APOLOGIES: THE ABOVE TEXT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A THIRD TABLE SECTION MATCHING THE PREVIOUS TWO

Note: Lk 8:35-36 is shown above because of its overall similarity to Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24. This point is explored later.

In ‘Mark and Q,’ and on the assumption of the Mark-Q hypothesis, Fleddermann examines in detail ‘The Beelzebul Controversy,’ which he specifies as ‘Mark 3,22-27 (Matt 12,22-30.43-45 par. Luke 11,14-15.17-16),’ so indicating that Mk 3:22-27 has double tradition parallels (with Q as their source) in Mt 12:22-30, 43-45 / Lk 11:14-15, 17-16. It is not clear from this exactly which Matthean and Lukan verses parallel those in Mark, but this becomes clearer where Fleddermann breaks down his examination into five groups of parallel verses. His focus is on re-constructing the text of Q from Matthew and Luke, and as he mentions that “Matthew records a doublet of this section [Q 11,14-15] in Matt 9,32-34” it appears that we can align his parallels as shown below: 

     Mark                              Matthew                      Luke                   Content

Mk 3:21-22     Mt 9:32-33[,34] // Mt 12:22-24     Lk 11:14-15a     Beelzebul

Mk 3:23                                                  [Lk 11:15b]          Satan

Mk 3:24-26                               Mt 12:25b-26     Lk 11:17b-18a   Kingdom and Satan divided

                                                             Mt 12:27-28        Lk 11:19-20       Beelzebub, Spirit/Finger of God

Mk 3:27                                             Mt 12:29-30       Lk 11:21-22       The strong man

                                                             Mt 12:43-45       Lk 11:24-26      The unclean Spirit

Mt 12:27-28, 43-45 / Lk 11:19-20, 24-26 have no Markan parallels and so are part of the double tradition. However, the presence of the doublet Mt 9:32-34 // Mt 12:22-24 suggests that Mt 9:32-34 and Mt 12:22-24 / Lk 11:14-15a could ‘overlap,’ i.e. have different sources, with Mt 9:32-34 having Mk 3:21-23 as its source, and Mt 12:25b-30, 43-45 and Lk 11:17b-18a, 19-26 then all having the same ‘second’ source (which on the Mark-Q hypothesis would be Q, but could be a different source in other hypotheses). The important question is whether Lk 11:14-15 is a closer parallel to Mt 9:32-34 or to Mt 12:22-24, and selecting the correct alignment is crucial to an understanding of how these verses are related. 

Fleddermann notes that: “Matt 9,32-34 … corresponds more closely to Luke 11,14-15 than Matt 12,22-24 does,” but that “Both Matt 9,32 and Matt 12,22 show signs of intense redactional activity.” He also writes: “When we turn to Luke 11,14 we also find signs of redactional activity, but Matt 9,33 agrees closely with Luke 11,14…” However, Hawkins suggests that it is not clear which half of the doublet is a closer parallel to Lk 11:14-15, writing: 

Lk has not been printed exactly opposite Mt A [Mt 9:32-34] or Mt B [Mt 12:22-24]; for while on the one hand it corresponds to B in being given as the occasion for the ‘defensive discourse’ in Mt xii and Lk xi, on the other hand it more closely resembles A in wording.

Textually Lk 11:14-15 is closer to Mt 9:32-34, but its location in the Lukan narrative suggests that it is a parallel to Mt 12:22-24 instead, and on this Patton writes in his comments on Mt 9:32-34: 

Vs. 34 is a doublet of Mt xii, 24; the latter is from Mk iii, 22, where Mark also appears to be following Q. Perhaps ix, 27-34, has been inserted at just this place, in order to warrant the statement of Jesus to John the Baptist that “the blind see and the deaf hear.” It is hardly necessary to assign it to a special literary source.

Hawkins is unsure as to whether Lk 11:14-15 ‘corresponds’ to Mt 9:32-34 or to Mt 12:22-24, while Patton suggests that Mk 3:22 is the source of Mt 12:24 even though Mark “appears to be following Q,” and does not see any need to assign Mt 9:32-34 “to a special literary source” (presumably not Q). As verses Mt 9:33,34 both have a large number of words in common with Lk 11:14,15 respectively it appears that the following alignment of verses is more likely to represent the situation correctly:

                 Mark                               Matthew                                     Luke                  Content

            Mk 3:21-22     Mt 12:22-24 // Mt 9:32-33[,34]          Lk 11:14-15a     Beelzebul

            Mk 3:23                                                                              [Lk 11:15b]        Satan

            Mk 3:24-26   Mt 12:25b-26                                          Lk 11:17b-18a   Kingdom and Satan divided

                                                                       Mt 12:27-28            Lk 11:19-20       Beelzebub, Spirit/Finger of God

            Mk 3:27           Mt 12:29-30                                           Lk 11:21-22       The strong man

                                                                       Mt 12:43-45           Lk 11:24-26       The unclean Spirit

This raises this question of why Mk 3:21-23 is so different from Mt 9:32-34, and why are they located in different contexts. Do they in fact have “a special literary source,” or is there some other reason why they appear to not ‘fit’ here? Additionally, on this revised alignment, why do Mt 12:25b-45 appear to alternate between being Triple and Double Tradition verses? Either: 

• • Mt 9:32-34 has a parallel in Luke 11:14-15 but not Mark, and Mt 12:22-24 has a parallel in Mark 3:21-22 but not Luke; or

  • Mt 9:32-34 has no parallels, and Mt 12:22-24 has parallels in both Mark 3:21-22 and Luke 11:14-15.

Fleddermann determines the content of Q 11:14-15, 17-26 by an analysis of the contents of the corresponding verses in Matthew and Luke shown above, commenting that “from Mk 3,23 Luke basically re-writes Q,” and that “Matthew conflates Mark and Q,” so suggesting that both aMatthew and aLuke deviated significantly from Q, and also that Matthew “will conflate Mark and Q’s sayings on the Unforgivable Sin (Matt 12,31-32).” He also writes that:

Both Matt 9,32 and Matt 12,22 show signs of intense redactional activity,” that Matt 9,33 and 12,23 are both “redactional since Luke records nothing similar and the expressions reflect Matthean theology,” and that “Matthew twice redactionally identifies the adversaries as Pharisees" (Matt 9,34; 12,24).

The implication here seems to be that, according to Fleddermann, the text of Q was somehow unsatisfactory and that both aMatthew and aLuke made different changes in their respective gospels, so that he was not able to (or did not want to) use one or the other as the likely text of Q. What is perhaps most interesting is the question of why Mt 12:22-24 is one half of a doublet while Mt 12:25b-26 and 12:29-30 are not, and why neither half of the doublet appears to be Lukan in character.

The discussion below details the issues regarding Beelzebul / Satan, particularly with regard to the content of Mk 3:21-23 and which of the two Matthean passages are parallel to these verses, beginning with an examination of the many variants in these verses.

Mt 9:32-34

On the assumption of Markan priority Matthew 9 is basically a ‘repository’ of healing stories extracted from five chapters of Mark, and with parallels in three chapters of Luke. 

