(Mk iii, 7-12; Mt xii, 15-21; Lk vi, 17-19)
Matthew’s treatment of Mark is influenced by the fact that just before his Sermon on the Mount he has, in iv, 25, given a somewhat similar statement. Luke’s transposition has been noticed.[27]
THE CALLING OF THE TWELVE
(Mk iii, 13-19; Mt x, 2-4; Lk vi, 12-16)
Characteristic of Luke is his “He was continuing all night in prayer.”[28] The addition by Matthew and Luke of the words ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) is held by some to indicate their use of a Marcan text different from ours. The order of the names is not the same in any two of the three lists. Both Matthew and Mark avoid an anacoluthon of Mark in his vs. 16, and omit the appellative “Boanerges,” with its translation. Matthew and Luke follow Mark in naming Matthew, tho in their account of his call in Mt ix, 13, and Lk v, 27, Luke follows Mark in calling him Levi. Luke changes Mark’s “Simon the Canaanite” to “Simon the Zealot.” Matthew alone gives the name of Lebbaeus, Mark alone says Thaddeus, Luke alone names Judas the son of James. No simple explanation suggests itself as covering all these deviations. Matthew or Luke or both may have been influenced by a similar list of names in Q or some other non-Marcan source; but that both of them are here following Mark is rendered practically certain by their addition of the appended parenthetical statement concerning Judas, with which all three accounts close.
THE PHARISAIC ACCUSATION AND JESUS’ DEFENSE
(Mk iii, 20-30; Mt xii, 22-37; Lk xi, 14-23)
The discussion of this section is complicated by the presence of the section in both Mark and Q, and is therefore postponed to a later time.[29]
THE TRUE BROTHERHOOD OF JESUS; THE PARABLE OF THE SOWER; THE PURPOSE OF THE PARABLES
(Mk iii, 31-iv, 12; Mt xii, 46-xiii, 15; Lk viii, 4-10, 19-21)