A more general reason against the assumption of an Ur-Marcus in the hands of Matthew and Luke is the comparatively small number and importance of their agreements against Mark, as compared with the very large number of the deviations in which they do not agree, and as compared also with the vastly greater number of instances in which both Matthew and Luke follow Mark faithfully. In other words, if Ur-Marcus differed from our Mark only in those words and phrases in which Matthew and Luke agree against our Mark, then Ur-Marcus was at the most not a different Mark from ours, but only a different copy or text of our Mark. The assumption of an Ur-Marcus was a natural one for the explanation of the phenomena in question; but it is a cumbersome hypothesis, and insecure; further study seems to discredit it. Matthew and Luke used our Mark, not another.
It has often been suggested that the Marcan material covered by the “great omission” of Luke (Mk vi, 45-viii, 26) was absent from the copy of Mark used by Luke, tho present in that used by Matthew. Reasons for Luke’s omission of this long Marcan section have been given, and seem sufficient without the assumption of its absence from Luke’s copy of Mark. But the theory of its absence has also important items directly against it. The section has the general Marcan characteristics. Mark has one hundred and forty-one historic presents; eighteen of them are in this section. He uses εὐθὺς thirty-four times, five in this section; πάλιν twenty-six times, five in this section. He is partial to the imperfects ἔλεγεν and ἔλεγον, which he uses fifty times (against Matthew’s twenty-three and Luke’s nine), six times in this section. The same habit of duplicate expression which occurs in other parts of his Gospel appears here. ὅ ἐστιν in the sense of “i.e.,” peculiar to Mark among the evangelists, appears here twice (four times elsewhere in the Gospel). Seven out of the nine sections begin with καί. The section seems to be too homogeneous with the rest of the book to be from a different hand.[68]
The foregoing considerations seem to render the hypothesis of Ur-Marcus superfluous. The phenomena for which it was designed to account are more easily and naturally explained by other suppositions.
SOME REMARKABLE VERBAL RESEMBLANCES
In the preceding pages sufficient consideration has been given not only to the fact, but to the manner, of the use of Mark by Matthew and Luke. Visual illustration, by the printing of a few passages in different kinds of type may serve to enforce some of the more general facts already brot out. The words (or parts of words) common to the three Synoptics, in the following passages, will be printed in heavy-faced type.
| Mt ix, 5-6: τί γάρ ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν· ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, τότε λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ ἐγερθεὶς ἆρόν σου τὴν κλίνην καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. | Mk ii, 9-10a: τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν τῷ παραλυτικῷ· ἀφίενταί σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι, ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, λέγει τῷ παραλυτικῷ· σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε ἆρον τὸν κράββατόν σου καὶ ὕπαγε εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. | Lk v, 23-24: τί ἐστιν εὐκοπώτερον, εἰπεῖν· ἀφέωνταί σοι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι σου ἢ εἰπεῖν· ἔγειρε καὶ περιπάτει; ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐξουσίαν ἔχει ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἀφιέναι ἁμαρτίας, εἶπεν τῷ παραλελυμένῳ· σοὶ λέγω, ἔγειρε καὶ ἆρας τὸ κλινίδιόν σου πορεύου εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου. |
Here the evangelists differ each from the other in the words ascribed to Jesus, but when they come to the parenthetic explanation injected into the midst of the sentence, ἵνα δὲ εἰδῆτε, etc., they agree exactly, not only in the wording, but in the awkward placing of the clause. The three accounts agree in the first five lines, except for the presence of γὰρ in Matthew, the insertion of τῷ παραλυτικῷ in Mark, and a slightly different form of the verb ἀφίημι in Luke. In the fourth line Luke also inserts σοι, after which come seven consecutive agreeing words (tho with slight rearrangement in order by Luke). Mark then has a clause of six words which Matthew and Luke omit. The latter agree in substituting περιπάτει for ὕπαγε, and two (different) words from the same root for Mark’s κράββατον. Luke has preserved the σοὶ λέγω which Matthew has dropped.
| Mt xii, 3-4: οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ, ὅτε ἐπείνασεν καὶ οἱ μετ’ αυτοῦ; πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγον, ὃ οὐκ ἐξὸν ἦν αὐτῷ φαγεῖν οὐδὲ τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ, εἰ μὴ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν μόνοις; | Mk ii, 25-26: οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ, ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ; πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν; | Lk vi, 3-4: οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀνέγνωτε ὃ ἐποίησεν Δαυείδ, ὁπότε ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ ὄντες; ὡς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔλαβεν καὶ ἔφαγεν, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς μετ’ αὐτοῦ, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ μόνους τοὺς ἱερεῖς; |
Few brief passages in the triple tradition will better repay study than this. Note that the three introduce their question with three different particles. Matthew and Luke omit the apparently superfluous words of Mark, χρείαν ἔσχεν, but Luke retains the αὐτὸς of Mark which Matthew has dropped. Luke adds ὄντες, perhaps in deference to Mark’s οὖσιν, used in a similar phrase but different connection. He substitutes ὡς for the πῶς of Mark and Matthew. Mark and Luke both have the statement that David “gave” the bread to those that were with him, Luke adding that he “took” it. All three have in conclusion the phrase “to those with him,” but each has inserted it in a different place. Matthew follows Mark more closely than does Luke, the latter transposing one or two clauses. Both Matthew and Luke have omitted the reference to Abiathar, either because they (or Luke at least) had no interest in it, or for its historical difficulty. In spite of these changes there is a most remarkable verbal agreement thruout. Except for Mark’s superfluous “had need,” and his reference to Abiathar, nothing can be found in either account that is not duplicated, practically word for word and almost letter for letter, in one or both of the others.
| Mt iv, 18-22: Περιπατὼν δὲ παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν δύο ἀδελφούς, Σίμωνα τὸν λεγόμενον Πέτρον καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ βάλλοντας ἀμφίβληστρον ἐις τὴν θάλασσαν· ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. Καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων. οἱ δὲ εὐθέως ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. Καὶ προβὰς ἐκεῖθεν εἶδεν ἄλλους δύο ἀδελφούς, Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ μετὰ Ζεβεδαίου τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα αὐτῶν· καὶ ἐκάλεσεν αυτούς. οἱ δὲ (εὐθέως) ἀφέντες τὸ πλοῖον καὶ (τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν) ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. | Mk i, 16-20: Καὶ παράγων παρὰ τὴν θάλασσαν τῆς Γαλιλαίας εἶδεν Σίμωνα καὶ Ἀνδρέαν τὸν ἀδελφὸν Σίμωνος ἀμφιβάλλοντας ἐν τῇ θαλάσσῃ· ἦσαν γὰρ ἁλεεῖς. καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· δεῦτε ὀπίσω μου, καὶ ποιήσω ὑμᾶς γενέσθαι ἁλεεῖς ἀνθρώπων. καὶ εὐθὺς ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ. Καὶ προβὰς ὀλίγον εἶδεν Ἰάκωβον τὸν τοῦ Ζεβεδαίου καὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτοὺς ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ καταρτίζοντας τὰ δίκτυα. καὶ (εὐθὺς) ἐκάλεσεν αὐτούς· καὶ ἀφέντες (τὸν πατέρα αὐτῶν) Ζεβεδαῖον ἐν τῷ πλοίῳ μετὰ τῶν μισθωτῶν ἀπῆλθον ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ. |