Mt 9:2-8 Mk 2:3-12 Lk 5:18-26 The man sick of the palsy

Mt 9:18-19 Mk 5:22-24 Lk 8:41-42 A ruler’s daughter raised (Pt 1)

Mt 9:20-22 Mk 5:24-34 Lk 8:43-48 The women with the issue of blood

Mt 9:23-26 Mk 5:35-43 Lk 8:49-56 A ruler’s daughter raised (Pt 2)

Mt 9:27-31 Mk 8:22-26 --                   Healing two blind men

Mt 9:32-34 Mk 3:21-22 Lk 11:14-15a Healing the dumb man – casting out devils

-- Mk 3:23 -- How can Satan cast out Satan?

Mt 9:35 Mk 6:56 Lk 8:1 Going around the cities and villages,

    healing every sickness and disease

The first five stories (Mt 9:2-31) are in the same order as in their (assumed) Markan source, but are then followed by a story from Mk 3, with an ending from Mk 6. The short healing passage in Mk 9:32-34 appears straightforward, and immediately follows a previous healing (of two blind men) at Mt 9:27-31, with its position at the end of Matthew 9 appearing to have no particular significance. However, while in Mt 9:34 Jesus is accused of being in league with Beelzebub, in Mt 9:35 he “went about all the cities and villages … healing every sickness and every disease among the people,” with no adverse reaction from the Pharisees or anyone else.

This of course raises the question of why the healing in Mt 9:32-34 caused the accusation, while the multiple healings in Mt 9:35 did not? It should also be noted that there is no parallel to Mk 3:23 in these verses, i.e. in both Matthew and Luke Jesus does not respond to the accusation that he is in league with Beelzebub. However, this is only the case if you ignore the doublet halves in Mt 9:32 // 12:22b, 9:33 // 12:23, and 9:34 // 12:24.

Mt 9:32 (Doublet with Mt 12:22b and parallel to Lk 11:14a)

There is one variant in Mk 9:32: Willker (Matthew, TVU 109) notes that mss 01, B, 124, 788(=f13-part), 892, pc, Sy-S, Sy-P, Co(+ mae-2) omit ἄνθρωπον (man) from ‘dumb man’, and comments: 

Since κωφὸν [who was unable to speak] can be understood substantivally [sic], the double term is redundant. Note that both parallels omit ἄνθρωπον, but both have a different wording. The term ἄνθρωπον κωφὸν [man who was unable to speak] is unique in the NT and has probably been changed.

Note Mt 9:9: Ἰησοῦς ... εἶδεν ἄνθρωπον [Jesus … saw a man]. The addition might be a harmonization to the immediate context [sic] 9:9. The support for the omission is quite good and diverse. It is questionable though if all version [sic] really express this double term rightly. Weiss (Textkritik, p. 128) notes that the following participle might have caused the addition of ἄνθρωπον.

This variant appears to have no bearing on the issue of which half of the doublet has Mark as its source.

Mt 9:34 (Doublet with Mt 12:24 and Parallel to Mk 3:22 / Lk 11:15)

Mk 9:34 is considered to be a Western Non-interpolation because it is not present in a number of Western mss. The NET notes:

Although codex Cantabrigiensis (D), along with a few other Western versional and patristic witnesses, lacks this verse, virtually all other witnesses have it. The Western text’s reputation for free alterations as well as the heightened climax if v. 33 concludes this pericope explains why these witnesses omitted the verse.

Here the NET’s comment on the Western text is influenced by Westcott and Hort, who wrote:

The chief and most constant characteristic of the Western readings is a love of paraphrase. Words, clauses, and even whole sentences were changed, omitted and inserted with astonishing freedom, wherever it seemed that the meaning could be brought out with greater force and definiteness. They often exhibit a certain rapid vigour and fluency which can hardly be called a rebellion against the calm and reticent strength of the apostolic speech, for it is deeply influenced by it, but which, not less than a tamer spirit of textual correction, is apt to ignore pregnancy and balance of sense, and especially those meanings which are conveyed by exceptional choice or collocation of words.

Despite these views the Western text is accepted as being very early. Willker (Matthew, TVU 110) provides more information regarding this variant, noting that D, d, a, k, Sy-S and Latin fathers Juvencus (ca. 330 CE) and Hilary (4th CE) omit this verse, and that: He adds:

It seems that the verse prepares for Mt 10:25: "It is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!"

The verse looks very similar to the parallels. There is no reason apparent, why this verse was omitted. The transition from verse 34 to 35 is rather abrupt. Possibly it has been removed to smooth it out.

Zahn notes (Einleitung II) that the two stories [sic] 9:33f. and 12:22f. look very similar and could be identical, especially because of the same Beelzebul sentence. Omission here would prevent this identification.

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 183) notes that the words have probably been omitted because the story to which the words refer did not yet happen.

Streeter "Four Gospels" writes (p. 170): "[the verse] is a textual assimilation to the almost verbally identical passage in Lk 11:15; it is a 'Western non-interpolation' with more than ordinarily good manuscript support. Read without this verse, the story in Mt 9:32-33 looks like an abbreviated version of Mk 7:32 ff. (with the 'offending' details excised), transferred after Matthew's manner to another context."

A. Pallis (Notes, 1932) writes: "as the manuscripts were intended for recital at the services, it was most probably often omitted as disrespectful."

As with all ‘Western Non-Interpolations’ the name implies that at this point the Western mss are ‘missing’ text, ie. that the Western mss are not original. However, the name was a motivated choice by Westcott and Hort, and had they termed these differences ‘Non-Western Interpolations’ the implication would have been that something was instead added in the non-Western mss. There are four verses all saying essentially the same thing, i.e. that Jesus was invoking Beelzebub when casting out/expelling demons: Mk 3:22 / Mt 12:24 // 9:34 / Lk 11:15, but there are some perhaps surprising differences, in contrast to the obvious similarities:

• In Mk 3:22 Jesus is accused by the scribes from Jerusalem, in Mt 12:24 // 9:34 it is the Pharisees who accuse him, and in Lk 11:15 it is just some of the people;

• In Mk 3:22 / Mt 9:34 / Lk 11:15 the accusers state that Jesus expels demons by Beelzebub, while in Mt 12:24 they add a double negative, so that Jesus does not expel demons except by Beelzebub;

• Mt 12:23-24 adds that the Pharisees only accuse Jesus after the people suggested he was “the son of David,” which corresponds to the reference to Israel in Mt 9:33b. Neither Mk 3:22 nor Lk 11:14-15 have equivalent text;

• It is only in Mt 9:34 that the accusation omitted in Western mss.

The variations in the identification of the people who accuse Jesus in these four verses are clearly due to the Sitz im Leben: Jesus has ‘negative’ interactions with the Pharisees in several places in both Matthew 9 and 12, so it is so it is perhaps natural for the Pharisees to make the accusation in both Mt 9:34 and 12:24, and while the scribes in Mk 3:22 may or may not have been Pharisees, they were certainly as close in their opposition to Jesus. This perhaps makes Lk 11:15 the outlier, because at this point in Luke 11 neither scribes or pharisees have been mentioned.

Nevertheless, it is only Mt 9:34 that is omitted in a group of Western mss (and is not in the Arabic Diatessaron), even though it is only in Mt 9:34 that the words “ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια” (By the ruler of demons he expels the demons) are identical to those in Mk 3:22. This makes the differences between Mt 9:34 // Mt 12:24 even more unusual, in particular begging the question of why aMatthew would write a close parallel to Mk 3:22 in a unique piece of narrative at Mt 9:34, but later write a significantly looser parallel at Mt 12:24?

There also appears to be no reason for aMatthew to have written Mt 9:34 in the first place. As previously stated, Matthew 9 contains various earlier healings and forgiving of sins at vv 2-8, 20-22, 23-26, and 27-31, and none of those caused anyone to accuse Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub, so why does Mt 9:34 even exist? Why not add it after any of the earlier healings in Matthew 9? Also, the accusation has no effect on what happens immediately afterwards, with Jesus completely ignoring the accusation (unlike in the other three parallels) and in Mt 9:35 immediately going:

… about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

It is almost as though Mt 9:34 has been randomly inserted into Matthew 9, but it is actually not random, and instead it is placed after the healing story in Mt 9:32-33 that not only appears to be the source of Mt 12:22-23, but also has a parallel at Lk 11:14-15a, both of which end with a parallel to Mt 9:34. Finally, it is of course parallel to the peculiar passage at Mk 3:20-21 that also ends with a parallel to Mt 9:34. This all strongly suggests that Mt 9:34 was originally not in Matthew 9, and instead of being a Western non-interpolation, actually is a non-Western interpolation, i.e. here the Western text (without Mt 9:34) is original, and Mt 9:34 was at some early point included in all other textual streams because the text was already present immediately following all three parallels to Mt 9:32-33, i.e. in Mk 3:22 / Mt 12:24 / Lk 11:15. Seen in this light the above comments presented by Willker can be re-interpreted as shown  in italics below:

It seems that the verse prepares for Mt 10:25: "It is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household!"

Can Mt 9:34 ‘prepare’ for a verse so far ahead, just because it refers to Beelzebub? Although there is a reference to Beelzebub here, the “master of the house” has not been referred to prior to this point, so the connection is tenuous at best.

The verse looks very similar to the parallels. There is no reason apparent, why this verse was omitted. The transition from verse 34 to 35 is rather abrupt. Possibly it has been removed to smooth it out.

Yes, there is no apparent reason for it to have been omitted. However, there is a reason (above) for it to have been added. Also, the fact that the transition is “rather abrupt,” suggests that it is not original in the place in which we see it, i.e. as Mt 9:34.

Zahn notes (Einleitung II) that the two stories 9:33f. and 12:22f. look very similar and could be identical, especially because of the same Beelzebul sentence. Omission here would prevent this identification.

Yes, it would “prevent this identification,” but why would this even be an issue? There are plenty of other doublets with halves that “look very similar,” but apparently are not a problem needing a solution.

Weiss (Textkritik, p. 183) notes that the words have probably been omitted because the story to which the words refer did not yet happen.

This seems to be grasping at straws. However, if valid then it would be a reason for the words to not be present in the first place.

Streeter "Four Gospels" writes (p. 170): "[the verse] is a textual assimilation to the almost verbally identical passage in Lk 11:15; it is a 'Western noninterpolation' with more than ordinarily good manuscript support. Read without this verse, the story in Mt 9:32-33 looks like an abbreviated version of Mk 7:32 ff. (with the 'offending' details excised), transferred after Matthew's manner to another context."

Streeter’s suggestion of Mt 9:32-33 being a shortened version of Mk 7:32 ff is tenuous at best. Yes, it is a healing (of a mute) but that is all. Also, for some reason Streeter fails to note the other doublet half at Mt 12:22-24. Is that also supposed to be a shortened version of Mk 7:32 ff?

The five different reasons given above for why Mt 9:34 would have been omitted in the Western mss are all very different, and are suggestive of people trying hard to avoid a conclusion that here the Western text (excluding Mt 9:34) could be original. However, in this instance it is the more logical alternative.

Mt 9:33 (Doublet with Mt 12:23 and Parallel to Lk 11:14b)

Mt 9:32-34 is immediately preceded by the healing of the blind man who “spread abroad his fame in all that country,” so it is at least highly unusual for the multitude to say in Mt 9:33 that this healing “was never so seen in Israel,” because according to the preceding verses in Matthew 9 Jesus had already healed several people. This may well be linked to the above issue of the accusation in Mt 9:34 having no effect on later healings, and possibly that Mt 9:32-34 were not originally part of Mathew 9, with these verses then reading: 

But they, when they were departed, spread abroad his fame in all that country. (Mt 9:31)

And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people. (Mt 9:35)

In common with Mt 9:32-34 there is no parallel to Mk 3:23 in these verses, i.e. no response by Jesus to the accusation that he is in league with Beelzebub, but despite this there appears to be no repercussions, and no further attempt by the Pharisees to 'harass' Jesus. 

Mt 12:22-24

In Mt 12:15b-16 Jesus heals a multitude, followed in Mt 12:17-20 by a quotation from Isa 42:1-3, after which in Mt 12:22 he heals a blind and dumb man. In a similar way to what happens prior to Mt 9:32-34 the earlier healings of the multitude and the blind and dumb man do not provoke a reaction, but in Mt 12:23 “all the people were amazed” and the Pharisees accuse Jesus of being in league with Beelzebub. As with Mt 9:32-34 the reactions of the people and the Pharisees appear to be unwarranted.

Mt 12:22a (Doublet with Mt 9:32a and parallel to Lk 11:14a)

There are two minor variants in Mt 12:22. The first is simply a difference over whether one person or multiple people brought the possessed person to Jesus (a choice of προσηνέχθη or προσήνεγκαν respectively). Willker (Matthew: TVU 153) comments that Τότε προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ “appears to be the more standard Matthean term,” and it is true that the plural is used more times in Matthew. However, that on its own does not tell us whether aMatthew intended that the possessed person was brought by one or multiple people, and according to Willker (Matthew: TVU 153) the mss support for both is significant, making it hard to determine the original reading: 

Then was brought to him    a demon-possessed man    who was blind and mute.

Τότε προσηνέχθη  αὐτῷ    δαιμονιζόμενος          φλὸς καὶ κωφός (01, C, D, L, W, Q, f1, f13, 33, 372, 892, Maj)

Τότε προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ   δαιμονιζόμενον        υφλὸν καὶ κωφόν (B, 0281vid, 1424, 1675, pc, Sy-S, Sy-C, Sy-P)

Because this is one half of a doublet (with the earlier half at Mt 9:32) it appears reasonable to suggest that Mt 12:22 would have originally had the plural, as in Mt 9:32.

Mt 12:22b (Doublet with to Mk 9:32b and parallel to Lk 11:14b)

The second variant in Mt 12:22 is over the question of whether the man was blind and dumb, dumb and blind, or just dumb. In the majority of mss the man is blind and dumb, and it is possible that the other variant readings reflect the fact that in the parallels at Mt 9:32 / Lk 11:14 he is just dumb. However, in all the readings the verse ends with the man being able to both speak and see. Willker (Matthew: TVU 154) suggests: 

τυφλὸν is probably an addition inspired by the first part of the verse (so Weiss) and the verbs λαλεῖν καὶ βλέπειν. The insertion of the kai at the end is a bit strange. Note the complete omission in Lat!

Accidental omission due to h.t. is possible.

Willker comments that in the Latin mss the second half of the verse omits any mention of the man being originally either blind or dumb, but as the first half of the verse mentions both this has no overall effect on the meaning of the verse, for example: 

Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to him.

Τότε προσηνέχθη αὐτῷ δαιμονιζόμενος τυφλὸς καὶ κωφός

And he healed      him so that the man [who was mute] could speak and see.

καὶ ἐθεράπευσεν    αὐτόν ὥστε     τὸν         [κωφὸν]             λαλεῖν καὶ βλέπειν

Lk 11:14-15

Unlike in Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24 there is a parallel to Mk 3:23 in Lk 11:15b, but only in some mss. However, there is no Lukan parallel to Mt 9:33b // 12:23b, both of which appear to be purely Matthean additions.

Lk 11:14a (Parallel to Mt 9:32 // 12:22)

This text is a parallel to the doublet in Matthew, and the arguments here are similar to those used immediately above, i.e. they are related to a simplification and do not change the overall meaning. A significant group of mss (including P45, P75, 01, A*, B, (D), L) omit καὶ αὐτὸ ἡν. Willker (Luke, TVU 196) comments:

As Metzger notes, the expression "appears to be a Semitism in the Lukan style". But the support for the shorter reading is very weighty.

It is very probable that the txt reading is correct. There is no reason for an addition. To the contrary, the omission is only natural, to improve style and understanding (Weiss: "to directly connect δαιμόνιον with the adjective"). Misreading αὐτο as αὐτοῦ would mean, that Jesus himself is mute.

Lk 11:15b (Parallel to Mk 3:23)

A significant group of mss (including A, D) add ‘ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Πῶς δύναται Σατανᾶς Σατανᾶν ἐκβάλλειν’ (And he answering said “How can Satan expel Satan?”) at the end of Lk 11:15. This is almost certainly a harmonization to Mk 3:23, but interestingly there is no similar addition in Matthew in any mss, either between Mt 9:34 and 35 or between Mt 12:24 and 25.

Mk 3:19-23,30

Mk 3:22, Mt 9:34, Mt 12:24 and Lk 11:15a are all clearly related (as are Mk 3:23 and Lk 11:15b), but Mk 3:20-21 have almost nothing in common with either half of the Matthean doublet or with Lk 11:14. On the assumption of Markan priority Mk 3:20-23 would be expected to be the source of either Mt 9:32-34 or 12:22-24, and (depending on the synoptic hypothesis) possibly Lk 11:14-15.

Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24 is clearly a doublet, and as Mt 9:32-44 is located significantly earlier in Matthew than Mt 12:22-24 it would appear that it is the original doublet half, with Mt 12:22-24 being secondary. This appears to be confirmed by the common words “ἐν … τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιμονίων ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιμόνια” (by … the ruler of demons he expels demons) in Mk 3:22 and Mt 9:34, while Mt 12:24 has the double negative “does not expel demons except by Beelzebul the ruler of demons.”

Mk 3:19-20

In the KJV Mk 3:19-20 read:

19a And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him:     19b and they went into an house.

20 And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.

However, other bibles read differently, for example in the NET the same verses are given as: 

19 and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him.

20a Now Jesus went home,     20b and a crowd gathered so that they were not able to eat.

Whether Jesus (with or without other people) goes into a house at the end of appointing the apostles, or into Jesus’ home prior to what happens next, has a large effect on how the following verses are interpreted. There are no significant variants in Mk 3:20b (or just Mk 3:20 if Mk 3:19b is taken to exist), but the translations vary depending on who enters the building in Mk 3:19b/20a, and what kind of building it is. In bibles with Mk 3:19b Jesus (usually with the twelve) enters a house (e.g. the KJV). The translation of Mk 3:20 is then straightforward: At some later point the crowd/multitude gathers again and they are not able to eat (we are not told why they could not eat). There is also no indication of where these people are relative to the building that Jesus entered, nor whether they are also inside the building or not. There is also nothing to say why the crowd is gathering again, but as this suggests that it is a re-appearance of the crowd from Mk 3:9-10 they were most likely still close to both the sea and the mountain from Mk 3:13, and so perhaps had received word that Jesus was nearby. We also do not know how long after Jesus entered the building that the crowd gathered again.

Although there is no previous suggestion that Jesus is close to home, in many bibles with Mk 3:20a instead of Mk 3:19b (e.g. the NET) the situation is complicated by the interpretation that the house is a home (and sometimes Jesus’ home) and also because in some bibles Jesus enters the house/home. In addition, in some translations both Jesus and the disciples (they) enter the house and the people who are not able to eat may therefore include Jesus and the disciples. Alternatively, in some cases only Jesus entered the house and so he may not have been one of the people would could not eat (i.e. it was just the people outside who could not eat). Overall, the situation at the end of Mk 3:20 is very unclear, as is the timing of events relative to Mk 3:19: 

• • If Jesus and the house ‘complete’ the appointing of the apostles then the gathering of the multitude may have taken place at a different time and place;

  • Jesus is at or in a house that might or might not be his home;

  • If Jesus entered the house his disciples might have gone inside with him;

  • After Jesus possibly entered the house the crowd gathered (again) at an unspecified location;

  • After the crowd gathered some people (they) could not eat, but where those people were is not clear;

  • The people who could not eat were the crowd and/or Jesus and the disciples;

  • At no point in Mk 3:20 is it suggested that Jesus’ family were present, either in the crowd or in the house.

These points are important because who is present, who is in the house, whether the house is Jesus’ home, and who could not eat (and why) sets the scene for what appears to happen next.

Mk 3:21

The text of Mk 3:21 is almost universally interpreted as being about Jesus and his family, but as indicated above there is doubt as to both where and when this new gathering of the crowd took place, with the interpretation that this was at or near the building that Jesus entered being almost entirely dependent on whether entering the building terminates the appointing of the apostles, or is the beginning of a new pericope.

In the KJV Mk 3:21 reads: “And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.” This of course raises the question of what it was that his friends (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ - those close to him) heard of, as there is nothing in Mk 3:20-21a to suggest anything except that unspecified people could not eat because of a crowd. In the NET Mk 3:21a reads ‘family’ instead of ‘friends’ but otherwise is essentially the same, and adds these notes [Jesus is highlighted below to show how many times he is referred to by name here]:

 Western witnesses D W it, instead of reading οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ (hoi par’ autou, here translated “family”), have περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ λοιποί (peri autou hoi grammateis kai hoi loipoi, “[when] the scribes and others [heard] about him”). But this reading is obviously motivated, for it removes the embarrassing statement about Jesus’ family’s opinion of him as “out of his mind” and transfers this view to the Lord’s opponents. The fact that virtually all other witnesses have οἱ παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ here, coupled with the strong internal evidence for the shorter reading, shows this Western reading to be secondary.

The incident involving the religious leaders accusing Jesus of being in league with the devil (3:22-30) is sandwiched between Mark’s mention of Jesus’ family coming to restrain him (the Greek word for restrain here is also used to mean arrest; see Mark 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, 44, 46, 49, 51) [“sandwiched between” this and what? sic] because they thought he was out of his mind (3:21).

It is probably Mark’s intention in this structure to show that Jesus’ family is to be regarded as not altogether unlike the experts in the law [scribes] in their perception of the true identity of Jesus; they are incorrect in their understanding of him as well. The tone is obviously one of sadness and the emphasis on Jesus’ true family in vv. 31-35 serves to underscore the comparison between his relatives and the scribes on the one hand, and those who truly obey God on the other.

The above six uses of the name Jesus make it clear that the NET does not even consider the possibility that this verse may not be referring to Jesus, despite the very real difficulties that this (almost universal) assumption presents. In the NET Jesus is named in Mk 3:1, 7, 13, 20 and 31 (even though in Mark 3 Ἰησοῦς is only found at Mk 3:7), and in these four places the NET has this note: 

Grk “He”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

This suggests that the identification of Jesus in Mk 3:20 is simply an inference based on an unsubstantiated reading of Mk 3:19-20, and an (apparently) motivated note in the NET. In contrast, in Mark 3 in the KJV Jesus is only named in Mk 3:7, in line with the Greek, so in the KJV there is nothing specific pointing to it being Jesus’ family in Mk 3:21.

