| Pericope | Mark Ref. | Matthew Parallel | Luke Parallel | Canon Used | What Eusebius Does with Matthew & Luke |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peter’s confession | Mk 8:27–30 | Matt 16:13–20 | Luke 9:18–21 | Canon II | Registers full Synoptic correspondence; does not privilege Matthean expansion (keys, church) |
| First passion prediction & rebuke | Mk 8:31–33 | Matt 16:21–23 | Luke 9:22 | Canon II | Aligns core prediction; ignores Matthean elaboration |
| Call to discipleship (cross) | Mk 8:34–9:1 | Matt 16:24–28 | Luke 9:23–27 | Canon II | Keeps Markan unit intact; does not extract aphorisms as in Matthew |
| Transfiguration | Mk 9:2–8 | Matt 17:1–8 | Luke 9:28–36 | Canon I | Uses all three as parallel narratives without reordering |
| Elijah discussion | Mk 9:9–13 | Matt 17:9–13 | Luke (implicit) | Canon II | Maintains adjacency to Transfiguration despite Luke’s compression |
| Healing of the epileptic boy | Mk 9:14–29 | Matt 17:14–20 | Luke 9:37–43 | Canon I | Preserves Markan narrative length; Luke’s brevity does not govern |
| Second passion prediction | Mk 9:30–32 | Matt 17:22–23 | Luke 9:43–45 | Canon II | Keeps Markan placement despite Luke’s relocation |
| Teaching on greatness (child) | Mk 9:33–37 | Matt 18:1–5 | Luke 9:46–48 | Canon II | Does not follow Matthew’s discourse expansion |
| Exorcist not “following us” | Mk 9:38–41 | Matt 18:6–9 (partial) | Luke 9:49–50 | Canon II | Aligns Luke closely; does not merge with Matthean scandal discourse |
| Warnings about stumbling | Mk 9:42–50 | Matt 18:6–9 | Luke 17:1–2 | Canon II | Keeps Markan warning block intact; ignores Matthean recontextualization |
| Teaching on divorce | Mk 10:1–12 | Matt 19:1–9 | Luke 16:18 | Canon II | Treats Luke’s aphorism as parallel without relocating Mark |
| Blessing of children | Mk 10:13–16 | Matt 19:13–15 | Luke 18:15–17 | Canon II | Straightforward narrative alignment |
| Rich man | Mk 10:17–31 | Matt 19:16–30 | Luke 18:18–30 | Canon II | Preserves Markan sequence; does not isolate sayings |
| Third passion prediction | Mk 10:32–34 | Matt 20:17–19 | Luke 18:31–34 | Canon II | Aligns prediction without reordering |
| Request of James and John | Mk 10:35–45 | Matt 20:20–28 | Luke 22:24–27 | Canon II | Rejects Luke’s relocation to Last Supper context |
| Healing of Bartimaeus | Mk 10:46–52 | Matt 20:29–34 | Luke 18:35–43 | Canon II | Keeps Markan narrative intact as corridor terminus |
What the table demonstrates, when read together with the broader behavior of the canon tables, is that Matthew and Luke are not absent from the Markan Discipleship Corridor but are instead present in a highly constrained way. Eusebius makes sustained and deliberate use of both Gospels throughout this stretch of material, roughly Mark 8:27–10:52. The corridor is populated almost entirely by Canon II entries, which by definition presuppose the simultaneous presence of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. The parallels are fully acknowledged: Matthew’s and Luke’s section numbers advance alongside Mark’s, and their correspondence is carefully registered. In that limited but crucial sense, Eusebius is actively drawing from Matthew and Luke throughout the corridor.
What he does not do is allow either Matthew or Luke to determine the structure of the alignment. This distinction between use and control is decisive. Matthew’s expansions, discourse frameworks, and thematic regroupings are bracketed rather than followed. Luke’s relocations—especially his redistribution of discipleship material into the long travel narrative beginning in Luke 9 or into later Passion contexts—are likewise acknowledged but not adopted. Eusebius records that the material corresponds, but he refuses to reorganize Mark in order to follow either Matthean or Lukan sequence. Instead, he preserves Mark’s itinerary intact, from Peter’s confession through the approach to Jerusalem, even though Matthew and Luke present the same teachings in markedly different narrative settings.
This becomes clear when one looks closely at the handling of individual pericopes. Teachings on discipleship, greatness, scandal, divorce, wealth, ambition, and suffering are treated by Matthew as detachable sayings and by Luke as mobile units within a broader journey framework. Eusebius registers these parallels by assigning the Markan units to Canon II, but he keeps each Markan pericope whole and in sequence. He does not split Mark’s teaching blocks into aphorisms to mirror Matthew, nor does he relocate Mark’s episodes to follow Luke’s order. The canon tables advance, but they advance descriptively rather than prescriptively, recording overlap without enforcing a governing narrative axis.
This is why it is accurate to say both that Eusebius draws from Matthew and Luke in the corridor and that Mark temporarily ceases to govern the system. In the Opening Block of Mark, Mark often governs alignment, with Matthew and Luke aligned to Mark’s order. In the Passion Block, Mark overwhelmingly governs alignment, as the tables collapse into Canon I following Mark’s sequence. In the Discipleship Corridor, by contrast, no Gospel governs. Mark is present but non-axial; Matthew and Luke are present but non-directive. The system proceeds by registering correspondence rather than by imposing hierarchy.
That balance explains why the corridor exists at all. If Eusebius had not drawn from Matthew and Luke here, the material would fall into Canon X as Mark-only. It does not. If he had allowed Matthew or Luke to govern, Mark would have been fragmented or reordered. It is not. Instead, Eusebius threads a narrow path between the two options that dominate elsewhere in the Gospel Canon: fragmenting a Gospel to improve harmonization, or forcing one Gospel’s order onto the others. Here he refuses both. He preserves Mark’s sequence while allowing Matthew’s and Luke’s parallels to be fully acknowledged but not structurally determinative.
Seen this way, the Markan Discipleship Corridor is not a zone of neglect but a zone of restraint. Eusebius uses Matthew and Luke fully, but he uses them for correspondence rather than for control. Shared material is acknowledged, but narrative authority is withheld. That combination—parallel recognition without narrative subordination—is precisely what gives the corridor its distinctive canonical profile and explains why nothing comparable appears in the treatment of Matthew itself.
