All the parallels discussed below include verses in Mark, although in all cases the doublet/formula under discussion is in Matthew, while some also have parallels (but no doublets) in Luke. This group includes the Hawkins doublets in Matthew Nos. 1, 13, 14, 15, 16, 21, as well as nine formulas.
There are multiple places in the synoptic gospels in which Jesus enters a synagogue or is noted as having previously been in one: Mk 1:21/29, 1:39, 3:1, 6:2, Mt 4:23, 9:35, 12:9, 13:54, and Lk 4:15,16,30, 4:44, 6:6, and 13:10. Most of these appear to be ‘generic’ introductions to Jesus’ teaching, but some have specific connections to each other, either as parallels or as doublets, with the verses differing primarily in the locations of the synagogues or whether Jesus was preaching or teaching:
In particular, Mt 4:23 // 9:35 (Hawkins doublet in Matthew No. 15, Mt A and Mt B respectively) is an obvious doublet, albeit with the difference that in Mt 4:23a Jesus “went about all Galilee,” while in Mt 9:35a he “went about all the cities and villages.” Adding to the complexity there are variants at the end of Mt 9:35, with ἐν τῷ λαῷ [among the people] matching the end of Mt 4:23c, but only found in the Byzantine majority text, and in some mss in conjunction with καὶ πολλοὶ ἠκολούθησαν [and many followed him], possibly to ease the otherwise abrupt transition from Mt 9:35 to Mt 9:36.
There are also clear parallels to these verses in Mark and Luke, but while in Mk 1:39a Jesus preached “throughout all Galilee,” in Lk 4:44 there is a tricky variant. Here the critical opinion is that Jesus preached in the synagogues ‘of Judea’ even though the majority of mss read ‘of Galilee,’ while a few read ‘of the Jews.’ However, these variant readings appear to be the result of an editorial change associated with a re-ordering of the text of Luke (see Capernaum or Nazareth first?), with the original reading being ‘Galilee,’ as discussed in Well Known in Galilee - Twice.
As Mk 1:39a and Mt 4:23a (and originally Lk 4:44) refer to the synagogues being in “Galilee” while Mk 6:6b refers to “the villages,” it appears that Mt 9:35a and Lk 13:22a, 8:1a have been influenced by Mk 6:6b regarding the locations, rather than by Mt 4:23a and Lk 4:44 respectively. Hawkins comments:
These very similar summaries of the ministrations of Jesus occur in Mt immediately before the first two of the great collections of His sayings, viz. those in Mt v-vii and x.
The agreement of περιῆγεν both in Mt A and Mt B, and of τὰς κώμας also in B, with Mk vi. 6 gives some slight probability to the suggestion that B gives the passage in its original situation, and that in the course of oral teaching its phraseology may have been made use of to describe the other similar circumstances to which A refers. Dr. Salmon makes a different suggestion, viz. that Mt in A ‘broke off the use of one document to turn to another ; and that the verse is repeated when he turns back to the former document,’ i.e. in B (Introd. To N.T. p. 580).
It is clear that both halves of the doublet Mt 4:23a // 9:35a have parallels in Mark and Luke (Mk 1:39a, 6:6b and Lk 4:44, 8:1a, 13:22a), but for Mt 4:23bc // 9:35bc the situation is more complicated. Mt 4:23b // 9:35b // 24:14a all contain the phrase “gospel of the kingdom.” This appears nowhere else in the New Testament, except perhaps in Mk 1:14c, where the Byzantine majority text reads “the gospel of the kingdom,” but the critical text reads “the gospel of God.” On the basis that the direction of the relationship between the majority text and the critical text is debatable, either Mk 1:14c is the source of this phrase in Mt 4:23b, or Mk 1:14c was assimilated to Mt 4:23b. However, as Mk 13:10 refers to just “the gospel” while Mt 24:14a has ”gospel of the kingdom” it would appear that this may be a favorite phrase of aMatthew that has no other synoptic source.
In addition, as Mt 4:23c // 9:35c // 10:1c also form a triplet, and this ‘healing’ phrase also appears only in Matthew, it would seem more likely that the text in Mt 4:23bc, 9:35bc, 10:1c, and 24:14a was added by aMatthew to what he used from Mk 1:14c, 1:39a, 6:6b, and 13:10 respectively. As there is no obvious source for these additions, it is possible that they are simply embellishments by aMatthew that add ‘color’ to his narrative.
On the assumption of Markan priority Mk 1:41 is the source of Mt 8:3 / Lk 5:13a, and aMatthew later mentioned Jesus stretching forth his hand in two more places. In all five places the Greek is essentially identical, differing only in the position of αὐτοῦ, and in three cases it is followed by the same additional action. The similarities argue strongly for a common source, making it all but certain that aMatthew simply chose to re-use this phrase in Mt 12:49a and 14:31.
Hawkins has the following comment on his doublets in Matthew Nos. 21 and 22:
The two remaining doublets in Matthew are not so interesting to students of the Synoptic Problem as the preceding twenty, because there are no parallels in Mark or Luke with which they can be compared.
Both halves of the doublet in Mt 9:13a // 12:7 appear to be additions (probably from Hos 6:6) by aMatthew to other text in Matthew that does have parallels in Mark and Luke. This seems straightforward on almost any synoptic hypothesis, but it should be noted that there are multiple variants in these verses:
In Mk 2:17b and Mt 9:13b the final words ‘to repentance’ are Byzantine / Majority text readings, both generally considered to be harmonizations to Lk 5:32;
Most of Mk 2:27 has no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, and may be a later addition (possibly a Western non-interpolation) to Mark;
In Codex Bezae Lk 6:5 is located after Lk 6:10, and the following text about a man working on the Sabbath (known as Lk 6:5D) appears in its place: “On the same day, seeing one working on the Sabbath, he said unto him, Man, if thou knowest what you doest, thou art blessed: but if thou dost not know thou art cursed and a transgressor of the law.”;
In Mt 12:8 the word ‘also’ (or ‘even’) appears to be a harmonization to either Mk 2:28 or Lk 6:5b.
The issue of whether Mk 2:27 is original is discussed in Mark 2:27-28 - The Sabbath, and revolves around the use of “man” (or ‘people’ - ἄνθρωπος) in Mk 2:27 and “Son of man” in Mk 2:28. The issue is that “therefore” (ὥστε) in Mk 2:28 implies that the conclusion reached in Mk 2:28 follows from Mk 2:27, which is not in fact the case. Several Old Latin mss avoid this difficulty by having Mk 2:26 followed instead by “I say unto you, the Son of Man is lord also of the Sabbath,” and it appears that both aMatthew and aLuke recognized the problem, as:
Neither Matthew nor Luke contains any text from Mk 2:27b;
Mt 12:6 begins “But I say unto to you” instead of “And he said unto them,” and then adds text not in either Mark or Luke at Mt 12:6b-7;
Lk 6:5 begins “And he said unto them,” (from Mk 2:27a) but then omits the whole of Mk 2:27b, and Lk 6:5b replaces “therefore” from Mk 2:28 by “that.”
At first sight it appears that Mark is the source of what we see in Mt 9:12, 9:13b, 12:6a and 12:8 and that, depending on the synoptic hypothesis, aLuke then used either Mark or Matthew as the source for the parallels in Lk 5:31-32 and 6:5. However, the last two points above instead suggest that Lk 6:5 is actually based on a shortened version of Mk 2:27-28, and not what aLuke may have seen in Mt 12:6-8.
On the Mark-Q hypothesis none of Mt 9:12-13, 12:6-8, and none of Lk 5:31-32, 6:5 were in Q, and so these verses must have their sources in Mark.
On the MwQH the above also applies to Matthew, but the verses in Luke could have their sources in either Mark or Matthew. However, the above points suggest that here Mark is the source for Luke, and we cannot tell from the text whether aLuke saw Mt 9:13a, 12:6b-7 or not (i.e. whether they might have been late additions to Matthew).
On the MwEL hypothesis aLuke would have seen both Mark and Early Luke, and even if he saw Mt 9:13a, 12:6b-7 he could reasonably have chosen not to include these verses if his two other sources did not have them. Regarding the possibility of Ev (The Evangelion) acting as Early Luke here, it is known that Marcion contained parallels of Lk 5:31 and 6:5b, while Lk 5:32, 6:5a are unattested in Ev.