Although the Western reading may remove any embarrassment (on the assumption that it is Jesus’ family), it does not add anything to indicate what took place that might have been embarrassing, nor does either variant suggest what might have required Jesus (or some other person) to be seized, let alone arrested. In Mark - TVU 65 Willker records the ‘Western’ witnesses in Mk 3:21 as D, W, it(a, b, c, d, e, f, ff2 , g1,2, i, q, r1 ), vgms, and comments both on the above and a variant at the end of the verse: 

The change is probably the result of the embarrassment to which the text lent itself, the perception that Jesus [Ed: again – possibly not Jesus] was mad. (If ἐξέστη really means "mad" here or something else is not clear. Compare the commentaries.)

The first variant is exchanging Jesus relatives (οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ, cp. Proverbs 31:21) for his enemies, the scribes. For Jesus own friends or relatives to perceive him as "mad" would either lend suspicion to Jesus or make his associates look bad.

The second variant [in D, it(a, b, d, ff2, i, q, r1)] smoothes down the assertion of madness to "he is bewitching them".

The W reading takes a different turn by letting the scribes accusing [sic] Jesus of making many disciples/followers: They (= the scribes) went out to restrain him, for they were saying: "They (= the crowd, vs. 20) are adherents of him". It's also possible that the meaning is "They have become dependent upon him".

An issue here is the translation of οἱ παρ’ αὐτοῦ. A reasonable literal English translation is “those close to him,” and this could mean people who were simply physically close, but could also mean emotionally close, e.g. friends or relatives. This second alternative could be used here, as ‘he’ in the previous verses is clearly taken to be Jesus, but nowhere else in the Blble is παρ’ translated as Jesus’ relatives. Of the 60 places in which παρ’ is found, in half of them it is translated as being ‘with’ one or more people, and somewhat fewer times ‘from’ (for example receiving something from someone). Nowhere other than in Mk 3:21 is it suggested that the people are relatives, i.e. family. Clearly, if the people are not Jesus’ family (or are the family of a different person) then the above comment in the NET regarding the variant reading removing “the embarrassing statement” no longer applies, and so the other people could be “the scribes and others” seen in D, W, it. However, if the ‘motivation’ for the Western reading were no longer present then this could not be used as a reason to suggest that it is a later reading.

As this is all part of one sequence of events in Mark it appears to make no sense as written. It is usually considered that the events in Mk 3:31-35 follow directly on from Mk 3:20-30, i.e. that the two sequences of verses feature both the same buildings and the same people. However, if so then it would make no sense for Jesus' family to think he was mad in Mk 3:20-21, only for them to then act (immediately after Jesus had finished his parables) as if nothing strange had just happened! Possibly Mk 3:20-21 is misunderstood regarding who is involved, possibly Mk 3:31-35 should not be understood as directly following (in time) Mk 3:20-30, or possibly both.

If Mk 3:20-21 is misunderstood then the obvious question is whose family is being referred to in Mk 3:20-21, and if the time of the events is in question then Mk 3:31-35 cannot be used to indicate what Jesus' family did after Mk 3:20-21. Because the translations of Mk 3:21 vary considerably (those belonging to him, his own people, his friends, his relatives, his family, his friends and family, Jesus’ family) it seems more likely that the people in Mk 3:21 were not Jesus’ family, and that in Mk 3:21 the Western variants in W, D, it (“the scribes and others”) are more likely to reflect the original meaning. This is bolstered by the fact that Mk 3:22 refers to “the scribes which came down from Jerusalem” who, except in the Western variant in Mk 3:21, have not been previously mentioned in Mark 3.

There is nothing in the text of Mk 3:19b/20 pointing directly to the building being Jesus’ home (instead it is just inferred from the apparent context), and so if the people in Mk 3:21 were not Jesus’ family then there is nothing in Mk 3:19b/20-21 that refers specifically to Jesus. However, in Mk 3:22 the scribes refer to someone casting out devils, and the reply in Mk 3:23-30 indicates that it can only be Jesus, suggesting that Mk 3:19b/20-21 does refer to Jesus as well. This seems to be a problem, but only if what we see as Mk 3:21 is close to the original text, and the variants discussed above show that even in the mss for which Mk 3:21 is extant there are significant differences at both the beginning and end of the verse. This suggests the possibility that what we see as Mk 3:21 is the middle portion (perhaps: “and … heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, …”) of something longer, possibly preceded by a longer version of what we know as Mk 3:30 (see below), and followed by Jesus healing someone possessed by a devil, and perhaps similar to what we see in Mt 9:32-33a // 12:22.

This of course raises the issue of whether aMatthew and aLuke saw what we see as Mk 3:19b/20a-21 or not. On the assumption of Markan priority they saw something here, but nevertheless neither wanted to use whatever text they saw. Instead, in its place aMatthew has a healing story at Mt 9:32-34 that also has a parallel at Mt 12:22-24, while aLuke did not write a parallel to Mk 3:21-22 / Mt 9:32-34, but instead has a parallel to Mt 12:22-24. Rather than just ignoring Mk 3:21-22, why would aMatthew add something completely different here?

Mk 3:22-30

The controversy over Beelzebub is a partly triple / partly double tradition passage, and its beginnings are different in each gospel. Mk 3:22 has no parallel in Luke, and Mk 3:23 (How can Satan cast out Satan?) has no parallel in either Matthew or Luke, except that A, D, and a few other mss do have a parallel to Mk 3:23b at Lk 11:15b. While the ‘parables’ that follow directly in Mk 3:24-27 have parallels in both Matthew and Luke, only Matthew has parallels to Mk 3:28a, 29a, and neither Matthew nor Luke have parallels to Mk 3:28b, 29b-30. Also, both Matthew and Luke have additions between their parallels to Mk 3:23–24, 26-27, and 27-28 in which Jesus interacts with his accusers, and both add a new parable at Mt 12:30 / Lk 11:23.

While Mk 3:22 / Mt 12:24 // Mt 9:34 / Lk 11:15a (Accusing Jesus of casting out devils through Beelzebub) are all clearly related, the accusers in Lk 11:15a are not those in Mk 3:22a / Mt 12:24a. Instead, there is a doublet at Mt 9:34 // 12:24, with Lk 11:14-15 being parallel to Mt 9:32-34 and Lk 11:15a reading “But some of them said,” here referring to a group of people in Lk 11:14 who are not the scribes or Pharisees in Mk 3:22a / Mt 12:24a. Because of this, although Mk 3:24-30 are largely parallel to Mt 12:25-31 / Lk 11:17-23, the location, situation, and people in Lk 11:15 are not those in Mk 3:22 / Mt 12:24, and hence Lk 11:15-23 do not serve the same narrative purpose as Mk 3:23-30 / Mt 12:24-31. The conclusion from this is that Mk 3:22 / Mt 12:24 are in the same context, that Mt 9:34 / Lk 11:15a are in the same context, and that the doublet Mt 12:22-24 // 9:32-34 connects them.

