UPDV Bible Header

UPDV Updated Bible Version

Matthew Chapter 15 — The Beelzebul Controversy, the Woes, and the Fearless Confession

Overview

UPDV chapter 15 covers the Beelzebul controversy (15:1-11), the return of the unclean spirit (15:12-14), the sign of Jonah (15:15-18), the woes against Pharisees and lawyers (15:19-34), and the fearless confession (15:35-50). This material comes from canonical Matthew 12:22-45, 23:4-36, 5:14-15, and 10:26-36, drawing on Mark 3:22-30 and Q (Luke 11:14-12:12).

The chapter reconstructs what Davies and Allison identify as a continuous Q sequence: the Beelzebul controversy, the return of the unclean spirit, the sign of Jonah, the woes against religious leaders, and the discourse on fearless confession. The compiler scattered this material across four different chapters of his Gospel (Matt 5, 10, 12, and 23), embedding each piece in his own thematic arrangements. The UPDV restores the Q order as preserved in Luke 11:14–12:12.

The most significant editorial decisions are the removal of the Jonah/whale typology (canonical Matt 12:40), the removal of nearly all of the compiler's woes discourse (canonical Matt 23) as M material, and the reconstruction of the remaining woes in their Lukan setting and sequence. The most significant textual reversions are the stripping of "crucify" and "scourge in your synagogues" from the prophets-sent saying (23:34) and the removal of "son of Barachiah" from the Zechariah reference (23:35).

The Beelzebul Controversy (15:1-11)

"Then was brought to him one possessed with a demon, blind and mute: and he healed him, insomuch that the mute man spoke and saw." The Beelzebul controversy (15:1-11) comes from canonical Matt 12:22-32, which Davies and Allison identify as "a combination of Mk 3:22-30 and material from Q (cf. Lk 11:14-23; 12:10)."

The compiler wove two sources together with remarkable skill. Davies and Allison map the seams precisely: 12:22-28 and 30 come from Q, 12:29 (the strong man parable) from Mark 3:27, and 12:31-32 (the blasphemy against the Spirit) draws upon both. The evidence for this is Luke 11:14-23, which "shows little if any use of Mark" — the divergence in vocabulary and syntax proves that Luke's version is "wholly or almost wholly uninfluenced by the Second Gospel," giving us an independent witness to Q's form.

The compiler's redactional fingerprints are visible throughout. He rewrote the Q introduction (12:22) with his favorite vocabulary — τότε (tote), προσφέρω (prosphero), δαιμονίζομαι (daimonizomai) — and added blindness to the affliction (not in Q or Mark). He made the crowd ask "Can this be the son of David?" (12:23), where Q simply had "the crowds marvelled" — a characteristic Matthean expansion, since "of all the evangelists, ours shows the most interest in Jesus as the Son of David." He named the Pharisees as opponents (12:24) where Q left them anonymous ("some of them") and Mark had "scribes from Jerusalem."

The most theologically significant change is at 12:28: "Spirit of God" for Q's probable "finger of God" (δακτύλῳ θεοῦ, daktylō theou; cf. Luke 11:20). Davies and Allison believe Q had "finger," which the compiler altered to "Spirit" for three reasons: to remove the magical connotations of "finger," to link with the Spirit theme running through his context (12:18, 31, 32), and to soften the anthropomorphism. They add that "the conclusion is really academic, for the OT equates 'finger of God' with 'hand of God' and 'Spirit of God'" (cf. Exod 8:19 with 31:18 and Deut 9:10). The UPDV retains the compiler's "Spirit of God" here. This is a vocabulary substitution of the same kind the UPDV retains elsewhere — the compiler's "O you of little faith" for Mark's "Have you still no faith?" (chapter 9), his "carpenter's son" for Mark's "carpenter" (chapter 9), and his σκάνδαλον (skandalon) in Peter's rebuke (chapter 12). The operative principle is that the UPDV keeps vocabulary changes when they do not alter the saying's scope or meaning, and reverts them when they do (as with the defilement saying's "mouth" additions in chapter 11). Here, Davies and Allison themselves declare the substitution "really academic" — the OT equates the two expressions. The UPDV preserves the compiler's wording because the theological content is identical, not because it prefers the compiler's vocabulary.

For the strong man parable (15:8), the compiler switched from Q to Mark. Davies and Allison note that "the form in Q — Lk 11:21-22 — is very different" from Mark 3:27, and the compiler "reproduces the Markan form," slightly simplifying it. The UPDV retains this Markan form.

The blasphemy saying (15:10-11) is the most textually complex passage in the chapter. Davies and Allison identify 12:31 as depending "wholly upon Mark" (Mk 3:28) and 12:32 as drawing "upon Q (see Lk 12:10) and Mk 3:29." They argue that 12:31a and 12:32a are "two different versions of one saying" — translation variants of the same Aramaic original. The underlying Aramaic, following Lindars, was wehkol di yo'mar milla lebar 'enash yishtebiq leh, where בַּר אֱנָשׁ (bar enash) was read either generically as "mankind" (Mark's tradition) or as a title, "the Son of Man" (Q's tradition). The compiler created two antithetical couplets that preserve both readings in near-synonymous parallelism: every sin will be forgiven men (Mark), a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven (Q), but blasphemy against the Spirit will not. The UPDV retains the compiler's conflation. Both versions are independently attested (Mark and Q), and the compiler's synthesis preserves both without distortion.

The Return of the Unclean Spirit (15:12-14)

"But the unclean spirit, when he has gone out of the man, passes through waterless places, seeking rest, and does not find it." The return of the unclean spirit (15:12-14) comes from canonical Matt 12:43-45, which is Q material with near-perfect verbatim agreement with Luke 11:24-26.

The UPDV places this passage before the sign of Jonah, matching the probable Q order. Davies and Allison note that "Q probably had no introduction to the saying about the sign of Jonah: in it Mt 12:39-42 par. probably followed directly the paragraph about the unclean spirit, Mt 12:43-45 = Lk 11:24-26." The compiler reversed the order, placing the sign of Jonah first, because he wanted to create a unified testing story (12:38-45) with his own theological conclusion.

That conclusion — "Even so it will be also to this evil generation" (12:45c) — is removed. It has no Lukan parallel, and Davies and Allison judge that "their addition by Matthew seems more likely" than Luke having dropped them. The compiler added this line to link the unclean spirit parable explicitly to the "this generation" theme running through 12:38-45, making the parable a typological judgment on Israel. The UPDV strips the editorial application and lets the parable stand as the warning it was in Q — a caution about the dangers of spiritual emptiness after liberation.

The Sign of Jonah (15:15-18)

"Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." The sign of Jonah (15:15-18) comes from canonical Matt 12:38-42, which Davies and Allison assign to Q (cf. Luke 11:16, 29-32), "with perhaps some influence from Mk 8:11f."

The compiler's most significant insertion is 12:40 — the Jonah typology: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Davies and Allison call this "almost certainly ex eventu" — an interpretation composed after the fact, replacing Q's form (Luke 11:30: "just as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation") with an assimilation to LXX Jonah 2:1. The verse is removed as a Matthean insertion that transforms Q's open comparison into a specific resurrection prediction.

The UPDV retains the compiler's order of the Ninevites and the queen of the South (15:17-18), with the Ninevites first — even though Luke's order (queen first, Ninevites second) is probably closer to Q. Davies and Allison note that the compiler reversed Q's order "so as to gather in one place the sayings about Jonah." This is an inconsistency with the UPDV's general principle of restoring Q material to its Lukan sequence. The defense is narrow: both sayings make the same argument (a greater than X is here), and the order is theologically inconsequential. A future revision should consider restoring Luke's order — queen first, then Ninevites — to maintain the UPDV's structural discipline.

The Nineveh and queen of the South sayings are "taken from Q without alteration" (12:41 = Luke 11:32 "exactly"). Davies and Allison defend their authenticity against those who attribute them to a Christian prophet, noting the parallel with the authentic 11:20-24 and the fact that the christological implications are "left unpacked" — a hallmark of early tradition.

The Good and Bad Tree (Canonical Matt 12:33-37) — Removed

The compiler's 12:33-37 — sayings on good and bad trees, "brood of vipers," and idle words — is removed from this chapter. Davies and Allison identify 12:33-35 as "based upon a section in Q's great sermon (see Lk 6:43-5) from which Matthew has already drawn (cf. 7:16-20)." The Q material is a doublet: the compiler has used the same Q sayings in two different contexts (the Sermon on the Mount at 7:16-20 and here in the Beelzebul controversy). The UPDV preserves these sayings in their Lukan sermon context rather than in the compiler's second deployment of them. The remaining verses (12:36-37, on idle words and judgment) have no synoptic parallel and are either M material or redaction — Davies and Allison judge that "a firm decision one way or the other seems impossible."

The Woes against Pharisees and Lawyers (15:19-34)

"Now as he spoke, a Pharisee asks him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat." The woes section (15:19-34) represents the most complex reconstruction in this chapter, drawing on canonical Matt 23:4-36 but restructured according to Luke 11:37-54.

The Dinner Setting and the Cup-and-Platter Saying (15:19-22)

The narrative frame — a Pharisee inviting Jesus to dinner, then marvelling that he had not bathed before eating (15:19-20) — comes from Luke 11:37-38 and has no parallel in the compiler's Gospel. The compiler removed this domestic setting entirely, placing all his woes material into a single public denunciation (Matt 23) delivered in the temple courts. The UPDV restores Luke's setting because the two-source theory identifies it as Q's original narrative context for the woes.

The cup-and-platter saying (15:21-22) combines elements from the compiler's text (Matt 23:25-26) and the Lukan form (Luke 11:39-41). The UPDV uses the Lukan narrative introduction ("the Lord said to him, Now you Pharisees") but retains the compiler's specific charges: "extortion and lack of self-control" (ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας, harpagēs kai akrasias) rather than Luke's "extortion and wickedness" (ἁρπαγῆς καὶ πονηρίας, harpagēs kai ponērias).

Davies and Allison argue that this saying provides some of the strongest evidence for M as an independent source. They strongly suspect Wellhausen's conjecture that Luke's "give for alms those things which are within" (ζακκαῦ, zakkau) and Matthew's "clean the inside" (דַּכָּאוּ, dakkau) reflect the same Aramaic word read two different ways. "An explanation in terms of either Matthean or Lukan redaction seems far-fetched." This is evidence for independent translation from Aramaic — the compiler and Luke (or their traditions) each rendered the same Aramaic saying into Greek independently.

The Woes: Lukan Structure, Mixed Text (15:23-34)

The UPDV follows Luke's two-audience structure: three woes addressed to the Pharisees (15:23-25), the lawyer's interjection (15:26), then four woes addressed to the lawyers (15:27-34). The compiler collapsed this structure into a sevenfold series addressed uniformly to "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites." The UPDV's address forms — "Woe to you Pharisees" and "Woe to you lawyers" — follow Luke.

Davies and Allison's central judgment on the woes discourse is sobering: "We despair of reconstructing a common Q source." They are confident Q contained a series of woes, but "the differences in the double tradition are so great that we can know neither their order nor number, and the original wording likewise often eludes us." Their "very strong suspicion" is that "M contained an independent series of woes which Matthew conflated with Q," following Streeter's conjecture. The evidence includes divergence in wording "well above the average," great variety in order — "a signpost for conflation" — a fundamental structural difference between the two discourses, and at least two cases of independent Aramaic translation variants (the cup/platter saying and the tombs saying).

The UPDV works from the Lukan order as the closest recoverable approximation of Q. The woes that survive are those attested in both traditions:

The tithing woe (15:23) uses the compiler's text of Matt 23:23 but drops the address "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" in favor of Luke's "Pharisees." The specific items — "mint and dill and cumin" — follow the compiler, whose list is probably closer to the original than Luke's substitution of "rue" and "every kind of herb." Davies and Allison note that "rue and 'every type of herb' were not subject to tithe" — Luke or his tradition introduced an error by replacing unfamiliar Palestinian items with familiar but inaccurate ones. "V. 23 = Lk 11:42 is reckoned dominical by Bultmann."

The chief seats woe (15:24) follows Luke 11:43. This saying has a Markan parallel (Mark 12:38-39) as well as a Q parallel, making it a Mark/Q overlap — doubly attested.

The tombs woe (15:25) follows Luke 11:44 rather than the compiler's version at Matt 23:27. The difference is striking: Luke's version has invisible tombs that contaminate unwitting passersby; the compiler's version has whitewashed tombs that are beautiful outside but full of death inside. Davies and Allison propose that both are translation variants from the same Aramaic original — Schwarz postulated that "paromoiazete" and "este hos" translate the same Aramaic verb (tidmon), "taphois" and "ta mnemeia" translate the same noun (qibrin), and "kekonamenois" and "ta adela" translate the same adjective (tishin). The UPDV uses Luke's version because it is probably closer to Q's wording, while the compiler drew on M's independent translation.

The lawyer's interjection (15:26) comes from Luke 11:45 and has no parallel in Matt 23. It preserves Q's two-audience structure, the pivot from Pharisees to lawyers.

The burdens woe (15:27) blends the compiler's text (Matt 23:4) with Luke's frame (11:46). The saying is Q material. The compiler removed the woe form and the address to "lawyers" because in his arrangement Jesus is speaking to crowds and disciples (23:1), not directly to opponents as in Luke's dinner setting.

The building-tombs woe and what follows (15:28-34) is where the UPDV makes its most complex editorial decisions. Davies and Allison argue that the compiler's fuller version of the building-tombs saying (Matt 23:29-32) "probably comes closer to Q" than Luke's compressed form, because Luke "was not averse to abbreviating logia" and his abbreviation here "ruined the sense" — memorializing prophets does not by itself constitute consent to murder. The UPDV therefore retains the compiler's fuller text for 15:29-31 (Matt 23:30-32), including "if we had been in the days of our fathers" and "fill up the measure of your fathers" — material that Luke compressed away.

The prophets-sent saying (15:32) is reverted from the compiler's text. Matt 23:34 reads: "I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify; and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city." The UPDV removes "crucify" and "scourge in your synagogues." In Q, this saying was attributed not to Jesus but to "the Wisdom of God" (so Luke 11:49). The compiler made Jesus the speaker by adding the emphatic christological "I" (ἐγώ, egō) and inserted "crucify" and "scourge in your synagogues" — which Davies and Allison identify as "redactional additions influenced by 10:17, 23, bringing the passion and post-Easter persecution into view." The UPDV strips the post-Easter vocabulary but retains Jesus as speaker rather than reverting to "the Wisdom of God said" — a christological change that, like the confession saying at 15:46-47, the UPDV leaves in place despite its redactional origin.

The Zechariah reference (15:33) removes "son of Barachiah" from the compiler's text at 23:35. The phrase conflates Zechariah the prophet (Zech 1:1, "son of Berechiah") with the son of Jehoiada who was martyred "between the sanctuary and the altar" in 2 Chronicles 24:20-22. Davies and Allison explain that "Jewish tradition conflated" these two figures, and Luke's version (11:51) — which simply has "Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary" — is probably closer to Q. The UPDV follows Luke in using "who perished" rather than the compiler's "whom you slew," which sharpens the accusation in a way characteristic of his editorial voice.

The Woes Discourse (Canonical Matt 23:1-39) — What Is Removed

The compiler built Matt 23 into the longest sustained denunciation in the Gospels by conflating Q with a substantial body of M material. Davies and Allison identify the M layer as a "pre-Matthean text on Christian piety" with "remarkable" parallels to the pre-Matthean cult didache in 6:1-6, 16-18 — both originated in "the same Jewish-Christian community, one with close ties to the synagogue."

The following M material from Matt 23 is removed:

  • 23:1-3 (Moses' seat): M material unique to Matthew. Davies and Allison assign this to a pre-Matthean source.
  • 23:5 (phylacteries and fringes): M material. Reflects the compiler's community's continuing engagement with synagogue practice.
  • 23:8-10 (prohibition of titles — Rabbi, Father, Master): M material with no synoptic parallel. The prohibition of "Father" and "Master" (καθηγητής, kathēgētēs) as titles reflects internal community regulation.
  • 23:13 (shutting the kingdom of heaven): This is Q material (cf. Luke 11:52, the "key of knowledge" woe), but the UPDV preserves it in the Lukan form rather than the compiler's. The compiler substituted his favorite "kingdom of heaven" for Q's "key of knowledge" and reformulated the accusation. The Lukan form is preserved in UPDV Luke 11:52.
  • 23:15 (making proselytes): M material with no Lukan parallel. Davies and Allison judge it was probably a "traditional line" that the compiler rewrote into woe form.
  • 23:16-22 (swearing by the temple/altar): M material. A self-contained halakhic argument with no synoptic parallel.
  • 23:24 (straining gnats and swallowing camels): No Lukan parallel. Possibly authentic — Davies and Allison note the "memorable hyperbolic contrast and possible Aramaic wordplay" — but unattested in a second source.
  • 23:28 (outwardly righteous, inwardly full of hypocrisy): "Presumably redactional," according to Davies and Allison. No synoptic parallel.
  • 23:33 (serpents, brood of vipers): A "redactional insertion based upon the Baptist's words in 3:7."

