Luke is famous for "The Great Omission," i.e., the absence of Mark 6:47 - 8:27a from his Gospel. Also, it may or may not be significant that the second largest block of Mark he leaves out is nearby in Mark in 6:17-29. Using your Synopsis, look at each of the "pericopes" in Mark and in each case see if you can think of reasons why Luke might have intentionally omitted them. Try to bear in mind all we have learned about the nature and emphases of the Gospels. You should also pay attention to what "Matthew" did with these stories. Is it possible instead that Luke simply had a shorter version of Mark without some or all of this material? In that case, one could ask if there are aspects of particular stories that would have made them so attractive to Luke that if Mark had them he surely would have used them. Follow the outline form below. There are nine pericopes, so keep your arguments concise and to the point.
I. The Walking on the Water (SFG no. 147)
A. Arguments that it was in Mark, but Luke purposely deleted it.
1.
2.
Etc.
B. Arguments that if it were in Mark, Luke would have used it.
1.
2.
Etc.
II. Healings at Gennesaret (SFG no. 148)
Etc.
Finally, can you think of any other evidence that might be used to argue for or against the idea that there was once a shorter Mark that did not have these passages?