Sectional Analysis

Each author introduces this pericope in a far different way, which indicates that all three are redactive and were not part of the oral form of the pericope. Note that the vivid details of Mark reflect the testimony of an eyewitness; Matthew, though perhaps an apostolic eyewitness, nevertheless remains "all business" in his composition of his work as a teaching tool. An absolute minimum of transition is used so as not to burden the memory. The vast difference between the words of Mark and Luke, and the fact that both Mark and Luke report the same incidents before and after, strongly point to Luke having available a source common to both of them and not relying solely on Mark. There is no reason for Luke to make such a radical change to the transition material otherwise.

This part has been a hedge point for the Marcan priority paradigm, for it is said that Matthew left hints of knowledge of Mark's story: for while he emphasizes the faith of the men in bringing the paralytic, he "omits the crucial context of the crowd and the mens' digging through the roof." This we are told is proof of Markan priority, but that simply takes the decision too far. It is proof, perhaps, of Markan authenticity, but it is much farther from being proof of Markan priority. (Note that the crowd IS found in Matthew, at the end of the pericope.) There is nothing here that prevents this story from having been from an oral original that came from the apostolic circle. Matthew could just as easily have deleted the "crucial contexts" (and I put that in quotes because one who has read Matthew without Mark would never recognize the loss of context) from an oral tradition source common to them both (which may have indeed been embodied in an Aramaic Matthew). It is only the presumption that accurate retention would be impossible that does not permit such an identification. In fact, one might suggest that it is more likely that these things would drop out in oral retellings than as a result of direct copying: Why on earth would Matthew omit these things if he were directly copying Mark? Did he have a theological problem with roofs? In the end, if we consider the roof aspect authentic, someone, somewhere, obviously dropped it, and in what order it was done is irrelevant, and it could have been done either in Matthew's mind when he wrote first, to be restored by Mark/Peter, or by Matthew later as critics say. Finally, it should be noted that faith meaning loyalty, neither the crowd nor the unroofing are as "crucial" as is supposed. The very act of bringing was an act of a client seeking patronage, whether he came in through the door or the roof.

Note, however, how different Luke's account reads even as he tells the same story. If Mark is his only source, why the vast difference? It could be Luke freely modifying Mark -- or it could be Peter (through Mark) adding the eyewitness touch (of the four, of the positioning in front of Jesus) to a less colorful story form.

Witherington [Mark comm, 114] adds the note that Mark's word for "cot" is a Latinism and is different from that used by Matt and Luke. Stein takes this as evidence of Markan priority, but his reasoning is dependent on the assumption that John did not use or know of Mark, which as we have seen here can be seriously questioned.

Matthew clearly has a simplest version, with Luke close. Mark redacts for example with his usual favored word "instantly" (as if there were any other way to know something like this!). It The originality of Matthew's version is telling from the lack of explanation: In a high context society, the scribes would not need to explain the blasphemy to each other as Jews; but Mark and Luke's Gentile readers would require the explanation to make the story intelligible.

Mark shows signs here of an oral performance: the repeat of "to the paralytic" and the reference to the cot. The simpler versions of Matt and Luke show more originality. For some reason Stein does not report the reversal of the phrases "on the earth" and "to remit sins" in Mark. Some would explain this as a Q phenomenon, of Luke picking Q over Mark; we explain it as an Ur-Matthew phenomenon.

This portion is one QM theorists find significant. Stein [SSG.42] finds it hard to explain the parenthetical comment unless Matt was copying Mark and takes it as a sign against Mark copying Matt. We do not think Mark copied Matt; we think they shared a common oral tradition. The parenthetical comment comes as a result of Jesus' "run on" statement (which we would today end with ellipses, as in, "Well, if you're going to be that way..." with the rest implied or acted out). Oddly Stein reports that what Matt and Mark say is "exactly the same" but it isn't; Mark lacks Matthew's "then", and note that Luke imitates Matthew in this respect. Note also that Matt lacks Mark's characteristic "at once".

Once again as with the beginning, the endings are variable, indicating that the original ending was either simpler or not present at all, more likely the former (see below).

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

Malina and Rohrbaugh [SocSci, 187] note that this pericope is part of a chiastic structure in Mark, repeated in Luke: