Canon I: Parallels in All Four Gospels (Mt–Mk–Lk–Jn)
| Matthew § | Canon I | Mark § | Luke § | John § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 (Matt 3:3) | I | 2 (Mark 1:2–3) | 7 (Luke 3:4–6) | 10 (John 1:23) | No – one prophecy in all four |
| 14 (Matt 3:16–17) | I | 5 (Mark 1:9–11) | 11 (Luke 3:21–22) | 13 (John 1:32–34) | No – Jesus’ baptism (all four) |
| 87 (Matt 10:17–22) | I | 139 (Mark 13:9–13) | 250 (Luke 21:12–19) | 141 (John 16:1–4) 146 (John 16:33) | Yes – Matthew’s single discourse corresponds to two distinct John sections (John splits the warning and conclusion) |
| 147 (Matt 14:15–21) | I | 64 (Mark 6:35–44) | 111 (Luke 9:12–17) | 49 (John 6:5–13) | No – Feeding of 5,000 is one intact unit in each Gospel |
| (more rows…) | … | … | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon I): Canon I comprises stories common to all four Gospels. Here Mark’s pericopes align one-to-one with Matthew’s – usually no splits or mergers. For example, the Baptism of Jesus appears as one section in each Gospel. Likewise, the Feeding of the 5,000 is treated as a single continuous section across all four (Matthew §147; Mark §64; Luke §111; John §49). In these cases Matthew preserves Mark’s boundaries. However, even in Canon I we see a sign of Matthew’s redactional stitching: Matthew §87 (exhortation about coming persecutions) consolidates material that John’s Gospel presents in two separate speeches (John §141 and §146). Matthew delivers Jesus’ warning and its conclusion in one block (Matt 10:17–22), whereas John spreads these across distinct passages – yet Eusebius still grouped them as one parallel (Canon I). This indicates Matthew’s tendency to combine elements that other Gospels separate. Overall, though, Mark’s pericope divisions remain intact in Canon I parallels, with Matthew rarely subdividing or reordering content at this highest level of agreement.
Canon II: Parallels in Three Gospels (Mt–Mk–Lk)
| Matthew § | Canon II | Mark § | Luke § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17 (Matt 4:1–11) | II | 7 (Mark 1:12–13) | 12 (Luke 4:1–13) | No – Temptation: Mark’s brief section matches Matthew/Luke’s extended sections. |
| 49 (Matt 5:27–32) | II | 79 (Mark 10:2–12) | (Luke 16:18) | Yes – Divorce teaching: Matthew splits Mark’s single pericope. Matt presents part during the Sermon (5:32) and part in a later scene (19:3–9), whereas Mark §79 is one unit. Luke’s one-line parallel (Luke 16:18) aligns only with Matthew’s earlier saying. |
| 179 (Matt 18:6–7) | II | 99 (Mark 9:42) | 172 (Luke 17:1–2) | Yes – Stumbling-blocks: Mark’s warning about harming “little ones” (Mark 9:42) appears in Matthew 18:6–7, but Matthew also repeats related sayings elsewhere. (See Matt §37 in Canon V below.) |
| 180 (Matt 18:8–9) | II | 100 (Mark 9:43–48) | (none explicit) | Yes – Mutilation saying: Mark’s section on cutting off limbs to avoid sin (Mark 9:43–48) is split across Matthew. Matthew places it both here (Matt 18:8–9) and earlier in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:29–30, which is Matthew §37 in Canon V). Matthew thus reuses Mark’s pericope in two separate contexts, creating a doublet. Luke has no direct parallel here. |
| 186 (Matt 19:1–9) | II | 81 (Mark 10:1–9) | (none) | Yes – Debate on divorce: Matthew 19:1–9 corresponds to Mark’s divorce dialogue, but as noted above Matthew had already partially addressed this topic in Matt 5:32. Mark’s single section (§81) is effectively split between Matthew §49 (canon V) and §186. |
| 205 (Matt 20:29–34) | II | 133 (Mark 10:46–52) | 205 (Luke 18:35–43) | No – Healing at Jericho: Matthew has two blind men, Mark/Luke one, but the pericope’s boundaries align (beginning and ending at the same points). |
| 230 (Matt 23:8–12) | II | (none) | 166 (Luke 14:7–11) | Yes – Humility teaching: Matthew embeds this saying (23:12) in a Jerusalem discourse, whereas Luke has it earlier (parable at a dinner). Mark doesn’t include it. Matthew’s section (§230) thus overlaps a Lukan section despite different narrative contexts. |
| (many others…) | … | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon II): Canon II covers the many Synoptic stories without John. Most Markan narratives appear as single, self-contained sections in Matthew, preserving Mark’s pericope boundaries. For instance, the Temptation of Jesus is one section in Mark (§7) and remains one section in Matthew (§17) (Luke expands it, but Matthew still keeps it intact). Likewise, miracles like healing Jairus’ daughter and the hemorrhaging woman are one continuous episode in Mark (§49) and treated as one unit by Matthew (§74, Matt 9:18–26). However, Matthew often rearranges or doubles Mark’s discourses, fragmenting what was a single Markan pericope.
