Mt xii, 3-4: [Greek: ouk | Mk ii, 25-26: [Greek: oudepote| =anegnôte= ti =epoiêsen | =anegnôte= ti =epoiêsen | Daueid, hote epeinasen | Daueid hote= chreian eschen | kai | kai =epeinasen autos kai | hoi met' autou?= | hoi met' autou?= | p=ôs eisêlthen eis ton | p=ôs eisêlthen eis ton | oikon tou theou= | oikon tou theou= epi | | Abiathar archiereôs | =kai tous artous tês | =kai tous artous tês | protheseôs | protheseôs | ephagon=, ho =ouk ex=on ên | ephagen=, hous =ouk ex=estin | autô =phagein= oude =tois= | =phagein ei mê | met' =aut=ou, =ei mê= | to=u=s hiere=i=s=, kai edôken | =to=i=s hiere=usin monois?]| kai =tois= syn | | =aut=ô ousin?] |
Lk vi, 3-4: [Greek: oude touto =anegnôte= ho =epoiêsen Daueid= hop=ote epeinasen= autos =kai= =hoi met' autou= ontes? =hôs eisêlthen eis ton oikon tou theou=
=kai tous artous tês protheseôs= elaben kai =ephagen=, kai edôken kai =tois= met' =aut=ou, hous =ouk ex=estin =phagein ei mê= monous =to=u=s hiere=i=s=?]
Few brief passages in the triple tradition will better repay study than this. Note that the three introduce their question with three different particles. Matthew and Luke omit the apparently superfluous words of Mark, [Greek: chreian eschen], but Luke retains the [Greek: autos] of Mark which Matthew has dropped. Luke adds [Greek: ontes], perhaps in deference to Mark's [Greek: ousin], used in a similar phrase but different connection. He substitutes [Greek: hôs] for the [Greek: pôs] of Mark and Matthew. Mark and Luke both have the statement that David "gave" the bread to those that were with him, Luke adding that he "took" it. All three have in conclusion the phrase "to those with him," but each has inserted it in a different place. Matthew follows Mark more closely than does Luke, the latter transposing one or two clauses. Both Matthew and Luke have omitted the reference to Abiathar, either because they (or Luke at least) had no interest in it, or for its historical difficulty. In spite of these changes there is a most remarkable verbal agreement thruout. Except for Mark's superfluous "had need," and his reference to Abiathar, nothing can be found in either account that is not duplicated, practically word for word and almost letter for letter, in one or both of the others.