« PreviousContinue »
(1) A few changes seem to be due to the desire to emphasise an antithesis, e.g. :
Mt 152διά τί οι μαθηταί σου παραβαίνουσιν.
158) διά τί και υμείς παραβαί ετε.
6. More important, however, than changes in language, are alterations which seem due to an increasing feeling of reverence for the person of Christ. The second Evangelist had not scrupled to attribute to Him human emotion, and to describe Him as asking questions. Such statements are almost uniformly omitted by the editor of this Gospel.
E.g. he omits the following:
the way in which Mt 1249 avoids περιβλεψάμενος of
141 σπλαγχνισθείς; but Da f% have οργισθείς.
spirit”; Arm. “He was angry in His spirit.” Cf.
Mt's omission of τω πνεύματι αυτού from Mk 28.
1488 Mt has λυπείσθαι for εκθαμβείσθαι. He omits also clauses which seem to ascribe inability to Christ, or desire which was not fulfilled. Ε.g. 145 ώστε μηκέτι αυτόν δύνασθαι-εισελθείν. 66 ουκ έδύνατο εκεί ποιήσαι ουδεμίαν δύναμιν.
1458 καταλύσω. Mt 2660 δύναμαι καταλύσαι. In 1118 Mk. describes the Lord as coming to a fig tree (ei apa τι ευρήσει εν αυτή και ελθών] επ' αυτήν ουδέν εύρεν ει μη φύλλα το γάρ καιρός ουκ ήν σύκων]. Mt. omits the bracketed clauses, which might give rise to the question why Christ expected to find figs which did not exist, and that out of season.
1 See note on 88. Mt. uses σπλαγχνίζεσθαι of Christ four times (988 144 1563 20), and probably read opyco Oels in Mk 141.
The same feeling of reverence may have caused the following changes : Mk 68 ο τέκτων. Mt 1366 και του τέκτονος υιός.
το18 τί με λέγεις αγαθόν; Mt. 1917 τί με έρωτας περί του αγαθού;
1382 oudè ó viós. Mt 2488 omits. He omits also the following questions which Mk. places in the mouth of the Lord : Mk 59 το όνομα σου; ;
530 τίς μου ήψατο των ιματίων;
1414 που έστιν το κατάλυμά μου; Due to the same causes are, no doubt, changes made in regard to the miracles.
There is a tendency to emphasise the immediacy of a miracle ; cf. the insertion of årò rỉs ūpas ékeivns, Mt 922 1528 1718. A more striking case of this occurs in the parable of the Fig Tree. In Mk. an interval of a day is placed between the denunciation of it by the Lord and the observation of the disciples that it had withered in the meantime. But Mt. draws together the two sections of the narrative, states that the tree withered immediately upon Christ's word, and that the disciples were astonished at this immediate fulfilment of the Lord's word (2121). There is a similar heightening in the universal scope of Christ's healings. Mk 182. 88 records that "all” who were sick were brought to Christ, and that He healed
Mt. reverses the adjectives—"many" were brought, and “all” were healed (816). There is a similar alteration in Mt 1215 as compared with Mk 37.10. Here, too, may be noticed the heightening in number in the two miracles of feeding by the insertion of the phrase χωρίς γυναικών και παιδίων, 1421 1538.
Noticeable also is the omission of the two miracles, Mk 7816. 8228., in which the cure is effected by physical means : “He put His fingers into his ears, and spat, and touched his tongue, \ 333 ; “He spat on his eyes," g23. Moreover, in the latter incident the cure is a gradual one, necessitating a twofold laying on of hands. Contrast the emphasis laid by Mt. in two cases on Christ as healing “with a word,” 88.16 Another noticeable change of this sort is found in Mt 1717-18. Mk 920-26 describes how the spirit tare the sufferer as he was brought to Christ, so that he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming. The Lord presently bade
the spirit come forth; whereupon, "having cried out and rent him sore, he came out. And he became as one dead, so that many said that he had died.” Mt. omits all these details, simply saying that “the demon came forth from him.” St. Luke retains much of this description, but omits all traces of physical suffering after Christ's command. A similar desire to avoid descriptions of bodily anguish after Christ's healing word may have co-operated with other motives in causing the omission of Mk 1 23-28 Mk. records that after Christ's word “the unclean spirit rent him, and cried with a loud voice.” Here again a similar motive has influenced St. Luke, who states indeed that “the demon threw him down in the midst," but adds, "came out from him, having done him no hurt,” 485.
In view of the facts recorded above, it may perhaps be not too fanciful to see a striving after a reverential attitude in the following changes. In Mk 488 the disciples ask the half-reproachful question, “Is it not a care to Thee that we perish ?” Mt 825 substitutes
save, we perish.” In Mk 687 they ask a question which might be interpreted in an ironical sense: "Are we to go away and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread ?”. Mt 1417 omits. Does Mt. omit Mk 145 because, side by side with the statement that Christ was unable to do something, it records an act of direct disobedience to Christ's express command ? Lastly, Mt. has substituted for Mk 1228-84 a narrative of very different tone. Did he find the approbation of Christ's teaching expressed by the scribe too patronising? See note on 2 284. For the relation of Mt. to Mk. in the account of Christ's use of the parabolic method in teaching, see on Mt 1310-13
7. Side by side with these changes in expressions dealing with the person of the Lord runs a series of somewhat similar alterations in favour of the disciples. E.g., in Mk 418 there is a rebuke addressed to the disciples,
“Do ye not know this parable, and how shall ye appreciate all the parables ?” In Mt 1316-17 this rebuke is omitted, and there is inserted instead a blessing, "Blessed are your
eyes," etc. In Mk 440 ούπω έχετε πίστιν becomes ολιγόπιστοι in Mt 826. .
