Matthew Chapter 20 — The Unjust Steward, Two Masters, and the Markan Narrative

Overview

UPDV chapter 20 covers the unjust steward parable (20:1-12), the two masters saying (20:13), the Pharisees' response (20:14-15), the kingdom question and lightning sayings (20:16-19), and then a large block of Markan narrative: divorce (20:20-30), children (20:31-33), and the rich young man (20:34-47). This material comes from Luke 16:1-15, Luke 17:20, Matt 24:26-28, and Mark 10:1-30.

The chapter continues from chapter 19 (which ended with the prodigal son at Luke 15:32). The opening picks up at Luke 16:1 — Jesus turning from the crowds to address his disciples privately about money. But the chapter only follows Luke through 16:15 before making a dramatic leap to Luke 17:20, skipping more than forty verses of Lukan material: the law-and-prophets saying (Luke 16:16), the permanence of the law (16:17), the divorce saying (16:18), the rich man and Lazarus (16:19-31), stumbling blocks and forgiveness (17:1-4), faith like a mustard seed (17:5-6), the unworthy servants (17:7-10), and the ten lepers (17:11-19). Of these, the Q parallels to Luke 16:16-17 (= Matt 11:12-13 and 5:18) were already handled in earlier UPDV chapters or omitted as lacking attestation. Luke 16:18 (the Q divorce saying) is replaced by the fuller Markan divorce pericope at 20:20-30. The remaining material — rich man and Lazarus, ten lepers, unworthy servants — is L material that the UPDV does not include in its Matthew reconstruction.

After the brief eschatological bridge (20:16-19), the chapter transitions to its longest section: Mark 10:1-30, covering divorce, children, and the rich young man. This is the first sustained Markan block in the UPDV's chapter articles. Previous chapters drew primarily from Q and L material; here the UPDV follows Mark's narrative directly, correcting back toward Mark where the compiler added redactional elements like the exceptive clause, the "for any cause" framing, and the "if you would be perfect" addition.

The Markan block also makes visible an asymmetry in the UPDV's treatment of special material. The UPDV includes L material (the unjust steward, the prodigal son) but excludes M material (the eunuch saying at Matt 19:10-12, the workers in the vineyard at Matt 20:1-16). This is not arbitrary: the UPDV's structural principle is Lukan-baseline, following Luke's narrative order and including L traditions that fall between Q and Markan blocks in Luke's sequence. M material — traditions unique to the compiler — is excluded precisely because the UPDV treats the compiler as a redactor whose additions are the target of source-critical removal. The eunuch saying, for instance, exists within the compiler's redactional framework: it responds to the exceptive clause, which is itself redactional. But the reader should recognize that this principle privileges Lukan tradition over Matthean tradition. If the UPDV were a neutral Q reconstruction, it would exclude both L and M; by including L and excluding M, it is reconstructing Luke's source base, not a bare Q text.

The Unjust Steward (20:1-12)

"And he said also to the disciples, There was a certain rich man, who had a steward; and the same was accused to him that he was wasting his goods." The unjust steward parable (20:1-8) and the appended mammon sayings (20:9-12) come from Luke 16:1-12. This is L material — Sondergut with no Matthean or Markan parallel. The UPDV takes Luke's text without modification.

All three major commentators agree the parable is pre-Lukan tradition, not Lukan composition. Marshall identifies the parable body as from Luke's special source (L), noting that the vocabulary and style point to a traditional narrative. Bovon concurs, assigning it to L: "the author of L, followed in this by Luke, prefers good narrative to legal precision." The parable is almost universally considered authentic to the historical Jesus.

The key interpretive question is where the parable proper ends. All three commentators agree that verse 8a — "And his lord commended the unrighteous steward because he had done wisely" — belongs to the parable, not to a narrator's comment about Jesus. Marshall argues: "If the parable ends with v. 7, it does so with decided abruptness." Nolland concurs: "The story is curiously truncated if it must end with v 7. We must assume that the master was apprised of this latest fraud." The κύριος (kyrios, "lord") in 8a is the master within the parable, as in verses 3 and 5 — not Jesus commenting on the story.

Verse 8b — "for the sons of this age are for their own generation wiser than the sons of the light" — is a different matter. Marshall identifies the "sons of light" dualism as "Palestinian, and not Hellenistic," confirmed by Qumran parallels (1QS 1:9; 2:16; 3:13). Nolland calls it "a Lukan editorial comment," arguing that "in the NT 'sons of this age' occurs again only at 20:34, where it appears to have been introduced by Luke." Bovon takes it as a comment beyond the parable proper, using "apocalyptic" language.

