Matthew has taken a more didactic approach as usual and has inserted a typological fulfillment claim from Isaiah. In this respect Mark probably has what was closer to being in the original tradition. Matthew also moves the matter of the clever use of the boat to a later pericope.

One argument made here for Markan priority is that Mark "might be interpreted" [Stein, 68] as "meaning that Jesus lacked sufficient power to heal 'all' and could only heal 'many'." Stein however admits that such a conclusion is "not necessary" because even in Mark "all" and "many" are synonyms (Mark 1:32, 34) and adds that "'Many' is a Semitism for 'all'." (Indeed, in this parallel, Mark mentions that "all" press on Jesus, and leaves no implication that any didn't get what they wanted!) Stein's argument that Mark "could be misunderstood" is therefore without foundation by his own admission. Moreover it depends on a highly "paranoid" reading of Mark which reads "And he healed many who were sick" not as saying many came to him and were healed, but "And he healed many who were sick, but not all of them" and then must insert additional paranoia: "but not all of them, because he could not". And the only grounds for such a reading is based in Mark 6:5, which is commonly misread (see here).

Taking away material that would come from the eyewitness Peter and would be superfluous in the tradition, or is used elsewhere by Matthew:

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction:

the But Jesus knowing withdrew to the sea. And followed him crowds many and he-healed them all And warned them that not manifest him-they