Most New Testament scholars are convinced that Mark's Gospel was the earliest of the four gospels and that Matthew and Luke drew heavily from it in writing their own gospels; and this passage is often cited as evidence to support the "Marcan priority" theory. Matthew's author edited down Mark's version, tightening up the story, but the literary form here of a story within a story is more typical of Mark. Also in Mark's version, when the woman touches Jesus' cloak, he asked, "Who touched my cloak?" The author of Matthew apparently didn't like the implication of Jesus' ignorance and dropped the question, making Jesus more all-knowing.Matthew also inserted a couple of things that aren't in Mark, and it is worth speculating why. For one thing, Matthew makes a point of the disciples following Jesus when he goes to the home of the synagogue guy, a detail not found in Mark. Also, at the end of Matthew's version, there is an editorial comment stating that the story of this healing was told all over the place. How come? Why insert the disciples going along and making the point that the healing of the guy's daughter was well-known?
Just maybe the compiler/author of Matthew felt that she or he had to justify the inclusion of these two stories in his or her gospel and did this in two ways. First the author provides the original source of the story, the disciples. They were there. They saw these events. We have, thus, a reputable source (and a footnote!) for the stories. The author makes the point, furthermore, that the story of the daughter being healed was widely known to explain to the gospel's audience that the story was reputable and not made up. It was fact not fiction. It was widely known. Jesus really did this sort of thing and everyone knew it.
In other words, it is possible that the author was citing sources so that his or her audience understood that the gospel contained verified, trustworthy data. Any good biographer or historian would do nothing less.
