The usual view
Scholars commonly line Matthew up against Mark, treating Mark’s order as the standard. That framing tends to support the idea that Matthew rearranged Mark.
Plain-language reading guide
What can the order of Matthew and Mark tell us?
This page tests a simple question: if one Gospel writer copied from the other, which book works better as the original sequence? Deardorff argues that the comparison becomes more coherent when Matthew—not Mark—is used as the baseline.
Deardorff’s test
He runs the comparison in both directions. Listing A keeps Matthew’s sequence fixed; Listing B keeps Mark’s sequence fixed.
The key result
Past the proposed transition point, Listing A has 3 serious order breaks. Listing B has 13.
PericopeA self-contained story or teaching passage.
—No parallel verse appears in the other Gospel.
* / **Slightly / seriously out of sequence.
Original analysis by Prof. James W. Deardorff
Dependence of Mark upon Matthew (Continued)
2. Mark's Order Relative to Matthew's
A. MARK ORDERED AGAINST MATTHEW
MATTHEW MARK
| MATTHEW MARK
|
1: 1 1:1
|10: 1 6:7
**
2-25
--
| 2-4 3:16-19
**
2: 1-23 --
| 5-8 --
3: 1-6 1:2-6
| 9-12 6:8-10
**
7-10
--
| 13 --
11
1:7-8
| 14 6:11
**
12
--
| 15-16 --
13
1:9
| 17-22 13:9,11-13 **
14-15
--
| 23-25 --
16-17 1:10-11
| 26 4:22
4: 1-2 1:12-13a
| 27-32 --
3-10
--
| 33 8:38(?)
11-12 1:13b-14a
| 34-40a --
13-16
--
| 40b 9:37b
**
17-22 1:14b-20
| 41 --
23
1:39
**| 42 9:41
**
24
--
|11: 1-14 --
| 10b 1:2b
**
25
3:7b
**| 15 4:23
**
5: 1-12 --
|__ 16-30 __ --____________
13
9:50
**|12: 1-4 2:23-26
14
--
| 5-7 --
15
4:21
**| 8 2:28
16-48
--
| 9-16 3:1-8,10,12
6: 1-4 --
| 17-23 --
5a
11:25a
**| 24-26 3:22-26
6-13
--
| 27-28 --
14-15 11:25b-(26)
**| 29 3:27
16-34
--
| 30 9:40
**
7: 1
--
| 31-32 3:28-29
2
4:24
**| 33-45 --
3-21
--
| 46-50 3:31-35
22
9:38-39 **|13:
1-11 4:1-11
23-27
--
| 12 4:25
**
28-29 1:22
| 13 4:12
8: 1
--
| 14-17 --
2-4
1:40-44
**| 18-24 4:15-20,26
5-13
--
| 25-30 --
14-16 1:29-34
| 31-32 4:30-32
17
--
|
18
4:35
**| 33 --
19-22
--
| 34 4:33-34
23-27 4:36-41
**| 35-52 --
28-34 5:1-2,7,11-15a,17
**| 53-58 6:1-6a
|14:1-27 6:14-29,31-34a,
9: 1
--
|
35-50
2-17
2:3,5-12,14-22 | 28-31
--
18-25 5:22-24a,25,27-28,**|
32 6:51
30,34a,29,38-42 **| 33
--
26-34
--
| 34-36 6:53-56
35a
6:6b
**|15: 1-11 7:1-2,5-15
35b
--
|
36a
--
|
36b
6:34b
**|
37-38
--
| 12-14 --
MATTHEW MARK
| MATTHEW MARK
|
15:15-22 7:17-24a,25a
|22:34-39 12:28-31
23-24
--
| 40 --
25-31 7:25b-32,37
| 41-45 12:35-37a
32-39 8:1-10
| 46 12:34b
*
16: 1-2a 8:11-12a
|23: 1-5 --
2b-3
--
| 6-7 12:39,38c *
4-16
8:12b-21,27-29 | 8-13
--
17-19
--
| (14) 12:40
20-28 8:30-9:1
| 15-39 --
17: 1-5 9:2-5,7
|24: 1-8 13:1-8
6-7
--
| 9-13 --
8-12
9:8-9,11-12a, | 14-25
13:10,14-23
13,12b *|
26-28 --
13
--
| 29-36 13:24-32
14-20 9:14,17-19,25-29a
| 37-41 --
(21)
--
| 42 13:33
22-23 9:30-31
| 43-51 --
24-27
--
|25: 1-46 --
18: 1-2 9:34c,36
|26: 1 --
3
10:15
**| 2 14:1a
4-6
9:35b,37a,42 *| 3-4
14:1b-2
7
--
| 5-24 14:2-14,16-21
8-9
9:43-47
| 25 --
10-35
--
| 26-43 14:22-40a
19: 1-9 10:1-9,11-12
| 44 --
10-12
--
| 45-51 14:41-47