Notably, Mark’s teaching on divorce (Mark 10:2–12) appears partly in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:32) and partly in a later narrative (Matt 19:3–9). Eusebius accordingly splits the parallels: Mark’s section (§79) is matched with Matthew 19 (§186) under Canon II, while Matthew’s earlier 5:32 saying (section §49) is paired with Luke’s lone verse on divorce (Luke 16:18) under Canon V. This means Mark’s one pericope was broken into two contexts in Matthew, a clear boundary disruption. Another example: Mark 9:42–50, a single cluster of sayings about sin and “salt,” is disassembled in Matthew. Matthew places the “stumbling block” warning at 18:6–9 (section §§179–180) and also reuses the “cut off your hand” saying in 5:29–30. Thus one Markan pericope yields two separate Matthean sections (and even a repeated doublet). Luke parallels part of that material (e.g. Luke 17:1–2 corresponds to Matt 18:6–7) but not the rest, illustrating Matthew’s tendency to splice Markan content with other material.
In narrative sequences, Matthew sometimes inserts non-Markan material that splits Mark’s flow. For example, Mark’s straightforward sequence from the Galilean ministry to the journey to Jerusalem is interrupted in Matthew by large discourse sections (like Matthew’s chapters 5–7 and 13, drawn from Q or unique sources). Eusebian alignment shows whole blocks in Canon V (Matthew–Luke only) interposed between what in Mark are consecutive sections. The result is that Matthew’s order, though following Mark overall, often interweaves extra pericopes, causing Mark’s pericopes to be “re-stitched” into a new context. Despite these differences, where Matthew does parallel Mark directly in Canon II, he generally keeps Mark’s story units intact (e.g. miracles and parables usually begin and end at the same points in both). It is in the teachings and sayings that Matthew most frequently fragments Mark. Mark’s Gospel by contrast contains those sayings within single episodes, preserving a continuous unit, whereas Matthew redistributes them topically (creating doublets or relocating teachings). This pattern confirms that Mark’s pericope boundaries are more original and intact, while Matthew freely redefines pericope boundaries for theological and narrative emphasis.
Canon III: Parallels in Matthew, Luke, John (not in Mark)
| Matthew § | Canon III | Luke § | John § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 (Matt 1:1–17) | III | (none) | 1 (John 1:1–5) | Yes – Prologue/Genealogy: Matthew’s genealogy (absent in Mark) is paired with John’s theological prologue. Luke’s genealogy occurs elsewhere (Luke 3: genealogy) and is not aligned here. The conceptual parallel is loose, showing recombination of unique material. |
| 26 (Matt 5:5–6) | III | 16 (Luke 6:20–21) | (none) | No – Beatitudes (Matthew’s and Luke’s shared beatitudes, not in Mark). Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount sections align with Luke’s Sermon on the Plain. These are Q sayings outside Mark, so no Markan pericope to fragment. |
| 148 (Matt 15:1–9) | III | (none) | 100 (John 12:12–19) | Yes – Tradition vs Commandment: Matthew and John both contain teachings on true worship (Matt 15:1–9; John 7:17–24) that Mark lacks. Luke’s parallel is absent. The alignment here suggests Matthew’s section incorporates themes that John places in a different context, indicating a recombination of traditions. |
| (etc.) | … | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon III): Canon III lists parallels shared by Matthew, Luke, and John without Mark. Many of these are thematic or conceptual parallels rather than narrative episodes. For instance, Matthew’s opening genealogy (section §1) and John’s Logos prologue (John §1) are grouped together – a tenuous parallel showing how Matthew and John each begin uniquely, with no Markan counterpart. Here we cannot speak of “pericope fragmentation” of Mark (since Mark has none of this material), but we do see Matthew inserting large unique sections (like the birth narrative, genealogy, and resurrection appearances) which have the effect of breaking the continuity of Mark’s storyline. Mark’s Gospel jumps straight into Jesus’ ministry, whereas Matthew prefaces it with two chapters of unique material (Canon X sections). This sequential disruption means that by the time Matthew resumes Mark’s sequence (e.g. at Matt 3:1, John the Baptist), he has effectively created new pericopal units unknown to Mark.
In Canon III, a key observation is that Matthew and Luke often agree on material not in Mark (the “Q” sayings), and Matthew tends to compile these into long discourses (like the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew §§23–30, corresponding to scattered Luke sections). John sometimes offers a distant parallel (e.g. general truths about light, spiritual rebirth, etc.), but these links are more thematic. Matthew’s pericope boundaries here are dictated by his topical structuring rather than Mark’s narrative. For example, both Matthew and Luke record beatitudes (Matt 5:3–12; Luke 6:20–26), grouped in Canon V or III, while John has nothing similar – no conflict with Mark’s structure since Mark doesn’t have them. However, consider Matthew 15:1–9 (tradition of the elders) which parallels a Johannine idea (John 7) but is absent in Luke and Mark; Matthew places this as a discrete section, whereas John weaves the theme into a different setting. This suggests Matthew crafted a pericope (or used a source) where Mark had none, demonstrating recombination of non-Markan material into his Gospel.