There is a triple tradition passage about the family of Jesus at Mk 3:31-35 / Mt 12:46-50 / Lk 8:19-21. In Mk 3:35a Jesus says that ‘whosoever shall do the will of God’ is his family, to which Matthew adds ‘which is in heaven’ in Mt 12:50a. Matthew has a very similar phrase in Mt 7:21b and 18:14, and a related phrase referring to a human father in Mt 21:31a. This seems to be a very similar situation to that in Hawkins’ Formula 5 in Matthew (above), with there being a common source for the triple tradition passage and aMatthew choosing to re-use the common phrase later in his gospel. Note that although Mt 7:21b is one half of a doublet, Mt 7:21a and its parallel Lk 6:46a are not.
This is another example of a doublet in Matthew in which the half that appears to be much closer textually to the parallel in Mark (Mt 18:8-9, Mt B) comes after the non-Markan other half (Mt 5:29-430, Mt A). Hawkins writes:
Mt B which is parallel in position to Mk is much more similar to it than is Mt A (which may probably come from the Logia). In A there are hardly twenty words or parts of words, in B there are more than fifty, which agree with the language of Mk, an excess which is only partially caused by the greater length of the passage: observe also specially the addition of δεξιὸς, δεξιά in A only, and its inversion of the order of the eye and the hand, besides its omission of the foot.
Using his characteristic reference to the Logia Hawkins suggests that the source of Mt 5:29-30 is not Mark (due to the relative lack of direct parallels to Mk 9:43-48), and for a similar reason not Mt 18:8-9, but instead a second source. However, if so then the obvious question is why do these verses have no parallel in Luke? Regarding Mt 5:29-30 Patton writes:
For this saying there is a doublet in Mt xviii, 8-9, taken from Mk ix, 43-48. Mark may in this passage also have been following Q. That this saying should have been absent from Luke’s recension of Q, while present in that of both Matthew and Mark, and that it should also, as Dr. Stanton maintains, have been absent from Luke’s copy of Mark, seems rather too much of a coincidence. But the saying is like several others which Luke omits because of their strong tincture of asceticism, or because the instructions in them might be understood in too literal a way. Whether it was or was not in Luke’s recension of Q, its character and connection seem to indicate its presence in Matthew’s recension of that document.
Patton suggests two possible reasons why aLuke might have not included any parallels to these verses, but of course any suggestion regarding aLuke’s motives is little more than guesswork. On this point it should be noted that none of Mk 9:43-48 have any parallel in Luke, and the term “The Little Omission” is sometimes used to refer to the lack of any parallels in Luke to Mk 9:41-49, 10:1-12. However, most of these verses do have parallels in Matthew, in particular Mk 9:43, 45, 47. The final phrases of each of these three verses (shown above italicized and enclosed in []), are considered to be part of the longer Majority or Byzantine text, and as a result most critical editions of Mark do not include these words. In addition to these longer endings, the Byzantine mss (and in the case of Mk 9:48 all mss extant for this section of Mark) also include the three verses directly following that are dependent on Isa 66:24:
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. [Mark 9:44, 46, 48]
And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh. [Isa 66:24]
Although Mk 9:43-48 have no parallels in Luke, Mk 9:43, 45, 47 have two different sets of parallels in Matthew, with Mt 5:29-30 referring just to hell, while Mt 18:8-9 refers to the fires of hell. There are other possibly significant differences: In Mark there are separate verses for hand, foot, and eye, while Mt 5:29-30 has verses for (right) eye and hand but not foot, and Mt 18:8 combines hand and foot into one verse, with eye following in Mt 18:9. In Mark, TVU 209 Willker comments on these differences:
We have here a threefold saying of Jesus: hand, foot, eye. The question is if these three sayings were originally symmetric or if the symmetry has been added (or removed) later. Compare also the variants for verse 44, 46, below.
It can be noted that
the Byzantine text has always the fullest form. This is as it should be.
W, f1 and 28 have one short form in the first and the other short form in the second saying. The same is true for 700, but the other way round. Deliberately?
only 01 and B have txt in all three sayings (one long, two short forms).
(01), L, D, Y, 892 have the short reading in all three cases.
Thus it can be said that the complexity of the variants can best be explained by different intentions of the scribes:
- some always used the fullest possible form (Byz).
- some always used the shortest form (to get symmetry?): L, D et al.
- same wanted some variation to break the monotony: W, f1, 28, 700
This of course does not really help us to find the original.
It is possible that the variant of W et al. in the first saying is due to homoioarcton (EIST - EIST). It is also possible that it has been changed deliberately to get different readings for each verse.
There is also the possibility that the txt reading is a conflation of the two other variants. Against this can be said that no different text types are involved. And what would be the correct one of the two short readings?
εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον must be original at least once. Otherwise it would be extremely difficult to explain the different distribution of witnesses. If this is correct, then the long reading must be correct in saying one.
It is probable that in the second saying the Byzantine reading is a harmonization to verse 43. On the other hand the long reading could have been shortened deliberately again to get some variation.
In the third saying the τοῦ πυρὸς is strange. One would have expected εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον here again. So it is either original or it must be a harmonization to Mt (so many commentators). If it is original, why should it have been omitted? Compare Mt 5:22 γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. Probably not an unusual term. F/09 reads τοῦ πυρὸς in all three verses.
Willker later adds: “Looking back to the variants in 9:43-48, it seems that the Byzantine text is designed to make the three sayings symmetric and better memorable by repetition” (perhaps for liturgical purposes), and that in Matthew the parallel verses did not get used in the same way.
Assuming Markan priority Mk 9:43, 45, 47 would have been seen by both aMatthew and aLuke, so any valid synoptic hypothesis based on this assumption needs to be capable of explaining why Matthew has two different versions of these verses and Luke has none. Even though the differences between the two halves of the doublets in Matthew suggest perhaps that one is derived from the shorter text in Mark, and the other from the longer Byzantine text, this does not explain the lack of any parallels to Mk 9:44, 46, 48 in Matthew nor does it suggest how aMatthew might have seen both the longer and shorter text of Mk 9:43, 45, 47:
This is a particularly difficult point for the Mark-Q hypothesis, since by definition Mt 5:29-30 and 18:8-9 (with no parallels in Luke) cannot have had parallels in Q, and so there is no additional written source in which aMatthew could have seen a second version of these verses. With regard to aLuke, it is possible for him to have simply decided to not include parallels to Mk 9:43-48 for a reason that made sense to him, but it is also conceivable that he simply did not see any of Mk 9:41-10:12 in his copy of Mark, but neither of these possibilities can be either verified or falsified;
The MwQH faces even greater difficulties over this doublet. Again, there is the problem of aMatthew creating two different versions of these verses from Mark, his only written source, but in this hypothesis aLuke would have seen the doublet in Matthew whether or not his copy of Mark included Mk 9:41-10:12, making it even harder to explain why he did not include parallels in Luke to any of these verses;
On the MwEL hypothesis the situation regarding aMatthew seems straightforward: Mark contained the original of these verses, Early Luke contained a second version, and aMatthew included parallels of both in Matthew. However, aLuke would then have seen the doublet in Matthew, the version in Early Luke, and (possibly) the original in Mark, so why would he not have included at least one parallel in Luke? One possibility is that having seen at least three versions he was simply unsure which one(s) to trust, and this would be even more likely if his copy of Mark did not include these verses. Alternatively, if Early Luke did not contain a parallel of these verses (for whatever reason), then the situation is effectively the same as on the MwQH.
None of these hypotheses provides a ready explanation for both the doublet in Matthew and the lack of any parallel in Luke, even if aLuke did not see Mk 9:41-10:12 and (on the MwEL hypothesis) also parallels to these verses in Early Luke. This problem appears to be tied up with the variants in Mk 9:43-48, and it is conceivable that aMatthew saw the different variants in two different copies of Mark. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, one of the variants came from an oral source to which aLuke had no access.
See also:
Mk 5:34 // 10:52, Mt 9:22, Lk 8:48 // 18:42 // 7:50 // 17:19 – Thy faith hath made thee whole (Hawkins: Formulas 2&3 in Luke)
Mk 3:22, Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24, Lk 11:14-15 - Casting out devils (Hawkins: Doublet in Matthew No. 17)
This doublet is unusual as it is less about the re-use of the same Greek text in two passages in the same gospel, but more about the fact that there are five passages in which Jesus heals a blind man (Mark and Luke) or two blind men (Matthew). One of the passages in Mark has parallels in both Matthew and Luke, while the other has a parallel in Matthew only, but is located at a point where the lack of a corresponding parallel in Luke may be due to this being in the area of The Great Omission in Luke. However, despite the lack of more than a handful of common words, Hawkins sees this as a doublet in Matthew:
The resemblances between Mt A [9:27-31] and Mt B [20:29-34] are such as to suggest strongly that the same miracle may be twice recorded by Mt. Besides those which are printed in thick type as peculiar to him, there are some remarkable ones which are common to A and the synoptic narrative generally, viz. υἱὲ (or υἱὸς) Δαυίδ, and ἐλέησόν, both used twice in B, Mk, and Lk, and the use of κράζειν twice in B and Mk, and once in Lk; also the reference to ‘faith’ in Mk and Lk.
