Redactional points like Matt adding "Son of David" are taken as a sign of Marcan priority, since Mark does not have them, but are just as well seen as additions to a common oral core by Matthew.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

Then came-near to Jesus those from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees saying, why the disciples of-you transgress the tradition of-the elders? not For they-wash the hands of-them when bread they-eat. he But answering said to-them Why also you do-transgress the command of God because of tradition of-you? (the) For God commanded saying Honor the father of you and the mother also the speaking-evil of-father or mother by-death let-him-end. you But say Who ever says to father or the mother Gift what ever by me you-would-gain and in no-way he-honors the father of-him or the mother of-him; and you-annulled the command of God because of tradition your. Hypocrites! Well prophesied concerning your Isaiah saying, Draws-near to Me people this with mouth of-them and with lips Me honors; the but heart of-them far holds-off from Me. in-vain But they-worship Me teaching doctrines ordinances of-men. And calling-near the crowd he-said to-them Hear and understand not the entering into the mouth defiles the man but that coming-forth from the mouth this defiles the man. And when he went into house from the crowd questioned him the disciples of-Him about the parable. Then the disciples of-him questioned him about the parable the) But Jesus said, yet also you unintelligent are? Not-yet you perceive that everything (the) having-entered into the mouth into the stomach goes and into wastebowl is expelled? the things But coming out man. out of For the heart come-forth reasonings, evils, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witnessings, blasphemies; these are the defiling the man but with unwashed hands to-eat not defiles the man.

And going-out from-there the Jesus withdrew into the parts Tyre and Sidon. And woman Canaanite from the borders those coming-forth cried out to-him saying Have-pity-on-me Lord the daughter of-me badly is-demon-possessed he But not answered her word. And having-come-near the disciples of-him asked him saying Send-away her because she-cries after us. he But answering said Not I-was-sent except to the sheep of lost house Israel. she But coming worshiped him saying Lord help me he But answering said Not it-is good to-take the bread of children and to-throw to dogs. she And said Yes Lord even for the dogs eat from the crumbs of the children. Then answering the Jesus said to-her Because of this word go has-gone-out the demon from the little-daughter of-you. And was-healed the daughter of-her from the hour that.