Mk 652 ου γαρ συνήκαν επί τοις άρτους άλλ' ήν αυτών ή καρδία
TTETpwuévn, is omitted from Mt 1488 Mk 817 πεπωρωμένην έχετε την καρδίαν υμών; οφθαλμούς έχοντες
ου βλέπετε και ώτα έχοντες ουκ ακούετε, is omitted at Mt 169, and in v.13 a statement is inserted to the effect that the
disciples did understand. At Mk 829 Mt. inserts the eulogy of St. Peter, “Blessed art
thou, Simon Barjona," etc., 1617-19,
At Mk 913 another clause is inserted to emphasise the fact that
the disciples understood Christ's teaching (Mt 1713). From Mk 95, Mt 174 omits the statement that St. Peter "knew
not what to answer. Mk 910, which records that the disciples disputed about the
rising from the dead, is omitted at Mt 170 For Mk 932 “And they understood not the saying, and were
afraid to ask Him,” there is substituted in Mt 1728 the
harmless words, “And they were very grieved.” From Mk 933-34 Mt. omits the statements that the disciples had
disputed who was the greater among them, 181. In Mk 1085 an ambitious request is ascribed to James and
John. In Mt 2020 this request is transferred to the mother
of the two Apostles. In Mk 410-18 the Twelve are represented as ignorant of the
meaning of Christ's parables. "Mt. avoids this. From Mk 1440 the words, "and they knew not what to answer
Him,” are omitted by Mt 2648. Compare also the omission of oι δε μαθηται εθαμβούντο επί τοις
doyous aútoù (Mk 1024) in Mt 1923, and the omission of
kai dapBourto (Mk 1092) in Mt 2017 8. The following alterations are due to a desire to emphasise a fulfilment of prophecy in an incident recorded by Mk. : Mk 112 πωλον δεδεμένον. Mt 212 όνον δεδεμένην και πώλον μετ'
aúrns. The citation from Zec 99 follows in v.5. Mk 141 επηγγείλαντο αυτό αργύριον δούναι. Mt 2616 έστησαν
way for the quotation of Zec 1113 in 279. 10. Mk 1523 εσμυρνισμένον οίνον. Mt 2734 οίνον μετά χολής
Meucyjévov, with probable reference to Ps 6922. 9. The following changes or brief insertions are made by Mt. to qualify or explain a statement of the second Evangelist : Mk 811 = Mt 164. Mt. adds ei un tò onuciov 'lova, remembering
that in 1240 he has already represented Christ as making
this qualification of His words.
that " leaven” meant “teaching."
() μη επι .
1586 = Mt 2749. Mt. has οι δε λοιποί είπαν for Mk.'s
ambiguous λέγων. Lastly, the substitution of oύτος εστιν in Mt 317 for Συ είin Mk 111
may be due to a desire to make it clear that the divine voice was heard not by Christ alone, but by others also. It was a public announcement of His divinity.
10. Under the head of changes made for the sake of greater accuracy may be noted the following: Mk 226 επί 'Αβιάθαρ αρχιερέως. Mt 124 omits. 521 είς των αρχισυναγώγων. Mt 918 άρχων είς ; cf. Schürer,
ΙΙ. ii. 65. 614 βασιλεύς. Mt 14 τετραάρχης. 622 της θυγατρός αυτού (αύτης) Ηρωδιάδος. Mt 148 η θυγάτηρ
της Ηρωδιάδος. 881 981 το84 μετά τρείς ημέρας. Mt 1631 1728 2019 τη τρίτη
ημέρα. 95 Ηλείας συν Μωυσει. Mt 178 Μωυσης και Ηλείας. 14! το πάσχα και τα άζυμα. Mt 262 omits και τα άζυμα 1412 τη πρώτη ημέρα των αζύμων ότε το πάσχα έθυον. Mt
2617 omits ότε το πάσχα έθυον.
omits. See note.
11. Some noticeable changes in point of fact are:
δύο τυφλοί. 1467 τινες. Mt 2660 δύο. It is hoped that the facts collected above will be sufficient to convince the reader that of the two Gospels, that of S. Mark is primary, that of S. Matthew secondary. They seem to point all in the same direction. That is to say, whilst it is not inconceivable that such changes should have been made by a later writer in the text of S. Mark, it is extremely improbable that the author of the second Gospel should have been dependent on the first, and have made the changes in the reverse direction. From every point of view, whether it be of linguistic style, of reverence for Christ, of esteem for His Apostles, or of consideration for the reader, the alterations made by Mt. give the impression of belonging to a later stage of evangelic tradition as compared with