The steward's moral status is disputed. Marshall favors Derrett's interpretation: the steward reduced the debts by removing the illegal interest charges embedded in them, making his final act "legal and praiseworthy." Bovon disagrees: "the manager's 'dishonesty' (ἀδικία, adikia, v. 8a) consisted not only in squandering his master's property but also in falsifying the documents." Nolland sides with Bovon: "Its presence here stands against those interpretations that see the reduction of debts in a positive light (the steward has not stopped being unrighteous)."

The appended sayings (20:9-12) are widely recognized as a compilation of related logia, not originally part of the parable. Marshall notes: "All are agreed that vs. 10-13 represent secondary applications of the parable or further developments of its theme." But he defends their authenticity as traditional material: verse 11 "contains an Aramaic play on the words for 'faithful' and 'mammon'" (the root 'mn underlying both), and verse 12 "is too obscure to be regarded as an explanation of anything" — its opacity argues against it being a secondary creation. Nolland is more skeptical: "vv 10-13 have no connection at all with the preceding parable." He sees Luke using these sayings to build a thematic sequence on wealth, connecting the steward parable (shrewdness with money) to the two masters conclusion (ultimate loyalty).

Two Masters (20:13)

"No man can serve as a slave to two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or he will hold to one, and despise the other. You⁺ can't serve as a slave to God and mammon." This is Q material, with the compiler's version at Matt 6:24 and Luke's at Luke 16:13. The UPDV sources it from the compiler's form.

The saying is one of the closest Q agreements in the Synoptics. D&A note that "the Greek of Lk 16:13 agrees perfectly with Mt 6:24, except that Luke, after οὐδείς, has οἰκέτης (a synoptic hapax legomenon)." The word οἰκέτης (oiketēs, "household servant") is the only difference. Bovon identifies it as a Lukan addition: "oiketes is a Lukan addition to Q." The saying is therefore virtually identical in Q and in both canonical witnesses.

D&A identify the saying's structure as chiastic and triadic: the outer frame ("no one can serve two masters" / "you cannot serve God and mammon") brackets three antithetical pairs. They defend the whole saying as dominical against Bultmann's claim that only the opening proverb is authentic, citing three grounds: coherence with Jesus' proclamation (cf. Mark 10:17-22; Luke 12:13-21), signs of a Semitic original (μαμωνᾶς transliterates māmōn or māmōnā', the ἑίς ... ἕτερος Semitism), and the hyperbolic style of mutually exclusive alternatives characteristic of Jesus.

The compiler did not significantly alter the wording of this saying. His contribution was contextual: he placed it within the Sermon on the Mount's triad of "two treasures" (Matt 6:19-21), "two eyes" (6:22-23), and "two masters" (6:24). Luke preserved Q's placement — after the unjust steward parable, where it serves as the conclusion to a block on money. The UPDV follows Luke's order, placing the saying immediately after the steward's mammon sayings (20:9-12), which is its Q position.

Pharisees and the Heart (20:14-15)

"And the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all these things; and they scoffed at him. And he said to them, You⁺ are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men; but God knows your⁺ hearts: for that which is exalted among men is disgusting in the sight of God." These verses come from Luke 16:14-15.

The narrative frame (20:14) is Lukan composition. Marshall is clear: "the linguistic evidence together with Luke's known propensity to create links between his pericopes suggests that he has composed v. 14 as a transition." The characterization of the Pharisees as φιλάργυροι (philargyroi, "lovers of money") is polemical rather than historical. Bovon notes this is "the only time he makes this accusation with reference to them," and Nolland qualifies: "we should not caricature the Pharisees on this basis as more inclined to be lovers of money than any other group."

But 20:15 contains what Marshall identifies as "an authentic saying of Jesus." The concluding proverb — "that which is exalted among men is disgusting in the sight of God" — uses βδέλυγμα (bdelygma, "abomination"), a term the LXX reserves for idolatry. Bovon connects this to the Magnificat's reversal theme (Luke 1:48, 51-52): "Ever since the Magnificat, Luke has been proclaiming the reversal of values." Nolland notes the saying "has the antithetic exaggeration of a Semitic proverb" and may have circulated independently.

The Kingdom and the Lightning (20:16-19)

"And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God comes, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God does not come with observation." Verse 20:16 comes from Luke 17:20, jumping over more than forty verses of Luke. The lightning sayings (20:17-19) come from the compiler's Matt 24:26-28, which are Q parallels to Luke 17:23-24, 37.

The leap from Luke 16:15 to Luke 17:20 is the largest gap in the UPDV's Lukan sequence so far. The intervening material falls into three categories. First, Q sayings already placed elsewhere: Luke 16:16 (law and prophets until John) parallels the compiler's Matt 11:12-13, which the UPDV marks as {Oc} — omitted from the canonical form. Luke 16:17 (not one tittle of the law) parallels Matt 5:18, marked {Ouc}. Luke 16:18 (the Q divorce saying) parallels Matt 5:32, also {Oc}; the UPDV handles divorce through the fuller Markan pericope at 20:20-30 rather than the isolated Q logion. Second, L material the UPDV does not include: the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the unworthy servants (17:7-10), and the ten lepers (17:11-19). Third, material placed in earlier UPDV chapters: Luke 17:1 (stumbling blocks) appears at UPDV 13:12. The UPDV's selectivity with L material — including some blocks (unjust steward, prodigal son) while omitting others (rich man and Lazarus, ten lepers) — is consistent with the principle established in earlier chapters: the UPDV includes L material that falls between Q blocks in Luke's sequence but does not attempt to incorporate all of Luke's Sondergut.

Luke 17:20 is L material with no Matthean or Markan parallel. The term παρατηρήσεως (paratērēseōs, "observation") is rare. Marshall connects it to apocalyptic calculation — looking for signs that would indicate the kingdom's arrival date. Bovon provides the most extensive analysis, noting the word "belongs to the vocabulary of persons who are educated, or even learned; it was used by astronomers and in the observations necessary for fixing a religious calendar." Nolland prefers a medical-scientific sense: "One cannot discern when the kingdom of God will come by prognostication on the basis of the observation of preliminary indications."

The UPDV omits Luke 17:21 — "the kingdom of God is within you" (or "among you" or "within your grasp," depending on how ἐντός ὑμῶν is translated). Like 17:20, this verse has no Matthean parallel — so the rationale for including one but excluding the other cannot be the absence of a Matthean witness. The distinction is functional: 17:20 serves as a narrative frame transitioning to the Q lightning sayings that follow (20:17-19), bridging the Pharisees' question to Jesus' eschatological teaching. Luke 17:21 does not connect to Q material; it is a self-contained saying whose relationship to the Q discourse is unclear even to specialists. The three commentators disagree sharply on its meaning: Marshall reads it as the kingdom being present in Jesus' ministry, Bovon sees God's presence among his people (connecting to Deuteronomy 30:11-14), and Nolland argues for a future sense — a sudden unheralded arrival. The UPDV includes 17:20 as a structural bridge and omits 17:21 as an isolated L logion.

The lightning sayings (20:17-19) use the compiler's form from Matt 24:26-28 rather than Luke 17:23-24, 37. D&A explain the compiler's editorial logic: he saw that Mark 13:21 ("Then if any man will say to you, Look, here is the Christ") and Q (Luke 17:23) were "variants of the same tradition," so after using Mark's version at UPDV 24:23, he appended the Q continuation (24:26-28). The compiler then added specificity not found in Q: "in the wilderness" and "in the inner chambers." D&A note: "'In the desert' was presumably a well-known haunt of messianic pretenders who sought to imitate the wilderness miracles of Moses."

For the lightning saying itself (20:18), both evangelists redacted Q. Luke 17:24 has "as the lightning flashing shines from one end of heaven to the other, so will the Son of man be in his day." The compiler has "as the lightning comes from the east and is seen even to the west, so will be the coming [παρουσία, parousia] of the Son of Man." D&A note: "The wording of Q cannot be reconstructed, but we can at least guess that λάμπει and ἀστράπτουσα are Lukan, παρουσία and φαίνομαι Matthean." The compiler's παρουσία is a key Matthean term — used four times in chapter 24, nowhere in Mark or Luke.

The vultures saying (20:19) — "Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together" — parallels Luke 17:37. D&A note that the compiler "moved 'the eagles' to the end (increasing parallelism)" while "Luke changed πτῶμα to σῶμα." The proverb's meaning in Q, according to D&A, is that "the coming of the Son of man will be as public and obvious as eagles/vultures circling over carrion" — reinforcing the lightning saying's point that the parousia will be unmistakable, requiring no rumor or speculation.

