APOLOGIES. DUE TO RE-HOSTING SOME OF THE LAYOUT (PARTICULARLY OF TABLES) HAS BEEN CHANGED. IN PARTICULAR, THE ROWS OF SOME TABLES HAVE BEEN SEPERATED, OR ARE TOO FAR APART.
For general information regarding doublets see Doublets.
Matthew 10 is almost totally devoted to the mission of the twelve. In Mt 10:1-4 Jesus calls and names them, in Mt 10:5-8 he tells them their mission and in Mt 10:9-16 what to do there, and in Mt 10:17-23 Jesus tells them about the problems they will face. Mt 10:24-40 then contains several aphorisms providing context to what Jesus wants them to do. Despite this quite well-defined structure, on the assumption of the MwQH / Farrer hypothesis aLuke went to extreme measures to split up Matthew 10 and place parallels to almost all of it in eight different chapters of his own gospel, and in some instances placing parallels to one verse in Matthew in two different chapters. Perhaps surprisingly, a significant portion of Matthew 10 has no Markan parallel and so is part of the Double Tradition. Even more surprising is the fact that on the MwQH it appears that aLuke copied these portions of Matthew 10 by using at least three intertwined passes through the text of Matthew:
He spread parallels to the instructions in Matthew 10:1-22 across Luke 6, 9, 10, 12, 21, and replaced Mt 10:23 by Lk 21:19;
He then ‘backtracked’ in his text, going back to spread parallels of the aphorisms in Mt 10:24-39 across Luke 6, 12, 14 and 17;
Finally, he ‘backtracked’ again to place a parallel of Mt 10:40 at Lk 10:16, ignoring Mt 10:41-42.
To achieve this on the MwQH presupposes an almost bizarre amount of planning by aLuke, knowing how he wanted to split up Matthew 10, and where he wanted to place the pieces relative to other text he was going to include, before even beginning to write any of these sections of his gospel. These actions appear so extraordinary that it is almost impossible to envisage aLuke rearranging the contents of Matthew 10 in this way so as to achieve the observed result, putting a very large question mark against this procedure on the basis of the MwQH.
However, none of the above prevents the reverse, i.e. with aMatthew gathering together small pieces of text from multiple chapters of what we know as Luke (possibly together with small portions of Mark) in order to construct what we see as Matthew 10. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that these pieces of text would have been in their Lukan form when aMatthew created his gospel, because they could have instead been in another source document (or documents). However, this could not have been Q as usually defined because of the Markan parallels to Matthew 10, unless all of those parallels are considered to be Mark-Q overlaps.
In ‘Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel’ John S Kloppenborg notes this behavior, commenting on how the portions of the double tradition material in Matthew 10 that follow the same order (although not the same placement relative to other text) as in Luke. Then, and from the point of view of the Mark-Q hypothesis, he notes: “That Q was written first is also suggested by the fact that Matthew and Luke concur in the relative sequence of more than 30 percent of the double tradition pericopae” (what is below termed the ‘Main Sequence’) and then points out that in addition:
Matthew has clusters of double tradition materials that in Luke are scattered, but nonetheless, Matthew presents the sayings in Lukan order, as if he had scanned Q, lifting out and collecting sayings as he found them in Q. For example:
Matt 10:24-25 Luke 6:40
Matt 10:26-33 Luke 12:2-9
Matt 10:34-36 Luke 12:51-53
Matt 10:37-38 Luke 14:26-27
Matt 10:39 Luke 17:33
Such agreements in sequence are explicable only on the assumption of reliance on a common document, for it would be extraordinarily unlikely that two authors, drawing on a pool of oral sayings, would display so high a degree of sequential agreement, especially if nothing in the sayings requires a particular ordering relative to other sayings.
Of course, while Kloppenborg writes that "Matthew presents the sayings in Lukan order," it is of course equally valid to say that "Luke presents the sayings in Matthean order." Simply put they are in the same order, but are collected together in Matthew while scattered across Luke, and although Kloppenborg here has in mind Q as a source, his above “assumption of reliance on a common document” applies equally to any other synoptic hypothesis that includes a second (i.e. non-Markan) source, such as the 3SH and MwEL (Mark with Early Luke) hypotheses.
Although this is a strong indication that here Matthew and Luke follow the same order, Kloppenborg does not note that the parallel to Matt 10:40 is earlier, at Luke 10:16, nor that for some of the above Matthean verses there are additional parallels in Luke 8, 9, and 18, so being doublets in Luke. Additionally, Kloppenborg only notes some of the verses in Matthew 10 that are part of a doublet, as using the definitions of doublets and formulas in the Introduction to Doublets there are:
Seven double tradition doublets/formulas in Matthew at least one half of which is in Matthew 10;
Ten double tradition doublets/formulas in Luke that have parallels in Matthew 10;
Six instances in which text in Matthew 10 and the parallel text in Luke are both halves of double tradition doublets/formulas.
Although Matthew 10 contains approximately just 4% of the text of Matthew, six of the ten doublets in Luke noted by Hawkins (Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9) have parallels in this one chapter of Matthew, and this on its own suggests that Matthew 10 was constructed in a manner very different to the rest of Matthew. It appears that if aLuke knew Matthew then he effectively ‘dissected’ the text of Matthew 10, spreading the double tradition halves of his doublets having parallels in Matthew 10 across Luke 10, 12, 14 and 17, while if aMatthew knew Luke he gathered together parallels of verses taken from Luke 10, 12, 14 and 17 and placed them all just in Matthew 10. However, if instead both Matthew and Luke independently created parallel versions of these verses taken from another source then their actions depend on the order of the originals in that source.
The verses in Mathew 10 that are halves of doublets/formulas in Matthew and/or have parallel doublets/formulas in Luke are examined below. They include almost all of the sets of detailed instructions that Jesus gives to the disciples in Mt 10:7, 10-15, 17-20, as well as the ‘grab bag’ of pithy aphorisms in Mt 10:26, 33, 35, 37-40a. There are also three doublets/formulas in Matthew 10 that have no corresponding double tradition text in Luke, but are discussed here for completeness:
Mk -, Mt 10:6 // 15:24, Lk - – The lost sheep of the house of Israel (Hawkins: Formula Peculiar to Matthew 5)
Mk 13:13a, Mt 10:22a // 24:9b, Lk 21:17 - Hated of all men // nations (Hawkins: Doublet in Matthew No. 5)
Mk 13:13b, Mt 10:22b // 24:13, Lk - – Enduring to the end (Hawkins: Doublet in Matthew No. 6)
Unless otherwise specified (typically in relation to numbering by Hawkins, or the position in one of his lists) the term ‘doublet’ below should be taken to include formulas and other short parallel groups of words as described in the Introduction to Doublets.
Although ‘lost sheep’ are mentioned in both Ps 119 and Jer 50:6 (My people hath been lost sheep), the source of the complete phrase ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel’ is unknown as in the Bible it only occurs in these two places in Matthew, where it is used to exclude gentiles from the scope of the missions of both the disciples and Jesus. As Mt 10:5b-6, 15:23-25 are unique to Matthew then if aLuke knew Matthew he chose to ignore or exclude these verses (so removing the restriction), while if he did not know Matthew (e.g. as on the Mark-Q hypothesis) then he most likely did not know this restriction as it is not in Mark.
While it is clearly conceivable that there might have been another (second) source containing at least one version of this text and that aMatthew chose to include it while aLuke did not, on a strict definition of Q (Double Tradition text only) this source could not have been Q because this text is not in Luke. However, other potential second sources (e.g. an Early Luke) do not have this limitation. It is worth noting that in his commentary on Marcion’s Gospel of the Lord (The Evangelion, or Ev) Tertullian references the lost sheep, and while it has been suggested that he was thinking of Matthew here, this could indicate that Ev contained something similar to Mt 10:6 // 15.24.
In Horae Synopticae Hawkins writes as follows regarding his doublets in Matthew Nos. 19 and 20:
The two following doublets differ from the preceding ones, in that they bring out identities between Matthew’s records of the Baptist’s ministry and that of Jesus.
And then regarding No. 19 specifically he notes:
Mt seems in A [Mt 3:2] to be expanding, in B [Mt 4:17] to be summarizing, the corresponding passages of Mk [Mk 1:4 and 1:14-15 respectively], but in both he attributes identically the same proclamation to the Baptist and to Jesus respectively.
See also Mt x. 7; Lk x. 9, 11.
Hawkins does not mention Lk 3:3, even though in his related diagram he shows that Mk 1:4 and Lk 3:3 share a phrase: ‘κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν’ (preaching a baptism of repentance) that only occurs in these two places in the gospels. However, because Mk 1:4 and Lk 3:3 do not mention the kingdom of heaven this author also does not consider either verse to be part of this particular doublet.
Hawkins refers to this as a doublet in Matthew, but his suggestion to “See also Mt x. 7; Lk x. 9, 11” shows that he recognized that if you take these additional verses into account this could be considered to be a triplet in Matthew and a doublet in Luke. However, he does not mention this when considering the missions of the twelve and seventy (which include these verses) which he records as his Doublet No. 4 in Luke. He does however note a formula in Mt 4:17, 10:7, where he records the following “repetitions” of ‘the kingdom of heaven is near’ in Matthew, with associated parallels in Mark and Luke:
3. ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν Mt iv. 17 = Mk i. 15 (τοῦ θεοῦ) ; and Mt x. 7 = (?) Lk x. 9 (τ. θεοῦ : cf. also v. 11) : also Mt iii. 2.
Hawkins does not indicate that ‘the kingdom of heaven is near’ is associated with his doublet in Matthew No. 19, but this may be because of the number of times that this phrase occurs in Matthew. The phrase “the kingdom of God” occurs 15 times in Mark, five times in Matthew, and 32 times in Luke, while the parallel “the kingdom of heaven” occurs 32 times (all in Matthew), and so appears to be simply a Matthean preference for this phrase over the corresponding “the kingdom of God.” From the number of times these phrases are used it is clear that both on their own are formulaic, and it is only the addition of “is at hand” (in Mark and Matthew) and “is come nigh unto you” (in Luke) that suggests that the expanded forms of the phrases in Mt 3:2 // 4:17b // 10:7 and Lk 10:9b // 11b should be considered to be a triplet and doublet respectively (But see also Hawkins’ Doublet in Luke No. 4 with regard to Lk 10:9b and 11b, below).
Mk 1:4b / Mt 3:2 / Lk 3:3b are part of the triple tradition, with Mk 1:4b as their source, although aMatthew has chosen to introduce “the kingdom of heaven” here, possibly referring to the kingdom created by the God of heaven in Dan 2:44 in preference to “the baptism of repentance” in Mk 1:4b. The source of Mt 4:17b is not so clear, with the alignment suggesting that Mk 1:15 is the source of Mt 4:17b, as μετανοεῖτε and γὰρ (Repent … for) are not present in a few mss, but if so it may have been harmonized with Mt 3:2 when “God” was changed to “heaven.” As there is no corresponding Markan text in the same context as Mt 10:7 and Lk 10:9b they are double tradition verses, as also are Mt 10:8-13, 16a / Lk 10:3-6, 7b-9a. On this basis it is reasonable to hypothesize that:
On the MwQH the first reference to preaching “the kingdom of god is at hand” is in Mk 1:14c-15, with Mt 4:17 being the first use of the altered version of the phrase (heaven instead of god) in Matthew. Mt 10:7 is then a ‘re-purposed’ version of Mt 4:17b (omitting any suggestion of repentance), and as Luke has ‘god’ rather than ‘heaven’ then Lk 10:9b is a redacted version of Mt 10:7;
On the Mark-Q hypothesis Q 10:9b is the source of Mt 10:7 / Lk 10:9b. As Mk 1:15 / Mt 4:17b / Lk 9:2 are parallel (they are in the same context), this is an example of a Mark-Q overlap in both Matthew and Luke;
On the MwEL hypothesis Early Luke (with no parallel in ELuke 4 to Mk 1:15 / Mt 4:17b) is the source of both Mt 10:7 and Lk 10:9b. Alternatively, if ELuke did not depend on Mark then this could be a Mark-ELuke overlap;
On the Early Marcion hypothesis Ev 10:9 is the source of both Mt 10:7 and Lk 10:9b, and aEv could have used Mk 1:15b as the source of Ev 10:9.
Note: The parallels in Mk 6:11, Mt 10:14 and Lk 10:10-11 are discussed in more detail in the following sections.
In Mark and Q H.T. Fleddermann discusses a Mark-Q Overlap that he identifies as ‘10. The Mission Discourse’
Mark 6,7-13 (Matt 9,37-38; 10,7-16; 11,21-23; 10,40 par. Luke 10,2-16)
Although this includes several verses identified above, Fleddermann does not include Lk 9:3-4, and instead adds Matt 9,37-38, 11,21-23, and 10,40. He also includes Luke 10,16, but separately records this as part of the ‘On Accepting’ overlap: Mark 9,37 (Matt 10,40 par. Luke 10,16). Additionally, Mt 9:37-38 / Lk 10:2 and Mt 11:21-23 / Lk 10:13-15 are double tradition verses (that do not overlap with Mark), so arguably Fleddermann should record ‘The Mission Discourse” as no more than:
Mark 6,7-13 (Matt 10,7-16 par. Luke 10,3-12)
This largely agrees with the verses identified by Hawkins, who provides very little analysis of these passages (in which Mk 6:8, 10-11, Mt 10:10-12, 14, Lk 9:3-5, and Lk 10:4-5, 7, 10-11 all have text in common), writing:
We have come to the complicated matter of the charges to the Twelve and the Seventy, but here we are only concerned with those portions of them which Lk substantially repeats.
Apart from one “trifling change” his only comment is that “there is nothing exclusively belonging to Lk A and Lk B,” providing no insight as to how or why aLuke chose to include two different sendings in his gospel. He also seems to ignore Mt 10:7 and Lk 10:9-11 being connected to his doublet in Matthew No. 19, as all three refer to “the kingdom of God/heaven” being close, and in particular that Lk 10:9b // 11b are an obvious doublet.
An initial glance suggests that the passages about the sending of the disciples appear to be derived from two different sources, one short, and one longer with much more detail:
Short: Mk 6:7-11 and Lk 9:1-5. In both passages twelve disciples are sent.
Long: Mt 10:5-15 (twelve disciples) and Lk 10:1-12 (seventy[two] disciples)
It is noteworthy that Lk 22:35, which clearly refers back to Lk 10:4 (Not in Ev according to Tertullian), has no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, lending weight to the suggestion of different sources for the short and long sending passages. In ‘The Davidic Shepherd King in the Lukan Narrative’ Sarah Harris writes:
The shepherd saying falls within the household mission mandate (10:1-24). The pericope is unique to Luke, while the shepherd saying shares some aspects of the Matthean command when Jesus sends out the twelve (Matt 10:7-8).
Then, in the thesis on which this is based (but not in the book itself), Harris adds this footnote:
Because this is a second sending account, is unique to Luke and has some similarities with Matthew's sending of the twelve, there is discussion about whether these are two separate events, if two accounts have been shaped out of one Q source, or if this is a Lukan creation. Bock says that 22:35 which is special Lukan material may indicate two accounts and Fitzmyer suggests this is a 'doublet coming from Q,' but Marshall notes that Luke does not normally use doublets. Johnson believes this is a unique account as it resembles 9:1-6 and the Synoptics, but contains many distinctions that suggest it is a separate event. For a summary see Bock, Luke, 986-991. See also Marshall, Gospel of Luke, 412-413; Fitzmyer, According to Luke, 842; Johnson, Gospel of Luke, 169-171.
What I. Howard Marshall actually states regarding doublets in Luke is:
At the same time we must ask why Luke, who on the whole avoids ‘doublets’, has allowed these two very similar accounts to stand in his Gospel.
Marshall says that aLuke “on the whole avoids ‘doublets’,” but what does that mean here? It is certainly true that Matthew has more doublets than Luke, but what is normal for Luke? Hawkins counts 22 doublets in Matthew versus 10 in Luke, but 6 of the 10 in Luke have parallels in Matthew 10, i.e. are in Matthew’s sending of the disciples. For whatever reason it appears that aLuke made an exception to his 'avoidance' of doublets in his sending passages.
On the assumption that aMatthew knew the short sending in Mark it appears that he essentially added detail to the short sending to form his long sending rather than having separate short and long accounts. In contrast, aLuke chose to create two different passages, adding a (unique to Luke) second sending of a much larger group of disciples, in which he provided more detail that largely parallels that in Mt 10:5-15. The sending of the twelve in Luke appears to have originated in Mark, while the sending of the seventy appears to be a version of something that originated either in Matthew or another source.
On the MwQH it would appear to be very odd for aLuke to have created a unique long second sending, as it would seem much more reasonable for him to have added whatever detail he wanted to the first sending, and then referred back to those details in his (unique) second sending if he wanted to. As it is, putting the additional detail into a unique second sending is hard to explain without there having been a second source containing the additional information. Nevertheless, the two sendings in Luke do have various things in common:
Lk 9:3-5 has a parallel in Mt 10:9-14, except that there is no parallel in these verses to Mt 10:10a, 12-13 (which themselves have no parallels in Mk). This in itself is not strange, and can simply be regarded as aLuke editing Matthew.
At Lk 10:4-6 we find the ‘missing’ parallels to Mt 10:10a, 12-13, and at Lk 10:10-11a there is a second parallel to Mt 10:14.
It appears as though aLuke ‘split’ Mt 10:9-14 and used pieces of the passage in two different places.
While Lk 9:3-5 and 10:10 have parallels in both Mark and Matthew, Lk 10:4-6 only has parallels in Matthew.
Again on the MwQH, it appears that aMatthew has inserted Mt 10:10a, 12-13 into what is otherwise a fairly faithful copy of Mk 6:8-11, and that aLuke has then moved this non-Markan insertion to a different place in his narrative, but for some reason then added another copy of Mt 10:14 to his text.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis the longer sending was in Q, and Mk 6:11a / Mt 10:14 / Lk 9:5a // 10:10-11a is a Mark-Q overlap. aMatthew chose to conflate what he saw in Q with Mk 6:8-11, so creating a sending of the twelve with much more detail than in Mark, while aLuke (who did not know what aMatthew had done) instead chose to have a close parallel to Mk 6:8-11 and add a new sending based on what he saw in Q.
On the MwEL hypothesis there are two possible scenarios:
The sending of the seventy(-two) originated in Early Luke, and aMatthew incorporated some elements of this second sending into his sending of the twelve. aLuke then included both sendings in his narrative.
The author of Early Luke took the sending of the twelve from Mark and wrote a parallel in Early Luke, while aMatthew did the same thing but added more detail to it. aLuke then took the sending of the twelve from Mark / Early Luke and created the second sending from the longer version in Matthew.
The actions of aLuke are certainly much more understandable on the basis of a second source, but, as is so often the case, this can be countered by the argument that, as an author, aLuke was free to make whatever changes he wanted to what he got from his source, however odd those changes (e.g. as on the MwQH) may appear to us.
There are four places in the gospels at which Jesus instructs the disciples as to what to do if the people in a city are not receptive to their messages, i.e. if they “shall/will not receive you” or “receive you not.” In all four instances the Greek is almost identical, with only a minor difference between the pairs Mk 6:11a / Mt 10:14 and Lk 9:5a // 10:10. In Mk 6:11 and Lk 9:5 Jesus adds that the act shaking the dust off their feet is a “testimony against them,” while in Lk 10:11 Jesus directly tells the disciples to say why they are wiping off the dust.
On the MwQH Mk 6:11 is the source of Mt 10:14, and Lk 9:5a merges both, omitting the mention of hearing the disciples' words but including the testimony. Lk 10:10-11 is then an expanded version of Lk 9:5.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis Q 10:10-11 is the source of Lk 10:10-11, and there is a Mark-Q overlap in Luke: Mk 6:11a / Lk 9:5a // 10:10-11a / Mt 10:14.
On the MwEL hypothesis Mk 6:11 is the source of ELk 9:5, Mt 10:14 is a merged version of Mk 6:11 and ELk 9:5, and Lk 10:10-11 is an expansion of ELk 9:5 / Lk 9:5.
There is a doublet in Matthew at Mt 10:15 // 11:24, with parallels at Mk 6:11c / Lk 10:12. Because Mk 6:7-11a, Mt 10:5-14, Lk 9:1-5 constitute a triple tradition passage it is clear that Mk 6:11c / Mt 10:15 are parallels, but there is no corresponding parallel in Luke between Lk 9:5 and Lk 9:6. Instead, the only verse in Luke that corresponds to Mk 6:11c / Mt 10:15 comes later, at Lk 10:12. Hawkins comments:
Matthew A [10:15] and Lk are placed opposite, as those passages come from the charges to the Twelve and Seventy which are so closely connected. Their origin is probably Logian, and the rare word ἀνεκτότερον suggests that B [Mt 11:24] may come from the same source.
Hawkins considers this evidence of a second source (in the form of the Logia), while in ‘Sources of the Synoptic Gospels,’ Carl S. Patton suggests that with regard to Mt 11:23b-24 the parallels were instead in Q:
Following the woes, Matthew alone has this statement of the reasons for their being given. He has a doublet for vs. 24 in x, 15. As this latter is paralleled by Lk x, 12, it may in that context be assigned to Q; here it may be assigned either to Matthew or one of his early editors.
However, Wieland Willker (Mark, TVU 119) identifies Mt 10:14-15 and Lk 9:5 as parallels to Mk 6:11, noting Mt 11:24 and Lk 10:12 as other verses for comparison, but apparently not seeing a doublet here. In addition, Willker also notes that Mk 6:11c is a Byzantine variant (in A, f1, f13, 33, 157, 579, 700, 892mg, Maj, a, f, q, Sy-P, Sy-H, bopt, goth), and states:
The words clearly come from Mt 10:15. Note that both Mt and Lk have this addition against Mk (Minor Agreement).
For this to be a Minor Agreement Mk 6:11c, Mt 10:15 and Lk 10:12 would all have to be parallels in the same context, but where Willker identifies Mt 10:14-15 / Lk 9:5 as parallels to Mk 6:11 he notes that Lk 9:5 “does not have the words,” meaning that it contains no parallel to Mk 6:11c / Mt 10:15, so his statements are contradictory. There is no doubt that Mk 6:11 is parallel to Mt 10:14-15, and the question is therefore whether the context in which Lk 10:12 is located more closely matches that of Mt 10:15 or 11:24, the answer to which has a bearing on whether Mk 6:11c is original or not.
Hawkins places Mt 10:15 and Lk 10:12 as ‘opposite’ each other, but he does not note that Mt 11:21-23a and Lk 10:13-15 are clearly double tradition verses, making it almost certain that Mt 11:24 and Lk 10:12 (but not Mt 11:23b) are part of the same passage, but with one or other simply having been relocated. In other words it is not Mt 10:15 that is ‘opposite’ Lk 10:12, but instead it is Mt 11:24. Hawkins (above) suggests that Mt 10:15, 11:24 and Lk 10:12 may all come from the same source, and if so then Mt 10:15 // 11:24 is a redactional doublet rather than a source doublet, and Mk 6:11c probably has Mt 10:15 as a source. However, that is only because on Hawkins’ alignment of verses Mt 10:15 / Lk 10:12 provide the ‘minor agreement’ that suggests that Mk 6:11c is not original. If instead Mt 11:24 is ‘opposite’ Lk 10:12 there is no minor agreement, and in that case the argument for the omission of Mk 6:11c rests solely on the mss supporting the omission against the evidence of the majority of mss.
Lk 10:12 states that it will be more tolerable for Sodom “in that day,” but a few translations (e.g. the GNT) refer to 'the day of judgment' (as in Mt 10:15, 11:24) instead. However, there is no textual support for that reading in Luke, so we have no idea from the text what day is being referred to. However, Mt 11:21-23a and Lk 10:13-15 are clear parallels, and Mt 11:24 is a parallel to Lk 10:12 but they are located differently. There are also variants in Lk 10:14 in which some mss omit ἐν τῇ κρίσει (at the judgment), and some have ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ (in that day) instead (i.e. as in Lk 10:12). On this basis it appears that Lk 10:12 may have been originally located after Lk 10:15 (i.e. in the same context as Mt 11:24) and Lk 10:14 originally had "the day of Judgment," with "that day" in Lk 10:12 then referring back to Lk 10:14. Later, after Lk 10:12 was moved to where we now see it Lk 10:14 was changed in some mss to avoid any confusion with Lk 10:12 in its new position.
Mk 6:11c / Mt 10:15 are almost identical, with the only significant difference being the order of the city names. While the other two verses are also very similar they are not as textually close, but the differences mainly the use of “that day” (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ) instead of “the day of judgment” (ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως), and “that city” instead of “for thee.”
Mt 11:24 πλὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι γῇ Σοδόμων [ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως] ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἢ σοί
Lk 10:12 λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι Σοδόμοις ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἀνεκτότερον ἔσται ἢ τῇ πόλει ἐκείνῃ
If Mt 10:15 is the source of Mk 6:11c then Mk 6:11c cannot be the source of either Mt 11:24 or Lk 10:12, so that:
On the MwQH Mt 10:15 is the source of both Mk 6:11c and Mt 11:24, and Mt 11:24 is the source of Lk 10:12. However, the differences in the Greek and the lack of Gomorrha in Mt 11:23-24 is then a problem;
On the Mark-Q hypothesis Q 10:12 is the source of Mt 10:15 / Lk 10:12, and because Mk 6:11c cannot have been the source of Mt 10:15, Mt 10:15 is (improbably, again because of the differences in the Greek) the source of Mt 11:24;
On the MwEL hypothesis it is possible that ELk 10:12 was the source of both Lk 10:12 and Mt 11:24. Because of the differences (e.g. ‘verily’ ἀμὴν) aMatthew may have used a different source for Mt 10:15, which later became the source of Mk 6:11c.
Alternatively, if Mk 6:11c is original then it can be the source of either Mt 11:24 or Lk 10:12, so that:
On the MwQH Mk 6:11c is the source of Mt 10:15, and either Mk 6:11c or Mt 10:15 is the source of Mt 11:24. It is then likely that Mt 11:24 is the source of Lk 10:12;
On the Mark-Q hypothesis Q 10:12 is the source of Mt 11:24 / Lk 10:12, and Mk 6:11c is the source of Mt 10:15, with Mk 6:11c / Mt 10:15 // 11:24 / Lk 10:12 being a Mark-Q overlap;
On the MwEL hypothesis Mk 6:11c is the source of Mt 10:15 and ELk 10:12, while ELk 10:12 is the source of Mt 11:24 and Lk 10:12.
Because of the difficulties noted above on the assumption that Mt 10:15 is the source of Mk 6:11c, this second alternative appears more likely to be correct, even though the ms evidence appears to be against Lk 6:11c being original.
Mk 13:9, Mt 24:9 // 10:17-18, Lk 21:12-13 // 12:11 – Delivered up … (Formulas in Matthew, Luke)
There are parallels in all three synoptics at Mk 13:1-8 / Mt 24:1-8 / Lk 21:5-11 regarding signs of the end-times, and in Mark and Luke they are directly followed by parallels at Mk 13:9-11 / Lk 21:12-15, but there appear to be no corresponding parallels in the same Matthean context following Mt 24:8. Instead the ‘missing’ parallels are located much earlier in Matthew, at Mt 10:17-18, where they are instead part of the ‘instructions’ to the twelve disciples in the event that they are taken prisoner. Hawkins comments:
The chief resemblances are between Mk and Mt, though the passages are differently placed. In Mt it forms part of a longer passage placed by him in the charge to the Twelve, but hardly likely to have been spoken so early.
It appears that either Matthew saw the parallels in Mark and deliberately moved his parallel forward (to an earlier point at which Mark has no parallel), or he obtained Mt 10:17-18 from another source. There is also a shorter parallel to these passages at Lk 12:11-12, and Hawkins records a doublet at Lk 12:11c-12 // 21:14-15 (take no thought how [or what thing] ye shall answer // not to mediate before ye shall answer) – See below, Hawkins: Doublet in Luke No. 9.
After having detailed his 22 doublets in Matthew, Hawkins adds: “The resemblances between Mt … x. 17 and xxiv. 9a … though worth notice, have not been regarded as sufficient to constitute doublets,” but in addition to this ‘resemblance’ Mk 13:9b, 10 are parallel to Mt 24:9b, 14a respectively. Although Hawkins does not consider the ‘resemblances’ to be a doublet the addition of the parallel in Mark means that it should at least be considered as such, or possibly a formula as here.
In a similar manner to that in Hawkins’ Doublet in Luke No. 8 (above), Mt 10:18b-19a has a close parallel to Mk 13:9c-10 but none in Lk 12:11, while Lk 21:12-13 has no parallel to most of Mk 13:11 but instead adds text in Lk 21:15 that has no parallel in Mark. The ‘natural’ place for a Matthean parallel to Mk 13:9b / Lk 21:12b would be at Mt 24:9, and Mt 24:9 does have a parallel that begin with Jesus telling the audience they will be delivered up, but this then jumps straight to a parallel of Mk 13:12b / Lk 21:16b. Because of this:
On the MwQH the only known source for Mt 10:17-18 is Mk 13:9-10. Either Mk 13:9-10 or Mt 10:17-18 is then the source for Lk 21:12-13, and there is no obvious reason why Lk 12:11 is so different to the parallels in Mark and Matthew, in particular Mt 10:17-18;
On the Mark-Q hypothesis this is a Mark-Q overlap: Mk 13:9 / Mt 24:9 // 10:17 / 12:11. However, the differences between Mt 10:17-18 and Lk 12:11 suggest that aMatthew also conflated Mk 13:9 and Q 12:11;
On the MwEL hypothesis ELk 12:11 appears to be a shorter version of Mk 13:9.
These verses directly follow those in ‘Delivered up … (Formulas in Matthew and Luke) immediately above, and the initial comments on those parallels, including those from Hawkins, apply equally here. In a similar manner to that in Hawkins’ Doublet in Luke No. 8 (above), Mt 10:20 has a close parallel in Mk 13:11e but none in Lk 12:11-12, while Lk 21:14-15 has no parallel in most of Mk 13:11 but instead adds text in Lk 21:15 that has no parallel in Mark, about which Hawkins comments:
As Lk B [21:14:15] and Mk are parallel in position, it is curious that Lk, who speaks most often of the ‘Holy Spirit’ should omit Mk’s words τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον [the Holy Spirit/Ghost] here.
He adds the following regarding ἢ τί (or what) in Lk A [12:11c]:
The bracketed words are omitted by a very strong group of Western authorities; but if they are retained in the text, the phrase πῶς ἢ τί [how or what] forms an important coincidence between Lk A and Mt, and may point to a Logian origin for both.
On the MwQH the only known source for Mt 10:19-20 is Mk 13:11, which makes it hard to explain why aLuke would create two different versions of this text, in which Lk 12:11-12 // 21:14-14 are both significantly different to their parallels in Mt 10:19 and Mk 13:11 respectively. In addition, the Lukan parallels are ‘swapped,’ with the parallel in the same context as Mk 13:11 located nine chapters later than the parallel having no Markan context, an issue similar to that found in Hawkins’ doublet in Luke No. 8 (Lk 20:46 vs. Lk 11:43). Even if (as suggested by Hawkins) both Mt 10:19-20 and Lk 12:11-12 originated in a non-Markan source that does not explain why aLuke would refer to the Holy Ghost in Lk 12:12 (as also in Mk 13:11de) but write something quite different in Lk 21:15.
On both the Mark-Q and MwEL hypotheses the differences between Mt 10:19 and Lk 12:11-12 suggest that aMatthew conflated Mark and another source. For example, Mk 13:11b-e / Mt 10:19bc / Lk 21:14-15 // 12:11c-12 could be a Mark-Q overlap, but with the parallel to Q in Luke (Lk 12:11c-12) located much earlier than the Markan parallel (at Lk 21:15), it appears that at this point aLuke prioritized Q over Mark. While on the Mark-Q hypothesis aLuke had only two possible sources, on the MwEL hypothesis he had three (Mark, Early Luke and Matthew), making it easier to see how in Lk 12:12 aLuke might refer to the Holy Ghost from Mk 13:11e, but later use Early Luke as the basis of Lk 21:15.
Hawkins notes that regarding Mk 13:13a, Mt 10:22a // 24:9b, and Lk 21:17: “All four are identical, except for the addition of τῶν ἐθνῶν [the nations] in Mt B [Mt 24:9b].” The doublet Mt 10:22a // 24:9b appears to have no synoptic impact, and instead appears to simply be aMatthew re-using in Mt 24:9 a phrase he had used previously in Mt 10:22, with a slight change related to the context.
The majority of Luke 21 has parallels in both Mark 13 and Matthew 24, but at Mk 13:11-13 / Lk 21:15-18 the Matthean parallels are from Mt 10:20-22 instead of from ‘missing’ text between Mt 24:14 and 15. Assuming Markan priority aMatthew followed the order of Mk 13:1-9 when writing Mt 24:1-9, added unique verses Mt 24:10-13, and then appears to have ‘backtracked’ to write a very close copy of Mk 13:11e-13 (that we see as Mt 10:20-22) into text of Matthew 10 that he had already written, before returning to paralleling Mk 13:14-37 in Mt 24:15-42.
Essentially Mark 13 / Matthew 24 / Luke 21 are parallel chapters except for the anomaly of Mt 10:20-23 ‘between’ Mt 24:14 and 15, for which there is no obvious explanation. It seems very unlikely that, in the middle of writing his Chapter 24, aMatthew would go back to ‘insert’ his parallels to Mk 13:11e-13 / Lk 21:15-19 into his (already written) Chapter 10, before returning to complete Chapter 24. Depending on the hypothesis aLuke either ignored, or did not know, Mt 24:10-14, and instead followed Mark almost verse for verse (but omitting a parallel to Mk 13:10 and most of 11) for the rest of Luke 21..
Hawkins records the following (reformatted) about this doublet:
Mt A Mt x. 22 ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται
Mt B Mt xxiv. 13 ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται
Mk xiii. 13 ὁ δὲ ὑπομείνας εἰς τέλος οὗτος σωθήσεται
All identical: so here, as in No. 5, no inferences can be drawn.
The simple fact that all three verses contain exactly the same text argues strongly that all have the same source, or that one of them (here assumed to be Mark) is the source of the other two. As Mt 10:22 exists in a context parallel to that in Mk 13:13 (i.e. because Mt 10:20-21 is clearly parallel to Mk 13:11e-12, and as Mt 24:9-12 has no parallel in either Mark or Luke, it appears almost certain that Mt 24:13 is simply a later parallel of Mt 10:22b.
Hawkins does not mention the fact that the parallel in Lk 21:19 is different to Mk 13:13b / Mt 10:22b, even though it does have a similar meaning. In a similar way to the example of Lk 19:44 (above), Epiphanius records that Lk 21:18 was not present in Ev, while Tertullian does not refer to Lk 21:5-6, 15, or 18. As it is also the case that Lk 21:18 is omitted in Sy-C this is another example of possible evidence of a verse unique to Luke that may not have been originally present.
Hawkins comments:
Here the wording is so very similar in Lk A [8:17] and Mk, and in Lk B [12:2] and Matthew respectively, and the difference in wording between the two pairs is so wide, that we seem to have two versions of the saying, the former handed down through the Marcan, the latter through the Logian document.
Hawkins clearly favors the idea of a non-Markan source for Mt 10:26b / Lk 12:2, as does as Patton, referring to Mk 4:21-25; Mt 10:26; Lk 8:16-18 and other verses under the heading ‘A Group of Detached Sayings’:
The divergences in wording, the fact that the verses found together in Mark are separated in both Matthew and Luke, and the additional fact of doublets in Matthew or Luke for all but one of Mark’s verses, indicate beyond a doubt that these verses stood in both Mark and Q.
This doublet is clearly related to Hawkins’ Doublet in Luke No. 1 (above) and this should come as no surprise: Mk 4:22 and Lk 8:17 are the verses immediately following Mk 4:21 and Lk 8:16 from Doublet in Luke No. 1, and the lack of any Markan context for Mt 10:26b / Lk 12:2 also matches what we see in that doublet. Either:
aMatthew and aLuke used Mk 4:22 as the source of Mt 10:26b and Lk 8:17 respectively, and aLuke decided to add a different version at Lk 12:2 based on what he saw in Mt 10:26b; or
aLuke used Mk 4:22 as the source of Lk 8:17, and there was a different version in a second source that aMatthew and aLuke used for Mt 10:26b and Lk 12:2 respectively.
Given the differences in wording between Mk 4:22 / Lk 8:17 and Mt 10:26b / Lk 12:2 it seems unlikely that aLuke would knowingly write a parallel of Mt 10:26b at Lk 12:2 after having already used Mk 4:22 as his source four chapters earlier at Lk 8:17, unless he knew of another source containing this second version of the text.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis this is another example of a Mark-Q overlap: Mk 4:22 / Lk 8:17 // 12:2 / Mt 10:26b, and as with Mk 13:11 aMatthew choosing not to include a parallel to Mk 4:22.
As seen in other examples shown above, Mt 16:27 and Lk 9:26 [Lk A] are in the same context as Mk 8:38 (they are followed by the parallel verses Mt 16:28, Lk 9:27 and Mk 9:1 respectively), while neither Mt 10:32-33 nor Lk 12:8-9 have a Markan context. Hawkins writes:
With some hesitation I have included these verses among the Lucan doublets, although the leading verb is not the same.
The position of Lk A and Mk, and their general similarity, point to a Marcan origin. But Lk A has (i) the remarkable addition of αὐτοῦ, and (ii) the omission of ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ κ.τ.λ., a limitation which would be likely to fall out in the course of oral teaching.
As noted there are some differences in the parallels, particularly the lack of any parallel to most of Mk 8:38 in Mt 16:26-27 (which is therefore not considered to be one half of a doublet), the omission of the text of Mk 8:38b from Lk 9:26, and the inclusion of ‘his own glory’ in Lk 9:26. These and other factors seen in previous examples raise difficulties for the MwQH, perhaps chief of which is the ‘reversing’ of the Matthean verses in comparison with Luke. There is also the difference in the “leading verb” in the doublet in Luke, which is another factor that suggests that Mt 10:32-33 / Lk 12:8-9 have a different origin to Mk 8:38 / Lk 9:26.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis this is yet another example of a Mark-Q overlap: Mk 8:38 / Lk 9:26 // 12:8 / Mt 10:32, and in this instance with aMatthew only having a partial direct parallel to Mk 8:38.
Neither Tertullian nor Epiphanius refer to angels in their comments on Ev 12:8-9. This may be one reason why some commentators suggest that neither were actually reading from Ev, or perhaps that they may have had Matthew in mind at this point, but it should be noted that neither quote the Matthean “which is in heaven.” It could therefore be that Ev had the original, shorter, form, which was then expanded in different ways in Mt 10:32-33 and Lk 12:8-9, as described in Marcion's Gospel Compared Verse by Verse with Luke.
There are two versions of the saying regarding betrayal and fighting within families. The first exists in all three synoptic gospels, and in Mark and Luke it follows the parallels shown above in Hawkins’ Doublet in Luke No. 9 (so being in the same context), while the parallel in Matthew follows the double tradition parallel also in No. 9 in Luke but is in a different context. However, the location of these verses is unusual, since they interrupt the narratives in all three gospels, which would otherwise read as follows:
The second version has parallels at Mt 10:35 and Lk 12:53 but none in Mark, so being double tradition text. In ‘Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord’ Dennis R. MacDonald writes regarding "Mt 10:34-35 < Mk 13:12 < Mt 10:21 (CHILDREN AGAINST PARENTS)":
Matthew redacts Mark 13:12 in 10:21, but a few verses later he seems to present an even earlier version of the same saying. Matthew’s non-Marcan doublet clearly is closer to the biblical antecedent than its equivalent in Mark.17 Notice also that Mark’s version does not make Jesus directly responsible for violence of family divisions. Informing the original saying was Mic 7:6.
17. One should note, however, that Mark seems to be aware of the biblical antecedent: notice the agreement against Matthew in the use of the word ἐπανἱστήμι, “will rebel.”
As MacDonald indicates Mic 7:6 contains what could be the original version of this saying, the closest parallel to which is in Mt 10:35:
For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house. [Mic 7:6].
On the (reasonable) assumption that Mark knew Micah then Mk 13:12a is based on Mic 7:6, to which he added Mk 13:12b. As Mt 10:35 is a close parallel of Mic 7:6 then it is reasonable to assume that aMatthew chose to use both Mk 13:12 and Mic 7:6 in his Chapter 10. On the MwQH aLuke then chose to swap what he saw in Mt 10:21 and 10:35, choosing to place the parallel to Mk 13:12 much later than his parallel to Mic 7:6.
Even if aLuke did not know Matthew there is no need to invoke another source (such as Q or Early Luke) here, because there are already two sources for Matthew and Luke: Mark and Micah. However, the doublets in both Matthew and Luke suggest that two sources were used, and in particular on the Mark-Q hypothesis this is another example of a Mark-Q overlap: Mk 13:12 / Mt 10:21 // 10:35 / Lk 21:16 // 12:53.
Mk 10:29 appears to be the source of an inclusive list of property and family members at Mt 19:29, and a slightly less inclusive list at Lk 18:29b. The other halves of the two doublets are located earlier in both Matthew and Luke, with Mt 10:37 not including a wife but Lk 14:26 including all the family members. A small number of mss omit Mt 10:37b, possibly because the second halves of Mt 10:37 and 38 are the same.
As with some other doublets these differences cause problems for the MwQH, as on this hypothesis either aMatthew created his own list of family members (excluding a wife) at Mt 10:37 but later used the list he saw in Mk 10:29 that did include a wife, or after having written his parallel to Mk 10:29 at Mt 19:29 he then backtracked in order to add a second list that he created specifically for the purpose at Mt 10:37.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis this is also a Mark-Q overlap: Mk 10:29 / Mt 19:29 // 10:37 / Lk 18:29 // 14:26. Both aMatthew and aLuke used Q 14:26, but then depending on the exact text of Q 14:26 either aLuke added ‘wife’ or aMatthew removed it. Also, in both Matthew and Luke the direct parallels to Mark appear later in the gospel than the Q parallels. Unless both authors ‘backtracked’ through their gospels then it appears that at this point they both prioritized Q over Mark. The MwEL hypothesis is similar.
Mk 8:34 / Mt 16:24 / Lk 9:23 are close parallels, with Jesus telling his disciples how they can follow him, while in contrast Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27 give reasons why disciples would not be able to follow him. Although the text of Mt 10:38 looks as though it could have originally followed Mt 16:24 (and Lk 14:27 followed Lk 9:23) the fact that Mark has no parallel to Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27 makes this unlikely. Under the heading ‘Whosoever Will Follow Me’ Patton writes regarding Mk 8:34-35:
Matthew has doublets for this saying in x, 38-39; xvi, 24-25; Luke in ix, 23-24; xiv, 27; xvii, 33. Matthew and Luke copy the Marcan version with unusual fidelity thru about forty words. They agree against him in saying εἴ τις for Mark’s ὅστις, in the substitution of a form (tho not the same form) of the verb ἔρχομαι for ἀκολουθεῖν, and in the employment of a subjunctive in place of an indicative of the verb ἀπόλλυμι. Luke adds the phrase “day by day.” Considering the remarkably close verbal agreement as well as the agreement in order, there can be no doubt that Matthew in xvi, 24-25, and Luke in ix, 23-24, are following Mark; their agreements against him may be explained partly by a desire to correct his style, and partly by assimilation. The resemblances between the other member of the doublet in each case, and the saying as here reported in Mark (i.e., between Mt x, 38-39; Lk xiv, 27; xvii, 33, and Mk viii, 34-35), are sufficiently close to suggest, if not to prove, that Mark’s saying was derived by him from Q.
Patten suggests that Mt 10:38-39 / Lk 17:33 are parallels. However, while Mt 10:39 is certainly parallel to Lk 17:33, Mt 10:38 is instead parallel to Lk 14:27. Also, Lk 17:33 is not parallel to Mk 8:34 / Mt 16:24 / Lk 9:23, while Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27 are parallel. He clearly sees the connection between Mk 8:34-35 and Mt 10:38-39 / Lk 14:27 (although not Lk 17:33), but of course these connections would be natural on the MwQH. However, because aMatthew placed his ‘positive’ parallel to Mk 8:34 later, at Mt 16:24, instead of combing both positive and negative verses, on the MwQH it appears that he wrote Mt 10:38 before he even knew of Mk 8:34, while aLuke also did not combine them but did put the verses in their logical order.
As Mt 10:37 / Lk 14:26 are also double tradition verses it appears that Mt 10:37-38 / Lk 14:26-27 do not come from the same source as Mt 16:24 / Lk 9:23. A few mss omit Mt 10:37b, a different small number omit Mt 10:38a, and P19 (from the 4th century) omits both, perhaps suggesting that Mt 10:37b-38 are not original. If so then these words could have been originally in a non-synoptic source (e.g. Q or Early Luke), that they were originally not in Matthew, and that they were later added because Luke contained similar words from the same source. There is also the possibility that Lk 14:28-33 (with no parallels in either Mark or Matthew) have influenced Mt 10:37-38..
At first sight this pair of doublets appears to follow directly after Hawkins’ Matthew 7 and Luke 5 shown immediately above. However, while this is clearly the case with both sets of Triple Tradition verses: Mk 8:34 / Mt 16:24 / Lk 9:23 and Mk 8:35 / Mt 16:25 / Lk 9:24, it is not so with the pair of double tradition verses: Mt 10:38 / Lk 14:27 and Mt 10:39 / Lk 17:33. As Mt 10:37-38 are both parallel to Lk 14:26-27 it appears that aLuke has simply chosen to place Lk 17:33 (his parallel to Mt 10:39) in a completely different context, possibly suggesting a different source, as also does the text of Lk 17:33 itself, as Hawkins notes:
In this case, unlike the preceding one there are no special similarities between Mt A [10:39] and Lk B [17:33]: indeed the latter differs remarkably from all the other versions of the saying, by containing the unusual verbs περιποιήσασθαι [preserve] and ζῳογονήσει [will keep], both which occur in N.T. elsewhere only once in Acts and once in 1 Tim.
