Sectional Analysis

Marcan prioritists think that the exclusion of Abiathar in Matt and Luke helps them, but since this is not a genuine historical mistake (see here) there is also no support for Marcan priority. The exclusion is rather more explicable from Matthew on the grounds that it is an unnecessary reference, or makes a point that is too "high context" even for Matthew's readers (i.e., it depends on an obscure argument that Abiathar was a great priest in whose time the law was strictly followed), or that Matt and Luke, being better versed in Greek, realized that it would be confusing to refer to Abby as a "great priest" without implying that he held the high-priestly office. Difficult to explain under a direct-copying paradigm is why Luke makes the disciples the subject of the question rather than Jesus. This is a sign that the question in another source (the critics say Q; we say Ur-Matthew) was not directed to any one in particular but to the group as a whole.

Hawkins [122] adds an argument that Mark's "went" "might be taken to imply" that the disciples broke a path through the standing wheat, and so was eliminated by Matthew! Not only does this require paranoia and triple-layer admission of speculation ("might," "imply", and also Hawkins says, "not necessarily"!), it must be read into the text! No one reading Mark would assume trespassing was occurring; the natural context would be the Jewish law that allowed the poor to pluck wheat from the fringes of a field.

Matthew has here done his permitted redaction, adding sayings from his stock of topical material. If Ur-Matthew has anything it is at most what Mark offers, and at least Luke, who perhaps cuts out the reference to the origin of the sabbath that his Roman reader would find obscure. Hawkins [122] thinks Mark's statement may have been a "hard saying" for Jewish Christians and so eliminated, but does not explain why, only citing Pauline passages that indicate the sabbath is not in force. This would only suggest that Mark would eliminate the passage for his Gentile readers, not any sort of problem for Jewish Christians (who Acts indicates still observed forms of the law, and even Paul continued to do so for observational reasons). Thus there is no argument here to be had.

Here again Matthew has moved teachings topically; the saying about the pit is paralleled only in Luke 14:3-5, in an episode of a mna with dropsy unparalleled in Matthew. At the same time in Mark we see the touch of the eyewitness in reporting the order to the man to stand up before all. Matthew has also made the passage more didactic by having the question at issue addressed directly to Jesus.

Peter the eyewitness comments again. Jesus' anger and grief would hardly be essential to a didactic presentation; Marcan prioritists think Matthew and Luke would be embarrassed by such anger, but this is a Jesus they also have cleansing the temple, and let's add that they also have him judging people and sending them to eternal punishment (Matt. 25) and slaying enemies in a parable (Luke 19:27).

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

went the Jesus on Sabbath through the grainfields the And disciples of-him hungered and began to-pluck heads and to-eat rubbing with hands. the But Pharisees seeing said to-him Behold the disciples of-you are-doing what not it-is-lawful to-do in sabbath he But said to-them Not did-you-read what did David when he-hungered himself and those with him? How he-went-in into the house of God and the loaves of presentation he-ate which not lawful it-was for-him to-eat nor for-those with him except for-the priest only? And he-said to-them the sabbath because-of man came-into-being not the man because of sabbath so-then Lord is the Son of Man also of sabbath. And he-entered again into the synagogue and was there man withering having of hand And they-watched him if on the sabbath he-will-heal him that they-might-accuse him. he-says to man Stretch-out the hand of-you and he-stretched-out and it-was-restored sound as the other. the But Pharisees council took against him they-having-left how him they-might-destroy.