Mk 3:23a reads “And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables,” after which Mk 3:23b-29 contains direct speech from Jesus, followed by Mk 3:30, i.e:

And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? (Mk 3:23)

And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. (Mk 3:24)

……

But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. (Mk 3:29)

Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. (Mk 3:30)

If Mk 3:30 continues Jesus’ words then “Because they said” makes no sense, but it would fit well if Mk 3:30 was located before Jesus spoke, e.g: 

And because they said He hath an unclean spirit, he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables … (Mk 3:30-23a)

However, Mk 3:30 can also be seen as the end of a chiasm, as follows:

And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, “He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of devils he casteth out devils.” (Mk 3:22)

And He called them unto Him, and said unto them in parables, (Mk 3:23a)

          -- Jesus’ direct speech (Mk 3:23b-29)

Because they said, “He hath an unclean spirit.” (Mk 3:30)

Mk 3:30 points out the reason why Jesus spoke the words in Mk 3:23b-29, i.e. by referring back to Mk 3:22. However, if it is meant to be a chiasm it’s a clumsy one: Beelzebub is not just an unclean spirit: he's the prince of the devils, and so following what we see in similar structures in Mark you would expect Mk 3:30 to more closely echo Mk 3:22-23a, possibly: "He said this because they said, He hath Beelzebub," in a more typical Markan chiastic structure.

It might be expected that Matthew and Luke would also maintain the chiastic structure, for example as they do in the Triple Tradition chiasmus at Mk 12:18-27 / Mt 22:23-32 / Lk 20:27-38, but neither Matthew nor Luke have a parallel to Mk 3:30 following Mt 12:31 / Lk 11:23. Instead, they add their own different parables at Mt 12:32-37 and Lk 11:24-28 respectively, with no parallel to Mk 3:30 following these verses either. As suggested above there is another place at which a version of Mk 3:30 would seem to fit (either before or after Mk 3:22), but there is no indication that either aMatthew or aLuke attempted to place such a parallel at the corresponding locations relative to Mt 12:24 and Lk 11:15-16 respectively. Instead, both gospels add that Jesus knew the thoughts of the people accusing him at approximately the same place.

Mk 3:30 is a very short verse, containing no variants, reading: ὅτι ἔλεγον Πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει, and in common with several other bibles the KVJ renders this as “because they said, “He has an unclean spirit,”” while others have: “because they were saying...”. Although ‘because’ does make sense if this is supposed to be a chiasmus, it is a clumsy beginning to this verse, with it not being obvious that Mk 3:30 is stating the reason for the parables. Consequently, a few bibles include some form of punctuation to clarify that Mk 3:30 is not part of the speech in Mk 3:23b-29: 

International Standard Version …because they had been saying, "He has an unclean spirit."

NET Bible                                 (because they said, "He has an unclean spirit").

World English Bible                    --because they said, "He has an unclean spirit."

Other English language bibles make this explicit by adding text, for example:

Berean Study Bible Jesus made this statement   because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.”

New International Version He said this                because they were saying, "He has an impure spirit."

New Living Translation            He told them this     because they were saying, “He’s possessed by an evil spirit.”

Contemporary English Version Jesus said this           because the people were saying that he had an evil spirit in him.

Good News Translation (Jesus said this         because some people were saying, "He has an evil spirit in him.")

GOD'S WORD® Translation Jesus said this           because the scribes had said that he had an evil spirit.

It is clear from the above that many people found that the meaning of ὅτι ἔλεγον Πνεῦμα ἀκάθαρτον ἔχει was not obvious, and that something else was required to make it so, with the additional words (for which there is no Greek mss support) making the point that Jesus’ words in Mk 3:23b-29 were motivated by what the scribes had said in Mk 3:22. However, there is a unique addition in Lk 11:18b that reads ὅτι λέγετε ἐν Βεελζεβοὺλ ἐκβάλλειν με τὰ δαιμόνια (For/because you say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub), and on page 49 of ‘Mark and Q’ H. T. Fleddermann writes: “Luke 11,18b probably anticipates Mark 3,30.”

Fleddermann sees something unusual about Mk 3:30 (as the above additions also suggest) but does not consider the possibility that aLuke believed that Mk 3:30 was ‘out of place,’ and so placed similar text earlier in his narrative. However, if aLuke was correct in believing that what we see as Mk 3:30 was in the wrong place, then it is not unreasonable to consider whether somewhere else would be even more appropriate, especially if there is text missing from the beginning of Mk 3:30 that caused aMatthew to exclude this verse completely.

The first word of Mk 3:30, ὅτι, appears 103 times in Mark, but in English it is translated as ‘because’ only around 10% of the time. Instead, nearly half the time it is translated as ‘that’ (typically: “<verb> that”), a few times as ‘for,’ and also as “why,” while in the majority of other places (not applicable here) it introduces direct speech and is not translated. It is therefore at least possible that what we see as Mk 3:30 was originally located somewhere else and might have originally read: 

… Jesus heard that they said, “He hath an unclean spirit,” or

… Jesus heard that they were saying, “He is possessed by an evil spirit.”

If this was the case then it would be referring to someone else being possessed and that what we see as Mk 3:30 was likely originally located before Mk 3:21, so that Mk 3:21 is not referring to Jesus, but perhaps to the same person as in the parallel at Mt 9:32. This would then make sense of what we see in Mt 9:32-34, about which it is usually considered that aMatthew did not want to suggest that Jesus was mad/insane, and instead ‘invented’ a healing for which there is no support in either Mark or Luke.

Mt 8:34 / Lk 8:35-37

The above suggests that Mk 3:30 and 3:21 are part of a healing story in which text is missing in the extant mss of Mark, but may have been seen in a complete (or more complete) form by aMatthew and/or aLuke. As noted above regarding Mt 9:34

Streeter "Four Gospels" writes (p. 170): “Read without this verse [Mt 9:34], the story in Mt 9:32-33 looks like an abbreviated version of Mk 7:32 ff. (with the 'offending' details excised), transferred after Matthew's manner to another context."

Streeter is here suggesting that the origin of Mt 9:32-33 can be found in Mk 7:32-37 rather than Mk 3:21-23, presumably because he also noted that Mk 3:21-23 has almost nothing in common with Mt 9:32-33, with there being no parallel in Luke in the same context. However, there is another possibility:

Mk 4:35-41 / Mt 8:23-27 / Lk 8:22-25 are parallel passages in which Jesus rebukes the wind and the sea, and these are immediately followed by Mk 5:1-13 / Mt 8:28-32 / Lk 8:26-33 in which Jesus meets the man with Legion (in Matthew two men with devils) and sends Legion / the devils into the herd of pigs, which then drown. Despite the much shorter version in Matthew having no parallel to Mk 5:8-10 / Lk 8:29-31 these are clearly triple tradition passages. However, while in Mk 5:15b-16 and Lk 8:35b-36 the locals see the man in his right mind and are told what happened there is no corresponding narrative in Matthew. Instead, the ‘missing’ text has some perhaps surprising similarities to Mt 9:32-34. 

In Mt 8:28-32 Jesus allows the devils to enter the pigs. There is then no further mention of them in Mt 8:33-34, the locals do not see Jesus with the men, but want him to leave anyway. In Matthew there is no apparent reason why the people would want Jesus to leave, but if Mt 9:32-34 is a version of text that originally followed Mt 8:34a (modified to introduce the dumb man) then what we now see as Mt 9:34 would have provided the ‘missing’ reason why in Mt 8:34b the people wanted Jesus to leave. This text movement could then account for Mt 9:34 being omitted (as not being original where we see it) in several Western mss, with Mt 9:34 apparently being ‘ignored’ in Mt 9:35 for the same reason, as noted earlier.

