Sectional Analysis

Once again we see Mark loaded with Petrine eyewitness additions: the pathos of Jairus, the pressing of the crowd. Luke apparently has used Mark's details, but not in direct copying, but in note-taking: for he displaces the note that the child was twelve, and omits the name of Jairus. Matthew preserves only the original and memorable core used in oral tradition. Matthew of course has also altered the setting to reflect his change in the order of the tradition.

An argument for Markan priority noted by Neville [254] claims that Matthew has condensed the story beyond the "psychologically credible" by having Jairus show an incredible amount of faith by coming for an unheard-of miracle. The argument, Neville notes, is reversible: It makes Matthew's version a "harder reading" and thus more likely to be original. However, it is bad enough to argue on the basis of what may have been "psychologically credible" to any given person. Neville rightly regards this argument as "worthless".

Same observations as above. Some may argue that Matthew "improves" Mark by omitting Jesus' ignorance of who touched him. But Matthew already has Jesus not knowing the time of his return (24:36) and so is obviously not hesitant to report such things. Nor is Luke, which is odd if there were some churchwide concern to not show Jesus to be lacking in omniscience. More likely Matthew simply preserves the essential oral core of the story, within which such personal observations lack any needed place.

Same observations as above. We may close with some other arguments noted by Neville [257-8].

• Mark is more original because his incalcation of the woman's healing makes intelligible the delay that causes Jairus' daughter to die. Obviously this (and the next issue) are just as intelligible if we suppose Matthew redacted his own Ur-Matthew. It does gain some punch from the point that intercalation is a normal Markan technique. However, the presumption that the insertion of the woman is a "buying time" technique is itself flawed. Rather, the woman's faith is the main issue; there is no indication even in Mark that the delay was what cost the daughter her life. As for the use of intercalation, this of course begs the question of whether there would be actual historically "intercalated" events in Jesus' ministry. It is further noted that Matthew lacks specific features of Markan intercalation: the dramatic irony (for Matthew has the daughter already deceased; but see here; the typical Markan "crossover" terms; and the contrast here of the Jairus account moving from and open setting to a closed one, and the woman's from closed to open (secrecy made vs secrecy busted). This contrast strongly suggests that Matthew did not use Mark's account but that they each worked on it independently. While one might of course create reasons for Matt to omit "dramatized irony" etc., the simpler solution is independent work.
• The woman's approach from behind and Jesus' need to turn around, not noted in Matthew, is intelligible only with Mark's crowds. Matthew "loses" the crowd because his preceding pericope is not the same as Mark's. However, Jesus turns around in Matt and Mark (but not Luke!) precisely because the woman came at him from behind; the crowd is not an essential part of this. As for the first point, Jesus' disciples followed Jesus and the ruler, and while this is not as much a "crowd" their presence would have provided enough cover for the woman to sneak in. It can hardly be said that these details are only intelligible in Mark's setting.
• The pericopes have common order and similar vocabulary. As has already been noted this sort of data only indicates Markan priority to those committed to Markan priority; it can obviously be reversed, attributed to a common (oral or written) source, and/or to the constraints of language.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

behold ruler one coming worshipped him saying For the daughter of-me just-now has died but coming lay the hand of-you on her and she-will-live. And rising- up the Jesus followed him and the disciples of-him. And behold woman having-a-flow-of-blood twelve years coming-near behind touched the fringe of garment of-him. said For within herself If only I-shall-touch the garment of-him I-will-be-cured. But the Jesus having-turned and seeing her said Be comforted daughter. The faith of-you has cured you. And was-cured the woman from the hour that. And coming the Jesus into the house of ruler and seeing that flute-players and the crowd causing-a-tumult says to them Go-back not for has-died the girl but sleeps And they-derided him. when But had-been-put-out the crowd entering he-took the hand of-her and arose the girl. And went-out the report this into all the land that.