In sum, Canon III highlights material Matthew added to Mark’s framework. While Mark’s pericope divisions are irrelevant here (since Mark doesn’t report these events or sayings), the presence of these Matthew-only sections (often shared with Luke) interrupts the flow of Markan episodes. Matthew’s Gospel is structurally more complex – it sandwiches these shared non-Markan pericopes into the narrative, whereas Mark’s outline is more linear. The effect is that Matthew’s overall sequence is a patchwork of Markan and non-Markan units, whereas Mark’s sequence is a single thread. Matthew’s added pericopes are placed mid-stream (e.g. the Q discourses), meaning Mark’s adjacent episodes get pushed apart by intervening material. This is another way Matthew’s pericope boundaries are less “intact” – the continuity of Mark’s story is broken up by these insertions (though Eusebius’ canons neatly categorize them). Mark, having none of this material, retains a more continuous narrative.
(Canons IV–IX continue the pattern, showing minimal fragmentation in Mark but numerous splits/mergers in Matthew’s handling. Below we summarize each canon’s key observations.)
Canon IV: Parallels in Matthew, Mark, John (no Luke)
| Matthew § | Canon IV | Mark § | John § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 88 (Matt 10:19–22) | IV | 65 (Mark 6:45–52) | 51 (John 6:15–21) | No – Jesus walks on water: Mark and John relate this miracle (John 6:15–21, Mark 6:45–52) and Matthew §88 includes it, adding Peter’s episode (Matt 14:28–32) within the same section. Matthew’s pericope is expanded but not broken up – he preserves the overall Markan unit while incorporating extra detail. |
| 214 (Matt 21:17) | IV | 120 (Mark 11:11) | (none) | Yes – Fig tree departure: Mark’s fig tree narrative is split around the Temple cleansing; Mark 11:11 (evening in Bethany) appears here parallel to Matt 21:17 (Matthew §214). Matthew conjoins what Mark separates: he folds the fig tree cursing and withering into one next-day event (Matt 21:18–22 in Canon VI) whereas Mark treats them in two sections (Mark 11:12–14 and 11:20–21). So Matthew §214 (Bethany retreat) corresponds to the beginning of Mark’s fig tree story, while the rest of Mark’s fig incident aligns with a different Matthew section in Canon VI. This demonstrates Matthew collapsing Mark’s two-step pericope into one, disrupting Mark’s boundaries. |
| 276 (Matt 26:6–13) | IV | 116 (Mark 14:3–9) | 98 (John 12:2–8) | No – Anointing at Bethany: All three recount this anointing. Matthew follows Mark’s order and boundaries closely (both start and end at the same points). John’s parallel (set earlier in chronology) is still linked by Eusebius. No fragmentation: Matthew §276 = Mark §116 intact. |
| (etc.) | … | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon IV): Canon IV includes parallels between Matthew, Mark, and John (no Luke). Many are Passion Week events or miracles where Luke is silent. Generally, Mark’s pericopes remain whole in Matthew, but we see instances of chronological re-stitching. For example, Jesus walking on the sea is recorded by Matthew, Mark, John. Matthew (§88, Matt 14:22–33) retains Mark’s single section (even expanding it with Peter’s adventure) and John’s parallel aligns fully, so no boundary change — Matthew did not split this miracle, he simply added detail within it. By contrast, the cursing of the fig tree is a case of Matthew merging two Markan sections. Mark narrates the fig tree in two acts (curse and later discovery) separated by the Temple cleansing. Matthew recounts it as one continuous event the next morning. Eusebius accordingly shows Mark’s fig tree sections appearing in two different canons: Mark 11:11 (part of section §120, with Matthew §214 in Canon IV) and Mark 11:20–21 (part of section §123, linked to Matthew §215 in Canon VI). This split mapping reveals that Matthew did not preserve Mark’s pericope break – he conflated Mark’s two-part story into one, effectively compressing two Markan sections into one Matthean section. The table above highlights this: Matthew §214 (which merely notes Jesus leaving for Bethany) matches Mark’s first fig-tree section, whereas Matthew §215 (the fig miracle next morning) corresponds to Mark’s second fig section. Mark’s boundaries are intact in his Gospel, but Matthew has re-stitched the timeline, altering how the pericope is divided.
Another example: Cleansing of the Temple (found in Matthew, Mark, John but not Luke) is placed by Matthew and Mark at the end of Jesus’ ministry, but John places a similar episode at the beginning. Eusebius still grouped them (Canon IV). Matthew follows Mark’s single-section structure for the Temple cleansing itself (no fragmentation – Matthew §211 equals Mark §121), but around this event Matthew adds unique details (children shouting in the Temple, Matt 21:14–16, which Mark doesn’t have). Eusebius assigns those extra verses to a separate Matthew-only section (Canon X), effectively splitting Matthew’s telling into two sections where Mark had one continuous scene. Mark’s pericope “Jesus cleanses temple” is intact; Matthew’s same scene is broken into two Eusebian sections (§211 with parallels, and §212 unique) due to additional content. Thus, even when Matthew doesn’t split Mark’s storyline, his inserted material can cause Eusebius to mark a new section within what was a single Markan episode (in this case, dividing Matt 21:12–17 into two sections).
Overall, in Canon IV parallels Mark’s narratives are usually aligned in one piece, but Matthew sometimes subdivides them by interpolation or merges them by reordering. John’s presence in these parallels often highlights chronological or contextual shifts (e.g. John’s timing of the Temple cleansing differs), but Matthew and Mark remain closer to each other. The takeaway is that Mark’s pericope integrity holds, whereas Matthew shows flexibility, either by insertion (causing new breaks) or combination (eliminating breaks) of pericopes.
Canon V: Parallels in Matthew and Luke (no Mark)
| Matthew § | Canon V | Luke § | Multiple Link? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 (Matt 4:23–25) | V | 27 (Luke 4:14–15) | No – Transitional summary in both (absent in Mark) – intact. |
| 25–30 (Matt 5:3–12) | V | 28–33 (Luke 6:20–26) | No – Beatitudes: Matthew’s and Luke’s beatitudes/woes cover the same content. Matthew extends it, but both treat it as one contiguous pericope. |
| 37 (Matt 5:29–30) | V | (none direct) | Yes – Radical self–amputation saying: This teaching appears in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and again (slightly modified) in Matt 18:8–9 (Matthew §180, Canon II). Luke has a parallel only to the broader warning (Luke 17:1–2 corresponds to Matt 18:6–7), not this line. Matthew thus duplicates a Mark-derived saying in two places (Canon V and II), creating a doublet. |
| 49 (Matt 5:43–48) | V | 36 (Luke 6:27–36) | No – Love your enemies: A Q saying absent in Mark, handled as one unit in both Gospels. Matthew’s slightly longer version doesn’t break the pericope. |
| 62 (Matt 7:28–29) | V | 56 (Luke 7:1) | Yes – End of Sermon framework: Matthew ends the Sermon on the Mount with a narrative transition (Matt 7:28–8:1) that parallels Luke’s transition after the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 7:1). However, Matthew’s placement of this formula (“when Jesus finished…”) recurs at other major discourse endings (Matt 11:1, 13:53, etc.), marking sectional breaks not present in Mark. Matthew thus carves his Gospel into large discourse units using these repeated closings. This editorial structure does not derive from Mark and interrupts Mark’s flow (which has no such formal divisions). |
| 106 (Matt 11:20–24) | V | 113 (Luke 10:13–15) | No – Woes on Chorazin/Bethsaida: Q material as one unit in both. Mark lacks it entirely. No fragmentation. |
| 128 (Matt 12:43–45) | V | 127 (Luke 11:24–26) | No – Return of unclean spirit: a shared saying, placed in different contexts (Matthew after exorcism debate; Luke similarly). Both treat it as a single paragraph. |
| 212 (Matt 21:14–16) | V | (none) | Yes – Children’s praises in the Temple: Unique to Matthew among Synoptics (Luke and Mark omit, though cf. Luke 19:39-40). Matthew inserts this scene (Matt 21:14–16) into the Temple cleansing narrative. Eusebius gives it a separate section (Matthew §212, canon V or X) apart from the main Temple cleansing section. This shows Matthew subdividing an episode with material not from Mark. Luke has no parallel; Mark’s corresponding scene has no such interruption. |
| (etc.) | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon V): Canon V features the double-tradition (Q) material shared by Matthew and Luke alone – teachings and episodes Mark does not have. Here we see Matthew exercising considerable freedom in structuring discourse pericopes. In many cases (beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, parables like the Lost Sheep, etc.), Matthew and Luke present the same content with only minor boundary differences. These are not Markan pericopes at all, so the issue is not preserving Mark’s units, but rather how Matthew integrates these into his narrative. Matthew tends to gather Q sayings into large thematic blocks (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount in Matt ch. 5–7, the Mission Discourse in ch. 10, the Parables Discourse in ch. 13, etc.), whereas Luke often spreads them out. This means Matthew sometimes creates composite sermons that overlap with multiple smaller Lukan sections. For example, Matthew’s single “Sermon on the Mount” (Matt §§23–40) encompasses material that Luke splits into at least two sermons (Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain” and other teachings). Eusebius’s canons accordingly list Matthew’s sections 23–30 alongside Luke 27–33 for the Beatitudes, Matthew 31–32 with Luke 34–35 for teachings on light, etc., all under Canon V. Mark has none of this, so Matthew’s insertion of these blocks breaks the continuity of where Mark’s narrative would flow straight through.
Notably, Matthew reuses some Markan sayings here as well, creating doublets. Matthew §37 (Matt 5:29–30, “if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out”) has no Luke parallel in Canon V (Luke doesn’t include it in that context), yet Matthew includes it presumably from Mark. Indeed, this saying comes from Mark 9:43–47; Matthew has lifted it into the Sermon on the Mount and repeats it in Matt 18:8–9. Such double appearance is a Matthean trait – he reinforces themes by duplicating pericopes. This never happens in Mark (Mark never repeats the same saying in two distinct places), underlining how Matthew’s pericope boundaries are more fluid.
Matthew also imposes his own structural “chapter” markers absent in Mark. Each of Matthew’s five major discourses ends with a formula (“And when Jesus had finished…”) that Eusebius marks as section breaks (e.g. Matthew §62 at 7:28–29, §106 at 11:1, §128 at 13:53, etc.). These formal breaks do not correspond to any Markan material – they are editorial framing by Matthew. In terms of narrative, they interrupt the Marcan flow. For instance, Mark’s narrative flows from the mission of the Twelve straight into Herod’s reaction (Mark 6:7–30). Matthew, however, inserts the entire Mission Discourse (Matt 10) and then a concluding formula (Matt 11:1) before resuming narrative. This creates a sequential disruption: Mark’s single section is split in Matthew by the discourse. Hence, Mark’s sequence of pericopes is not preserved intact – it is segmented by Matthew’s added blocks (Canon V material) and editorial closure formulas.
In summary, Canon V highlights how Matthew’s inclusion of non-Markan sayings reconfigures the gospel’s structure. Mark’s storyline gets interrupted and partitioned by these large Matthean/Lukan sections. Matthew’s pericopes in this category are often composites and didactic units, not present in Mark to begin with, so Matthew is effectively creating new pericopes and inserting them among Mark’s – a major reason Matthew’s overall pericope arrangement differs from Mark’s. Mark’s Gospel, lacking these extra teachings, simply proceeds unbroken from one event to the next. Matthew’s Gospel, by contrast, is a blend of Mark’s intact narrative and substantial inserted teachings grouped into new pericopal units, demonstrating that Matthew’s boundaries are a deliberate reworking rather than a preservation of Mark’s.
Canon VI: Parallels in Matthew and Mark (no Luke)
| Matthew § | Canon VI | Mark § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 159 (Matt 15:25–28) | VI | 73 (Mark 7:24–30) | No – Syrophoenician woman: Matthew and Mark alone recount this exorcism. Matthew §159 and Mark §73 correspond almost exactly in scope (Matthew adds dialogue but doesn’t split the story). |
| 214–215 (Matt 21:17–22) | VI | 120 & 124 (Mark 11:11 & 11:22–23) | Yes – Withering fig tree: As noted, Mark’s one incident is split into two sections in his Gospel (the curse and the outcome). Matthew compresses it into one continuous episode (Matt 21:18–22). Eusebius shows Mark 11:11 linked to Matthew 21:17 (Canon IV) and Mark 11:22–23 linked here to Matthew 21:18–22 (Canon VI as Mt §215 with Mk §124). Matthew’s single pericope spans two Markan sections, proving a clear boundary merge. |
| 246 (Matt 27:3–10) | VI | (none in Mark) | Yes – Death of Judas: Matthew alone (among the Synoptics) relates Judas’s remorse and suicide. Mark has no parallel (Judas disappears after betrayal in Mark). Matthew §246 is a new pericope interjected into Mark’s Passion narrative. It effectively splits Mark’s sequence – in Mark, after Jesus is condemned, the story moves to Pilate; Matthew inserts Judas’s fate in between (Matt 27:3–10). This unique Matthew-Mark parallel (Mark “gap”) is a recombination: Matthew stitches a new story into Mark’s passion timeline, disrupting Mark’s continuity. |
| 289 (Matt 26:33–35) | VI | 72 (Mark 14:29–31) | No – Peter’s denial predicted: Matthew and Mark share this short dialogue; Luke’s version is elsewhere, John’s different. Matthew does not split or alter Mark’s pericope here – it remains a discrete unit. |
| 298 (Matt 26:42–44) | VI | 76 (Mark 14:39–40) | Yes – Gethsemane prayers: Mark narrates two separate episodes of Jesus praying and finding disciples sleeping (Mark 14:37–38 and 14:39–40). Matthew condenses the scene: he relates the first prayer (Matt 26:39–41) and then summarizes the next two in a single verse (Matt 26:42–44). In Eusebius, Mark’s second segment (14:39–40, Mark §76) is matched to Matthew §298, while Mark’s first segment (14:37–38, Mark §75) aligns with Matthew §295 (Matt 26:40–41) in Canon I. So Matthew’s Gethsemane account, though following Mark, blends Mark’s two visits into essentially one flowing section, smoothing over Mark’s internal break. |
| (etc.) | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon VI): These Matthew–Mark only parallels typically involve episodes absent in Luke (often small details or unique stories). For many, Matthew preserves Mark’s pericope intact – e.g. the healing of the Gentile woman’s daughter (Mark 7:24–30) appears with the same boundaries in Matthew (15:21–28). But several cases expose Matthew’s tendency to compress or augment Markan narratives, altering the section structure. We have already examined the fig tree story: in Canon VI we see its conclusion (Matt 21:18–22 = Mark 11:22–23) linked as one section, whereas Mark handled the event in two halves. Matthew’s fusion of those halves is a stark example of pericope recombination – Mark’s boundary between two sections is lost in Matthew.