The lack of any Matthean parallel to Mk 5:15b-20 / Lk 8:35b-39 other than Mt 8:34b is unusual, but nevertheless logical in the sense that the lack of parallels here has very little effect on the narrative, while alternatively the corresponding additions in Mark and Luke add detail but little substance. Although both Mk 5:9 and 5:15 include the name Legion, in Luke only Lk 8:30 has the name, with Lk 8:35b-36 simply referring to devils. Additionally, as it is only in Mark that the local people are told about the pigs (at Mk 5:16).

As we see them Mt 9:32-33a have no parallels in the same context in either Mark or Luke, although Lk 8:35b-36 is very similar in overall form. Both are a ‘generic’ casting out of a devil from a dumb man, with Mk 3:22 / Mt 9:34 // 12:24 / Lk 11:15a clearly all related to each other. However, overall Mk 3:21 is very different to Mt 9:32-33 // 12:22-23 / Lk 11:14, suggesting that the parallels in Matthew and Luke are an attempt to ‘fix’ very problematic text in Mk 3:21 (with variants suggesting missing text being interpreted in different ways) by moving and editing text from between what we see as Mt 8:34a and 38b to Mt 9:32-33 and adding a parallel to Mk 3:22. Depending on the hypothesis aLuke saw no reason to create a parallel to Mt 9:32-34 in the same context (because there was no parallel in Mark), but did create a parallel at Lk 11:14-15.

Beelzebub and Q

In Jesus and the Beelzebul Controversy: A Devilish Synoptic Puzzle, Paul Davidson analyzes the parallels discussed above, initially from the perspective of the Mark-Q hypothesis, writing: 

The passage in Mark 3:19b–35, which has Jesus accused of being in league with Beelzebul, is one of the most problematic examples [of minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark]. This section, a series of pericopes related by topic as I will explain below, includes Jesus’ rejection by his family, the Beelzebul accusation, and several brief teachings about exorcism and blasphemy.

Both Luke and Matthew copy this passage, with several interesting differences:

• • 1. They both relocate it to a scene not found in Mark, in which a mute or mute/blind demoniac undergoes exorcism. The relevant passages are Luke 11:14-28 and Matt. 12:22-50. Matthew also has a second, highly abbreviated version in 9:32-34.

    2. They both reword the response Jesus gives to his accusers, and their changes largely agree with each other, though both retain some of Mark’s wording.

    3. They both include extra teachings on exorcism (Lk 11:19-20, Mt 27-28), opposition to Jesus (Lk 11:23, Mt 12:30), and unclean spirits (Lk 11:24-26, Mt 11:43-45) that are nearly word-for-word identical, and in the same relative sequence.

In order to explain these passages without discarding the otherwise helpful Q hypothesis, many scholars hold that there must be a few places where Mark and Q contain similar content. Thus, Luke and Matthew combine both sources when they get to these passages, and the material they get from Q supplies this agreement against Mark. It’s not a bad theory.

“It’s not a bad theory.” Indeed, it is not, but Davidson appears to have not understood that Q is only hypothesized here because there is nothing in Mk 3:20-21 that could be the source of Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24 and Lk 11:14-15. Consequently, it is deemed necessary to propose that Q 11:14-15 is the source of all these verses. However, it could instead be a simple triple tradition passage at Mk 3:20-23 / Mt 12:22-24 / Lk 11:14-15 – if it wasn’t for the ‘missing’ text in Mk 3:20-21 and the doublet half at Mt 9:32-34.

On the assumption that Mark ‘overlaps’ with Q then Mk 3:24-26 / Mt 12:25-28 / Lk 11:17-20 also appear to be a Mark-Q overlap. On this assumption it would not be at all surprising for either aMatthew or aLuke to use the wording from Mark in some places and from Q in others. However, on the Mark-Q hypothesis there can be no way that aMatthew and aLuke could ‘collude’ over their choice of words from Mark to either include or exclude, but Davidson suggests that this is what appears to have happened: 

We should expect Luke’s choice of Marcan material to copy to differ somewhat from Matthew’s. Thus, we should expect to find (1) shared Mark-Luke material that Matthew doesn’t have, and (2) shared Mark-Matthew material that Luke doesn’t have. And when we look at Matthew 12, sure enough, there are plenty of words and phrases shared with Mark but not Luke.

But the converse isn’t true: not a single word borrowed from Mark 3 into Luke 11 is missing from Matthew 12. Not one. The odds of that happening are very small. To explain this, Q theorists must add another wrinkle to the hypothesis: Luke completely set Mark aside and copied only from Q for this passage. That way, there is no Mark-Luke material that excludes Matthew, because there is no Mark-Luke material at all.

As Davidson earlier specifically mentions Mk 3:19b–35 it appears that here he is referring to the verses in Luke 11 and Matthew 12 that parallel these verses in Mark. However, because Mk 3:31-35 is parallel to Lk 8:19-21 and not Luke 11 he can at most only be referring to Mk 3:19b-30 / Lk 11:14-23 / Mt 12:22-31. He continues [verse numbers added]: 

That’s still problematic, because Luke [11:14-23] has plenty of verbatim agreement with Mark [3:19b-30], only every word of it is shared with Matthew [12:22-31]. So for the Q hypothesis to be correct, (1) Luke must be uncharacteristically ignoring Mark, and (2) the Q-Mark overlap must involve significant verbatim agreement, which means that either Mark copied Q or Q copied Mark; so we’ve added a new level of complexity to the Q hypothesis just to account for Luke’s odd behaviour.

A further issue here is that Lk 11:14, 16-17a, 18b-20, 23 have no parallel in Mark 3, while Mk 3:27 / Mt 12:29 are almost identical and both differ substantially from Lk 11:21-22, leaving only Lk 11:17b-18a in which aLuke could conceivably be ‘ignoring’ Mark in favor of Q. Finally, although on the Mark-Q hypothesis Mt 12:25-26 / Lk 11:17-18 come from Q it is perfectly possible for it to have been an earlier saying used by all three synoptic authors, or a saying seen by aLuke in both Mark and Matthew, and in which in this one place aLuke preferred Matthew to Mark. There is of course also the question of whether Lk 11:14 / Mt 12:22-23 came from Q or not, but this is not relevant to the issue of not using Mark because here there is no parallel in Mark. Instead, the only other parallel is the other half of the Matthean doublet at Mt 9:32-33. Overall, there is almost nothing here to support the idea that aLuke is “ignoring Mark.”

It has been noted that many of the passages in Mark show no obvious chronological order, and in the early 20th century K.L. Schmidt referred to the pericopae in Mark as being: “not a necklace made of loosely strung-together pearls …but rather a pile of unstrung pearls, even if some pearls will match up from time to time,” apparently suggesting that their order only occasionally formed a pleasing arrangement, which in Mark sometimes involves a chiastic structure based around a common theme. The Beelzebub Controversy appears to fit this pattern: Mk 3:22-30 could be removed without affecting anything else, while at the same time being unlike part of the ‘sayings collection’ that is the usual way to describe the contents of Q. Davidson points out this problem with the Mark-Q hypothesis, and suggests an alternative: 

Though the Q Hypothesis can be used to explain the Beelzebul Controversy passage, it suffers from a few weaknesses. It requires additional levels of complexity, strange Mark-Q overlap, and odd behaviour by Luke. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong — and given scholars’ preference for it, it must be taken seriously — but if we value parsimony, we should consider other possibilities that are simpler.