On the other hand an earlier date for A is suggested by the command not to make the miracle known, as well as by the probable references of ἐκεῖθεν to the house of Jairus [Mt 9:18-26]; and it may be that Mt in describing that miracle made use of phraseology familiar to him in the Marcan account of the later one.
The text under discussion is unaffected by the Mark-Q hypothesis because none of this doublet is in double tradition text, and hence none of the text was in Q. Instead, the source of the later half of the doublet (Mt 20:29-34) appears to be Mk 10:46-52, while the earlier (Mt 9:28-31) may be related to Mk 8:22-26, even though there are significant differences between them and there is no parallel to Mk 8:22-26 in Luke. Hawkins suggests that “the same miracle may be twice recorded by Mt,” but this is equally likely to be the case in Mark. In addition, assuming that aMatthew saw Mark then it is very likely that he would simply follow aMark in recording two healings.
We can immediately rule out Mt 20:29-34 as being a source for Mt 9:27-31 because it seems very unlikely that aMatthew would write Mt 20:29-34 as a version of Mk 10:46-52 (but with two blind men), and then backtrack and insert Mt 9:27-31 (again doubling up the blind men) into his narrative. In addition, the comment by Jesus in Mt 9:30 that the blind men should not tell anyone seems likely to depict an earlier event than Mt 20:29-34, suggesting that aMatthew was there using Mk 8:26 as the source instead. However, it is not certain whether aMatthew actually saw the final clause of Mk 8:26, in which Jesus tells the man not to tell anyone that his sight had been restored, and in a note on Mk 8:26 the NET Bible (which reads just “Do not even go into the village“) states:
Codex Bezae (D) replaces “Do not even go into the village” with “Go to your house, and do not tell anyone, not even in the village.” Other mss with some minor variations (Θ Ë13 28 565 2542 pc) expand on this prohibition to read “Go to your house, and if you go into the village, do not tell anyone.” There are several other variants here as well. While these expansions are not part of Mark’s original text, they do accurately reflect the sense of Jesus’ prohibition.
The prevailing opinion is that the shortest reading (do not even go into the town/village) is original, but there is no overall explanation as to why there are various different expansions of Mk 8:26. However, there are other places in Mark in which Jesus requests silence from someone: Three have parallels in both Matthew and Luke, two have a parallel in Matthew only, three have a parallel in Luke only, and in all the parallels Jesus also requests silence.
All of these examples occur in the earlier chapters of Mark, and only in Mk 8:26b is there any doubt over whether Jesus wanted someone to say nothing, and so there would seem to be no reason to truncate this verse if it originally contained the prohibition, while every reason to want to add the prohibition if it was originally not present. aMatthew placed his version of Mk 8:22-26 between three other healing stories: the daughter of Jairus/the bleeding woman (Mt 9:18-26) and the man possessed with a devil (Mt 9:32-34), and in none of these healings did Jesus order that the healing should not be known, so it is unlikely that aMatthew would himself add this detail to Mt 9:30. Indeed, it is worth noting that just four verses earlier Mt 9:26 reads: And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land, in complete contrast to the parallels to this verse at Mk 5:43a / Lk 8:56b, so making it extremely unlikely that aMatthew would add a prohibition in Mt 9:30b if he did not see one in his source. As indicated above it is generally thought that Mk 8:26 did not originally ban the man from telling anyone, so it is possible that Mk 8:26 is not the source of Mt 9:30b.
