Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 67:4 (Dec 2024)
Article: “He Could Do No Miracle There”: The Pericope Of Mark 6:1–6a From The Perspective Of Matthean Priority
Author: Nicholas P. Lunn

JETS 67:4 (December 2024) p. 723

“He Could Do No Miracle There”: The Pericope Of Mark 6:1–6a From The Perspective Of Matthean Priority

Nicholas P. Lunn*

* Nicholas Lunn is a translation consultant with Wycliffe Bible Translators UK, and an associate tutor at Spurgeon’s College, London. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Abstract: In the matter of the Synoptic Problem, proponents of Markan priority have frequently enlisted the divergence between Matthew 13:58 and Mark 6:5 as evidence for their theory. This article examines the pericopae of both in order to ascertain whether the commonly drawn conclusion is in fact valid. The verdict reached shows that a broader and deeper analysis of the language used in these texts results in nothing of any substance that justifies the Mark-first hypothesis. Rather, a number of indicators may reasonably be taken as pointing to the reverse, namely that Mark knew and redacted Matthew.

Key words: Synoptic Problem, Christology, redaction, dependence, miracles, historic present

In the debate concerning the compositional order of the Synoptic Gospels, the passage relating the rejection of Christ at Nazareth is an oft-repeated item in the stockpile of arguments put forward to support the theory of Markan priority. Appearing in both Matthew 13:53–58 and Mark 6:1–6a, certain differences between the two are frequently claimed to indicate that Matthew reworked Mark and the Matthean version is therefore to be counted secondary. The chief of such features concerns the supposed limitation that Mark’s language appears to place upon the healing power of Jesus, which is avoided in Matthew. While not the first to draw attention to it, Streeter’s classic work on the origins of the four Gospels presents this particular argument in the following terms:

A close study of the actual language of parallel passages in the Gospels shows that there is constant tendency in Matthew and Luke—showing itself in minute alterations, sometimes by one, sometimes by the other, and often by both—to improve upon and refine Mark’s version. This confirms the conclusion … that the Marcan form is the more primitive. Of these small alterations many have a reverential motive.… Thus Mark’s “he could do there no mighty works” (vi. 5) becomes in Matthew (xiii. 58) “he did not many mighty works.”1

Matthew’s redaction that is...