First of all, I think I would call Mt. 12:22-32 is the pericope in
Matthew parallel to Mark 3:22-30, and Luke does use Matthew 12:22-32.
Before this Luke has || Mt. 7:7-11 and after the section Luke has
|| Mt. 12:43-45
|| Mt. 12:38-42
then jumps to unrelated areas.
Also Luke has placed Mt. 12:33-37 at Lk. 6:43-45
So, we agree Luke has Matthew in front of him, and has used Mt. 22-
32, but the text of Matthew immediately surrounding that (all of
Matthew just prior to that and Mt. 33-37 just after) are not found
in that location in Luke. Luke does then continue with some order
reversed segments of Matthew (12:38-45), before completely leaving
But the question would be, "Does any of this provide a reason for
Luke to move this out of parallel with Mark 3:22-30?" It seems it
could have gone before Luke 6:20, or at the beginning of Luke 8,
without any problem, even with a bit of related Matthian material
Or, alternately, could Luke have placed this material in his travel
section, and still followed Mark's wording? It seems that he could
Thus I would argue that the relocation to the travel section, and
the choice to follow the wording of Matthew rather than Mark are
still apriori unrelated choices by Luke.
But if we note that Luke's travel section is mostly reserved for non-
Markian material, we have a one possible cause for these 2 separate
behaviors. That is - Luke's copy of Mark lacked this text. This
prevents Luke from following Mark's wording, of course, and when
Luke does find this material in Matthew, he had no reason to treat
it any differently that any other non-Markian material.
And again, it just happens to line up with exactly with evidence of
interpolation in Mark.
Sr. Systems Engineer/Statistician
M.S. Finance (ABD Management Science)