Sectional Analysis

Here Matthew has done some redactive work and has combined two teachings. I offer details in a debate here. Hawkins [Hawk.HS, 118] creatively sees proof of Marcan priority in that Matthew omits the groaning, of which he says, "perhaps painful effort might seem to be implied..." "Perhaps" and "might" as double qualifiers tell us how likely this is: It isn't. WHAT "painful" effort? Constipation? If Hawkins meant the "pain" of disgust in answering, then why is Matthew adding so much dissing of the Pharisees? There is nothing Matthew would see a need to omit here, and even if right, this works just as well with Matthean and Markan independence.

The different Greek words for the warning bespeak a common source in Aramaic. It might be objected again that Matthew "improves" the disciples copying Mark but it is far more likely that Peter adds the impact of an eyewitness and that Matthew had already trimmed the data down to make it useful for didactic purposes. For teaching purposes no one would need the excess questions, and at any rate, given how "duh" the answer is, Matthew shows the disciples no less stupid than Mark does. (It will be hoped that no one thinks that after this, Mark is implying that the disciples STILL did not understand as Matthew relates!)

Styler [Bell.2S, 70] supposes proof of Markan priority in Matthew's interpretation of the "leaven" in terms of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It is claimed that Matt "seems here to be trying hard to extract a tolerable sense from the intolerable statement that Mark appears to be making" that Jesus taught in parables to prevent outsiders from understanding. That understanding of Mark is awry to begin with; Matthew and other ancients would have never found such an idea "intolerable" as it was normal teaching practice. In any event Styler never actually explains the connection to the "leaven" issue.

Mark then has an episode of a healed blind man (8:22-26) that Matthew omits, as does Luke. It is likely that this story from Mark was in the original oral core and that Matthew to save space has moved one blind man to the account now in Matthew 9, using literary tools permissible to him. Some would claim again that Matthew is somehow embarrassed that Jesus has to use spit to accomplish a healing and that it is a partway miracle. If this was an embarrassment one wonders why John's gospel later has Jesus doing the same sort of thing (9:6-7) and that Jesus shows ignorance in other contexts, as in the time of the end. 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.

Luke now rejoins the material:

Four word differences between Matt and Mark again tell us of a common source in another language. We also argue that Peter's confession was part of the oral core and that Peter in his own preaching removed it so as not to draw attention to himself, which would be the wrong thing to do in an honor-shame setting. We see Luke taking notes from both sides, hence that he uses some of Mark's Greek and some of Matt's Greek, in the process of note-taking between Mark's Greek and Ur-Matt's Aramaic.

The differing choice of words for "raised" (indeed found all through all three gospels) bespeaks again for Matt and Mark at least a common source in Aramaic. Note how Luke omits the "Satan" comment, another example of why individual differences tell us nothing and can be accommodated to any literary thesis. Hawkins [123] supposes Markan priority here in the simple difference of Mark's "after three days" to Matt's "on the third day" because the computation method would "not otherwise be evident to persons unaccustomed to the Jewish method of computation." But Matt uses "after three days" (27:63) as well as "after six days" (17:1) and "after two days" (26:2). It is just as well to see Matt and Luke independently doing this based on the creedal formula offered in 1 Cor. 15. (Note that "on" is merely an English clarification; the words are "raised the third day" just as in 1 Cor. 15.) He also claims a problem in Jesus speaking "plainly" about the resurrection and why it was then not expected, but see here.

As usual, Luke's version bespeaks note-taking, not direct copying. Matthew has also implanted a reference to a sinful generation hearkening back to his prior account and a didactic OT allusion. Hawkins [123] oddly thinks there is a clue of Marcan priority here because Matt has taken out the "adulterous and sinful generation" thereby "seeming to narrow the application pf the warning against being 'ashamed of' Christ." In other words, Hawkins wants to tell us that Matthew read this and said, "Hey! People might think Mark is making it OK to be ashamed of Jesus once this particular generation is dead! I'd better delete this", which is quite ridiculous enough and so paranoid as to be unworthy of comment. (It would also run against then-current perceptions of honor and shame; one would never be thought to be on good standing being ashamed of one's patron or broker!)

Thus the oral core in our view:

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

And went-out the Pharisees and began to-argue with-him seeking from him sign from of heaven tempting him. And he-says Why the generation this sign seeks? Truly I-say to-you if-will-be-given the generation to-this a sign! And coming the disciples of-him to the other-side they-forgot loaves to-take the And Jesus said to-them Beware and take-heed from the leaven of Pharisees and Sadducees. they But reasoned among themselves saying for Loaves not we-took. knowing And the Jesus said to-them Why do-you-reason among yourselves little-faiths because loaves not you-took? Not you-perceive nor remember the five loaves of five-thousand and how-many handbaskets you-took? Neither the seven loaves of four-thousand and how many lunch-baskets you took-up? How not-perceive that not about loaves I-said to-you to-take-heed from the leaven of Pharisees and Sadducees?

coming And the Jesus into the parts Caesarea of Philip he-queried the disciples of-him saying Whom me do-say the men to-be? they And said Some truly John the Baptist others and Elijah others and Jeremiah or one of prophets. He-says to-them you But whom me do-you-say to-be? answering And Simon Peter said You are the Christ. And answering the Jesus said to-him Blessed are you Simon bar-Jonah because flesh and blood not did-reveal to-you but the Father of-me the in the heaven. (16:18-19 not paralleled) Then he-warned the disciples of-him that to-no-one they-may-tell that he is Christ. From then began the Jesus to-show to disciples of-him that it-behooves him to-suffer from the elders and chief-priests and scribes and to-be-killed and on third day to-be-raised. And taking-near him Peter began to-rebuke him saying Merciful to-you Lord not at-all shall be to you this. he the But turning said to Peter Go behind me Satan offense to-me you are because not you-think the things of-God but things of-men. Then the Jesus said to disciples of-him If anyone desires after me to-come let-him-deny himself and bear the cross of-him and let-him-follow me whoever And should desire the life of-him to save he-will-lose-it Whoever And should lose the life of-him for-the-sake of-me he-will-find-it. what For will-be-benefited man if the world whole he-should-gain the but soul of-him forfeits? Or what will-give man as-exchange the soul of-him? is-about For the Son of Man to-come in the glory of Father of-him with the angels of-him. Truly I-say to-you are some of here standing who not at-all will taste death until they should-see the kingdom of-heaven coming in power.