The UPDV's decision to use the compiler's form (Matt 24:26-28) rather than Luke's (17:23-24, 37) follows its standard methodology for Q material: start from the compiler's Greek and revise toward Luke where the compiler's changes are overtly redactional. The compiler's additions ("in the wilderness," "in the inner chambers") are arguably redactional specificity, but the UPDV retains them as part of its practice of starting from the compiler's text. A similar decision was made with the lost sheep parable in chapter 19.

Divorce (20:20-30)

"And he arose from there and comes into the borders of Judea and beyond the Jordan: and multitudes come together to him again; and, as he was accustomed, he taught them again." The divorce pericope (20:20-30) comes from Mark 10:1-11. This is the UPDV's first sustained Markan block, replacing the compiler's heavily redacted version at Matt 19:1-12.

The transition from Luke 17:20 to Mark 10:1 requires comment. In Luke's Gospel, the Markan narrative does not resume until Luke 18:15 (the children pericope); between Luke 17:20 and 18:15, Luke inserts the parable of the unjust judge (18:1-8) and the Pharisee and tax collector (18:9-14) — L material the UPDV does not include. The UPDV's insertion of the Mark 10 block at this point mirrors canonical Matthew's sequence (Matt 19:1 follows the community discourse) more than Luke's. This is a structural decision by the UPDV's source chart: the Markan material is placed where Luke's narrative would eventually return to it, but the intervening L parables are skipped.

D&A confirm Markan priority against those who argue the compiler's version is more original. They follow Catchpole's key argument: even without Mark in hand, the internal difficulties of Matt 19:1-12 would require postulating a source very like Mark 10:2-12. The compiler's version contains four problems that vanish when his additions are removed: (1) the exceptive clause means there is no real contradiction between Jesus and Deuteronomy 24:1, yet the Pharisees cite it as though there is one; (2) the question in 19:3 raises the issue of grounds for divorce ("for any cause"), but 19:4-6 drop this topic to address the legality of divorce entirely; (3) if the question falls within the traditional Hillel/Shammai framework, how is it "tempting"?; (4) the eunuch saying (19:10-12) has no connection to the preceding material without Mark as intermediary. Removing "for any cause" and "except for porneia" and the eunuch dialogue eliminates all four difficulties.

The compiler made eight specific modifications to Mark, of which two are most consequential for the UPDV.

First, the compiler added the exceptive clause — μὴ ἐπί πορνείᾳ (mē epi porneia, "except for sexual immorality") at 19:9, paralleling his earlier παρεκτός λόγου πορνείας (parektos logou porneias, "except on the ground of sexual immorality") at 5:32. D&A state plainly: "The clause is redactional." It has no parallel in Mark, in Q (Luke 16:18), or in Paul (1 Corinthians 7:10-11). Its meaning is "probably not 'except in the case of incest' but 'except for adultery' — an interpretation which justifies the envisaged action of the 'just' Joseph in 1:18-25." The clause reflects the compiler's Jewish-Christian context, where divorce for adultery may have been not merely permitted but imperative. Some scholars (notably Wenham and Instone-Brewer) argue that the exceptive clause was not a Matthean addition but a Shammaite assumption implicit in the Markan and Q forms — the compiler made explicit what Jesus' original audience would have understood as a given. On this reading, no first-century Jew would have heard "whoever divorces his wife" without mentally supplying "except for adultery," and the compiler simply spelled out what Mark left unstated. D&A and the majority of source critics reject this, viewing the clause as the compiler's own qualification. The UPDV drops it, following Mark's absolute prohibition: "Everyone who divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery" (20:30).

Second, the compiler reversed the order of the Moses exchange. In Mark, Jesus asks "What did Moses command you?" and the Pharisees answer that Moses allowed (ἐπέτρεψεν, epetrepsen) divorce. In Matthew, the Pharisees ask "Why did Moses command (ἐνετείλατο, eneteilato) to give a certificate of divorce?" and Jesus corrects them: "Moses allowed you to divorce." D&A note that the compiler's version "stresses the Pharisees as opponents rather than Jesus as pedagogue: they no longer respond to a question of Jesus but object to his statement." The UPDV follows Mark's original sequence, where Jesus initiates the scriptural discussion and the Pharisees respond — a pedagogical rather than adversarial structure.

The UPDV also drops the compiler's question "for any cause" (κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, kata pasan aitian) from 19:3, which placed the debate within the Hillelite/Shammaite framework about grounds for divorce. Mark's simpler question — "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" — addresses the legality of divorce itself, which is more radical and more likely original. D&A note that "the Essenes may — the data are inconclusive — have outlawed divorce, in which case Mk 10:2 could have a Palestinian setting."

The eunuch saying (Matt 19:10-12) is omitted entirely. The disciples' amazed response ("If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry") and Jesus' three categories of eunuchs have no Markan or Q parallel. D&A classify this as a separate tradition the compiler appended to the divorce pericope.

The UPDV drops Mark 10:12 — "and if she herself divorces her husband, and marries another, she commits adultery." Lane argues this verse originally referred not to divorce (which was not available to women under Jewish law) but to desertion: Herodias's abandonment of Philip to marry Antipas. He notes that "the historical context of Jesus' statement and its vindication of the Baptist's denunciation of this adulterous union was apparently lost to view in later strands of the textual tradition." D&A concur: "V. 12 is likely an expansion required by a non-Jewish environment." But the counter-argument deserves mention: Paul already assumes reciprocal divorce rules in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, which predates both Mark and Matthew. Some scholars argue that the reciprocal prohibition traces to the earliest Jesus tradition responding to Hellenistic Jewish contexts, not to a later Roman adaptation by Mark. The UPDV follows the majority view that Mark 10:12 is secondary, but the Pauline evidence complicates any simple narrative of "Roman expansion."

On the relationship between the Markan pericope and the Q divorce saying (Luke 16:18 = Matt 5:32): D&A reconstruct the original as "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:11). This was then modified in two directions — by adding the wife's case (1 Corinthians 7:10; Mark 10:12) and by prohibiting marriage to a divorced person (Luke 16:18; Matt 5:32b). The compiler added two exceptions: mixed marriages (via Paul) and adultery (via the exceptive clause). The core saying has triple independent attestation — Mark, Q, and Paul — and "should be assigned to Jesus."

Children (20:31-33)

"Then there were brought to him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them." The children pericope (20:31-33) draws primarily from Mark 10:13-15. The source chart maps 20:32 to Luke 18:16, but the direct speech in Mark and Luke is nearly identical — both have "Allow the children to come to me, do not hinder them; for of such is the kingdom of God." The only textual difference is that Luke adds καί ("and") before the prohibition. Both Mark and Luke have "kingdom of God" against the compiler's characteristic substitution "kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:14). The narrative frames differ more substantially: Mark has Jesus "indignant" (ἠγανάκτησεν, ēganaktēsen) at the disciples, while Luke has him calling the children to himself. The UPDV's "But Jesus said" follows the compiler's simplified introduction (Matt 19:14 drops Mark's ἠγανάκτησεν), siding with the compiler's omission of the emotional detail — a rare case where the compiler's streamlining may reflect the earlier tradition, since both he and Luke independently removed Mark's indignation.

D&A identify Mark's pericope as having passed through stages. The earliest layer was Mark 10:13, 14a-b, 16 — Jesus receiving children and blessing them. Mark 10:15 ("Whoever will not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he will in no way enter in it") was likely inserted before Mark as an independent logion; the compiler omitted it from Matt 19 because he had already used a variant at Matt 18:3. The UPDV retains it at 20:33, following Mark/Luke.

France notes the pericope's function in Mark's larger structure: "its role in this context is primarily to illustrate again the failure of the disciples to see things as Jesus sees them." The children are the least important members of society, and "Jesus repudiates this valuation both by word and by example."

The Rich Young Man (20:34-47)

"And as he was going forth into the way, one ran to him, and knelt to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" The rich young man pericope (20:34-47) comes from Mark 10:17-30. The UPDV follows Mark's form throughout, correcting away from the compiler's three most significant redactional changes.

First, the address. Mark has "Good Teacher" (Διδάσκαλε ἀγαθέ, Didaskale agathe), to which Jesus responds: "Why do you call me good? None is good but one, God." The compiler altered this to "Teacher, what good thing shall I do?" with Jesus responding: "Why do you ask me concerning that which is good?" D&A explain the motivation: "Because in Matthew Jesus is untainted by even the most indirect touch of sin, the evangelist has sought to avoid a possible inference from Mark's text, namely, that God is good but Jesus is not." The UPDV restores Mark's more primitive — and more startling — exchange. Lane takes the detail as reflecting a concrete encounter: "The designation of Jesus as 'good teacher' is virtually without parallel in Jewish sources and should be regarded as a sincere tribute to the impression he had made upon the man."

