An Alternate Solution To An Alleged Contradiction In The Gospels

By Monte A. Shanks

[Monte A. Shanks is Assistant Professor, Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, Lynchburg, Virginia.]

Many alleged contradictions in the Bible are just that—”alleged,” and not without explanations. One such alleged contradiction involves the differences between Jesus’ instructions to His disciples as to whether they were allowed to carry a staff during their missionary journeys.[1] Matthew 10:9-10 states, “Do not acquire . . . a staff,” and Luke 9:3 says, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff.” But Mark 6:8 records that Jesus said His disciples “should take nothing for their journey, except a mere staff.” Stein wrote concerning this conundrum that “no fully convincing explanation has yet arisen that explains these differences.”[2] This article seeks to provide a resolution to these differences.

Vocabulary

Some feel that an answer to this apparent contradiction can be found by focusing on the vocabulary in the passages in question.

Ahern categorized this type of approach to this discrepancy as “verbal harmonizations.”[3] One theory employing this approach involves Matthew’s use of “acquire” and Mark’s use of “take,” the argument being that Matthew was describing what the disciples should not accumulate while on their journeys, whereas Mark recorded what the Twelve could procure as they began their mission. Concerning this solution France wrote the following: “One apparently promising avenue of harmonization is to note the different verbs used: Mark allows the taking (αἴρω) of a staff, whereas Matthew forbids the acquiring (κτάομαι) of one—i.e., perhaps the procuring of a new one rather than taking the one which the disciple is assumed to have already. Unfortunately, however, Luke forbids them to take (αἴρω) a staff and in any case the use of κτάομαι rather than αἴρω in Matthew covers the whole list of prohibited items.”[4]

France concludes that “the disagreement about the staff remains unresolved.”[5] Similarly Davis asserted, “I know of no way to reconcile this inconsistency. . . . The proper conclusion, I think, is that the accounts are inconsistent and that at least one of the Gospels is in error.”[6] The other relevant vocabulary within these passages displays no variation and therefore provides no solution to this dilemma. Jesus’ descriptions of their missions on the road (ὁδός) and their taking of a staff (ράβδος) are identical in all three accounts. Thus the variance or lack thereof in the vocabulary of these accounts does not solve the problem.

Bock lists seven theories that have been proposed to resolve this issue.[7] The first approach focuses on the problems of discerning Jesus’ instructions given in Aramaic and contained in Q rather then what is found in the Gospels. Bock correctly notes that this theory still leaves the apparent contradiction unresolved. A second solution states that Jesus had two different kinds of “staffs” in mind, one that could aid in traveling and one that could be used for personal defense. This view assumes that Jesus was telling His disciples not to take a club for defense against wild animals but that He did not prohibit their taking a staff whose primary purpose was to support the traveler. Bock rightly concludes, however, that “the use of the same term in all three Gospels speaks against this view.”[8]

The third theory states that Mark was using imagery from Exodus 12:11 rather than recording Jesus’ exact instructions, but this too does not solve the problem. The fourth solution is much like the first, dealing with Jesus’ instructions in Aramaic, except that this approach focuses on the word “except” in Mark 6:8. In this view Mark’s tradition is a misunderstanding or mistranslation of Jesus’ original Aramaic instructions, but like the first and third theories, this only explains the contradiction and does not resolve it. The fifth approach suggests that the disciples were not to procure a staff if they lacked one. Focusing on the possible different meanings of αἴρω (“take”) and κτάομαι (“acquire”) is possible, but this is neither likely nor convincing.

The sixth theory ignores the contradiction by contending that the details are “irrelevant” and that Jesus’ instructions contained in the Synoptics are actually in agreement. The seventh proposed solution suggests that Jesus’ prohibition was against taking an extra staff (and sandals), the point being that Jesus intended His disciples to travel light. But would anyone normally carry two staffs? Bock believes this is the “best” resolution to this apparent contradiction.[9]

The theory of prohibiting the disciples from taking extra supplies is possible. However, this is a conjecture at best because it is not supported by the vocabulary of the Synoptic accounts. The prohibition in Matthew’s account is against acquiring anything such as gold, silver, copper, a bag, coats, sandals, “or a staff” (10:9).[10]

When Jesus told His disciples not to carry two tunics, the implication is that the one they had was sufficient for their mission. No other supplies were to be procured, including a staff. Matthew’s record of Jesus’ instructions seems clear; they were not to accumulate anything other than the coat on their backs, and with that single provision and no others Jesus’ disciples were to go preach the good news that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (v. 7).

