The next step is more obscure; but the link seems to be a similarity of oceasion (to which time is subordinated). As the last event was ὀψίας γενομένης (ΞΕ ΜῈ 13%), so he subjoins another evening scene (Mk 4% ὀψίας yev., Jesus saith Διέλθωμεν els τὸ πέραν" K. ἀφέντες τὸν ὄχλον... ). The motive of departure, too, comes from Mk’s con- text,* ἰδὼν δὲ ὁ Τ. ὄχλον περὶ αὐτὸν ἐκέλευσεν ἀπελθεῖν εἰς τὸ πέραν. ‘The episode of the two aspirants to discipleship, which intervenes, needs some special reason for its position; it comes in very abruptly. It is otherwise placed in Lk (97#), at a later part of the ministry, and rightly. But this does not
* This is a crucial case of Mt’s use of Mk. For whereas the sing. ὄχλος is Mk’s regular form (33 to 1), Mt prefers ὄχλοι (25 times, ὄχλοι πολλοί 5, ὄχλος 19, generally parallel to Mk): and the foregoing context would suggest ὄχλοι (cf. v.1) or at any rate τὸν ὄχλον.
MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF
hinder its having stood in local catechesis after the Sermon, as logically akin, viz. as affording a typical case of response to the Master’s call to disciple- ship: and that Mt forces it in here suggests that it so stood. It illustrates the authority, even in isola- tion, that marked the Son of Man (esp. 33. From v.28 to the end of ch. 8 Mt follows Mk δ, the only points calling for note being the softening down of the disciples’ alarm and surprise in the storm (ὀλιγό- moro and of δὲ ἄνθρωποι), the substitution of the more familiar Gadarene region for the obscure Gerasene ie of Kersa, a village on the lake’s edge), and the fresh reading of the demoniac incident by which Mt follows the plurals in the dialogue (e.g. Mk’s παρεκάλεσαν αὐτὸν λέγοντες) to the ignoring of the sing. of Mk’s narrative. It is possible that this reading had already in oral tradition generated the δύο δαιμονιζόμενοι, and that Mt uses Mk in the light of the story as known to him orally. Yet Mt’s general tendency to duality (cf. 208°) is to be noted ; particularly the clear case in 2127, where his narrative is warped by words of prophecy which he himself introduces with his own formula. The divergences from Mk seem to be quite in Mt’s own style.* The words with which he returns to Mk 2! are still coloured by Mk 4, καὶ ἐμβὰς εἰς πλοῖον (ΜΚ 518) διεπέρασεν t (ib. *!, the verse after which Mt resumes this section of Mk in 9!*). Capernaum is cailed τὴν ἰδίαν πόλιν in terms of 413. Once more, in the healing of the paralytic, the note of authority is struck in both Gospels. In 9° Mt seems to show that his aim is to present a series of typical scenes in their logical rather than strict historical connexion; for adopting Mk’s παράγων, appropriate to progress along the lake’s margin, he uses it as a mere verb of motion by inserting ἐκεῖθεν, ignoring the teaching on the shore which comes in between. In the incident itself it is interesting that he substitutes ‘ Matthew’ (with λεγόμενον, a favourite phrase), Levi’s disciple- name, for that by which he was known at the time of his call: 1.6. his standpoint is less purely his- torical than Mk’s. If in 94 Mt were not following Mk, he would hardly have inserted the defence against criticism at this point, but rather reserved it for the later section devoted to the topic (12!*). For the very next paragraph shows that he is still dominated by the idea of the mighty deeds of Jesus. He goes back, that is, to Mk 5%: but having already used the link of circumstance in v.*!, he uses one belonging to a later stage of the incident (v.89 ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος) and compresses the whole.
That Mt is here using Mk rather than a shorter source is shown by (1) the mention of the duration of the woman's malady, (2) the coincidence in ὄπισθεν, (3) the rather otiose καὶ οἱ μαθπταὶ αὐτοῦ in y.¥ (seeing that they play no part in what follows in Mt) due to Mk fecetr 4#) (4) the fact that neither Mt nor Lk really adds any fresh matter, so that their deviations in form are to be put down to their style andaim.t ΜΒ ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν is a result of compression; and the other turns of phrase and additions are in Mt’s special manner,
The last two incidents of the section are com- pilations of Mt completing the cycle of typical healings. They have distinct echoes of Mk, as also marks of Mt’s own style; but possibly they
*Mt's ἰσχύειν seems due to Mk’s ἴσχυεν, his ἦλθες to MK 1%; even μακρὰν an’ αὑτῶν may gloss πρὸς τῷ ὄρει. As the case is a crucial one for the use of narratives assumed to exist in written Logia, one may refer also to the case of the demoniac boy (174, Mk 915. Lk 957). What there seems to exclude such Logia as causing Mt’s abbreviation of Mk, is the sudden emergence of τὸ δαιμόνιον (v1), easily explained by his knowledge of Mk, but not a natural sequel of the description of the lad’s symptoms in Υ 1, If this be so, then that section affords cases of pure transposi- tion by Mt (>, cf. Mk #*); recurrent comment (156): a favourite