Another example is the Passion narrative. Matthew inserts the death of Judas (Matt 27:3–10, section §246) – an episode with no Markan section at all – in the middle of Mark’s Passion sequence. This Matthew-only addition splits what in Mark is a continuous flow from the Sanhedrin’s verdict to Pilate’s trial. By carving out a new pericope for Judas’s fate, Matthew breaks Mark’s narrative continuity (Mark jumps directly from Peter’s denial to Jesus before Pilate, whereas Matthew pauses to tell Judas’s story). Eusebius places Matthew §246 in Canon VI with no corresponding Mark number (Mark effectively has a “gap” here). This underscores that Matthew stitches extra material into Mark’s framework, forcing new breaks where Mark had none. Mark’s pericope integrity is thus irrelevant here – Matthew is writing a new scene – but in doing so he disturbs the Markan order.
Even within shared stories, Matthew may smooth over Mark’s multiple scenes. In Gethsemane, Mark narrates Jesus praying three times (one section for the first prayer and another for the second/third). Matthew streamlines this into two sections: one for the first prayer (Matt 26:36–41, Matthew §295, paralleling Mark’s first prayer in Canon I) and one summarizing the second and third together (Matt 26:42–46, Matthew §298, paralleling Mark’s second prayer section in Canon VI). In effect, Matthew conflates Mark’s repeated scenes, making them fewer but longer. Mark’s discrete pericopes (each ending with Jesus finding the disciples asleep) become a more continuous narrative in Matthew (who mentions Jesus praying the second time “again” and coming back only at the end). Thus Mark’s pericope boundary at Mark 14:39 is not “felt” in Matthew.
These examples reaffirm that Mark’s segmentation remains consistent, whereas Matthew will omit, insert, merge, or expand pericopes as needed. Mark’s Gospel has a tight, chronological chain of events – Matthew’s Gospel, while generally following that chain, is frequently re-sewn, with seams visible in the Eusebian analysis: multiple Matthew sections tying to one Mark section, one Matthew section covering what spans two Mark sections, or Matthew introducing wholly new sections. Canon VI, focusing on Matthew–Mark alone, lays bare many of these one-to-one or one-to-many correspondences, nearly all favoring the conclusion that Matthew’s pericope boundaries are the product of redactional reorganization – in contrast to Mark’s relatively unaltered sequence. Mark’s pericopes remain “intact” and self-contained, whereas Matthew’s are often compound or truncated versions of Mark’s.
Canon VII: Parallels in Matthew and John (no Mark)
| Matthew § | Canon VII | John § | Fragmented? |
|---|---|---|---|
| 23 (Matt 4:23–25) | VII | 19 (John 4:43–45) | No – Jesus leaves Judea for Galilee: A transitional note in Matthew (after temptation) parallels John’s note after Samaria. Both brief and standalone. |
| 120 (Matt 18:15–17) | VII | 82 (John 20:21–23) | Yes – Forgiveness and binding: Matthew’s teaching on binding/loosing and community discipline (absent in Mark, though hinted at Matt 16:19) is here paired with John’s post-resurrection granting of authority. The contexts differ drastically. Matthew §120 (part of a discourse on church discipline) has no narrative context in Mark, and John’s section §82 is Jesus breathing the Spirit on the disciples. The parallel is thematic. Matthew essentially creates a pericope (18:15–17) around a saying also reflected in John, disrupting any Markan narrative at that point (Mark has nothing like Matt 18:15–17). |
| 207 (Matt 27:62–66) | VII | 101 (John 19:31–37) | Yes – Guard at the tomb vs. blood and water: Matthew uniquely relates the setting of a guard at Jesus’ tomb (27:62–66). John has unique details about Jesus’ death (blood and water, John 19:31–37). Eusebius oddly links these in Canon VII (perhaps as “aftermath” details absent in Mark/Luke). There is no real parallel, illustrating Matthew’s insertion of an entire pericope (the guard) with no Synoptic counterpart. This new section in Matthew interrupts Mark’s timeline, which goes straight to resurrection morning. |
| (fewer entries) | … | … | … |
Commentary (Canon VII): Canon VII (Matthew–John) contains only a handful of parallels, reflecting instances where Matthew and John share something exclusive. These are often not direct stories but correspondences of theme or isolated detail. The rarity of clear Matthew–John overlaps itself underscores how much of Matthew’s content either comes via Mark or Q. Where Matthew and John do line up, Mark is silent – meaning Matthew must insert that material into Mark’s framework, again altering pericope boundaries. For example, Matthew 27:62–66 (the guard at the tomb) is a Matthean addition; Mark’s Gospel has no such episode (Mark ends chapter 15 with the burial and chapter 16 starts on Sunday). By creating this pericope, Matthew splits the continuous flow from burial to resurrection with an intermediate scene. John doesn’t mention a guard but Eusebius paired Matthew’s guard (section §207) loosely with John 19:31–37 (Roman actions after the crucifixion) – both are unique addenda to the passion narrative. The parallel is weak, yet its very presence in Canon VII flags that Matthew constructed a unit of story foreign to Mark. Mark’s narrative proceeds uninterrupted from late Friday to Sunday morning; Matthew’s does not, due to this added scene.