Luke’s account seems to confirm this reading of Matthew’s narrative. Luke first listed the items that were not to be taken: “neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money” (Luke 9:3).[11] Then after these prohibitions Luke recorded what could be taken, namely, only a single tunic and no extras. Why did Jesus give such austere instructions? Because He knew that a “worker is worthy of his support” (Matt. 10:10). In other words God would supply the needs of those engaged in His work. Some of the theories above are possible solutions to this dilemma. However, an additional solution more adequately resolves this apparent contradiction.

A Chronological Approach

Matthew and Luke agree that Jesus stated that His disciples were not to take a staff (along with several other items) on their mission.[12] Mark, however, recorded that the disciples could in fact take a staff on their journeys. These facts seem to indicate that an absolute contradiction exists, and that would be the case if in fact all three Gospel writers were referring to the same event. However, a more thorough analysis indicates that the Gospel writers addressed two different missions by the Twelve. Matthew and Luke referred to Jesus’ initital commissioning of the Twelve, whereas Mark recorded a subsequent mission of the Twelve that occurred later in Jesus’ Galilean ministry.

Evidence that these accounts describe separate missions is seen in the chronologies of the Synoptics. To demonstrate this evidence, the chronology in the Gospel of Matthew is displayed in this chart.

Matt. 9:18-31	Matt. 10:1-11:1	Matt. 11:2-13:52	Matt. 13:53-58	Matt. 14:1-12	Matt. 14:14-21
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff allowed)	Jesus’ teaching and confrontation	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Matthew’s chronology is more complex than that of Luke and Mark.[13] It reveals, however, that Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve occurred before His visit to Nazareth, and Matthew 10:10 records Jesus’ command to His disciples that they not “acquire” (κτάομαι) a staff for their mission. Luke’s chronology of this same period is less extensive than that of Matthew, but it follows the same basic timeline.

Luke 8:40-56	Luke 9:1-6	Luke 9:7-9	Luke 9:11-17
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Luke also recorded Jesus’ prohibition against “taking” (αἴρω) a staff (9:3). A major difference between Luke’s and Matthew’s records is that Luke chose not to include Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth in his narrative, a visit that occurred after the first commissioning of the Twelve. The reason is understandable; Luke had already documented an earlier visit of Jesus to Nazareth, a visit that occurred at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:14-30).[14] And that visit was considerably more perilous than His later visit recorded by Matthew. Luke chose to document Jesus’ earlier visit to His hometown for his own editorial reasons; so he felt no need to document any other visit(s) made by Jesus to Nazareth.[15] A comparison of these visits indicates that the Nazarenes were unimpressed with Jesus on both occasions. Matthew’s record of Jesus’ reception on this particular occasion, however, reveals that they were less impetuous than during His previous visit recorded by Luke. The salient point is that Luke followed the Matthean tradition with respect to the prohibition against staff-bearing, but Luke also elected not to include Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth in his chronology of that same period of Jesus’ ministry.

Mark, however, gave an entirely different chronology of this same period, one that records that Jesus’ replicated His previous commission of the Twelve after his visit to Nazareth.

Mark 5:21-43	Mark 6:1-6	Mark 6:7-13	Mark 6:14-29	Mark 6:33-44
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Second mission of the Twelve (staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist	Feeding of the five thousand

Mark’s narrative of the second commissioning includes the fact that Jesus allowed His disciples to carry a staff on that mission.[16] The reason(s) He did so is a matter of speculation. However, some reasonable suggestions would be that the terrain where they were going was more rugged, thus making staff-bearing a necessity; or perhaps this second mission involved longer distances.[17] There are other possible explanations, but the pertinent point is that (assuming that Matthew and Luke had Mark’s Gospel before them) they each chose to record a commissioning of the Twelve other than the one recorded by Mark. Matthew and Luke documented a commission of the Twelve that occurred before Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth, a mission in which He prohibited His disciples from carrying a staff. Mark on the other hand recorded a second commissioning of the Twelve (after Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth) in which He allowed His disciples to carry a staff.[18] With this in mind the relevant passages of all three accounts are shown in the table below.