Matthean Posteriority seems to be just such an option. It accounts for all peculiarities of the texts using just the three documents we already know exist.

Why not the reverse — the position espoused by Goodacre that Luke copied Matthew? That’s certainly possible, but a few points tilt in the favour of Matthew copying Luke (or proto-Luke).

The problem with having Luke copying Matthew (e.g. as on the MwQH) is that it doesn’t explain why Luke would follow Matthew while supposedly uncharacteristically ignoring Mark here, although, as noted above, there is far less ‘ignoring’ than is suggested by Davidson, amounting to ‘ignoring’ just Mk 3:21, 24-26 in favor of Matthew. Nevertheless, if aLuke knew both Mark and Matthew then aLuke plainly followed the Markan order much more closely than he did Matthew, regarding which Eric Eve comments in ‘The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q From the Beelzebul Controversy:’ 

Matthew’s version is complicated by an anticipation of the Beelzebul Controversy at Mt 9.34 prior to the controversy proper at Mt. 12.22-32… On the assumption of Marcan priority this may have arisen from Matthew’s desire to preserve the Marcan context of the Beelzebul Controversy while scattering that context in his reordering of Mark.

It is unclear what Eve means by aMatthew’s “reordering of Mark” in Mk 12:22-32. Mt 12:22-23, 25a, 27-28 have no parallel in Mark, but Mt 12:24, 25b-26, 29-32 are almost in Markan order (Mk 3:22, 24, 23, 27-29) so it appears that Eve can only be referring to the “anticipation” at Mt 9:32-34. Of course, this is also an addition rather than a scattering because it is paralleled in Mt 12:22-24, and it is also not a reordering of any other part of Mark, instead effectively fitting ‘between’ Mk 8:26 and 27. Not only is the context different in Matthew but aMatthew appears to have added significantly to the much shorter Markan original, while aLuke, ignoring Mark here to some extent, has also ignored the ‘anticipation’ in Mt 9:32-34. Of course, even if Mk 12:22-24 is no more than a copy of Mk 9:32-34 (as it appears) that provides no answer to the question of why the doublet Mk 9:32-34 // 12:22-24 even exists. What is its purpose, if any? Could Mt 9:32-34 be considered to be the ‘second source’ that some seem to believe is required to explain what is suggested to be uncharacteristic behavior by aLuke, by here ignoring Mark and following Matthew instead?

Summary

Although some see aLuke behaving uncharacteristically here regarding his use of material from Mark, it comes down to perhaps just Mk 3:21, 24-26, and 30. Of course, on the assumption that aLuke knew Matthew then (presumably) he saw both Mt 9:32-34 and 12:22-24 and in this situation could have chosen Matthew over Mark. It is also worth noting that Lk 11:15a simplifies both Mk 3:22 and Mt 12:24, in Lk 11:16 adds text from Mk 8:11 / Mt 16:1, and in Lk 11:21-22 follows neither Mk 3:27 nor Mt 12:29, so it is much fairer to say that aLuke here sometimes follows Mark, sometimes Matthew, and sometimes neither.

The biggest issue seems to be that aLuke has no parallel to Mk 3:20-22, and uses Mt 9:32-34 // 12:22-24 as the basis of Lk 11:14-15 instead. However, it is not as simple as that, as witnessed by the number of variants in all three gospels, in Mk 3:20-21, Mt 9:32, 34, 12:22, and Lk 11:14, 15. For whatever reason there seems to have been significant uncertainty in all four versions of this text, with perhaps the most interesting being the parallel to Mk 3:22 at Mt 9:34.

What reason would aMatthew have had to add this parallel to Mk 3:22 after the last of a collection of five healing stories: The man with the palsy, the woman with the issue of blood, the daughter of the ruler, the two blind men; and last, the dumb man? For some reason none of the earlier healings in Matthew 9 were problematic, and yet somehow curing someone of being dumb suggested the casting out of a devil, while raising the dead and curing sickness and blindness apparently did not. There is also the odd fact that none of Mt 9:34 is present in Western mss, with Willker commenting that the transition from Mt 9:34 to 35 is abrupt. Quite so: Jesus is accused of being in league with the “prince of devils,” and then … nothing! Instead, “Jesus went about all the cities and villages” as if nothing untoward had happened. There appears to be no reason why this verse is here. So why is it?

Although Mt 9:34 is generally considered to be original, it would make much more sense for it to have been added after the copy of Mt 9:32-33 was written at Mt 12:22-23. Either aMatthew added it himself (which would seem unlikely), or it was added later by someone else to match Mt 12:24. This of course raises the question of why Mt 12:22-24 even exists, the simple answer to which (as argued above) is that what aMatthew saw where we see Mk 3:20-21 made little or no sense. aMatthew then copied a previous healing story (Mt 9:32-33) to use in its place at Mt 12:22-23 and followed it by a version of Mk 3:22. He did not use Mk 3:23 here, but instead incorporated some of this verse into Mt 12:26.

Later, aLuke created a copy of Mt 9:32-33 // 12:22-23 at Lk 11:14, and, like aMatthew, added a shorter version of Mk 3:22 at Lk 11:15 (a longer version of which appears in Western mss). All of the above is a direct result of problems with the text of what we see as Mk 3:20-21, which have left their mark in the form of very unusual variant readings in Mk 3:21, and (possibly) the lack of the beginning, and subsequent re-location, of what we see as Mk 3:30 but may have originally been additional text between Mk 3:20 and 22.

Conclusion

This is an example of damage to Mark, in which what we see as Mk 3:21 (and possibly 3:30) was originally part of a healing story. aMatthew saw something here (possibly similar to what we see) but did not want to use it, and instead replaced most of it by a something similar to what we see at Mk 5:15b-16 / Lk 8:35b-36, adding to it a parallel to Mk 3:22.

If the damage to Mark in this area led to the text surrounding Mk 3:21,30 being lost or becoming unreadable then it could have led to what we now see as Mk 3:21 (with its unusual variants) being thought to refer to Jesus. Then, on the assumption that both the end of Mk 3:21 and the beginning of what is now Mk 3:30 became lost or unreadable, moving what was left to after Mk 3:29 would make sense.

Depending on what damage aLuke saw in the copy of Mark he saw this could also explain both his lack of any parallel to Mk 3:19b/20a-22a, and the re-location of his parallel to Mk 3:22b / Mt 12:24b to Lk 11:15b instead of after Lk 6:19.

References

Davidson, Paul: Jesus and the Beelzebul Controversy: A Devilish Synoptic Puzzle

Eve, Eric: The Devil in the Detail: Exorcising Q From the Beelzebul Controversy , in Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, Poirier John C., Peterson, Jeffrey (ed).

Hurtado, Larry: Notable Markan Variants in Codex W , 2018

Lambrecht, Jan: The Great Commandment Pericope and Q" in The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q, ed. Ronald A. Piper, NovTSup 75 (Leiden: Brill, 1995): 73-96

Patton, Carl S: Sources of the Synoptic Gospels, Volume 5, p 244, Macmillan, 1915. Also here.

Plunkett, Matthew: Understanding the Unforgivable Sin: A Study of Mark 3:20-35

Willker, Weiland: TCG - An Online Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels

Westcott, B. F.: An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, 6th ed, p194, (London: MacMillan and Co., 1888)