One point to note is that in both Mt 9:27-31 and Mt 20:29-34 Jesus cures two blind men, whereas in Mk 8:22-26, 10:46-52, and in Lk 18:35-43 he cures one man. These appear to be examples of the well-known phenomenon of aMatthew ‘doubling up’ people and other things with parallels in Mark and Luke, of which the most known example is Jesus riding on an ass and a colt in Mt 21:7. There are other places in Matthew in which Jesus heals groups of people including the blind, but only one other place in which he heals a single person who was blind. This is at Mt 12:22 where Jesus heals a blind and dumb man ‘possessed with a devil,’ and here there is no parallel in Mark. However, in the parallel at Lk 11:14 the man is only dumb, suggesting that here aMatthew is doubling up on the afflictions instead, with the obvious possibility that here Matthew is combining sources.
There is little in the triple tradition passage at Mk 10:46-52 / Mt 20:29-34 / Lk 18:35-43 to suggest any particular synoptic hypothesis, except that Mk 10:49c-50a has no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, and on the Mark-Q hypothesis it is hard to see how aMatthew and aLuke could have both omitted just this small portion of this pericope. The same applies to their omission of the name of the blind man (Bartimeaus) from Mk 10:46, with both points suggesting that Matthew and Luke could not have been independent.
In ‘Mark and Q’ Fleddermann examines a Mark-Q overlap that he gives as “17. On Scandal: Mark 9,42 (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2),” following which he examines “14a. The Son of Man and That Man: Mark 14,21 (Matt 18,6-7 par. Luke 17,1b-2).” This a clearly problematic, but only because Fleddermann has failed to separate the two different passages: one in which the key phrase “but woe to that man by whom” is present in both the triple and double tradition parallels (Mk 14:21a, Mt 26:24a // 18:7, Lk 22:22 // 17:1), and this one in which the phrase is not present, and instead describes two different sets of consequences for the offence referred to previously.
However, unlike in ‘The Son of Man and That Man’ there is no double tradition text here, and so this cannot be a Mark-Q overlap. Instead we have two different punishments, one of which is detailed (drowning), and the other of which is simply suggested. While the second is something that Jesus might well say, the first is much more likely to derive from something before Jesus, such as is referred to in Ex 10:19 and 15:4. Consequently, it is most likely that Mk 9:42 / Mt 18:6 / 17:2 are not part of a doublet. This is reinforced by Mk 9:41 having no connection to Mk 9:42. Indeed, Mk 9:38-41 seem to simply ‘interrupt’ Mk 9:37 and 42, as if this is part of a collection of individual sayings that have been strung together with little thought for how they read.
See also Mk 8:22-26, 10:46-52, Mt 9:27-31 // 20:29-34, Lk 18:35-43 - Healing the Blind Man/Men (Hawkins: Doublet in Matthew No. 16)
The two blind men in Mt 9:27 and the Greek woman in Mt 15:22 call out to Jesus (the son of David) to have mercy on them, and assuming Markan priority these appear to be additions by aMatthew to the originals in Mk 7:26 and 8:22 respectively. However, in all three versions of the triple tradition passage at Mk 4:46-52 / Mt 20-29 / Lk 18:35-43 the blind man (two blind men in Matthew) make the same request of Jesus twice.
The passage about the Greek woman does not exist in Luke, but as this ‘missing’ section of text is part of the Great Omission any explanation of why it has no parallel in Luke depends on the explanation of the Great Omission as a whole. As explanations for this differ according to the assumed synoptic hypothesis this formula in Matthew affords us no insight into which hypothesis is more likely.
All three synoptic gospels contain more than one example of people being afraid of a large group (or multitude) as a result of their possible or actual actions against John the Baptist or Jesus, with similar language being used in several places. The differences largely appear to reflect authorial styles, although in Mt 21:45-46 aMatthew rearranges Mk 12:12 and adds what is effectively a repeat of Mk 14:5c // 21:26c, and Luke does not contain a parallel to any of Mk 6:18-29 / Mt 14:4-12a.
The lack of any parallel to Mk 6:18-29 / Mt 14:4-12a could conceivably be associated with the Great Omission in Luke. Even though it is generally considered that the Great Omission begins at or around the portion of Luke parallel to Mk 6:45 (approximately Lk 9:18), it is worth noting that there is no parallel in Luke to any part of Mk 6:18-29, and that the parallel to Mk 6:17 is located at Lk 3:19-20, so that Luke ‘jumps’ from a parallel to Mk 6:16 to parallel to Mk 6:30, with no text in between, an ‘omission’ of 13 Markan verses. That having been said, in the absence of an explanation for this omission in Luke this formula affords us no insight into which synoptic hypothesis is more likely.
