Sectional Analysis

The story of John the Baptist's execution most often receives focus with regards to Mark's version and it's alleged discordance with Josephus. But it is also a focus for the thesis that Matthew merely copied Mark in his work, and often got it wrong when he did. (Luke just sums up the matter in two verses and will not be considered here.)

In terms of arguments, though, very little is advaned on this, and can actually be turned on its head. One of the most-used notes that Matthew follows Mark in the "error" of calling Herod a king (14:9) while the correct title "tetrarch" appears in Matthew 14:1. We have noted in the linked item above why this is not an error at all; it might be added that Matthew here perhaps deviates from the use of "king" here just to make clear that the "King Herod" he refers to is not Herod the Great -- who starred in Matthew, but not in Mark.

Lamar Cope, in an essay in Farmer's New Synoptic Studies [148-9], regards the account as a "Christian fiction," but nevertheless shows well how Matthean priority (or we would argue perhaps, oral tradition priority, or an Ur-Matthew priority independent of Mark) fits the data better. Contradiction is often cited in that Matthew says Herod wanted to kill John, but was later sorry, while Mark says that Herodias wanted to kill John, and Herod was sorry all the time. The oddity for Marcan priority here is that Matthew is actually closer to what is reported by Josephus than Mark is -- and therefore seems a more likely candidate to have written first. (We would make the point that Herod may well have wanted to kill John, but was indeed not able to, likely because of popular opinion -- indeed, he may have eventually seen a silver lining in the dark cloud of Herodias' machinations; he may have thought it possible to fix blame on her -- though popular opinion apparently didn't see it that way.) Cope also adds that Matthew's grammar is more congenial to the context of his Gospel, whereas Mark's fit is colloquial.

Finally, there are some hard verbal statistics that point more strongly to a common oral tradition rather than direct (or indirect) literary copying. Hoehner relates in Herod Antipas [115ff] that Matthew's correspondence with Mark in terms of words used in this passage amounts to only 33% (83 words out of 252 -- these figures exclude the passion narratives) -- compared to 49% for the rest of the Gospel. That 33% goes down to 15% if we exclude things like pronouns, personal names (John, Herod, etc.), articles and conjunctions. The greatest similarity with Mark lies in the speeches of characters and in the conclusions to the pericopes -- which fits an oral model to a T. Hoehner thus concludes that we have "two independent traditions which were taken over by the evangelists" who in turns adapted it to their personal style.

In short, I see no reason here to think that Matthew was copying Mark. Common oral tradition seems a much likelier explanation.

Now in terms of the remainder (Matthew 14:13-36, Mark 6:30-56) we will do a more detailed analysis.

The pattern persists: Mark (via Peter) adds scads of eyewitness observation and reminisce. Luke's version gives us two hints. The lack of direct correspondence shows note-taking, nor direct copying; and that he notes healing -- which Mark does not, yet Matthew does -- shows that he has not only Mark at his command, but some version of Matthew's.

Once again note-taking is indicated because of Luke's different order for the number of men and that he "personalizes" the command to recline, making it in first person and not third. Mark also has the eyewitness touches we expect (green grass). There is an additional support point here in John's version, which agrees with Matt and Luke against Mark in mentioning crowds following Jesus and of fragments "left over." John's version also provides an exemplar of what we say Peter did in Mark: adding personal touches of an eyewitness to an existing tradition. Luke now leaves this portion and our comparison now involves only Mark and Matt.

The use of a different word for "cried out" is the sort of thing Marcan prioritists must assume to be a random choice, or some vague effort to "improve" Mark. Why not say instead it is evidence that each had the same Aramaic word that they translated into Greek differently, and see evidence of an Ur-Matthew or common Aramaic core? The differing order in the last two sentences also bespeaks against direct copying and speaks rather of Peter's oral performance methods recorded by Mark.

Hawkins [Hawk.HS, 119] thinks he espies Markan priority in thinking that Matt would eliminate the note that Jesus would have "passed by" the boat because there "might have been fear of this being taken to mean that He did not wish, or intend, to help them." Beyond the simple paranoia, there are two problems with this explanation: 1) there is no sign here that the disciples needed any help; the wind was contrary and made them work hard, but they were not sinking or in danger; 2) Mark here alludes to the "passing by" of God on Mount Sinai, a significant Christological statement that Matthew would hardly want to eliminate.

Marcan prioritists have a ball with this one, supposing that there is no way Mark copying Matthew would have left out Peter's special cameo. They are wrong. If Peter is the mind behind Mark he would by all means leave out this cameo of himself walking on water. Within the honor-shame and limited-good society of the NT world, to make such noteworthy claims of one's self would have been deemed offensive. "Humility" of this sort was the order of the day for the people of the NT world and we should not be surprised at all if Peter left out his own miraculous performance and chose not to highlight places where he did things that the other disciples did not do. But we do say not that Mark copied Matthew but that these are independent traditions. (Note however that Matt and Mark both use a Markan-Petrine favorite word, "instantly," often here -- which makes sense if Peter was the cameo star, and got to be the one who formulated and retold this story in his starring role.)

It is also argued here that Matthew improves on the reaction of the disciples, making them look less dumb than Mark does, but this is in error as well and begs the question of order, then explains the data in terms of the begged question. In all likelihood the disciples' reaction was not part of the oral core; Mark's reaction reflects Peter's memories, and Matthew's record shows the disciples just as "dumb" as Mark's, for the realization that they have is one, as even Mark says, they should have had with the previous miracle. Mark just makes explicit what is implicit in Matthew. (See comments here.)

As elsewhere the core message is the same, with Mark (Peter) adding eyewitness touches.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

And hearing the Jesus withdrew from-there in boat into deserted place in-a-way privately. And having-heard the crowds followed him on-foot from the cities. And going-out the Jesus saw great crowd and was-filled-with-pity on them and he healed the infirm of-them. evening And having-come came-near to-him the disciples of-him saying Deserted is the place and the hour already is-gone-by. Dismiss the crowds that going-away into the villages they-may-buy for-themselves foods. The Jesus said to-them Not need they-have to-go-away give to-them you to eat. they But say to-him Not we-have here except five loaves and two fish. he And said Bring to-me them here. And commanding the crowds to-recline on the grass and taking the five loaves and the two fish looking-up into the heaven he-blessed and breaking he-gave to disciples loaves the and disciples to crowds. And ate all and were-satisfied and took the left-over of pieces twelve handbaskets full. those And eating were men about five-thousand And instantly constrained the Jesus the disciples of-him to-enter into the boat and to-go-before him to the other-side until he dismissed the crowds And having-dismissed the crowds he-went into the mountain in-a-way apart to-pray evening And coming alone he-was there. the And boat now amidst the sea was being-tossed by the waves was for contrary the wind in-fourth But watch of night went toward them the Jesus walking on the sea And seeing him the disciples on the sea walking-about they-were-troubled saying that phantom is and out-of the fear they-cried-out at-once But spoke to-them the Jesus saying Be-comforted I AM not Do fear. answering And him the Peter said Lord if you are command me to you to-come on the waters. he And said Come And descending from the boat the Peter walked on the waters to-come to the Jesus seeing But the wind strong he-was-afraid and beginning to-sink he-cried-out saying Lord save me instantly And the Jesus stretching-out the hand took-hold of-him and says to-him Little-faith for why did-you-doubt? And going-up they into the boat ceased the wind And passing-over they-came into the land of Gennesaret And recognizing him the men of place that sent into all the neighborhood that and brought to-him all those illness having and begged him that only they-might-touch the fringe of garment of-him and as-many as-touched were-cured