Orden de Mateo y de Marcos

W.D. Davies y D.C. Allison, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, Edimburgh 1988, vol. 1

Mt                                                                                                    Mc

(Mt 9,18-34)

la hija del dirigente y la hemorroísa (9,18-26)

curación de dos ciegos (9, 27-31)

curación del endemoniado mudo (9,32-34)

+sumario y palabras de Jesús (9,35-38)

In order to make this arrangement, Matthew needed three miracle stories immediately after the sermon on the mount. There were to hand in Mk 1: the healing of a demoniac (1.23-8), the healing of Peter's mother-in-law (1.29-31), and the healing of a leper (1.40-5). Matthew moved the last to first place probably because of its command to obey the Law of Moses: this is particularly appropriate coming after a discourse which emphasizes the importance of upholding Torah. Our evangelist then followed with the story of the centurion, substituting this for Mk 1.23-8— presumably because Mark's story was troublesome⁵⁵ and because Mt 8.5-13 = Lk 7.1-10 followed upon the great sermon in Q (cf. its position in Luke). After this he continued with the miracle story that stood next in Mark (1.29-31).

Mk 4.35-5.20 is brought forward so that Matthew can maintain his thrice repeated pattern, three miracle stories + words of Jesus.

The jump from Mk 2.22 to 5.21 is natural. The primary vehicle for Matthean theology in chapters 8-9 is the simple miracle story. In chapter 12 it is the controversy story. Hence, when, at Mt 9.18, our evangelist comes to Mk 2.23ff., which is controversy material, he naturally skips over this (which will be used later) in order to find a miracle story. This takes him to Mk 5.21.

3.13—19a is where it is for thematic reasons: the naming of the twelve nicely serves to open the chapter that reports their commissioning.

At 12.1-8 Matthew simply returns to the material now left over from Mk 1.1-6.13 (minus a summary statement, 3.7-12, and a potentially offensive story heading, 3.20-21).

Having explained how the differences between the Markan and Matthean orders are accounted for on the theory of Markan priority, let us now turn the tables. Could Mark be responsible for changing the order up to Mk 6.14 = Mt 14.1? Our conclusions about the structure of Matthew forbid an affirmative response. In his five major discourses and throughout the narrative material up to 14.1, Matthew is very careful to arrange everything in triads. But after 14.1 one hunts mostly in vain for groups of three. Now it can scarcely be coincidence that 14.1 is exactly the point at which Matthew ceases to impose triads on his narrative material and at the same time exactly the point at which the Markan and Matthean orders no longer depart from one another.

On the theory of Markan priority, an explanation is to hand: when Matthew composes on his own, he composes in triads; but from 14.1 on, he largely follows Mark, which explains why the triad is not the structural key to the narrative material between Mt 14.1 and 28.20. How does the matter appear from Griesbach's perspective? Mark deviates significantly from Matthew only when the latter composes in triads; but as soon as Matthew quits presenting groups of threes, Mark decides to get in line. What could possibly be the motivation for this? Unless one calls upon coincidence there is none. Certainly Mark cannot be said to have avoided triads (see Neirynck, Evangelica, pp. 546-61). We conclude, then, that the argument from order, when considered concretely, favours the theory of synoptic relationships adopted herein.