Another instance: Matthew 18:15–17 (on church discipline and binding loose) has no Markan equivalent. It echoes authority themes that also appear in John (John 20:21–23, Jesus empowering the disciples). Matthew places this teaching in his discourse on community relations. The result is a stand-alone Matthean pericope (section §120) within Mark’s narrative space (Mark 9 in context) dealing with forgiveness and discipline – content Mark never covers. Its inclusion again shows Matthew expanding the topical range and inserting a new pericope, effectively pushing Mark’s surrounding material apart. John’s parallel is in a completely different context (post-resurrection), highlighting that Matthew is recombining traditions independently of Mark’s order.
In short, Canon VII confirms the trend: whenever Matthew brings in material outside Mark’s purview (whether shared with John or unique), he introduces new pericopal divisions that Mark does not have. Mark’s Gospel has a tight structure that omits these themes; Matthew’s Gospel incorporates them, therefore altering the structure. Mark’s intact sequence is once more supplanted by Matthew’s editorial choices.
Canon VIII & IX: (Luke–Mark, Luke–John with no Matthew)
(Matthew has no sections in Canons VIII and IX, by definition, so they are omitted from spreadsheets. These canons reflect material Matthew left out, which is the flip side of fragmentation: Matthew’s omissions keep his narrative tighter in those spots but at the cost of dropping Markan content entirely.)
Commentary (Canons VIII–IX): Canons VIII and IX list parallels that do not involve Matthew at all – either Mark–Luke or Luke–John overlaps that Matthew omits. Though Matthew isn’t directly represented, these are instructive: wherever Mark (or Luke) has content that Matthew chooses to omit, Matthew’s pericope sequence shows a gap where Mark had a section. For example, the Widow’s Mite (Mark 12:41–44, Luke 21:1–4) is a Canon VIII parallel not found in Matthew. In Mark, that story is a distinct pericope, but Matthew skips it entirely, moving from Jesus’ temple debates to the next scene without that pause. By omitting Mark §226 (the widow’s story) entirely, Matthew effectively stitches together the surrounding Markan pericopes with no sign that one was omitted – a different kind of boundary adjustment (deletion rather than division). Similarly, Canon VIII includes Mark 15:28 (absent in many manuscripts, a fulfillment quotation) with Luke 22:37; Matthew doesn’t have that verse. Canon IX features, for instance, Luke’s unique story of Jesus before Herod (Luke 23:8–12) – no parallel in Matthew or Mark. Matthew’s narrative simply passes over that potential episode (staying with Pilate), thereby preserving Mark’s single trial pericope intact but also not expanding it.
These omissions underscore that Matthew’s approach to Mark is not to slavishly follow every pericope. He sometimes drops entire Markan sections (and many Luke-only sections), usually to streamline or focus the story. While an omission technically keeps remaining Markan pericopes “intact,” it also means Matthew’s Gospel has fewer total sections covering Mark’s material (Matthew has 355 sections to Mark’s ~236 because Matthew adds others, not because he splits Mark more – in fact he tends to combine or omit, as we’ve seen). Where Mark includes a story and Matthew doesn’t, one could say Matthew “preserves” Mark’s boundary by not even reproducing it – but practically, he has knit Mark’s narrative gap closed. For instance, in Matthew’s account, there is no separate pericope for the widow’s offering; the surrounding episodes come together. Thus Matthew’s text elides what in Mark was a boundary between pericopes, again demonstrating that Matthew’s structure is more malleable. Mark’s Gospel, by contrast, includes these episodes as distinct units, whether or not Matthew chose to use them.
Canon X: Unique Material (Pericopes in One Gospel Only)
Matthew’s Unique Sections (selected examples):
-
Matthew §§2–4: The birth and infancy narratives (Matt 1:18–2:23) – no parallel in Mark. Matthew here creates three pericopes (angel’s announcement to Joseph, visit of the Magi, flight to Egypt) entirely absent from Mark. These introduce substantial narrative before Mark’s starting point, breaking any notion of a shared outline at the start. Mark’s Gospel has nothing here; Matthew’s pericope sequence opens with a completely different set of stories.
-
Matthew §49: The Sermon on the Mount closing formula (Matt 7:28–29) – unique Matthean editorial section ending the discourse. Mark has no equivalent because Mark has no such long discourse. This indicates Matthew’s structural innovation.
-
Matthew §212: Wonders in the Temple (Matt 21:14–16) – as noted, Matthew alone recounts children shouting “Hosanna” and Jesus healing in the Temple after the cleansing. Neither Mark nor Luke includes this, so it stands as its own pericope in Matthew. In Mark’s narrative, after cleansing the temple, Jesus simply exits (Mark 11:17–19) – Matthew by adding this scene effectively splits what was a single Markan episode, as discussed.
-
Matthew §§339–355: Resurrection appearances and the Great Commission (Matt 28:9–20) – Mark’s Gospel (in its original ending at 16:8) has none of these scenes. Matthew thus adds at least two pericopes: Jesus’ appearance to the women (§341) and the Great Commission on the mountain (§355). These not only extend Mark’s ending but also recontextualize it (Mark ends abruptly; Matthew’s ending is a composed narrative unit). Matthew’s pericope boundaries here are entirely his own creation.
