Luke changes Mark's [Greek: sabbasin] to [Greek: sabbatô], perhaps because he is not acquainted with the Hebrew (Aramaic) usage of the plural of this word in the sense of the singular. Both Matthew and Luke avoid the direct statement of Mark in his 5th verse that Jesus was angry.
(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]
Characteristic of Luke is his "He was continuing all night in prayer."[28] The addition by Matthew and Luke of the words [Greek: ho adelphos autou (ton adelphon autou)] 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)
Luke has done more than Matthew to turn Mark's narrative into good Greek, tho Matthew has also improved it. The agreement of Matthew and Luke in the addition of [Greek: auton] in Mt xiii, 4, and Lk viii, 5, where it does not occur in their exemplar (Mk iv, 4), is sometimes held to indicate a text of Mark containing this word. The hypothesis of assimilation seems simpler; or in this case even accidental agreement would not be strange. The insertion of [Greek: palin] in Mk iv, 1, not in Matthew and Luke, has been suggested by Weiss to be the work of an editor who saw the confused character of the geographical references since Mk iii, 7.[30]