The Jerusalem lament (23:37-39) is preserved in the UPDV but appears at 17:16-18 in its Lukan sequence (cf. Luke 13:34-35), not here in the woes discourse. Davies and Allison argue that Luke displaced this saying from its Q position, which was originally a continuation of the Wisdom speech — but since the UPDV follows Luke's order for Q material, it appears later in the reconstruction.

The Fearless Confession (15:35-50)

"And when he came out from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press on him vehemently, and to provoke him to speak of many things; laying wait for him, to catch something out of his mouth." The transition (15:35-36) comes from Luke 11:53-54 and has no parallel in the compiler's Gospel. It provides the narrative bridge from the woes to the fearless confession discourse.

"In the mean time, when the multitude was gathered together, he began to say to his disciples first of all." The setting change (15:37) is from Luke 12:1, marking the shift from confrontation with the Pharisees to instruction of the disciples. The UPDV simplifies Luke's scene, which mentions "tens of thousands" trampling each other and includes the warning about "the leaven which is the hypocrisy of the Pharisees" (Luke 12:1). The leaven saying is a Lukan editorial bridge that the compiler also uses (Matt 16:6, 11-12), and the UPDV omits it here because its source attribution is uncertain — it may be a Lukan composition linking the woes to the fearless confession, or it may be Q material that the compiler relocated.

Nothing Hidden, Nothing to Fear (15:38-45)

The fearless confession block (15:38-50) comes from canonical Matt 10:26-36, which is Q material paralleled at Luke 12:2-12. The compiler embedded this Q material in his missionary discourse (Matt 10), weaving it together with Markan and M elements to create a comprehensive instruction for apostolic mission. The UPDV restores it to the Lukan sequence, where these sayings follow the woes against the Pharisees.

Davies and Allison judge that in this block, the compiler often preserves Q more faithfully than Luke does. The fearless-proclamation saying (15:39) — "What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, proclaim on the housetops" — retains the compiler's text because Luke 12:3 "radically altered the sense," turning an injunction to preach into a warning that whispers will be published. Davies and Allison give four reasons the compiler is closer to Q: his words better fit Q's context of fearless confession, Luke's wording may assimilate to 12:1 (the hypocrisy theme), Mark 4:22 shows that apocalyptic revelation was traditionally associated with preaching, and the Gospel of Thomas 33 is closer to the compiler's form than Luke's.

Similarly, the fear saying (15:42) — "don't be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" — retains the compiler's text. Luke 12:4-5 is "very different and secondary." The compiler's body/soul parallelism "is not redactional but preserves Q."

The sparrows saying (15:43) uses the compiler's "two sparrows for an assarion" rather than Luke's "five sparrows for two assaria" — the difference is "practically quite unimportant," but the compiler's form is retained as his text. The "hairs of your head" saying (15:44) may be an interpolation by the Q compiler rather than an original dominical saying — Davies and Allison propose it "was probably made by the compiler of Q or by some tradent of that source."

The UPDV inserts the city-on-a-hill saying (15:40) and the lamp-on-a-stand saying (15:41) between the nothing-hidden saying (15:38-39) and the fear saying (15:42). Both come from canonical Matt 5:14b-15. The lamp saying is securely attested in Q (cf. Luke 11:33) with a Markan overlap (Mark 4:21). The city-on-a-hill, however, is a "traditional wisdom saying" with no Q or Markan parallel — it is attested only in Gospel of Thomas 32. The compiler placed both in the Sermon on the Mount, framed by his redactional additions — "You are the light of the world" (5:14a) and "let your light shine before men" (5:16). The UPDV strips the editorial frame and preserves the two traditional sayings.

A methodological note is required here. The city-on-a-hill saying lacks a Q coordinate. By the UPDV's normal method, M material without synoptic attestation is removed — the same criterion that stripped the temple tax (chapter 13), the tares interpretation (chapter 8), and the laborers in the vineyard. The UPDV's placement of this saying here is a thematic judgment: what is hidden will be revealed (15:38), a city on a hill cannot be hidden (15:40), a lamp is not hidden under a bushel (15:41), therefore do not fear those who would silence you (15:42). This thematic logic is coherent, and the Thomas attestation confirms the saying circulated independently. But the placement is an editorial decision of the same kind the UPDV strips from the compiler. This sits uneasily with the UPDV's general method, which places Q material in its Lukan sequence rather than arranging sayings by thematic affinity — the same tension noted for the tree-and-fruit saying's placement in chapter 11. Readers should be aware that the city-on-a-hill is retained for its traditional pedigree and thematic fit, not because the method demands it.

Confession, Denial, and Division (15:46-50)

The confession-and-denial saying (15:46-47) retains the compiler's text: "Everyone therefore who will confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven." Davies and Allison note that Q probably had "the Son of man will confess him before the angels of God" (so Luke 12:8), and the compiler changed "Son of Man" to first-person "I" and "angels of God" to "my Father who is in heaven."

This creates a tension with the UPDV's practice elsewhere. In chapter 12, the UPDV strips "the Son of the living God" from Peter's confession and "that he was the Christ" from the secrecy charge — both cases where the compiler made explicit what Mark left implicit. The same logic would require reverting 15:46-47 to Q's "the Son of Man will confess him before the angels of God." The UPDV retains the compiler's form here, and the defense is narrower than the article's other arguments: the saying is independently attested in Mark 8:38, which confirms its dominical origin, but the Markan form also uses "Son of Man" and "angels" rather than "I" and "my Father" — so the independent attestation actually supports Q's wording, not the compiler's. The UPDV's decision to keep the compiler's christological changes in this saying is a judgment call that sits in tension with the methodology applied to Peter's confession. A future revision should consider reverting to the Q form.

The sword saying (15:48-50) — "Don't think that I came to send peace on the earth: I didn't come to send peace, but a sword" — comes from Q (cf. Luke 12:51-53). Luke's "division" (διαμερισμόν, diamerismon) for the compiler's "sword" (μάχαιραν, machairan) "does appear to be secondary," according to Davies and Allison. The family-division saying (15:49) is based on Micah 7:6, drawn upon to describe the eschatological discord of the latter days. The final verse (15:50) — "a man's foes will be those of his own household" — continues the Micah quotation. Davies and Allison note that it "has no parallel in Luke and is probably editorial," though the compiler's text is closer to the Hebrew MT than the LXX, raising the question of whether the compiler "consulted or remembered the Hebrew."

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

  • Matt 12:33-35 (good/bad tree, out of the heart): Q doublet — already used at Matt 7:16-20 from Q's sermon. Preserved in the UPDV's Lukan sermon context.
  • Matt 12:34 (brood of vipers, abundance of heart): Ouc — context uncertain. Conflation of Q material with redactional "brood of vipers" (γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, gennēmata echidnōn).
  • Matt 12:36-37 (idle words, judgment by words): M or redaction. No synoptic parallel. Davies and Allison: "A firm decision one way or the other seems impossible."
  • Matt 12:40 (Jonah/whale typology): Matthean insertion. "Almost certainly ex eventu." Replaces Q's open Jonah comparison with a specific resurrection prediction.
  • Matt 12:45c ("Even so it will be also to this evil generation"): Matthean addition linking the unclean spirit parable to the "this generation" theme. No Lukan parallel.
  • Matt 23:1-3 (Moses' seat): M material. Pre-Matthean source with no synoptic parallel.
  • Matt 23:5 (phylacteries and fringes): M material.
  • Matt 23:8-10 (prohibition of titles): M material. Internal community regulation.
  • Matt 23:13 (shutting the kingdom): Q material preserved at UPDV Luke 11:52 in its Lukan form.
  • Matt 23:15 (proselyte woe): M material. No Lukan parallel.
  • Matt 23:16-22 (oaths woe): M material. No Lukan parallel.
  • Matt 23:24 (gnat/camel): No Lukan parallel.
  • Matt 23:28 (outwardly righteous): Redactional. No Lukan parallel.
  • Matt 23:33 (serpents, brood of vipers): Redactional insertion based on 3:7.
  • Matt 23:34 — partially reverted: "crucify" and "scourge in your synagogues" removed as redactional additions reflecting post-Easter persecution.
  • Matt 23:35 — partially reverted: "son of Barachiah" removed. Conflation of two Zechariahs.

References

  • Davies, W. D. and Dale C. Allison Jr. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. 3 vols. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988–1997.
  • Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Rev. ed. Translated by John Marsh. New York: Harper & Row, 1963.