Mark's omission of this pericope
might seem to support Augustine's theory of gospel
relationships. If Mark edited Matthew, he must have decided to omit whole sections of the Matthean narrative:
e.g., two chapters on Jesus' birth & family background (Matt
1-2), three
chapters of Jesus teaching in the sermon on the mount (Matt
5-7), & many
Matthean parables (Matt 13:24-30 & 33-53),
etc. Yet, this parable authorizes a Christian scribe to introduce
"new" items, not to omit "old" material. So, Mark may
have deliberately dropped it because it did not support his wholesale suppression of key elements of
Matthew's portrait of Jesus.
Such reasoning is circular,
however, since it presupposes the very point in question: the hypothesis that
Mark edited Matthew. The absence of the parable of the trained scribe in Mark
is a demonstrable fact that is open to two quite opposite explanations. Either
Mark omitted a pericope that Matthew reported, or Matthew introduced
a pericope that Mark did not report. Since this Matthean pericope presents
Jesus as explicitly authorizing a Christian scribe to introduce fresh
material, its very logic favors the conclusion that Matthew added it to
Mark (to justify his own expansion of the Markan text) rather than the
alternative.
If one could demonstrate
that Mark was a conservative scribe opposed in principle to the very idea that
Jesus authorized the introduction of novel elements into his preaching of
God's kingdom, then one might argue that Mark had a cogent reason for
deliberately suppressing the parable of the trained scribe. But the text simply does not support that conclusion. For Mark reports several
kingdom sayings with logical elements that are not paralleled in
Matthew.
For example, compare Matthew &
Mark's versions of Jesus' inaugural message:
Matt
4 |
Mark
1 |
12 |
Now when he
heard |
14 |
Now |
|
that John had
been arrested, |
|
after John
was arrested, |
|
he withdrew into
Galilee; |
|
Jesus came into
Galilee; |
|
|
|
preaching the gospel of God, |
17 |
From that time
|
|
|
|
Jesus began to preach, |
|
|
|
saying, |
15 |
and saying,
|
|
"Repent,* |
|
"The time is fulfilled, |
|
for the
kingdom of heaven |
|
and the kingdom of
God
|
|
is at hand." |
|
is at hand;
|
|
|
|
repent,* |
|
|
|
and believe in the gospel." |
If this Markan text is
interpreted as a revision of Matthew's, then Mark deliberately added new
wording (black type) that had no basis in its alleged source. On the
hypothesis of Matthean priority, not only would the scribe who wrote Mark have
changed Matthew's "kingdom of heaven" to "kingdom of God,"
he would have introduced novel themes -- i.e., the time of
fulfillment & belief in the gospel -- that were not part of
Matthew's report of Jesus' message.
Compare, also, the
following:
Matt
16 |
Mark
9 |
|
|
1 |
And he said to them, |
28 |
"Truly, I say to you, |
|
"Truly, I say
to you, |
|
there are some
standing here |
|
there are some
standing here |
|
who will not taste
death |
|
who will not taste
death |
|
before they see |
|
before they see |
|
the Son of man |
|
that the kingdom
of God |
|
coming |
|
has come |
|
in his kingdom." |
|
with power." |
If Mark edited Matthew, he
has clearly altered his alleged source by introducing a new motif (the
coming of the kingdom of God) into a Jesus saying that predicted a
somewhat different vision (the appearance of the Son of man).
Furthermore, if one
endorses the theory of Matthean priority, one must conclude that Mark
deliberately replaced Matthew's harvest
parable (the weeds & the wheat) with another non-Matthean parable (the
self-growing seed) that makes quite a different point about God's kingdom.
Thus, the theory of Matthean priority does not offer a coherent
explanation of the editorial decisions that it presupposes Mark made.
For if Mark edited Matthew, he frequently did precisely what the parable of the trained scribe claims Jesus
authorized. So it is not at all clear why Mark would have omitted this
parable. if he knew it.