Hawkins notes formulas:
which are used once (or in a few cases twice) by a Synopsist in common with one or both of the others, and that are also used by that Synopsist independently in other parts of his narrative,” and that “repetitions are much more frequent in Matthew [than Luke], and therefore they are treated here in connexion with that Gospel especially.
He notes that: “There are a few such cases in Luke, chiefly in the one passage vii. 48-50,“ (discussed as a ‘Doublet in Luke with Parallel in Mark’) but then writes: “But such repetitions are much more frequent in Matthew, and therefore they are treated here in connexion with that Gospel especially.” Although some are found in the sections above, others (below) have no component in Mark and therefore have little or no synoptic implication.
Although it appears that there is a direct connection between being cast into outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth, references to people gnashing teeth appear in a total of 14 places in the Bible: Five are in the Old Testament, six are in Matthew (above), and there is one each in Mark (Mk 9:18), Luke (above), and Acts. Of the six in Matthew four (Mt 13:42, 50, 22:13 and 25:30) have no parallel in either Mark or Luke, and therefore appear to be unique additions to Matthew with no synoptic implications.
Although people being cast into outer darkness is the major reason for gnashing of teeth, it is not even the only one in Matthew, and so being cast into outer darkness and gnashing of teeth need to be considered separately. Luke does not contain any reference to being cast into outer darkness, and the equivalent in Lk 13:28c comes after the weeping and gnashing in Lk 13:28a. This is discussed in the analysis of Hawkins’ Doublet in Matthew No. 12 under the heading of ‘Other Double Tradition Doublets.’
Being cast into outer darkness is only found in Matthew, and so there is no evidence that the presence of this phrase in Matthew suggests any particular synoptic hypothesis. Instead, it would appear to be a ‘favorite phrase’ of aMatthew, combined in six places in Matthew with weeping or wailing and so with the combination also appearing to be a favorite phrase that aLuke simply chose to not use:
On the MwQH aMatthew created these phrases and aLuke chose to add a parallel only to that in Mt 8:12b;
On the Mark-Q hypothesis the origin could only be Q. Both phrases appealed to aMatthew who added them at the end of three separate double tradition passages, and also used them in Mt 13:35-52 and 22:11-14, neither of which have any parallel in Luke;
On the MwEL hypothesis the double tradition passages could have originated in Early Luke, but here Mt 13:35-52 and 22:11-14 could also have been in Early Luke, but being what we see as Sondergut Matthew text as a result of aLuke choosing not to include them in his gospel.
In seven places aMatthew uses the phrase ‘And it came to pass, (that) when Jesus had finished / made an end of / ended’ talking to or instructing people (as parables, sayings, or commands) to allow him to begin a new ‘scene’ in his narrative. In the majority of instances these uses are unique to Matthew, but there is one possible exception, at Mt 7:28a. Although Mt 7:28 is shown above as being parallel to Lk 4:31b-32a (a parallel that Hawkins himself marks with ‘?’), it is possible that it may instead be parallel to Lk 7:1a. On p. 132 of Horae Synopticae Hawkins (in discussing how often biblical things are grouped in fives) writes:
… it is hard to believe that it is by accident that we find in St. Matthew the five times repeated formula about Jesus 'ending' his sayings (vii. 28 ; xi. 1 ; xiii. 53 ; xix. 1 ; xxvi. 1).
And then in a footnote on p. 137 referring to his Formula 17 in Matthew:
On this formula, see p. 132 above: it must be transferred to the list of formulas peculiar to Matthew if Lk 7:1 is not taken as parallel to Mt 7:28.
Hawkins appears to be undecided as to whether Mt 7:28 is parallel to Lk 7:1 or to Lk 4:31-32. The problem is that Mt 7:28a is parallel to Lk 7:1a but not to Lk 4:31b, while Mt 7:28b is parallel to Lk 4:32a but not to Lk 7:1b, so making difficult a synoptic solution to these parallels. One issue of course is that here Hawkins is thinking in terms of complete verses, whereas when the text was written verses did not exist, and hence there is no reason to assume that parallels should respect verse boundaries. Consequently, having different parallels for Lk 7:28a and 7:28b should not raise any problems.
What appears to have happened is simply that aMatthew and aLuke chose different locations for their versions of two Triple Tradition passages that in Mark are located at Mk 1:22 and 1:39-45 respectively. In Luke they are at Lk 4:32 and 5:12-14 respectively, while in Matthew one follows the other, at Mt 7:28b-8:4. From this it is clear that Mk 1:22a / Mt 7:28b / Lk 4:32a are all parallel, and that Mt 7:28a is parallel to Lk 7:1a, not Lk 4:31b, as shown below.