Hawkins also comments on the fact that none of the parallels to Mk 8:35 make any reference to ‘the gospel’:
Observe the characteristic addition of ‘the Gospel’ in Mk: it is one of the few instances in which a later editorial insertion is probable, for it could hardly have been omitted by both Mt and Lk.
However, this is not the straightforward ‘later editorial insertion’ that Hawkins suggests as some mss, including P45, D and several Old Latin mss, instead omit ἐμοῦ καὶ in Mk 8:35 (so reading: ‘but whosoever shall lose his life for the sake of the gospel), and two mss (33, 579) include ‘my sake’ but omit ‘the gospel’ instead. The question is therefore not just why neither Matthew nor Luke include ‘the gospel,’ but why there are three variants in Mark, and why Lk 17:33 does not have either ‘my sake’ or ‘the gospel.’ As Willker (Mark, TVU 185) notes regarding Mk 8:35:
The omission by 33, 579 is clearly a harmonization to Mt. The Byzantine text adds οὗτος from Lk...
The omission of ἐμοῦ καὶ is difficult to explain except as scribal oversight. It is possible that ἐμοῦ καὶ has been added as a harmonization to Mt/Lk, but in that case one would have expected either εὑρήσει (Mt) or οὗτος (Lk).
The long form could also be a conformation to Mk 10:29. But in any case it is rather improbable such a partial harmonization is supported so universally.
Güting (TC Mark, 2005, p. 436) nevertheless thinks that the P45 reading is original.
If the omission is original this would create a Minor Agreements [sic] between Mt and Lk.
Note that this is one of the few cases where the textcritical decision in NA depends on a certain source theory (here Marcan priority: both Mt and Lk have ἐμοῦ so they must have got it from Mk). Note also that both Mt and Lk omit καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου.
Willker’s comment that “both Mt and Lk have ἐμοῦ so they must have got it from Mk” does not answer the question of why aLuke would then not include ‘for my sake’ in Lk 17:33. Instead, it suggests that the source of Lk 17:33 did not include these words, i.e. that the source was not Mk 8:35, for it is not at all likely that aLuke would include the words in Lk 9:24 but then exclude them from Lk 17:33 if he was using the same source for both. This makes it possible that P45, D and the other Old Latin mss referred to above were also influenced by this other source in their omission of ‘for my sake’ in Mk 8:35, and as P45 is the only papyrus ms extant for Mk 8:35 it is even possible that P45 has the original reading of this verse.
On the MwQH there is the same problem as noted above with Hawkins’ Matthew 7 / Luke 5, because with no second source either aMatthew wrote a modified version of Mk 8:35 at Mt 10:39 before writing a close parallel to Mk 8:35 at Mt 16:25, or he wrote Mt 16:25 first and then later backtracked and added the modified version at Mt 10:39. Again, in either case aLuke then reversed the order he saw in Matthew.
For both this and other reasons explained above, for both pairs of doublets it is far less problematic for one half of each doublet to have originated in Mark, and the other half in a second source, e.g. Q or Early Luke. For example, on the Mark-Q hypothesis the Mark-Q overlap is Mk 8:35 / Mt 16:25 // 10:39 / Lk 9:24 // 17:33. Here aLuke has his doublet in the order Mark / Q, while aMatthew reverses this and has Q / Mark.
In Figure 14 in Excavating Q John S. Klopponborg places Mt 10:40 as being parallel to Lk 10:16, with both having Q as their source, although they are significantly different, with Mt 10:40 being about receiving, Lk 10:16a being about hearing (or listening), and Lk 10:16b about despising (or rejecting). On this basis it would instead appear that both Mk 9:37 and Lk 9:48 are closer parallels to Mt 10:40, but both of these verses refer to receiving children, the parallel to which in Matthew is at Mt 18:5. Patton, referring to the parallels Mt 10:40 / Lk 10:16, writes:
Luke has a doublet for this saying in Lk ix, 48, where the form is slightly more like Matthew’s than at this point; but ix, 48, appears to be taken from Mark, with reminiscence of Q. The saying is also given twice in the Fourth Gospel, and with the saying just considered constitutes the total of sayings occurring in all four Gospels. Luke has taken the saying once from Mark and once from Q. Considering Matthew’s partiality to doublets, the fact that he has the saying only once might be taken to indicate its absence from his recension of Q. The saying may therefore be assigned to QLk.
Patton is here noting the difference in the verses used in Mt 10:40 / Lk 10:16, and that if Mt 10:40 had Q 10:16 as a source then it has been edited towards Mt 18:4-5, while Hawkins notes the resemblance between Mt 10:40 and 18:5 but does not consider it strong enough to constitute a doublet. However, there is a key phrase: “him that sent me” (highlighted above) that appears once each in Mark and Matthew (at Mk 9:37 and Mt 10:40 respectively) but two times in Luke (at Lk 9:48 and 10:16), the Greek of which is identical in all four cases. This phrase also occurs eleven times in John, so on its own should be considered to be a ‘repeated phrase’ or ‘formula,’ but as with “the kingdom of heaven” (see Matthew 19 above) the addition of the repeated ‘he/whosoever (verb) you (verb) me” turns this ‘formula’ into a doublet, even though the verb varies.
It is clear from the contexts that Mt 10:40 / Lk 10:16 are ‘standalone’ verses. Neither have a Markan context, and both exist in isolation, as is shown by looking at the parallels to their respective preceding and following verses:
The parallel to Mt 10:39 is Lk 17:33 (see Hawkins: Matthew Doublet in Mt No. 8, Luke No. 6), while the parallels to Mt 10:41 are Mk 9:40 and Lk 9:40c:
The parallel to Lk 10:15 is Mt 11:23a, and there is no parallel Lk 10:17.
In contrast Mk 9:33-37, Mt 18:1-5 and Lk 9:46-50 are all part of the same triple tradition passage on discipleship, and therefore here both Matthew and Luke have Mark as their source. On the MwQH it is hard to provide a reason why aMatthew would ‘split’ the text he saw in Mk 9:37, first placing his parallel to Mk 9:37b at Mt 10:40b, and then later placing his parallel to Mk 9:37a at Mt 18:5, preceded by his own addition at Mt 18:4a, with aLuke then reversing his parallels to Mt 18:4a and 18:5, and also moving his parallel to Mt 10:40 to a later position.
Instead, as with other examples above, it is much easier to see there being two sources for the parallels in both Matthew and Luke, with aMatthew and aLuke simply choosing to use these sources differently with regard to both wording and order. On the assumption of the Mark-Q hypothesis the Mark-Q overlap would be Mk 9:37 / Mt 18:4-5 // 10:40 / Lk 9:48b // 10:16b, with here aMatthew placing his Markan parallel several chapters after his Q parallel, at the same time adding Mt 18:4 and not including a parallel to Mk 9:37b, even though he had already written such a parallel at Mt 10:40b.
The table below records all the doublets (including formulas) just discussed above, except for the three having no double tradition text in Luke. In each case in the ‘Matthew’ columns any doublet half with a parallel in Mark in the same context is listed first, with the half in double tradition text second (and similarly in the ‘Luke’ columns). For identification purposes ‘D’ denotes a doublet, F a formula, and P a formula “Peculiar to” Matthew or Luke. If a doublet or formula is given a number then it is the one used by Hawkins. There are no doublets/formulas here in Mark.