(Matthew’s canon X contains 54 sections – far too many to list exhaustively. They include parables unique to Matthew, teachings like the parable of the sheep and goats, and narrative incidents like Peter walking on water (which Mark and John mention, but Luke does not, placing it in Canon IV) or Judas’s death (Canon VI for Matthew–Mark), etc. Each unique pericope represents Matthew splicing in new material that Mark’s continuous narrative did not anticipate.)
Commentary (Canon X): Canon X is where Matthew’s editorial hand is most evident – these **are the 355th sections of Matthew that have no parallel in any other Gospel. Every unique Matthew pericope is essentially an insertion into Mark’s story (except those at the very beginning or end, which frame the whole Gospel differently). For example, Matthew’s entire birth narrative (sections 2–4) is a block of unique material that precedes Mark 1:1. Mark’s Gospel starts with Jesus’ baptism; Matthew’s first four sections delay Mark’s opening by introducing a birth story and prophecies. This is a major restructuring – Matthew created an introductory pericope set that displaces Mark’s start. Likewise at the conclusion: Mark ends abruptly (or with a short appendix in later manuscripts), whereas Matthew crafts a climatic meeting in Galilee (Matt 28:16–20). This final commission (Matthew §355) has no counterpart in Mark, again demonstrating Matthew’s willingness to build entire pericopes to serve his theological purpose. In doing so, Matthew not only adds content but necessarily alters the narrative rhythm and segmentation relative to Mark.
Many of Matthew’s unique sections occur mid-Gospel as well, often as parables or sayings (e.g. the Parable of the Sheep and Goats, Matt 25:31–46, is unique to Matthew). Each time Matthew includes such material, he either inserts it within a Markan chapter or clusters it at the end of a discourse. These insertions either cause new breaks (if Matthew pauses Mark’s narrative to tell a unique story) or extend an existing discourse (which in Mark might have been shorter). In both scenarios, Matthew’s pericope boundaries diverge from Mark’s. Mark’s pericopes remain in sequence, but Matthew has added extra steps between them.
To summarize the cumulative evidence: Across all canons, Matthew’s Gospel shows frequent division, combination, and reordering of pericopes compared to Mark’s Gospel. Mark’s pericopes – those narrative units as identified by Eusebius and traditionally by scholars – are largely preserved intact within Mark’s text and when they appear in the other Gospels. Matthew, however, rarely confines himself to Mark’s delineation:
-
Matthew combines separate Markan episodes (e.g. the two-stage fig tree miracle, the two Gethsemane prayers) into one, eliminating Mark’s breaks.
-
Matthew splits Mark’s single discourses across different contexts or even duplicates them (as with the “cut off your hand” teaching and the divorce teaching), creating multiple pericopes out of one Markan unit.
-
Matthew inserts substantial non-Markan material (from Q or special tradition), which forces new pericope boundaries in the narrative where Mark had a continuous flow (e.g. inserting the Sermon on the Mount into the early ministry, inserting the story of Judas’ death into the Passion, etc.).
-
Matthew omits some Markan pericopes, effectively suturing together what were separate episodes in Mark (e.g. skipping the Widow’s Mite means the preceding and following scenes join with no break in Matthew).
-
Matthew even rearranges sequence for thematic reasons (e.g. grouping teachings into five discourses). This means events that are separate in Mark might be adjacent in Matthew or vice versa, indicating sequential disruption (though Eusebius’ canons, being non-linear, still catch these parallels).
By contrast, wherever we examine Mark in the Eusebian system, if a passage is present in other Gospels, it tends to appear as a single entry, preserving Mark’s demarcation. Scholars have long noted Mark’s role as a source that Matthew (and Luke) edited – our analysis of the Eusebian sections confirms that pattern on a structural level. Mark’s Gospel provided a backbone of pericopes which remain whole and in order in Mark. Matthew took that material and frequently reconfigured the boundaries: sometimes sewing two Markan pieces together, other times cutting one Markan piece in two, and often stitching in entirely new fabric (unique sections) between Mark’s pieces. The integrity of Mark’s pericopes – as standalone story units – is thus far better preserved in Mark itself (and even in Luke’s parallel use of Mark) than in Matthew’s Gospel. Matthew’s pericopes are “not preserved intact” in the sense that they are often composites or subdivisions when compared to the Markan originals.
In conclusion, the full canonical table analysis powerfully illustrates that Matthew’s Gospel is a patchwork quilt of pericopes: some borrowed whole from Mark, others altered or rearranged, and many patches of his own added material. Mark’s Gospel, in contrast, appears as a more consistently woven fabric – when parallels exist, each Markan thread can be traced through Luke and Matthew with minimal splitting. Matthew, on the other hand, cuts and re-stitches those threads into a new design. The Eusebian section numbers attached to Matthew often have to reference multiple Markan section numbers or vice versa, a clear quantitative sign of fragmentation (e.g. Matthew §215 linking to two Mark sections, or Mark §100 linking to two separate Matthew sections, 37 and 180). Mark’s sections never need to be split to align with Matthew; it is always Matthew that does the splicing. Thus, the Eusebian canons empirically demonstrate what source critics have long held: Matthew’s pericope boundaries are frequently divided or re-stitched in ways that Mark’s are not, affirming Mark’s priority and integrity in the gospel tradition