In addition to Mt 7:28, 11:1, 13:53, 19:1 and 26:1 all terminating collections of sayings or instructions from Jesus, they all also begin with the highly formulaic Καὶ ἐγένετο (‘And it came to pass,’ or ‘And it happened’), which is also used a great many times in Luke (sometimes with δὲ replacing Καὶ). However, unusually Lk 7:1a does not begin with this phrase, even though it does refer to Jesus ending something, so it appears that only four out of the five uses of both phrases are ‘peculiar to Matthew.’
There is no parallel to Luke immediately before Lk 4:16 because in Luke the Nazareth episode (Lk 4:16-30) has been moved forward (to before Capernaum) in comparison with both Mark (Mk 6:1-6) and Matthew (Mt 13:54-58), and hence the ‘introduction’ to Nazareth is very different in Luke, with Lk 4:14b-15 having been added instead, as described in Capernaum or Nazareth First?. The same applies to the lack of a parallel to Mt 7:28a at Lk 4:31b: The movement of text in Luke in comparison to Matthew means that Mt 7:28 and Lk 4:31 are preceded by different narratives. Finally, there is no parallel to Mt 26:1 at the beginning of Lk 22 because Mt 25:31-46 are unique to Matthew, and hence no parallel is needed between Mt 25:46 and 26:1.
If aMatthew and aLuke did not know each other’s gospels (e.g. on the Mark-Q hypothesis) then all uses of this phrase appear to simply be unique additions by aMatthew.
If aLuke knew Matthew (e.g. as on the MwQH) then aLuke appears to have to have gone to an unusual amount of trouble to remove this phrase wherever he saw it.
On the MwEL hypothesis the simplest explanation is that in these places aLuke followed the example of Early Luke rather than add these formulaic introductions from Matthew.
The source of this phrase is unknown, as in the Bible it only occurs in these two places in Matthew. The second usage is in the explanation of the parables at Mt 13:36-52, a passage that is unique to Matthew, i.e. is part of what is often termed the ‘M’ material. If aLuke knew Matthew he chose to exclude these verses, while if he did not then he did not know this text.
The source of this phrase is unknown as it only occurs in these three places in Matthew. Mt 22:11-13 and 25:30-46 are unique to Matthew. If aLuke knew Matthew he chose to exclude these verses, while if he did not then he did not know this text.
The references to women and children in the feedings of the five and the four thousand are a unique addition in Matthew. It appears that here aMatthew is echoing Ex 12:37b, which refers to 600,000 men and their families (or dependents, children, or women and children). The omission of any parallel in Luke to Mk 8:9a / Mt 15:38 is tied up with the issue of Luke's Great Omission.
The references to blind leaders or guides in Matthew are additions in Matthew, the first instance in otherwise double tradition verses (Mt 15:14b / Lk 6:39b), the second in a collection of woes (Mt 23:13-22) that are unique to Matthew, and the third immediately following the double tradition woes at Mt 23:23 / Lk 11:42). None of these verses exist in a Markan context, and so if aLuke knew Matthew he chose to exclude these verses, while if he did not then he did not know this text.
There are no references in the Bible to any person or thing shining like the sun except in these two verses in Matthew. Mt 13:43 comes at the end of the unique Matthean passage explaining the parables at Mt 13:36-43, while Mt 17:2b is part of the triple tradition passage on the transfiguration, which in Mark references Jesus’ clothes but not his face.
Hawkins makes 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.
This promise, given to Peter in Mt 16:19 and to a group of unspecified people in Mt 18:18, appears to simply be aMatthew re-using a saying, and there is no indication here that two sources are involved. Hawkins refers to this as his doublet in Matthew No. 22, and it is possible that he considers this to be a doublet rather than a formula simply because of the length of the common portion of text, as other than that there is nothing distinctive about the text.
These verses are single-verse additions to Luke that add very little to the narrative at either location, and appear to be superfluous.
None of these doublets/formulas in Matthew have a parallel doublet in either Mark or Luke, and only two even have one parallel in Luke.
As none of these verses have a parallel in Mark then they originated either in Matthew, or in another source (e.g. Q or Early Luke). Whether in Matthew or another source, if aLuke saw them he chose not to include them in his gospel. In a few instances (marked by ?? above) a potential doublet half would be located where there is no parallel because of the presence of Luke's Great Omission.
NEXT: Other Possible Doublets