There is nothing synoptically significant in using the same phrase regarding killing servants. In this case it simply represents slight variations in describing the same events, while the second usage is just a unique embellishment to an otherwise generally double tradition passage.
This is closely related to the previous formula (Matthew 12). Again, this represents slight variations in describing the same events, with the second half of the formula being a unique embellishment.
There is nothing synoptically significant in using the same word in two places regarding destroying people, other than to note that aMatthew seems significantly more likely to repeat small details than either aMark or aLuke.
Matthew refers to loving neighbours in three places, in Mt 5:43 in connection with how to treat enemies, and in Mt 19:19 and 22:39 directly stating that this is a commandment, and adding “as thyself.” Mt 5:43 is a unique addition to a double tradition passage, while Mt 19:19 and Mt 22:39 are both in triple tradition passages.
On the MwQH and MwEL hypotheses aLuke saw all three uses of the phrase (both with and without ‘as thyself’), but only chose to include the phrase in his second parallel, perhaps because that is the only place at which Mark also includes the phrase. On the Mark-Q hypothesis aLuke did not see Matthew, and so included the phase in his parallel to Mk 12:31, the only place at which he saw the phrase in his sources, and oddly the last of the three uses in Matthew.
These verses follow the triple tradition parable of the fig tree at Mk 13:28-31 / Mt 24:32-35 / Lk 21:29-33, all of which end with Jesus saying: Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done/fulfilled, and all refer to the time of the coming of the Son of Man. Hawkins notes the difference between the time given in Mt A [24:42] and Mt B [25:13]:
Mt A and Mk are very similar, and are found in the concluding part of the same discourse, though not exactly not in the same connexion. If that discourse comes from the Marcan source, Mt A may have been modified by ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ as a reminiscence of the τὴν ἡμέραν in the other or Logian version of the saying in Mt B, which may have been brought from the Logia with the parallel of the Ten Virgins. But this is only a doubtful matter of detail.
It will have been seen that the use of ἡμέρᾳ is a mark, though not an important one, of Mt A and B only.
It is clear that Mk 13:34-35, Mt 24:42, Lk 21:35-36 are triple tradition continuations from the parable of the fig tree, and hence do not favor any particular synoptic hypothesis. However, Matthew has no parallels to Mk 13:33-34 / Lk 21:34-35 and instead contains double tradition additions at Mt 24:37-41 that have parallels at Lk 17:26-27, 30, 35-36. On the MwQH aLuke saw these verses in Matthew and moved them forward in his gospel (to Chapter 17), or they came from another source and aMatthew and aLuke used them at different places relative to the material for which Mark was a source.
This phrase occurs three times in Matthew, but nowhere else in the synoptic gospels. As it is also used in Nehemiah and Isaiah it is very likely that this is simply an old expression known to aMatthew that he chose to include as an introduction, that aMark and aLuke did not. However, the first two uses of the phrase occur earlier in Matthew than the only use that has a parallel in Mark.
The most obvious points about this collection of doublets/formulas are the lack of corresponding doublets in Luke, and the six examples in which those in Matthew are ‘swapped’ with respect to their parallels in Mark.
None of these doublets/formulas in Matthew provide support for the Mark-Q hypothesis, because none of them have parallels in Luke that are either in double tradition text or are one half of a double tradition doublet. It is also probable that “Healing the Blind Man/Men” should not be recorded here due to Mt 9:28-31 / 20:29-34 not really meeting the threshold of a ‘doublet.’ While these two passages do have some words in common, they are spread over several verses and cannot be considered to be ‘common phrases’ of Matthew.
Because none of the doublets in this group have parallels in the double tradition none of the text in these doublets can have been present in Q as usually defined on the Mark-Q hypothesis. However, as discussed in What Exactly is Q? there is no actual ‘barrier’ to a Q-like source having been more extensive than the traditional form of Q, containing at least some material used by Matthew but not Luke (M), some used by Luke but not Matthew (L), and more extensive Mark-Source Overlaps. Consequently, the inclusion of the text under discussion above in a second source that is effectively an expansion of Q cannot be automatically ruled out, and this applies equally to other potential additional sources such as the Logia, Early Luke, or Ev.