The synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contain a number of doublets, which are pieces of text that occur in two different places in the same gospel and which may or may not have parallels in either or both of the other two gospels. There is no ‘exact’ number of doublets, as the definition of a doublet depends on the number of words that it is deemed need to match, and what differences are allowed. In addition, what to some people may be viewed as ‘short doublets’ may be considered by others to instead be repeated favorite phrases (sometimes referred to as ‘formulas’ or something similar), such as ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear,’ rather than doublets. Nevertheless, there are interesting differences in both the number and type of doublets in each of the synoptic gospels, and these differences can provide insights into the order in which the gospels were written.
In the pages linked below the text of the doublets/formulas is discussed using both individual analyses and tables to highlight the synoptic parallels, while for more information on doublets in general, and in particular how doublets/formulas relate to the synoptic problem, see the Introduction to Doublets.
The following discussions detail each of the doublets identified by Hawkins in his Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem together with other parallels (including some of Hawkins’ formulas) considered by this author to be worthy of discussion as possible doublets, with tables showing the synoptic parallels and other relevant text. The column order Mark, Marcion, Matthew, Luke in the tables reflect the chronological order of the gospels on the basis of the MwQH (Mark without Q, or Farrer-Goulder) Hypothesis, while also allowing for the Mark-Q (or Two Source) Hypothesis or 2SH, in which Mark is first but the order of Matthew and Luke is not specified, or where another source (for example Marcion’s gospel - the Evangelion, or Ev) could provide insight.
The tables in the discussions highlight the synoptic parallels, with the doublets/formulas split into two main groups depending on whether one half of the doublet/formula is in text in a non-Markan context, i.e. with no parallel in Mark and referred to below as non-Markan context doublets/formulas, or not (See also The Making of the Double Tradition):
Non-Markan context doublets/formulas: These include Hawkins doublets in Matthew Nos. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and all of those in Luke (Nos. 1 - 10), plus five of Hawkins’ formulas in Matthew and four in Luke. In the tables in the pages linked below the text in Matthew and Luke that has no parallel in Mark is shaded in a light pink/orange (depending on the device used to view it!). On the Mark-Q hypothesis this text originated in Q, and so these doublets form the 'overlap' at the center of Mark-Q Overlaps, but the discussions below do not assume that if there was an additional (or second) source for Matthew and Luke then it was necessarily Q or, as Hawkins suggests, the Logia.
Other doublets/formulas: These include Hawkins’ doublets in Mark No. 1 and Matthew Nos. 1, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, plus ten of Hawkins’ formulas in Matthew and five in Luke. By definition none of these doublets/formulas can have originated in Q (as strictly defined), although it is possible that they might have originated in a source similar to Q but that contained more than just double tradition text, or one that overlapped with Mark to a greater or lesser extent.
From the above it can be seen that while Hawkins’ Matthean doublets are split between non-Markan context doublets and others (13 and 9 respectively), all of Hawkins’ 10 Lukan doublets are non-Markan context doublets (so suggesting the existence of a 'second source' for Matthew and Luke, that on the Mark-Q hypothesis is Q). Without even analyzing any doublet text it should therefore be clear that whether a doublet has a half in double tradition text (i.e. in a non-Markan context) or not suggests that there was a difference in how they were created, and whatever else this may indicate regarding sources it does strongly suggest that the reasons why aMatthew and aLuke included doublets in their respective gospels were not necessarily the same.
In the discussions ‘aMark’ refers to the author of Mark, and similar notation is used for the authors of Matthew, Luke, and any other author of a ‘named’ piece of text. Ev means the Evangelion (the gospel attributed to Marcion) the text of which is almost exactly a subset of the text of Luke, and ‘aEv’ means the person who wrote that gospel (who may or may not have been Marcion himself). Where a specific patristic comment on the text of Ev exists, in any table that comment is placed in the ‘Marcion’ column in the box corresponding to the equivalent Lukan verse(s), and marked with ‘(T)’ or ‘(E)’ to identify a comment by Tertullian or Epiphanius respectively. A light grey background in the ‘Marcion’ column indicates that parallel text might have been present in Ev (on the basis that we see the text in Luke today), but that it is unattested in commentaries on Ev. In all cases the halves of the doublets with parallels in Mark (if present) are shown first. In the text the symbol ‘//’ is used to denote a doublet (parallel text in the same gospel), and ‘/’ denotes parallel text in different gospels.
Because the distinction between doublets and formulas is not clear cut, in general references to ‘doublets’ without any mention of formulas should be taken to include formulas. However, where it is relevant in the discussions below the ‘type’ of the parallels in the same gospel will be identified by a letter to identify the category into which Hawkins placed them (D = Doublet, F = Formula, S = Similarity, P = Peculiar to or unique). Where relevant doublets discussed by Hawkins will be identified by his assigned number, while formulas shown by Hawkins in a numbered list will be identified by their position in that list. For un-numbered parallels, or those not discussed by Hawkins, no number will be given. In addition, in the tables in which the doublet/formula text is shown cells shaded with dark grey indicate that there is no parallel text at that point in that gospel.
In the Introduction to Doublets: The Mark-Q (or Two Source) Hypothesis or 2SH reference is made to Mark-Q overlaps, in which one half of a doublet in Matthew or Luke has a parallel in Mark, and the other half has a parallel in Luke and/or Matthew (respectively) but not Mark. In these cases several synoptic hypotheses invoke a non-Markan second source to explain the existence of the half of the doublet with no parallel in Mark, with the most well-known second source being Q, so giving rise to the term ‘Mark-Q overlaps.’ However, in the discussions below the term ‘source overlaps’ is used where it is intended to allow for any hypothetical source that ‘overlaps’ with Mark, not just Q.
