THE "GREAT OMISSION" IN LUKE'S GOSPEL

This phrase refers to the fact that although the Gospel of Luke generally follows the material in Mark closely, Luke omits most of what is related in Mark 6:45-8:26. The proposed reasons for this omission have been many. Below is a sampling:

A. To place Peter's great confession next to the narrative of Christ's feeding of the multitudes.

“Matthew and Mark locate Peter's confession in the area of Caeserea Phillipi. Luke, who at this point skips over a considerable portion of Mark (6:45-8:26), omits the geographical setting. Probably it is because he wishes to connect the confession to the feeding miracle (cf. Jn 6:14, 68f.).” (Ellis)

Craddock: “Luke, like John (John 6:1-69), joins the feeding and Peter's confession...Luke seems uninterested in geography here. His concern is to locate this event in the prayer life of Jesus. It would be difficult to overestimate the central role of prayer in the ministry of Jesus according to Luke.”

“Luke wished to move straight from the feeding miracle (and the preceding incidents) to the christological confession which was aroused by it.” (Marshall)

B. Due to space limitations, Luke needed to mention only those items which best connected with his overall themes.

Geldenhuys states: “We notice throughout that he by no means professes to give a full biography of the Lord. Out of many items of information he reproduces only those which, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, he regards as the most important in composing his Gospel. We should remember that Luke could not make his writing unlimited in length – among other things he had to consider the question of not exceeding the limits of a normal papyrus roll. As it is, his Gospel is the longest book in the New Testament. So he used his space economically and recorded only the parts which were most necessary for his purpose. If we check the contents of Mark vi. 45-viii. 26, we see that no events are there described which would be of special value for the progress of the Gospel-narrative from the point of view of Luke's method and purpose.”

“The omitted section...does not materially add to the presentation of Jesus as the Messiah...Luke had to make omissions from Mk. in order to accommodate his extra material within a convenient length of book.” (Marshall)

“Luke sensed a need to curtail because of his own inserts (so Schurmann...). This is a possible reason, but not very convincing, since he still retains so much Marcan material.” (Fitzmyer)

C. Luke was relying on the same tradition used by John.

Marshall says, “It is possible that Luke knew of a tradition which joined together the feeding miracle and Peter's confession, as in Jn. 6;...note, however, that Jn. 6 retains the story of Jesus walking on the water.”

D. Our present text of Luke is defective or Luke was copying from a defective text of Mark.

Marshall mentions both of these related theories which have been proposed by others, but firmly rejects both possibilities with the words: “This omission is doubtless deliberate on Luke's part.”

Fitzmyer explains and rejects this theory also: “Luke [accidentally] omits a block of episodes that begin and end at Bethsaida, outside of Galilee (Mark 6:45; 8:22); it is a sort of omission by homoeoteleuton [an error in copying caused from the eye jumping from one line to another one which has the same or simlar wording] (W.E. Bundy). This is, however, a rather tenuous reason because Luke has [purposely] substituted Bethsaida for the Marcan phrase, 'deserted place' of 6:32; and then suppresses the mention of Caesarea Philippi as the location of Peter's confession.”

E. The omitted material was repetitious, and therefore unnecessary.

Fitzmyer notes that “if...there are two series of similar episodes in Mark 6:30-7:37 and 8:1-26, both betinning with a multiplication of loaves and fish, then Luke's tendency to avoid doublets may be a factor in the omission of the Marcan material. That does not wholly explain the matter, because he has no parallel at all to some of the 'duplicated' material.”

Childs holds to this somewhat dubious explanation when he says, “Presumably the Lucan evangelist saw these [two feedings in Mark] as doublets and decided to report only one.”

F. Luke wanted to keep Jesus' actions within Israel

Marshall also suggests, “Possibly also Luke wished to maintain the unity of the scene in Galilee and to avoid Mark's description of Jesus' work in gentile territory.”

And Fitzmyer mentions the same possibility: “Luke is at pains to limit Jesus' ministry to Galilee in this part of the Gospel; hence he omits the Marcan material in which Jesus goes to the areas of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia. This is important to his geographical perspective. The omission is therefore to be understood in terms of Luke's composition.”

G. It was necessary to omit Mark's material so that literary symmetry could be maintained.

Fitzmyer states, “The reasons for the omission of the Marcan material are not nearly as important as the resultant shape of this part of the Lucan Gospel.” Although I agree somewhat with Fitzmyer, as you will see below it turns out that his definition of “shape” concerns a grouping of thematically similar material together whereas I believe that the key lies more in the symmetrical literary shape which arises from this omission.

I have previously analyzed the literary structures of both Mark's and Luke's Gospel narratives. In the case of Mark's earlier composition, the material which Luke omits (Section 1 of Part One, Figure 1 below), is placed in parallel with another section dealing with the Twelve Apostles.

                                   Figure 1: The Literary Structure of the Gospel of Mark

Prelude – 1:1-13

Part One – The Sea of Galilee (1:14-8:21)

1. The Twelve are Called (1:14-3:19a)

    2. The Power, the Kingdom and the Glory (3:19b-6:6) 

1'. The Twelve are Sent Out and Warned (6:7-8:21)

Part Two – Jerusalem (8:22-16:8)

1. Jesus' Death and Resurrection Foretold (8:22-11:11)

    2. The Last Days (11:12-14:52)

1'. Jesus' Death and Resurrection (14:53-16:8)

But that section serves no such literary function within Luke's Gospel. And as you can see in Figure 2, the inclusion of that major material would have had a totally disruptive effect on the carefully composed chiastic arrangement below if it had been inserted between sections B and C.

                                      Figure 2: The Literary Structure of Luke 9

A. The Twelve are given power (9:1-11)

B. Miracle: Feeding of the multitudes (9:12-17)

C. Peter’s confession (9:18-27)

                                    C'. The Transfiguration (9:28-36)

B'. Miracle: Healing the epileptic (9:37-45)

A'. The Twelve argue over their importance (9:46-50)

The bottom line is that there is probably more than one good reason for Luke to have deleted the material which Mark includes in his narrative.