Verses in the double tradition are shown with a colored background. Where they have a parallel in the same gospel (i.e. there is a doublet) and that parallel also has a parallel in Mark then this is a strong indication that these double tradition verses do not have a direct parallel in Mark, but instead have a parallel in a 'second source.' On the Mark-Q hypothesis the 'second source' is Q, but other sources are possible, for example on the MwQH any double tradition verse in Luke can have Matthew as a source. Verse numbers in red mark doublets in which the half with a direct parallel in Mark is located after the half with no direct parallel in Mark.
Beginning at Mt 10:7 the only verses in Matthew 10 that are not part of the double tradition are Mt 10:20-23 and 40b-42. The remaining verses have parallels in 13 widely separated verses of Mark, many of which (on the assumption of the Mark-Q hypothesis) represent a Mark-Q overlap, as indicated by H.T. Fledderman in ‘Mark and Q,’ in which he records 8 of the above 13 sets of double tradition doublets as ‘Overlap Texts:’
Mark 4,22 (Matt 10,26 par. Luke 12,2) What is Hidden will be Revealed
Mark 6,7-13 (Matt 9,37-38; 19,7-16; 11,21-23; 10,40 par. Luke 10,2-16) The Mission Discourse
Mark 8,34b (Matt 10,38 par. Luke 14,27) The Cross Saying
Mark 8,35 (Matt 10,39 par. Luke 17,33) Losing One’s Life
Mark 8,38 (Matt 10,32-33 par. Luke 12,8-9) Jesus and the Son of Man
Mark 9,37 (Matt 10,40 par. Luke 10,16) On Accepting
Mark 13,11 (Matt 10,19-20 par. Luke 12,11-12) On Confessing
Mark 13,12 (Matt 10,34-36 par. Luke 12,51-53) Family Division
Of the 13 sets of parallels involving double tradition doublets shown above, Fleddermann identifies the Markan and Double Tradition verses in 8 of them as constituting Mark-Q overlaps, i.e. places where he sees that Mark and Matthew/Luke appear to be noting two versions of the same saying: i.e. where they ‘overlap’ (Note the overlap in Matthew and Luke between ‘The Mission Discourse’ and ‘On Accepting,’ with ‘The Mission Discourse’ recorded above as three different set of double tradition doublets). However, Fleddermann does not appear to recognize that every instance of an ‘overlap’ involves at least one doublet (in Matthew or Luke), and in three of them there are doublets in both Matthew and Luke, so that there are direct parallels (i.e. in the same context) to Mark in addition to the ‘indirect’ ones in that (on this hypothesis) have Q as their source.
This is important, because it means that in every instance where Fleddermann is noting what appears at first sight to be a Triple Tradition parallel (Mark / Matthew / Luke), it is actually Double Tradition parallel (Matthew / Luke) together with a Markan verse in a different context, where the Markan verse is either part of a triple tradition passage (Mark / Matthew / Luke), or at least has a direct parallel in either Matthew or Luke, none of which is noted by Fleddermann. In other words, what is generally referred to as a Mark-Q overlap is actually a Triple Tradition / Double Tradition (or more accurately a Markan Context / Non-Markan Context) overlap.
The pairs of verses in Matthew and Luke (where they exist) are doublets, and with one half having Mark as its source, and the other having a non-synoptic source, e.g. Q on the Mark-Q hypothesis. Even where the ‘Triple Tradition’ half of the overlap does not have both a Matthean and Lukan parallel to Mark, it is nevertheless in a Markan context. Having recognized these overlaps as essentially Markan / Non-Markan Overlaps, the remaining sets of doublets shown above (i.e. not those identified by Fleddermann as Mark-Q Overlap), should also be considered to be Markan / Non-Markan Overlaps, and so possibly (on the Mark-Q hypothesis) as Mark-Q overlaps.
These sets of doublets appear to be structurally no different to those noted by Fleddermann as Mark-Q overlaps (e.g. including the doublets), and so on that basis it appears that Fleddermann should have included the following overlaps in his analysis:
Mark 1,15 (Matt 10,7 par. Luke 10,9b) Preaching the Kingdom of Heaven/God
Mark 13,9 (Matt 10,17-18a par. Luke 12,11ab) Delivered Up
Mark 10,29 (Matt 10,37 par. Luke 14,26) and/or Wife
It is of course possible that Fleddermann considered that the differences between the doublet halves in this group of verses were too great to represent an overlap, or that the ‘overlap’ did not contain enough text to represent two ‘versions’ of the same original, but in all instances Hawkins thought the similarities sufficient to warrant inclusion in his lists of doublets, formulas, etc. An additional factor to consider is that, as with those recorded by Fleddermann as overlaps, some of the above have doublets in both Matthew and Luke, so making it highly unlikely that the similarities were simply a coincidence.
It must be noted that the fact that over half of the above doublets etc. are recorded by Fleddermann as Mark-Q overlaps, and that the remaining doublets fit the same pattern (and so could also be Mark-Q overlaps) does not mean that any or all of them must be Mark-Q Overlaps. However, it does provide support for the view that Matthean and Lukan parallels to Mark in ‘Markan blocks’ or a ‘Markan context’ have Mark as their source, while those not in a Markan context have a different source. Whether that source was Q, an early version of Luke, something derived from an Aramaic source, or something else, is a completely different issue.
One half of each of the double tradition doublets/formulas in Matthew or Luke discussed above has a parallel in the other half but none in Mark, and those Matthew / Luke parallels are all located so that as the verse numbers in Matthew increase so do those in the parallel in Luke, i.e. these verses are in the nearly one-half of the text of the double tradition in which the verses in Matthew and Luke are in the same order (here referred to as the ‘Main Sequence’), although not in same position relative to Markan or other text. For these verses it can therefore be reasonably inferred that:
If either aMatthew or aLuke knew the other’s gospel then the later author did not deviate from the order he saw in the earlier gospel. For example, on the MwQH for these verses aLuke followed the order in Matthew;
If aMatthew and aLuke did not know each other’s gospel then neither deviated (or, rather implausibly, both deviated in the same way) from the order of the source of that double tradition material. For example, on the Mark-Q hypothesis both kept to the order of Q for these verses.
Whichever applies, this suggests that the way that the double tradition verses in the main sequence were selected for inclusion in Matthew and Luke differed from the way the rest of the double tradition verses (in which the order in Matthew and Luke differs) were selected. Basically, neither aMatthew nor aLuke changed the order of their source material for these double tradition verses.
The discussion above highlights the unique nature of Matthew 10. Not only does a large portion of Matthew 10 consist of double tradition text, but in that text the parallels in Matthew and Luke follow the same order, although not the same placement relative to the Markan parallels in those gospels. In addition, Matthew 10 contains a high concentration of doublets not seen anywhere else in the synoptic gospels: Of the 32 doublets in Matthew and Luke noted by Hawkins, Matthew 10 (and the double tradition parallels in Luke) alone accounts for 12 (37.5%) of them, even though Matthew 10 contains less than 4% of the verses in Matthew. As a result, an examination of how Matthew 10, with particular attention to the doublets, could have been created might be key to eliminating at least some synoptic hypotheses as not being viable.
One consideration is that the doublets might not be the result of actions by Matthew and Luke, but instead by Mark and Luke using parts of Matthew 10 in their respective gospels. Assuming Matthean priority then aMark broke apart what aMatthew had constructed in Matthew 10 and scattered the pieces across seven chapters of his gospel while aLuke, either ignoring or not seeing Mark’s placement of the pieces, arranged his own pieces in five chapters of his gospel, in the process creating a second sending of 70/72 disciples. However, the bizarre actions required of aMark and aLuke on this assumption (both authors de-constructing the whole of Matthew 10, but in different ways) seem so unlikely as to virtually rule out Matthean priority, and instead the most reasonable scenario is that we are instead seeing in Matthew 10 the result of aMatthew gathering together parallels of many individual elements of Mark 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 13, and aLuke doing something similar but gathering his shorter parallels together in two sendings in Luke 9 and 10 respectively, instead of in one place.