Sectional Analysis

This selection is gold for Marcan prioritists (this is part of a section Luke bypasses entirely) who suppose that Matthew is trying to tone down some alleged "problems" in the text by basically wiping out Mark's account. They say it is because of troubles, and this proves Marcan priority. We say that the troubles so not exist, and that Matt has simply sacrificed this pericope and put in its place a more memorable summary so that he has more room for his main focus, the teachings of Jesus. It is likely that once we remove what is identifiable as Petrine reminisces, we will have something that occupied the pages of Ur-Matthew.

In the Markan text are two "problems" it is supposed Matthew was trying to avoid. One is the so-called "Messianic secret", but if anything, in deleting this, Matthew removed something favorable (Jesus' honorable behavior) rather than avoiding a problem! (On this see here.) Nevertheless Matthew has instances of Jesus doing this (Matt. 9:30, 12:16, 17:9) so even if this was a "problem" he isn't avoiding it at all.

Second and of more importance, it is supposed that Matthew is somehow embarrassed that Jesus has to use spit and a "magic word" to accomplish a healing. If this was an embarrassment one wonders why John's gospel later has Jesus doing the same sort of thing (9:6-7). There is nothing "embarrassing" here; the spittle of holy men was considered sacred. If there is anything at all Matthew may be trying to avoid, it is the use of spittle in a positive context, being that he has it in a negative context later when Jesus is spit upon by his accusers. It has been argued that Matthew did the same thing the word "myrrh" (see here). Together this suggests that Matthew had nothing to be embarrassed about, and that both he and Mark got this as part of an oral block of teachings. (On Mark's use of Aramaic words, see here.)

This story presents certain issues since using the ancient methods of mimesis, both Mark and Matt would want to make this account sound as similar to the feeding of the 5000 as possible. Each thus follows their own pattern closely though note that Mark has Jesus blessing and breaking fish and loaves twice -- an oral pattern that would suit a Petrine preaching model; similarly with the double note of the people not having anything to eat. The different Greek word for borders/region points to an Aramaic original, and Matthew's trimmer version is a more likely candidate for the core oral tradition.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

Since Matthew's likely reasons for leaving this healing out may have been a personal affectation, it is possible that his version in Ur-Matthew was a summary as above. The oral version of the story may have been as follows:

And he-came to the Sea of Galilee. And they-bring to-him deaf hardly-speaking and they-begged Him that He-put on-him the hands. And He-put the fingers of-him into the ears of-him and having-spit He-touched the tongue of-him and looking-up into the heaven groaned and says to-him Ephphatha. And were-opened of-him the ears and was-loosened the bond of-the tongue of-him. And he-ordered them that no-one they should-tell

And Jesus having-called-near the disciples of-him said I-am-filled-with-pity on the crowd because now days three they remain with-me and not have any they-may-eat and to-send-away them fasting not-I-desire that-not they-be-weary in the way. And say to-him the disciples of-him From-where to-us in desert loaves so-many as to-satisfy crowd great? And said to them the Jesus How-many loaves have-you? they And said Seven and few small-fish. And he-ordered the crowd to-recline on the ground And taking the seven loaves and the fish giving-thanks he-broke and gave to disciples of-him the and disciples to crowd. And ate all and were-filled. And they-took up the pieces seven lunch-baskets full. ones And eating were four-thousand men. And sending-away the crowds he-went into the boat and came into the borders of Magdala.