Matt. 9:18-31; Luke 8:40-56; Mark 5:21-43	Matt. 10:1-11:1; Luke 9:1-6	Matt. 13:53-58; Mark 6:1-6	Mark 6:7-13	Matt. 14:1-12; Luke 9:7-9; Mark 6:14-29
Jesus’ healing of Jarius’s daughter	First mission of the Twelve (no staff to be taken)	Jesus’ second visit to Nazareth	Second mission of the Twelve (staff allowed)	Fate of John the Baptist

Corroboration By Replication

Some might argue that the Gospel writers recorded the same event and either redacted it for their own theological purposes or followed oral traditions in which certain details were confused and changed during their multiple transmissions.[19] There is, however, a more reasonable and intellectually satisfying explanation for what the Gospel writers documented, which is that Matthew and Luke recorded a similar but different event than that recorded by Mark. This discrepancy would not be the first concerning which form critics or redaction critics were mistaken. It would also not be the only instance in which the Gospel writers documented similar events involving Jesus. For example the three synoptic Gospels report that Jesus’ raised Jarius’s daughter from the dead, but only Luke recorded that Jesus also raised a widow’s son from the dead (Luke 7:11-17), while John also reported Jesus’ power over death by documenting the raising of Lazarus (John 11:1-44).[20] All four Gospels report the feeding of the five thousand, but only Mark and Matthew documented Jesus’ feeding of the four thousand. The synoptic Gospels report that Jesus at one time or another sent the Twelve out on a mission, but only Luke recorded that Jesus also commissioned seventy-two of His followers for a similar mission (Luke 10:1).[21] The Synoptic writers reported Jesus’ cleansing of the temple late in His ministry, but only John recorded that Jesus also cleansed the temple at the commencement of His ministry (John 2:13-22).[22] As previously mentioned, Matthew and Mark reported Jesus’ visit to Nazareth in the middle of His ministry in Galilee, but only Luke documented Jesus’ visit to His hometown early in His ministry. Matthew, Mark, and John reported Jesus’ anointing at Bethany, but only Luke recorded an earlier anointing by a repentant prostitute (Luke 7:36-50).[23] Matthew reported Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1-7:29), and Luke corroborated Jesus’ central teachings by documenting that He preached a similar message at another location (i.e., “on the plain,” Luke 6:17-49).[24] And Jesus also performed similar but different healings: healings of lepers, healings of the blind, healings of the deaf, healings of the mute, and healings of the demon-possessed. One need not conclude that all these multiple accounts of similar events are only redacted fabrications of a few events, or that they are the product of conflated or confused oral traditions. Since the Gospel writers showed a propensity to corroborate the practices of Jesus by reporting other similar events, it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus commissioned the Twelve on more than one occasion, and the evidence for this conclusion is found in chronologies provided by the Synoptic writers, not to mention the different instructions given by Jesus before each mission.[25]

No Absolute Contradiction Concerning Staff-Bearing

This solution to an apparent contradiction will not satisfy everyone, and the most ardent skeptics will probably find it too simplistic to accept. However, that does not prove that an absolute contradiction exists with respect to Jesus’ instructions about the practice of staff-bearing. Moreover, there is indisputable evidence that Jesus did in fact send His disciples out on more than one mission (Luke 10:1-12). What is especially remarkable is that both Matthew and Luke chose to document Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve, knowing that their version of His instructions for that particular mission differed slightly from His instructions found in Mark’s Gospel. Some might think it would have been much easier for them to “redact” their traditions so that they “harmonized” with Mark’s record.[26] They did not, however, take the easier path. Instead it was far more important to them to record the facts accurately. Thus they did not fear the possibility of presenting a supposed contradiction. Recording the differences in Jesus’ instructions presented no problem to them simply because they probably assumed that a comparison of their records would inevitably reveal that they had in fact documented a similar but different event. They probably never imagined that some would use the differences between their accounts to marginalize their narratives on the life and message of Jesus Christ, much less to reject Christ’s claims altogether.