Second, the call. Mark 10:21 has "One thing you lack: go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor." The compiler changed this to "If you want to be perfect, go, sell that which you have, and give to the poor" (Matt 19:21). D&A demonstrate that τέλειος (teleios, "perfect") connects to the Sermon on the Mount's call to completeness (Matt 5:48 — the only other use of τέλειος in Matthew). This is Matthean redaction: Mark's simpler "one thing you lack" (ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ) is replaced by language that could imply a two-tier ethic — ordinary obedience for some, radical poverty for the "perfect." D&A reject this reading, arguing the compiler intended completeness of obedience, not a separate class of Christians. But the language is his own addition. The UPDV restores Mark's form.

Third, the emotional detail. Mark 10:21 uniquely records that "Jesus looking on him loved him" (ἐμβλέψας αὐτῷ ἠγάπησεν αὐτόν, emblepsas autō ēgapēsen auton) before delivering the demand to sell everything. Both the compiler and Luke omit this. Lane treats it as authentic Petrine memory: "Behind this recorded incident, with its vivid details, there stands the remembrance of a concrete encounter with Jesus which has left its mark on the tradition." The UPDV preserves Mark's detail.

The ensuing dialogue about wealth (20:40-47) follows Mark closely. The UPDV retains Mark's two-stage amazement — first the disciples are "amazed at his words" (10:24), then "exceedingly astonished" (10:26) — where the compiler collapsed this into a single reaction. Mark 10:24's "Children, how hard it is to enter into the kingdom of God!" is retained, where the compiler substituted "it is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 19:23-24), making the teaching about wealth specifically rather than about the difficulty of entering the kingdom generally.

Peter's response (20:45) follows Mark 10:28: "Look, we have left all, and have followed you." The compiler added "what then shall we have?" (Matt 19:27) — a question about reward that Mark's version does not include. The UPDV drops the compiler's addition and follows Mark's unembellished statement. Jesus' promise (20:46-47) follows Mark 10:29-30 with its characteristic Markan list (houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, children, lands) and its unexpected addition "with persecutions" (μετὰ διωγμῶν, meta diōgmōn) — a sobering qualification that the compiler omitted. The chapter ends with Mark's concluding reversal: "But many who are first will be last; and the last first."

What the UPDV Removes from This Section

Matt 6:24 — relocated to 20:13 from the Sermon on the Mount. The saying is Q; the compiler placed it in his "two treasures / two eyes / two masters" triad.
Matt 19:3 — revised: "for every cause" (κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν) dropped. D&A: the Hillelite framing is the compiler's addition to Mark's more radical question about divorce itself.
Matt 19:7-8 — revised: the compiler's reversal of the Moses exchange is corrected back to Mark's order (Jesus asks, Pharisees answer).
Matt 19:9 — revised: the exceptive clause (μὴ ἐπί πορνείᾳ) dropped. D&A: "The clause is redactional." No parallel in Mark, Q, or Paul.
Matt 19:10-12 (eunuch saying): Omitted. No Markan or Q parallel.
Matt 19:14 — revised: "kingdom of heaven" corrected to "kingdom of God" following Mark/Luke.
Matt 19:16-17 — revised: "what good thing shall I do?" corrected to Mark's "Good Teacher." D&A: the compiler altered it to avoid implying Jesus is not good.
Matt 19:21 — revised: "if you want to be perfect" corrected to Mark's "one thing you lack." D&A: τέλειος is Matthean redaction connecting to 5:48.
Matt 24:26-28 — relocated to 20:17-19 from the eschatological discourse. D&A: the compiler moved Q material here because Mark 13:21 and Luke 17:23 were variants of the same tradition.
Mark 10:12 (woman divorcing husband): Dropped. Lane and D&A: secondary expansion for non-Jewish legal contexts.
Luke 16:16-18 (law/prophets, jot/tittle, divorce saying): Q parallels handled elsewhere in the UPDV or replaced by the Markan divorce pericope.
Luke 16:19-31 (rich man and Lazarus): L material, not included.
Luke 17:7-10 (unworthy servants): L material, not included.
Luke 17:11-19 (ten lepers): L material, not included.
Luke 17:21 (kingdom within/among you): Isolated L logion that does not function as a narrative bridge to the Q lightning sayings that follow.

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.
Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Evans, Craig A. Mark 8:27–16:20. Word Biblical Commentary 34B. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Bovon, François. Luke. 3 vols. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002–2012.
Nolland, John. Luke. 3 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 35. Dallas: Word, 1989–1993.
Catchpole, David R. "The Synoptic Divorce Material as a Traditio-Historical Problem." Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 57 (1974): 92–127.
Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Wenham, Gordon J. "Matthew and Divorce: An Old Crux Revisited." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 22 (1984): 95–107.