m

H

*s

I

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

The Treatment of Mk. 614-826 in Lu&e
BENJ. "W". BACON, D.D., LL.D.
THE first answer of gospel criticism to this famous prob
lem is the so-called Proto-Mark theory : The form of
Mk. utilized by Lk. did not yet contain the missing sections.
The suggestion, however, encounters at once the formidable
objection : But Mt., a gospel certainly not materially later
than Lk., embodies already practically all of the missing
Jtfaikar Inaterial.1 It must indeed be admitted that Mk.
¦ 6 45-8 26 could be omitted without seriously interfering with
the continuity of the gospel, and even that there is a decided
gain in bringing the Martyrdom of the Baptist-Elias and
Feeding of the Multitude (Mk. 614-29,30-44, the latter the
type of the Agape) closer to the prediction of the Fate of
Jesus, and the Relation of his Martyrdom to that of John
(8 27-9 1.2-13) ; for thus we obtain a group, as in Jn. 6, whose
single theme is appropriate throughout to the sacrament.
The force of the argument that both the third and fourth
gospels are not likely to have effected this felicitous abridg
ment without some authority in tradition must be recognized ;
and it must be conceded in addition that a large part of Mk.
6 45-8 26 consists of clearly duplicate material. And yet
with all these concessions it remains certain that there is no
break in the structure of Mk. at the points indicated, and
that if there is duplication, it continues in subsequent chap
ters as well.2
Without denying the large possibilities, nay probabilities,
of the combination of written sources of Mk., without exclud
ing the process of textual alteration so notably illustrated in
1 On the two missing healings Mk. 7 «» and 8 22-26, see below.
2 O11 the phenomena of duplication in Mk., see Bacon, fntrod. p.„2jQ.7_. 

BACON: TREATMENT OP MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 133
the rival forms of the appendices, we may safely indorse the
verdict of an increasing number of modern critics that at
least the burden of proof lies upon those who assume a form
of Mk. from which 6 45-8 26 was missing, to account for its
non-appearance in Lk. On the other hand, advocates of
the Proto-Mark theory have the right to expect from their
opponents a reasonable explanation of the omission, on the
supposition that this material formed part of the gospel Luke
has elsewhere incorporated almost entire. This explanation
we shall attempt to give, not on general and a priori grounds
of what any conceivable evangelist might be expected to
admit or reject, but on the basis of a study of (1) the actual
practice of this particular evangelist in his omissions else
where (2) of the significance of the group of incidents in
Mk. 6-8 ; for we must remember that it is one tiling to
explain how Lk. might have had objections to this, that*,
and the other element of the group in question, and quite
another to meet the cumulative force of consecutive omissions.
The real question to be answered is, Why does Lk. treat
Mk. 6-8 so differently from the other great divisions of this
gospel in the matter of omissions ? This involves a study of
the general structure of Mk. and thereafter what Lk. has
made of it.
1. It will be generally conceded that Lk. in many in
stances has preferred the version of an anecdote or logion
which he found in some other source, and in these cases has
avoided duplication by dropping the Markan version ; though
he seems usually to avail himself of a phrase or two from the
discarded form for the embellishment of its rival. A gener
ally recognized instance is the Calling of Simon (5 l-ii)
where a symbolic narrative found in its proper connection in
the appendix to Jn. (Jn. 21 1-14) and probably also in the
Gospel of Peter,8 is adapted to serve in place of Mk. 1 16-20.
Scraps from Mk. 4 1 and 1 16-18 are easily recognizable at
beginning and end (5 1-3. 10 f.), but that the story is mis-
8 The fragment breaks of! at the point where a group of the disciples after
their flight to their several homes from the tragedy in Jerusalem, " taking our
nets went away unto the sea . . . . "

134 JOURNAL OE BIBLICAL LITERATURE
placed, and really has to do with the question of the Gentile
mission, is apparent from the lame way in which James and
John are appended, while throughout the narrative Peter
stands alone. Andrew disappears altogether. The real
antecedent is the passage Lk. 22 31-34 which sets in prospect
such a Commission of Peter as Jn. 21 actually relates. For
the Petrine element of Acts Peter is in fact the apostle to the
Gentiles (Ac. 15 7).
The omission of the Anointing in Bethany (Mk. 14 3-9) is
similar in all respects to the omission of the Call of the Four.
The story of the Penitent Harlot in Lk. 7 36-50 is not a real
doublet, because the two incidents are fundamentally differ
ent in character. Their resemblance in outward circum
stance, however, was so great as to induce Lk. to treat it as
a doublet. He omits the Anointing in Bethany after having
utilized its notable traits to embellish its rival. In Lk.
7 36-50 the incongruous introduction of the alabaster cruse of
ointment in the last clause of verses 37 and 38 and verse 46,
and probably the name Simon (43 f.) represent borrowings
from Mk. 14 3-9.
The Cursing of the Fig-tree is another instance proving
how far Lk. would go in excluding Markan material which
seemed to him to be duplicated by what he had included
elsewhere. Lk. 13 6-9 might really have stood beside it.
Yet no other adequate reason appears for the omission of
Mk. 11 12-14. 20 f . save the previous inclusion of the parable.
But there is also evidence of Lukan omissions where the
motive would seem to lie solely in the nature of the material.
The awkwardness of the attempted connection of the affirma
tive statement of the righteousness of the kingdom, Lk. 6 27-38,
with the preceding, by means of the formula " But I say unto
you which hear" is an indication that the antitheses of
Mt. 5 17 ff. describing the righteousness of the scribes and
Pharisees as what " they of old time " had said, have been
omitted. We have indeed no guarantee in this case that all
the Matthsean material was ever contained in Lk.'s source.
Much of it certainly did not appear originally in this connec
tion. But in phraseology and structure the antitheses of

BACON: TREATMENT OP MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 135
Mt. 5 2i f . 27 1 31-45 are akin to the Lukan form, and when we
go on through Lk. and observe how references to Jesus' cor
rections of the scribes' interpretation of the law are system
atically omitted or restated, it becomes very easy to believe
such is the case here also ; especially when we note that two
scraps of the missing material are incorporated in loose con
nections in Lk. 16 17. 18, and a few more in 6 27a. 28b. 29-30.
The other notable omissions of this class of material are the
Abolition of Distinctions of Meats, Mk. 7 1-23, of which Lk.
has only a remote parallel in 11 38-41, without trace of embel
lishments from the omitted section, the Question on the Law
of Divorce, Mk. 10 1-12, of which a possible trace remains in
Lk. 16 18, and the Scribes' Question, Mk. 12 28-34, from
which a scrap has been borrowed in Lk. 10 27 to form, in
combination with others from Mk. 10 17 = Lk. 18 18 and
10 19 = Lk. 18 20, an introduction (Lk. 10 25-29) to the Para
ble of the Good Samaritan.
This indication of Lk.'s method in omission applies very
obviously to the portion of the omitted division of Mk.
already referred to as the Abolition of Distinctions of Meats
(Mk. 7 1-23), which is open to the further objection of dupli
cation in Lk. 11 38-41.
Another motive for omission is that based upon the quality
of the material. An example of this appears in the series of
Mk. passages dealing with popular apocalyptic expectations
connected with the identification of the Baptist with the
coming Elias. For all these Lk. cuts away the ground in
advance by his infancy chapters, wherein the great Fore
runner appears simply as a prophet to go before the face of
Messiah "in the spirit and power of Elias," not literally his
reincarnation. Consistently with this an appendix is added
to the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Lk. 16 19-25.
26-31) deprecating the popular belief attested in Mk. 6
14 9 13 Rev. 11 3-13 that Elias, after martyrdom at the
hands of the tyrant, should rise from the dead and by
"mighty works" effect the "great repentance." Lk. (and
still more emphatically Jn. 5 32-47) repudiates this supersti
tious interpretation of the apocalyptic doctrine of " the wit-

136 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
nesses of Messiah " (Rev. 11 3 f. based on Zech. 4 3. 11-14
Mai. 4 5 f. ; cf. 2 Esdr. 6 26), and maintains that the witness
is the written witness of the law and the prophets (cf. 24
25-27 Jn. 5 46 f.) which if Israel receive not they will not
repent though one should go to them from the dead. In
this interest we have a series of changes and omissions. The
story of the martyrdom of John the Baptist Mk. 6 14-29, so
strongly marked by traits recalling the story of Elijah's de
nunciation of Ahab and Jezebel's plotting against his life,
is omitted altogether; though the scrap 3 i9f. attached by
Lk. to the story of The Baptist's Preaching, 3 7-17, is conclu
sive evidence that he knew it. In Jesus' Discourse about
the Baptist, Lk. 7 24-28, the identification with " Elias that
was for to come " of Matthew's version (Mt. 11 14) fails to
appear. In the Transfiguration (Lk. 9 28-43) two verses are
interjected (vs. 31-32) to explain that the appearance of Moses
and Elias in glory was to foretell (o? e\eyov~) the death Jesus
should accomplish in Jerusalem. Conversely, a significant
amputation is made of Mark's account of the conversation as
Jesus and his companions descend from the mount, wherein
Jesus identifies Elias with the Baptist, and compares his own
fate with the fate predicted in (uncanonical) " Scripture " of
the Forerunner, Mk. 9 9-13. Finally, the cry from the cross,
mistaken for an appeal for the coming of Elias, is removed,
or (according to some texts) replaced by the prayer " Father,
forgive them." The evidence of this system of changes,
additions, and omissions suggests ample motive for omitting
the story of the Baptist's Fate, Mk. 6 14-29.
Much more doubt must attach to the omission of the Walk
ing on the Sea, Mk. 6 45-52, of which the only trace remain
ing seems to be the phrase "to a city called Bethsaida" in
the preceding story, Lk. 9 10. Considering that Mt., Mk.,
and Jn. all maintain the connection of this story with the
Feeding of the Multitude, the idea that the two were dissoci
ated in the source followed by Lk. does not seem probable.
We grant that he had general reasons for making his exci
sions from this particular division of Mk. by wholesale. But
why put in the knife at just this point ? The a priori reasoner

BACON: TREATMENT OP MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 137
will be tempted to imagine a skepticism on the part of the
" historian "-evangelist which is not borne out by study of
his actual practice. Lk. is not incredulous of miracle. Safer
inferences can be drawn from his method of composition.
One of the characteristics of this gospel is the effort made
to counteract a docetic view of the person of Christ. This
appears in the resurrection-narrative Lk. 24 36-43 and the
repeated insistence on his having eaten with the disciples
after the resurrection. Again, not the end only, but the
beginning, of Jesus' career is profoundly modified in Lk.
from the Markan form. Here too the result at least, if not
the intention, is to forestall docetic misrepresentation such as
might easily lay hold with eagerness on such a story as the
Walking on the Sea. In view of the character of this story,
and of other demonstrably intentional omissions on the part
of Lk. its non-appearance here cannot be held to prove its
absence from his source.
2. There remains in Mk. 6 53-8 27 the story of a great
journey — or rather a succession of extraordinarily extensive,
and for the most part seemingly motiveless, courses to and •
fro — beginning at "Gennesaret" and ending at "Caesarea
Philippi." Some of the material, as we have seen in the
case of the Abolition of Distinctions of Meats, 7 1-23, might
well have been omitted by Lk. on account of its character
and resemblance to material drawn by him from another
source. Some, e.g. the Second Feeding of the Multitude,
Mk. 8 l-io, might well be rejected because recognized as
duplicate, in spite of Mk.'s dexterous combination in 8 13-21.
Some elements are really given by Lk. from a better source
in fuller form (Lk. 11 29 = Mk. 8 12). Two verses (Mk.
8 11.15) appear in the form of scraps loosely attached in
Lk. 11 16 and 12 1. The rest, including the Syro-phcenician
Woman 7 24-30, Healing the Deaf-mute 7 31-37, and Healing
of the Blind 8 22-26, remains to be accounted for, together
with the general representation of this period of journeyings.
Certain features of Lk. 11 14 and Mt. 9 32 f. compared with
15 29-31 and Jn. 9 1-41 suggest that even the healings of the
Deaf-mute and the Blind may have been known in simpler

138 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
form to Mt. and Lk. independently of Mk.4 But still it
would be hard to account for the complete omission of the
Syro-phcenician, and the specially drastic treatment of this
division of Mk.'s gospel. The real significance of this lat
ter really remarkable phenomenon cannot be appreciated
without a study of the editorial adaptation of Mk. 6 14-9 29,
the division of Mk. which falls between the Mission of the
Twelve and the Exodus from Galilee.
The division opens with a relation of the martyrdom of
the Baptist, apropos of the rumors concerning the person
of Jesus. This is so greatly elaborated that the evangelist
forgets to tell us what ensued upon the rumors coming to
Herod's ears. A very long series of interjected anecdotes
follows, but we are manifestly back upon the original sub
ject in 8 27-9 13, where the rumors as to the person of Jesus
are again taken up, and meet their answer. This answer is
that he is the Christ, but is to suffer the same fate of martyr
dom which the Baptist had suffered as his Forerunner. For
reasons which need not be here defined the Healing of the
Epileptic (9 14-29) intervenes before the Via Crucis of the
final division of the gospel ; but this does not affect the gen
eral outline of the present division, which is determined by
the two main foci already defined : the Martyrdom of John,
and the (predicted) Martyrdom of Jesus.
It is perfectly in harmony with this general outline that
in all our gospels the Feeding of the Multitude and (Lk.
excepted) the Walking on the Sea should take first place in
* In other connection I hope to show more fully that this pair of healings
(for even in Mk. the literary connections of 7 si-37 with 8 22-26 are unmistak
able) are elaborations by the second evangelist himself of the two healings
which in Lk. introduced in very brief and succinct form the great Discourse
against the Scribes from Jerusalem, who said, He casteth out by Beelzebub.
In brief they stood in the place of 6 56 and were followed by 3 22-80 (removed
by Mk. to its present place) and 7 1-23 as in Mt. 12 22-46 = Lk. 11 14-32. Mk.
has elaborated their spectacular features and employed them as a frame for
the mission in the kingdom of Philip, 7 31-8 27. Mt. does not so much omit
them as incorporate them in abridged form, and in phraseology compounded
from Mk. and Lk. in 9 27-84. Lk. omits the healing of the blind man alto
gether ; probably on account of the resemblance to Mk. 10 46-62, a possible
doublet (cf. Mt. 9 27-81). See below.

BACON : TREATMENT OF MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 139
the included material. From Jn. 6 it is easy to see how
unavoidably the narrative which furnished the aetiology of
the Agape would bring in its train material concerned with
the sacrament in memory of the Lord's death. To " under
stand concerning the loaves " is to Mk. (6 52) to have the
key to the significance of the Walking on the Sea. In point
of fact it seems to have symbolized to Mk., whatever its
historical basis or lack thereof, Jesus' separation from the
Twelve in Gethsemane, and his return to them triumphant
over the power of death. Matthew in fact adds a trait sym
bolic of Peter's over-confident attempt to follow Jesus " unto
prison and death" redeemed ultimately by a heroic end.
From this allegory of the Manifestation to (Peter and) the
Twelve onward, a new theme is taken up. If 6 30-52 symbol
ically anticipates Jesus' death and resurrection, the rest of
the included material performs the same office for the Mission
to the Gentiles which ensued. In 6 53-56 we have indeed only
an editorial summary depicting the situation for the ensuing
account of the Conflict with the Scribes from Jerusalem
7 1-23. But this for Mk. derives all its significance from the
fact that its result is a Ministry among the Q-entiles. The
point of collision with the scribes is that around which so
large a part of the Book of Acts revolves, the Distinctions of
Meats, the point of collision in the early church also. But
the utterance of Jesus extends to Mosaic ceremonial in gen
eral. The issue of the conflict according to Mk. is that
Jesus took the most radical Pauline ground, entirely abolish
ing all distinctions of meats and immediately began a great
journey into Gentile territory including the whole extent of
Phoenicia from Tyre to Sidon, then Decapolis (from Damas
cus?5) south to the Sea of Galilee, where the Feeding of the
Multitude is repeated for the benefit of the Gentiles of Decap
olis ; then, after an attempt to land at Dalmanutha (?) frus
trated by the hostility of the Pharisees, a return to the
heathen side of the Lake at Bethsaida, where the eyes of the
blind are opened, and a new journey through the whole
extent of Philip's kingdom to Csesarea Philippi.
6 So Menzies, The Earliest Gospel, p. 158.

140 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
As to the nature of the territory designated " the coasts of
Tyre and Sidon " and the significance of Jesus' entrance upon
it, Mk. removes all uncertainty by introducing after the plea
of the woman (who does not, as in Mt. 15 22, come " forth
from " those coasts, but finds Jesus concealed " in a house "
in those coasts) the clause " now the woman was a Gentile
('E\\77z>t?), a Syro-phcenician by birth." As to his attitude
regarding Decapolis we must judge by the direction to the
healed Demoniac of Gerasa6 to preach the Lord Jesus "in
Decapolis," in sharpest contrast to the uniform and "threat
ening " (e/ifipifMjo-dfievos 1 43) prohibitions to " make him
known " in Jewish territory. Of the territory of Philip we
can only say that in Mk. 8 22-27 it appears (historically
enough, no doubt) as a refuge from the plots of " the Phari
sees and Herod " (8 15).
We can scarcely claim warrant for calling this a " mission
ary journey," and yet, as Menzies rightly points out, Mk.'s
adaptation of the older point of view of Mt. 15 21 (avexmpri-
trev) is no doubt "meant to be suggestive."7 The trans
formation in 7 27 of the repellent saying of Mt. 15 26 into a
prophecy of the feeding of the dogs after the children, whose
fulfillment on account of the woman's " word " begins at once,
makes plain the evangelist's point of view in the formation
of this group. It is Lk. 4 16-30 in action, and forms an
enlarged and greatly developed substitute for the incident
of the Centurion's Servant (Mt. 8 6-13 = Lk. 7 1-10). The
curiously elaborated pair of healings, one (the Deaf-mute,
7 32-37) in Decapolis, the other (Blind Man of Bethsaida,
8 22-26) in the kingdom of Philip, have in this connection
their symbolic significance,8 as well as the second Feeding of
the Multitude (8 1-10). But we have more in Mk. 7 1-23 ff.
than a mere repudiation of distinctions of meats and begin
ning of the extension of the gospel to the Gentile world.
6 Mk.'s geography is at fault, but jt6Xis 5 14 leaves no doubt that he means
the metropolis of Decapolis.
7 Commentary, ad loc, p. 155.
8 The basis is Is. 29 9-19, a passage already utilized in 7 6-7 and a favorite
in similar application with Paul (1 Cor. 1 18-25; Rom. 9 21. 11 s ; Col. 2 22).
See below.

BACON : TREATMENT OF MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 141
In the portions omitted or transformed by Mt. and Lk.
Judaism itself is denounced in language borrowed from
Is. 29 13 as a " vain worship " and " teachings which are com
mandments of men" (cf. Col. 2 22). In the same context
(Is. 29 is) the evangelist read the prophecy " In that day
shall the deaf hear the words of the book (referring to the
" sealed book " of verses 10-12), and the eyes of the blind
shall see out of obscurity and out of darkness."9 Now at the
beginning and end of this "Missionary Journey" the evan
gelist introduces two healings, the unsealing of the ears of
the deaf (7 32-37) and the opening of blind eyes (8 22-26),
and has taken pains to elaborate the process of disenthrall-
ment ; for as has frequently been observed the eccentricities
of language and style in these two paragraphs are distinctive
of the evangelist himself. It is reasonable to suppose that
the motive for this elaboration, particularly in such traits as
the introduction of the command Effatha in the original
Aramaic, lies in a symbolic application suggested by Is.
29 18. In this connection of " Christ the power of God and
the wisdom of God to both Jews and Greeks " we are not
surprised, accordingly, at the introduction, after the Feeding
of the (Gentile) Multitude (8 1-10), of the Jews' Demand for
a Sign and its Refusal (8 11-13), and the Rebuke of the
Twelve for failure to understand the Sign of the Loaves
(8 14-21) in language borrowed from the same Isaian connec
tion (Is. 29 10. 43 8 ; cf. Rom. 11 8), " having eyes see ye not,
and having ears hear ye not, have ye your heart hardened? "
(8i7f.; cf. 652. 7 17).
So far as we are able to trace it in the parallels the histori
cal basis for this elaborate construction of Mk. between the
Galilean Ministry, ending with the Mission of the Twelve,
and the Exodus from Galilee, is a very small factor. The
story of the Martyrdom of the Baptist-Elias is properly
termed by Holtzmann " das Muster einer Legende." Well-
9 The whole context, including also verses 14 and 19 (destruction of the
wisdom of the wise, rejoicing of the "poor among men" and "the meek")
together with the reference in 35 5 f . is employed in the great discourse of
Mt. 11 1-12 45 (11 6. 25. cf . 13 14-17) and by Paul in 1 Cor. 1 19-21. so. 3 1.

142 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
hausen correctly infers from the fact that the notice of Herod
remains without result, that the original sequel, the with
drawal of Jesus, has been superseded. Such a historical
withdrawal is made probable, however, by Lk. 13 31-33. It
may well have included " the borders of Tyre and Sidon."
The Feeding of the Multitude which follows (6 30-44) is
abundantly guaranteed as a primeval tradition by the dupli
cate forms already embodied by Mk. himself. But the con
nection formed by Mt. between this and the preceding
narrative is notoriously fallacious. No chronological rela
tion whatever exists between the Threat (or saying) of
Herod and the Feeding of the Multitude. Moreover, when
we note that in 8 13 the boat journey (to Gennesaret?), which
in this version also ensues upon the Feeding, is totally de
void of any noteworthy incident, the claim of the Walking
on the Sea to a historic foundation becomes weaker than
ever. The addition of Mt. suggests, indeed, that the
development of the legend is to be attributed rather to oral
tradition, elaborating the theme of the Stilling of the Storm
in connection with the symbolism of the eucharist, than to
the imaginative genius of Mk. himself ; but this does not
lend it greater credibility.
A nucleus of tradition is traceable in 6 53-56, since, as
Klostermann observes,10 verse 56 generalizes verses 53-55,
which seem to have been adapted originally to introduce a
specific healing. In the connection of the journey by boat
on the one side, and the collision with the scribes on the
other (cf . 8 10-12 Mt. 9 32 f . 12 22 Lk. 11 15 ff. Jn. 9 1-41), we
can only infer that the incident to which 6 53 f. originally led
up was the Healing of the Blind and Dumb ; for at least the
former (8 22b-26) is wrongly located by Mk. at Bethsaida,
which was not a kco/jltj (v. 26), but a city (Lk. 9 10). The
omission of these two healings by Mt. is therefore only ap
parent. The Slander of the Scribes from Jerusalem which
should follow (by testimony of Mt. 12 and Lk. 11) after 7 1,
has been introduced by Mk. proleptically in 3 22-30 as an off
set to the incident of the Mother and Brethren, 3 20 f. 31-35.
10 Markus, p. 146.

BACON: TREATMENT OF MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 143
But as a nucleus for the construction 7 1-23 there remains
the complaint of 7 5 and the saying 7 15, a true parallel to
Lk. 11 37-41. The flight (Mt. 15 21 avex^prjo-ev) to the
"borders (Mt. "parts") of Tyre and Sidon," and the incident
of the " Canaanite " (Mt. 15 22) woman in the earlier Mat-
thsean form n have long been recognized as a genuine element
of early and probably authentic tradition. The journey of
Mk. 7 31 " out of the borders of Tyre through Sidon " is
obviously a creation from the two factors of the phrase in the
Matthsean form. The only other traditional elements are
the Demand and Refusal of a Sign (8 11 f. cf . Jn. 6 22-59
Mt. 16 1-4 = 12 38 1 = Lk. 11 29) and the logion " Beware of
the Leaven of the Pharisees " (8 15 = Lk. 12 1 ; cf. Mt. 16 e).
The rest of this whole great division of Mk. is purely redac-
tional, though part of it (e.g. 7 17-19) may be older than our
evangelist. What then is the explanation of the very exceptional treat
ment accorded to it by Lk., and in some degree even by Mt.?
We obtain in the present writer's judgment the true key to
Lk.'s great omission when we observe in what interest the
nucleus of tradition has been built up by the compiler in
Mk. 6 53-8 26, and then compare this with the solution of
the same questions in which Mt. and Lk. have rested.
Geographically the outline of Mk. 6 53-8 26 is that of a
journey of extraordinary proportions, when compared with
the career of Jesus as otherwise known. It seems to take
the place of an original, simple retirement from Herod's
threatening interest, perhaps only into the " borders of Tyre
and Sidon," i.e. upper Galilee, from whence Jesus returns
"between Galilee and Samaria," i.e. along the great route
from Ptolemais to Scythopolis and Gennesaret, skirting the
foothills which border the Plain of Esdraelon on the south
(Lk. 17 11; cf. 9 52). Instead of this Mk. introduces a
journey through all Phoenicia from south to north, all De
capolis from Damascus (?) south to the Sea of Galilee, and
all the kingdom of Philip from Bethsaida to Csesarea. This
11 The last clause of Mt. 15 28 is of course the evangelist's; cf. 9 22 17 18.

144 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
journey among the Gentiles begins, as we have seen, with
Jesus' violent rupture with the " Scribes from Jerusalem,"
and his prophecy to the believing " Gentile woman " of Phoeni
cia concerning the ultimate feeding of the " dogs." His stay
on Gentile soil is interrupted only by the attempt to land at
Dalmanutha (?) ; and this is frustrated by the Pharisees'
Demand for a Sign.
How now do Mt. and Lk. treat this geographical repre
sentation of Mk. ? Mt. 15 21. 29. 39 16 5-13 after the minute
method of subtle alteration characteristic of this gospel
reduces the whole to a journey confined within the boundaries
of the sacred land.12 Lk. deals more radically with it, cut
ting out not only the references to Phoenicia and Decapolis,
but even Csesarea Philippi (with Mk. 8 27 cf. Lk. 9 is).
But the geographical outline is to Mk. a mere framework
for the grouping of the material whose practical bearing on
the moot points of doctrine we have endeavored to set forth.
Into it he has cast an elaborate development of seven inci
dents and sayings having Is. 29 8? 10-12. 13 f. 18 f. as its key
note. The hungry " multitude of the nations " is fed. The
" closed eye " of the prophets and seers is opened and their
understanding quickened. " The deaf hear the words of the
book, and the eyes of the blind see out of the obscurity and
the darkness." Jacob's "children, the work of God's hands
in the midst of him " see the " marvelous work and wonder
done among the people," and "sanctify the God of Israel."13
The whole section reads as though the Thanksgiving at the
Return of the Twelve, Lk. 10 21-24 = Mt. 11 25-27 13 16 f ., had
been elaborated, even before Mk. (note Mt. 15 29 ff.), on the
basis of the prophecy to which it alludes (Lk. 10 21 from
Is. 29 9-12), and thereafter the group had been developed by
attachment of the incidents of the healing of the Deaf-mute
and Blind, and the Demand of a Sign (Mt. 9 32-34 11 25-27
12 One may fairly question whether the real intention of Mk. is not simi
lar. The regions of Phoenicia, Decapolis, Iturea and Trachonitis were then
Gentile, but the ideal boundaries of the Holy Land in the O.T. certainly
include them.
18 The allusion to Is. 29 28 here quoted is found not in Mk., but in Mt.
15 29 ft. introducing the parallel to Mk. 7 si-8 10.

BACON: TREATMENT OF MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 145
12 22 ff. Lk. 11 14-16). In this process the influence of 1 Cor.
1 18-24 3 l (cf. Rom. 11 8) would be a factor of vital import
ance. In the judgment of so good a critic as Harnack the
relation of these two passages (1 Cor. 1 19. 21 and Mt. 11
25-29 = Lk. 10 21-22) is in fact so close as to suggest even a
literary connection.14
But the evangelist Mk. makes a more concrete application
of the doctrine of Is. 29 to the burning question of his day
than any of the parallels. On the basis of the incident
Lk. 11 37-41 (with Lk. 11 41 cf . Mk. 7 19b), whose contrast
between purity of inside and outside15 is rendered in the
form, " Not that which goeth into, but that which cometh
out of a man defilet-A him," Mk. enunciates and defends at
length a Paulinism as radical as that which Paul himself is
obliged to restrain and qualify in his reply to his correspond
ents at Corinth (1 Cor. 8 1-13 10 23-33) and. again in Rom.
14 1-23 by the converse principle of consideration for the
scruples of "the weak." The standpoint of Mk. 7 1-23 is
that of Rom. 14 14a " I know, and am persuaded of the Lord
Jesus (we note, however, that Paul refers to no explicit
utterance of Jesus to this effect, but rather implies the con
trary, Rom. 15 8) that there is nothing unclean of itself."
It does not even find room for the qualification " howbeit to
him that accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is
unclean." The whole ceremonial of Judaism, its alleged16
" washings of cups and pots and brasen vessels " is rejected
rudely, and even contemptuously. As a " people " they are
classified as " hypocrites " ; and their worship is " vain,"
their teachings are "commandments of men" (cf. Col. 2 22).
14 Harnack, Spriiche u. Beden Jesu, p. 210, n. 1.
w In the Lukan form "your inside" this applies to the man. In the
Matthsean Mt. 23 26 to the dish. Lk. 11 41 "give the contents for alms"
taken with Am. 3 10, Is. 61 8 and the Rabbinic dactrine " Almsgiving maketh
atonement for sin " shows that the latter is correct, but not in the sense
" purify the inside," but purify the contents of the dish. Mk. follows the
Lukan form.
16 Mk. 7 8-4 exaggerates the facts. The practices described cannot justly
be attributed to "all the Jews," nor do they convey a fair description even
of " the Pharisees."

146 JOURNAL OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE
Mt. dexterously reduces this radical anti-Judaism by insert
ing a logion referring to " the hedge of the law " (Mt. 15 13),
so that the distinction appears to be between the Mosaic law
itself, a "planting of the Heavenly Father," and the "tradi
tions of men." But this is not the distinction implied in
Mk. The distinction in Mk. 7 1-23 is precisely the same as
in Mk. 10 1-12 (both of these are omitted by Lk., and so modi
fied by Mt. as completely to lose their radicalism), and
Mk. 2 25 and 3 4. For Mk. " the commandment of God " is
the eternal moral law of mercy and righteousness as it was
" in the beginning of the creation." Mosaism and the
"traditions of the elders" stand together in contrast over
against it, except in so far as Mosaism embodies this eternal
natural ethics. The general attitude of Mk. toward Judaism
is radical to the point of iconoclasm.17 On the specific ques
tion which became the burning issue between the mother
church and the churches of the Gentiles, filling the greater
Pauline Epistles with its echoes, and occupying the position
of supreme importance in Acts, Mk. is a Paulinist of the
Corinthian ultra-Pauline type. His motto is "All things
are lawful." "Meat will not commend us to God: neither
if we eat not are we the worse, nor if we eat are we the bet
ter." " God looketh not on the outward man, but on the
heart " ; the saying " Not what goes in but what comes out "
makes all meats clean. Mt. and Lk. systematically soften
or remove this radicalism.
In its position as the starting point of the journey among
the Gentiles the significance of this repudiation of Mosaism
as a whole has double emphasis. Judaism itself is for
Mk. the " hypocrisy " of " a people that honor God with
their lips while their heart is far from him," " vain worship "
and "precepts of men." When he couples to this an elabo
rate exposition of the saying on inward and outward defile
ment, expressly to prove' that it abolishes all distinctions of
meats (7 19), and thereafter describes a journey of Jesus
among the Gentiles, his theological position on the great
"Even the preaching in parables is a preaching of judgment to "them
that are without," for their hardening and rejection 4 11 f.

BACON : TREATMENT OP MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 147
issues of the Petro-Pauline controversy is not happily defined
in the Tubingen conception of him as a reconciler (!) of the
contending factions. It is not unparalleled in the New
Testament, but its parallel is in the party of the "strong"
in the Epistles to the Corinthians and Romans. But this
type of Paulinism has met such treatment at the hands of
Lk. as to show clearly that the entire Markan construction
of this section of his gospel would be to Lk., in its present
form, absolutely inadmissible. What he makes of the prin
ciple involved is clearly exhibited in another part of his
work. The doctrinal parallel to Mk. 7 1-23 is Ac. 9 32-11 18, or
more exactly Ac. 11 1-18, where the great battle which Paul
informs us was fought out by himself alone, first at Jerusa
lem, later against Peter himself, and "even Barnabas," at
Antioch, is represented in this narrative to be fought out by
Peter as the apostle and champion of the Gentiles (cf. 15 7).
Both elements of the great issue are involved, the admission
of the Gentiles on terms of complete equality, 11 18, and the
unconditional "eating with" them. The Jew Peter aban
dons his caste as a Jew for the purpose of his mission work,
11 3, and having abandoned it and eaten with the Gentiles,
defends his action before the assembled church in Jerusalem
until unanimous sanction is obtained. Here the basis of
settlement is strictly that of Gal. 2 11-21 ; those who were
Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, because the
ground of their salvation is not obedience to the law but
faith in the cross, must abandon their caste. If they do not,
they build up again the barrier they had destroyed, and in
compelling the Gentiles to Judaize make the grace of God
void. But while the voice is the voice of Paul the agency
is the agency of Peter. In thrice repeated, twice related,
vision, the Voice from heaven bids him slay and eat without
distinction, and rebukes his demurrer with the command
"What God hath made clean, make thou not unclean." In
literary construction this Vision and Revelation to Peter by
Voice from heaven of the Pauline principle of the co-heirship
of the Gentiles is the counterpart of the Transfiguration

148 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
story, which similarly translates into the language of symbol
ism the Pauline Revelation of a spiritual Christ not after
" the things that be of men," which our evangelists place side
by side with its prose parallel (Mk. 8 27-9 l. n-13 = 9 2-10).
Doctrinally it is a parallel to the Markan scene where Jesus
abolishes all distinctions of meats as " precepts of men." It
puts into the language of apocalypse the words of Paul, " I
know and am persuaded of the Lord Jesus that there is noth
ing unclean of itself, save that to him that esteemeth any
thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. " But this Pauline
solution of the great question was not Peter's (though we
may well believe that after the death of both apostles the
church in Rome, if not in Antioch, came to regard Peter's
attitude as essentially identical with Paul's) ; it was not that
of the church at large (Rev. 2 20. 24. AcB. 6 3), and emphati
cally it is not that of Lk. In spite of the settlement of the
question on the purely Pauline basis in the material incorpo
rated in Ac. 9 32-11 18, where Peter and the Voice from heaven
are the decisive authority, it is settled a second time by the
apostolic council convened by appeal of the Church in Anti
och to the Church in Jerusalem, and settled on a much less
radical basis. This time the Pauline doctrine that all dis
tinctions of meats are in principle "ordinances of men,"
which have no validity for the Christian, so that Peter is
right in eating with the Gentiles, is superseded by a " com
promise," 18 which would fully justify the action of Peter in
refusing to eat with the Gentiles in Antioch. Jews when
among the Gentiles are not to " forsake Moses," but to " walk
after the customs" (Ac. 21 21-26). The Gentiles, then, if
there is to be fellowship, must "Judaize" at least to the
extent of the four " decrees," whose object seems to be to
make it possible for Jews to eat with them without incurring
the "pollutions of idols."19 This Antiochian "Petrine"
solution of the question remains the orthodox and ecumeni
cal solution to the end of Acts, even Paul himself being made
m Ligbtfoot, Comm. on Gal., ed. 1896, p. 126.
19 On the significance of the decree against fornication, cf. Clem. Bom.
III. lxviii.

BACON: TREATMENT OF MK. 6-8 IN LUKE 149
to indorse, and publicly and authoritatively to proclaim it
(Ac. 16 3. 4 21 20-26) ! 2°
One has only to observe the central importance to the author
of Acts of this ecclesiastical solution of the great question of
the basis of fellowship with the Gentiles, to understand why
in his gospel not merely certain elements of the great
division of Mk. on Christ's journey among the Gentiles are
omitted, but why the journey itself, and indeed the whole
division of Mk. which deals with the question of Mosaism vs.
Gentile freedom, is completely obliterated. To all appear
ance there was abundant justification in the sources at Lk.'s
command for skepticism as to the historical character of the
Markan construction. Over and above this there were
doubtless features objectionable to him in much of the mate
rial, including their duplication of some things he incorpo
rates elsewhere. But neither of these is the compelling
motive for Lk.'s great omission. His treatment of this
division of Mk. as a whole, suppressing completely the Gen
tile journey and all its concomitants, is a phenomenon that
cannot be fully explained save in the light of the second
treatise devoted from beginning to end to this vital question
and centering upon its solution by apostolic decree in the
Antiochian and not the Roman sense. It cannot be ration
ally explained without consideration for the systematic omis
sion and transformation by which both Lk. and Mt. have re
moved the radicalism of Mk.'s Pauline principles.
As Lk. views this division of Mk.'s gospel he justly
notes that the problems met in it are the actual problems
of the apostolic church, the questions of the abolition of
distinctions of meats and of how the Gentiles also are to be
fed with the bread of life. But to these Lk. had devoted his
entire second treatise. He can therefore most fittingly drop
Mk. 6-8 with its wanderings among the Gentiles and its
theme " Give ye them to eat," returning to the more primitive
connection of the Agape cycle. In his gospel accordingly, as
in Jn. 6, the Sign of the Loaves is followed immediately by
20 On the position of Lk.-Ac. on this moot point of the apostolic age, see
Bacon, "Acts vs. Galatians " in Am. Journ. of Theol., July, 1907.

150 JOURNAL OP BIBLICAL LITERATURE
the Announcement of the Messiah's fate, 9 18-so. From this
point the Via Crucis begins, 9 5i ff., a gradual approach to
Jerusalem from Galilee as the northern limit. Only the
Sending of the Seventy " before his face into every city and
village whither he himself was about to come," 10 l ff.,
remains a faint echo of the Markan "Journey among the
Gentiles." The Book of Acts is his substitute for Mk. 7-8
in their practical bearing.

1494