An important observation concerning the irrelevance of the issue of staff-bearing is found in Luke’s record of the commissioning of the seventy-two (Luke 10:1-4). His record of that event reveals that Jesus made no reference to the matter of staff-bearing at all. Moreover, Luke also recorded that just before His death Jesus reversed many of His prohibitions concerning how His disciples were to travel (Luke 22:35-38). Jesus was not always concerned with whether His followers carried a staff on their respective missions. This was not the most important element of their missionary activities. That Jesus sent His followers out on more than one mission is certain, and before each mission He gave them instructions on how they were to equip themselves and what their message was to be.[27] His instructions were clear, and His reasons for those instructions were equally clear. The most essential element of all three missionary endeavors, however, was the message Jesus commanded His disciples to deliver, not the manner in which they traveled. Using this apparent contradiction to charge that the Bible is not God’s inerrant Word is not well defended; moreover, it is a distraction from the truth concerning Jesus Christ. Regardless of the charges that some level against the Bible, the Scriptures are God’s inerrant Word, and there is no absolute or unassailable contradiction concerning Jesus’ instructions as to whether the Twelve were allowed to carry a staff during their respective missions.

Notes

1. An “absolute” contradiction should be distinguished from an “apparent” or “alleged” contradiction. An absolute contradiction involves diametrically contrary descriptions of the same event that cannot be resolved under any circumstances. Concerning the conflict in Jesus’ instructions on staff bearing, Craig L. Blomberg called this a possible “unassailable contradiction” (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1987], 145), and Barnabas Ahern described this discrepancy as “a striking contradiction” (“Staff or No Staff,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 5 [1943]: 332). An apparent contradiction, however, is one in which there appears to be a discrepancy between two accounts in the Scriptures, but a reasonable explanation either harmonizes or resolves the differences.
2. Robert Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2008), 293.
3. Ahern, “Staff or No Staff,” 332-37. Ahern gives a brief list of resolutions for this apparent contraction, all of which involve verbal harmonization. He concluded that this discrepancy is resolved by any of the theories he discussed; however, he did not promote any one specific theory as superior to the others.
4. Robert France, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 248. Leon Morris also suggested this explanation (The Gospel according to Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 248).
5. France, The Gospel of Mark, 249.
6. Stephen F. Davis, The Debate about the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 106.
7. Darrell Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1994), 814-16. Views 1-5 and 7 are based on six views discussed by Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:919-20; and in Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, “Luke-Acts,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 10:170.
8. Ibid., 815.
9. Ibid., 816. Also John D. Grassmick writes that “the disciples were not to acquire additional staffs . . . but to use the ones they already had” (“Mark,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 128).
10. The word for “staff” (ῥάβδον) is singular. Jesus did not say, “Do not take ‘staffs,’ “which might imply that the disciples were not to take an extra staff in addition to what they already had. They were not to take “coats” (lit., “tunics,” plural) or “sandals” (plural), but not a single staff.
11. John A. Martin suggested that one of the reasons additional supplies were not allowed for the mission recorded by Luke (and Matthew) was because of the “brevity” of that particular mission (“Luke,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, 228). Martin, however, believed that all three Synoptics record the same event.
12. This article does not address the possible existence of Q or any other Q-like tradition. For an exceptional explanation of the relationship between the synoptic Gospels see Robert H. Stein, Studying the Synoptic Gospels: Origin and Interpretation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001). See also D. A. Carson and Douglas Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 77-127.