13-28a 10:13-14,16-29a
| 52-54 --
28b
--
| 55-75 14:48-50,53-58,
29-30 10:29b-31
|
60-72
|27: 1-2 15:1
20: 1-16 --
| 3-10 --
17-34 10:33-52
| 11-18 15:2-10
21: 1-3 11:1-3
| 19 --
4-5
--
| 20-23 15:11-14
6-10 11:4,7-11a
| 24-25 --
11
--
| 26-42 15:15-32a
12-13 11:15-17
| 43 --
14-17
--
| 44-49 15:32b-36
18-19 11:12-14
*|
20
--
| 50-51 15:37-38
21-27 11:22-24,27-33
| 52-53 --
28-32
--
| 54-61 15:39-43,46-47
33-42 12:1-11
| 62-66 --
43-44
--
|28: 1-3 16:1-5
45-46 12:12
| 4 --
22: 1-14 --
| 5-8 16:6-8
15-32 12:13-27
| 9-end --
33
--
|
The double asterisks indicate Markan verses that are seriously out of order relative to the majority of other verses; the single asterisks indicate verses that are only slightly out of order. The horizontal line in the vicinity of Mt 12:1 indicates the approximate point beyond which the order of Markan verses follows Matthew's sequential order quite well. Before that point, the lack of agreement in order is very prevalent, after Mt 4. This very much supports what is deduced from the TJ, as it indicates that the writer of Mark had no independent textual source to follow but Matthew itself after this point. Before this point, though after the Sermon on the Mount, he could utilize the document Peter and (John) Mark brought to Rome. In so doing, it appears that he felt free to place this document's verses wherever he chose relative to the parallel verses he found within Mt 8-11. He probably did this to show that here he was in no way following Matthew but had his own source, which he must have trusted more than Matthew because where the two documents overlapped he could tell that the writer of Matthew had made editorial alterations. By scattering some of these verses into a larger section of his gospel, he was moreover tending to validate a larger section of his gospel. In addition, this document handed down from Peter and (John) Mark had a few pericopes that the writer of Matthew had apparently forgotten when he wrote it all down a few years later, and possessed richer detail in its pericopes for the same reason.
It is of interest to examine the agreement of order when Matthew is instead compared against Mark, using Mark as the standard. This is the usual way scholars list it:
B. MATTHEW ORDERED AGAINST MARK MARK MATTHEW | MARK MATTHEW | 1: 1 1:1 | 5:16 -- 2-11 3:1-6,11,13,16-17 | 17 8:34b ** 12-20 4:1-2,11-12,17-22 | 18-21 -- 21 -- | 22-24a 9:18-19 ** 22 7:29 | 24b -- 23-28 -- | 25 9:20 ** 29-34 8:14-17 | 26 -- 35-38 -- | 27-30 9:20b-21,22c,22a ** 39 4:23 ** | 31-33 -- 40-44 8:2-4 ** | 34 9:22b ** 45 -- | 35-37 -- 2: 1-2 -- | 38-42 9:23-25 ** 3 9:2a | 43 -- 4 -- | 6: 1-6a 13:53-58 5-12 9:2b-8 | 6b 9:35a ** 13 -- |___ 7-11 __10:1,9-12,14 ________** 14-22 9:9-17 | 12-13 -- 23-26 12:1-5 | 14-29 14:1-12 27 -- | 30 -- 28 12:8 | 31-33 14:13-14 3: 1-8 12:9-15a | 34a 9:36b ** | 34b -- | 34c -- 9 -- | 35-51 14:15-27,32 10 12:15b | 52 -- 11 -- | 53-56 14:34-36 12 12:16 | 7: 1-2 15:1-2 13-15 -- | 3-4 -- 16-19 10:2-4 ** | 5-15 15:3-11 20-21 -- | (16) -- 22-29 12:24-26,29,31-32 | 17-32a 15:15-22,25-30a 30 -- | 32b-36 -- 31-35 12:46-50 | 37 15:31 4: 1-12 13:1-11,13 | 8: 1-10 15:32-39 13-14 -- | 11-21 16:1-2a,4-12 15-20 13:18-23 | 22-26 -- 21 5:15 ** | 27-38 16:13-16,20-27 22 10:26 ** | 9: 1 16:28 23 11:15 ** | 2-6 17:1-4 24 7:2 ** | 7-9 17:5,8-9 25 13:12 ** | 10 -- 26 13:24 | 11-14 17:10-11,12b,12a,14 * 27-29 -- | 15-16 -- 30-34 13:31-32,34 | 17-19 17:15-17 35-41 8:18,23-27 ** | 20-24 -- 5: 1-2 8:28 ** | 25-31 17:18-20a,22-23a 3-6 -- | 32-33 -- 7 8:29 ** | 34-37a 18:1,4,2,5 * 8-10 -- | 37b 10:40b ** 11-15 8:30-34a ** | 9:38-39 7:22 ** MARK MATTHEW 9:40 12:30 ** 41 10:42 ** 42-47 18:6,8-9 48-49 -- 50 5:13 ** 10: 1-9 19:1-8 10 -- 11-14 19:9,13-14 15 18:3 ** 16-31 19:15-28a,29-30 32 -- 33-52 20:17-34 11: 1-4 21:1-3,6 5-6 -- 7-11 21:7-10 12-14 21:18-19 * 15 21:12 16 -- 17 21:13 18-21 -- 22-24 21:21-22 25-(26) 6:5a(?),14-15 ** 27-33 21:23-27 12: 1-12 21:33-42,45-46 13-31 22:15-32,34-39 32-34a -- 34b 22:46b * 35-37 22:41-45 38a -- 38b-39 23:7,6 * 40 (23:14) 41-44 -- 13: 1-8 24:1-8 9 10:17-18 ** 10 24:14 11-13 10:19-22 ** 14-33 24:15-25,29-36,42 34-37 -- 14: 1-14 26:2-18 15 -- 16-50 26:19-24,26-51,55-56 51-52 -- 53-72 26:57-75 15: 1-43 27:1-2,11-18,20-23, 26-42,44-48 50-51,54-58 44-45 -- 46-47 27:59-61 16: 1-2 28:1 3 -- 4-end 28:2b-3,5-8
What Deardorff concludes from the comparison
Here we see in listing B that the extended region of relatively good agreement of order commences around Mk 6:12 and Mt 14:1, two chapters later in Matthew than we noted from listing A. This demarcation using Mark as the standard is known to scholars, but they have no reason for it other than that perhaps the writer of Matthew suddenly became tired of rearranging Markan material at this point![2] However, the stolen-writing hypothesis, based upon the TJ, provides a rational solution to this problem, and provides the incentive to notice that the transition from disorder to agreement of sequential order actually commences near Mt 12, not Mt 14. Scholars in general are not aware of this point, as they are used to ordering Matthew against Mark rather than vice versa.
It is also seen that by using Matthew as the standard of comparison (list A), more is explainable as directly copied material; i.e., from Mt 12-on rather than just from Mt 14-on. Moreover, this listing (A) discloses only 3 verses in serious violation of sequential order past this point, whereas the listing based upon Mark as standard shows 13 verses in serious violation. This strongly indicates that if one writer copied from the other's work from a certain point onwards, the listing using Matthew as standard (A) better explains the copying. This in turn suggests that the writer of Mark was the copyist (and abbreviator).
1. Taken from Deardorff, J. W., The Problems of New Testament Gospel Origins (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992), pp. 203-206. A few corrections have been made in lists 2.A and B as presented here.
2. Goulder, Michael, Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), p. 35.
Go to:
| Next Section (Sec. 3) |
| Return to: | Contents | Beginning of this topic |