Among investigators of the synoptic problem, Kloppenborg downplays the
evidence of doublets. But in a more balanced perspective, Schnelle still
treats them as important. Nevertheless even Schnelle appears to
underestimate the range of application of the underlying concept, namely two
versions of a saying providing evidence of two different (written) sources.
I define a 'phantom' doublet as consisting of a saying in Mark plus a
closely related single saying in Matthew which does not appear to be derived
from the version in Mark. The word 'phantom' refers to the non-existence of
a Matthean version copied or adapted from Mark.
I submit the following seven cases as phantom doublets:
1 Mt 5:13 // Mk 9:50a Salt
2 Mt 5:15 // Mk 4:21 Lighting a lamp
3 Mt 7:2b // Mk 4:24 Measure
4 Mt 10:26 // Mk 4:22 Nothing hidden
5 Mt 10:42 // Mk 9:41 Cup of water
6 Mt 12:30 // Mk 9:40 For/against
7 Mt 18:3 // Mk 10:15 Be like a child
Naturally some are clearer than others. For example, the first three look
clearly valid because Matthew is widely accepted as not following Mark in
the Sermon on the Mount.
Sayings 5 and 7 do not appear to come into Kloppenborg's field of view, and
even Schnelle fails to include them in his list of 'possible' Q sayings. But
of course :-) they are in my reconstruction of Papias' logia!
Consistent with their posited derivation from an apostolic sayings source, I
assess all seven cases as reflecting genuine sayings of the historical
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm