Sectional Analysis

This portion is prime fodder for Marcan prioritists, upon the understanding that Matthew would eliminate a "troubling" episode like Jesus being regarded as crazy. But the more likely explanation is that the core pericope had no introduction, and Mark, Luke and Matthew each devised a separate way of introducing it. Indeed Matthew's and Luke's intro makes far more sense, for how could Mark's lead into the matter of how demons are cast out by Jesus? And where is Mark's resolution showing what they "those" with him (note that their identity is not specified!) did to solve the "problem"? Beyond that what sign is there that anyone found it "troubling" that someone accused Jesus of being out of his wits? If this is so, it seems amazing that all (including John, 7:20) preserve accusations that Jesus is demon-possessed, which is a far more "troubling" charge than the stock accusation, "he's crazy"! If anything this is a sign that all three got this pericope independently, and there is more showing this (see below).

Here Matthew shows his own focus, emphasizing the reaction about the "Son of David" and also specifying Pharisees (the party) not scribes (the profession). The original oral unit likely started in the midst of this. (Redactional points like Matt adding "Son of David" are taken as a sign of Marcan priority, since Mark does not have them, but are just as well seen as additions to a common oral core.) There is also a certain curiosity here in Luke's blending in of the "sign" issue, which he picks up again after a diversion, between 11:29-32. This sign material has no parallel in Mark other than the brief denial of a sign at Mark 8, and there are two parallels in Matthew 12 and 16. How is this to be explained? See below.

Here Luke is closer to Matthew than Mark; some see here evidence of a Q document. We see evidence though of an independent oral tradition. More below.

This is quite an interesting point, for note not only the resemblance to Matthew in Luke, but that Mark does not use the "for or against" comment. He does use it in another pericope (9:40), one not paralleled in Matthew, but found in Luke 9. We will deal with that issue in that context.

Luke instead goes on to tell the parable of the seven spirits, but that is paralleled in Matt. 12:43-45, where it is also found with the "sign" material he goes on to use. We will deal with that parallel in context, but more on this below. Hawkins [122] thinks that there is a sign of Marcan priority where Mark says one can be guilty of "eternal sin" (not in the Received Text reflected above), for this is "an expression so mysterious and so much deeper than the usual idea of punishment..." How this is so is not readily apparent, beyond Hawkins' own apparently limited imagination; it is no different in content than Matt and Mark's "never be forgiven." Beyond that one could simply argue as Parker does for Markan posteriority [Farm.NNS, 97] by claiming that Mark has confused condemnation with sin in his carelessness while copying Matthew. As in other places, it is easy to create psychological motives.

Luke parallels Matthew's comment not with this material, but groups in Luke 6 with similar sayings. This is again a clue for our conclusion.

Ur-Matthew Reconstruction

And what is that conclusion? It is that none of the above material was in Ur-Matthew. Because this material is so "out of order" in Luke from Matthew, it gives QM theorists fits, but they'd feel a lot better if they'd just toss the paradigm and think a little more. It was all oral tradition that stayed in oral form until each writer composed his Gospel (except that Luke probably saw Mark's version). Luke had access to both Mark's written version and the oral version; the latter was used by Matthew. This oral version was tied together with the sign material and the "sweeping spirits" material, all combined by Luke in a more artful way than Matthew's linear progression.

Hence there is no Ur-Matthew reconstruction to offer. But here is the likely oral original:

The Pharisees said of Jesus, By Beelzebul the-chief of-the demons He-casts-out the demons. knowing But (the) Jesus the thoughts of-them He-said to-them Every Kingdom divided against itself not will-stand. And if (the) Satan (the) Satan casts-out against himself he-was-divided how then will-stand the kingdom of him? And if I by Beezebul cast-out the demons the sons of-you by whom do-they-cast-out? Because of-this they of-you shall-be judges. if But I in Spirit God cast-out the demons then has-come upon you the kingdom of (the) God. Or how is-able anyone to-enter into the house of-the strong-one and the vessels of-him to plunder if not first he-binds the strong-one? And then the house of-him he-will-plunder. The (one) not being with-me against Me is and he not gathering with me scatters.