Chapter II.
Matthew compared with Mark.
Having thus laid the foundation, we proceed now to the construction of our Gospel Harmony"
by comparing first Matthew with Mark.
To commence with what is obviously the least difficult part of our work, the adjusting of
the incidents immediately preceding Christ's entry into Jerusalem, we find Mathew L entirely
to correspond with Mark F, likewise Matthew I and K with Mark E. The former we will former we will call
Compound-Chain No. 4, and the latter Compound-Chain No. 3.
Moving further upwards, we find Matt. H to correspond with Mark D, in which latter Chain,
however, Herod's alarm follows close upon the instruction and sending out of the twelve. As
Matt. relates this in Chain D, the result is the formation of the following Comp-Chain (No. 2):
| Matthew D | A circuit. Christ's compassion on shepherdless Israel. | |
| The twelve instructed and sent out. | ||
| "H | Herod alarmed. Account of the Baptist's end. | Mark D |
| Jesus retires across the lake. Five thousand fed | ||
| Back to Capernaum. Christs's walking on the sea. |
For our further investigations, we require as starting-point a prominent fact, recorded by all
three Evangelists. To this end we select the stilling of the tempest (Matthew B, Mark C).
According to Matthew, the stilling of the tempest was preceded by Two followers, and was suc-
ceeded by the Demoniacs of Gadara, the Paralytic, the call of Matthew and the feast in his house.
Let us consider first the series of events subsequent to the stilling of the tempest. Mark (G),
after having mentioned the tempest as well as the Demoniac of Gadara, distinctly tells us that
after Christ's return from Gadara the incidents: Jairus's daughter, the woman with an issue
of blood and Jesus rejected at Nazareth took place. - Matthew relates the story of Jairus's
daughter and the other afflicted woman in Chain C, but adds in his part that immediately before
Jairus approached Jesus, the enquiry about fasting took place, also that immediately after
the raising of Jairus's daughter two blind men and a dumb Demoniac were healed. Thus the
statements of Mark and Matthew, as regards the incident following the raising of Jairus's daughter,
seem to contradict each other. They however only seem to do so. For the Connective used in
Mark 6. I. evidently is loose enough, to admit of the inserting of one or more intermediate
events, whereas the connecting formula in Matthew 9. 27. implies a more direct order of consecu-
tion. This is but one of the many instances, in which a careful examination of the closeness or
looseness of the connecting formula will prove the apparent contradiction to be but imaginary.
Thus the statement of Matthew (B), that the return from Gadara was succeeded by the healing
of the Paralytic, the call of Matthew and the feast in his house, is not at all inconsistent with
what Mark tells us (Chain C), that after the transaction in Gadara Christ raised Jairus's daughter,
healed another woman on the way, and was rejected at Nazareth. Matthew (B) simply asserts,
that the healing of the Paralytic occurred after Jesus had returned from Gadara. That it
happened within the same hour, he does not say; though, most probably it did occur in the
course of the next few hours. But what he states most distinctly, is that the raising of Jairus'
daughter happened immediately after the Baptist's disciples had enquired about fasting, which
latter event on the other hand is not brought into direct connection with any previous transaction1),
neither in Matt., nor in Mark, so that nothing prevents us from considering this enquiry
about fasting as the very first occurrence after Our Lord had returned from Gadara. The result
then is, that Mark C is to be placed within Mark B, according to the following scheme:
1) The connecting "tóte" ("then") does by no means prove the contrary. In our own idiom also, "at that
time" in a thousand cases does not signify more than about that time". The fact that all the three Evan-
gelists record this item in connection with the feast in Matthew's house, is amply accounted for by their
desire of pointing out the identity of the offence taken by the Pharisees and the Baptist's diciples, both being
imbued with the same spirit of rigorous asceticism; hence Christ's evangelical liberty equally incomprehen-
sible to both parties.