Almost all of the doublets examined under this heading can (depending on the hypothesis) be explained on the basis of source overlaps, although a few cannot because neither half of the doublet has a parallel in Mark that could be a source of the verses in Matthew and/or Luke. As a result for these doublets all synoptic hypotheses that assume Markan priority must resort to some degree of conjecture to explain where the text originated, typically either by invoking a common non-synoptic source (e.g. Q), by suggesting that aMatthew and/or aLuke knew a tradition or saying that included the text contained in the doublet, or a combination of the two.
Any reference below to specific verses in Q will use the common convention of using the number of the equivalent verse in Luke, as the evidence of the orders of the Q parallels in Matthew and Luke suggests that the majority of Q (if it existed as a single document) followed the order of Luke, as explained in The Making of the Double tradition. For example, Q 6:40 is the verse in Q that is hypothesized to be the source of Lk 6:40. Similarly, any reference below to specific verses in an Early Luke (for example, possibly Ev if earlier than Luke) will use the equivalent of the convention used with Q, e.g. ELk 6:40 would be the origin of Lk 6:40.
In the tables in the pages linked below showing the doublets (and other related) text, the order of the verses in Matthew and Mark follows the order of the parallel verses in Mark (if any). Any half of a doublet that does not have a corresponding parallel in Mark is shown after the half that does. Because of this some doublet halves in Matthew and Luke are shown in ‘reverse’ order, i.e. a doublet half appearing later in a gospel may be shown before the half that appears before it in that gospel.
The doublets/formulas are grouped into nine discussion categories, with each category ending with a summary of those doublets.
Other Topics: Divorce and Doublets and Mk 3:19b-22 - Mad Jesus and Beelzebub
Adamczewski, Bartosz: Q or not Q?: The So-Called Triple, Double, and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels, 2010
Badham, Francis Pritchett: The Formation of the Gospels , p 24, 1891
Beare, F. W.: The Mission of the Disciples and the Mission Charge: Matthew 10 and Parallels , JBL, Vol. 89, No. 1 (Mar., 1970), pp. 1-13
Bock, Darrell L: Luke (Baker Exegetical Commentary Testament, Vol 2 , pp 986-991, Baker Academic
Carlston, Charles E. and Norlin, Dennis: Statistics and Q: Some Further Observations, Novum Testamentum, Vol. 41, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 108-123 Published by: Brill
Collins, Raymond SCRIPTURE AND THE CHRISTIAN ETHIC , The Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium
Davidson, Paul: Jesus and the Beelzebul Controversy: A Devilish Synoptic Puzzle
Eve, Eric: The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q From the Beelzebul Controversy , in Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, Poirier John C., Peterson, Jeffrey (ed).
Epiphanius: The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Book 1 (Sects 1-46), Panarion 42, and Books 2 and 3, De Fide: Second, revised edition translated by Frank Williams, 2007
Farmer, William Reuben: The Synoptic Problem: A Critical Analysis, pp244-245, Western North Carolina Press, 1976
Fitzmyer, Joseph A: The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, p842, Yale University Press, 2007
Fleddermann, Harry T: Mark and Q. A study of the Overlap Texts. With an Assessment by F. Neirynch, 1995
Glasson, Thomas Francis: An Early Revision of the Gospel of Mark, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Jun., 1966), pp. 231-233
Harris, Sarah: The Davidic Shepherd King in the Lukan Narrative, p83, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2016
Hawkins, Sir John Caesar: Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem
Holmes, Michael W: The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions , JBL 109 (1990) 651-664
Hultgren, Stephen: Narrative Elements in the Double Tradition: A Study of Their Place within the Framework of the Gospel Narrative, 2002
Hurtado, Larry: Notable Markan Variants in Codex W , 2018
Johnson, Luke Timothy: The Gospel of Luke, 169-171, 1991
Kirby, Peter: The Evidence of Doublets in Matthew and Luke,
Klopponborg, John S: Excavating Q , 2000
MacDonald, Dennis R: Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord , SBL 2012
Marshall, I. Howard: The Gospel of Luke, pp 412-413, Paternoster Press
Meyboom, Hajo Uden: A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis, 1835-1866: A Contemporary Report Rediscovered
Patton, Carl S: Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, Volume 5, p 244, Macmillan, 1915. Also here.
Peake, Arthur: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Powers, B. Ward: The Progressive Publication of Matthew: An Explanation of the Writing of the Synoptic Gospels, p124, B&H Publishing Group, 2010
Price, Ron: The doublets: a template for the logia
Salmon, Dr. George: A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, 1886
Sense, P.C.: A Critical and Historical Enquiry Into the Origin of the Third Gospel, 1901
Sloan, David: Reconstructing Q
Smith, Ben C: Doublets in the synoptic tradition, textexcavation.com, 2019.
Stephenson,T: The Classification of Doublets in the Synoptic Gospels, The Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 20, No. 77 (OCTOBER, 1918), pp. 1-8
Vawter, Bruce, C.M. The Biblical Theology of Divorce Kenrick Seminary St. Louis, Missouri. p 231, footnote 22
Wenham, Gordon JESUS AND DIVORCE The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus, 1985
Westcott, B. F.: An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 6th ed, p194, (London: MacMillan and Co., 1888)