13. Matthew included some material in his chronology of this period of Jesus’ ministry that is not included in Mark and Luke. For example Matthew included Jesus’ exhortation for prayer for the harvest in 9:35-38. Luke documented that Jesus gave a similar exhortation at His commissioning of the seventy-two (Luke 10.2). Matthew also documented a host of ministry activities of Jesus, as well as conflicts involving Him in Matthew chapters 11-13. A profitable study might investigate whether Matthew recorded these conflicts using a chronological timeline or whether he grouped them thematically, or had a combination of the two. Most scholars recognize that at times the Gospel writers grouped their materials thematically rather than recording them in precise linear timelines. This practice, perhaps frustrating for some modern readers, was apparently better received by ancient audiences. Regardless of why Matthew arranged his material the way he did, his narrative gives the impression that much time elapsed between Jesus’ first commissioning of the Twelve (Matt. 10) and His visit to Nazareth (13:53-58).
14. Bock argued that Jesus’ visit to Nazareth recorded in Luke 4:14-30 is the same event described by Matthew (Matt. 13:53-58) and Mark (Mark 6:1-6) (Luke 1:1-9:50, 394-98). However, William L. Lane viewed these visits as separate events (The Gospel of Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 201). While Bock’s discussion is thorough, his position is largely based on the mention of Capernaum by the people of Nazareth (Luke 4:23). Luke documented, however, that Jesus had already begun His ministry in the region of Galilee before going to Nazareth (Luke 4:14-15). So there is nothing that demands that Jesus did not visit Capernaum early in His ministry and perform miracles there before visiting His hometown. Luke even said that Jesus’ reputation was widespread before His initial visit to Nazareth (4:15).
15. For a discussion on why Luke valued this particular visit see Walter L. Liefeld, “Luke,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 866.
16. Since this was a different mission, it required a different set of travel instructions. Thus there are no contradictions between the instructions recorded by Mark and those recorded by Matthew and Luke. They are simply different instructions for different missions.
17. These suggestions also explain why Jesus allowed sandals for this mission (cf. Mark 6:9 with Matt. 10:10). While modern audiences might find Jesus’ prohibition against wearing sandals strange, Luke confirms that at times this was not an unusual requirement of Jesus (cf. Luke 10:4; 22:35).
18. One assumes that Matthew wrote from his own recollections, and that Luke possessed knowledge of Matthew’s Gospel and chose to follow his tradition.
19. Matthew Black commented on what may have been the “original” tradition in Aramaic. He concluded that “it is likewise possible that Mark is here giving a purely Greek version of the saying, influenced, it may be, by the staff and sandals of the wandering Sophist. At any rate, what we have in Mark is not literal translation nor ignorant mistranslation, but probably considered interpretation, the work, not of a translator, but of a Greek writer” (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], 217). Bock observed, however, that this explanation “fails by merely blaming the tradition for the problem” (Luke 1:1-9:50, 815).
20. For a discussion of John’s account of the raising of Lazarus and its relation to the Synoptics see Leon Morris, The Gospel according to John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 532-36.
21. Blomberg suggested that there is no discrepancy concerning the issue of staff-bearing in the Synoptics because Matthew “telescoped” his tradition concerning the Twelve with Luke’s tradition concerning the seventy-two (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, 145-46). The problem with this solution is that Matthew and Luke agree against Mark concerning the prohibition against staff-bearing. Luke never recorded that Jesus allowed His disciples to carry a staff; only Mark reported the lifting of that prohibition. Also Luke corroborated Matthew’s tradition of the commissioning of the Twelve and reported it as a separate event from the commissioning of the seventy-two. Thus Blomberg’s suggestion raises more questions than it answers. (This article does not address whether Jesus commissioned seventy or seventy-two of His disciples in Luke 10:1.) If any “telescoping” has occurred, it involves the Matthean and Lukan seams (Matt. 14:13; Luke 9:10) where both evangelists in a manner similar to that of Mark (Mark 6:30-32) redacted their text in their own styles to bring the disciples back together just before the feeding of the five thousand.
22. D. A. Carson referred to the cleansing accounts in John and the Synoptics as “parallel” (The Gospel according to John [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 179). Concerning the view that these are separate events Merrill C. Tenney wrote that John’s “narrative poses a chronological puzzle, for the synoptic Gospels unitedly attach this event to Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem at the time of his death. . . . Either John is right and the Synoptics mistaken, or the Synoptics are right and John is mistaken, or John has transplanted the account for topical or theological purposes, or there were two such occasions, only one of which was recorded by John and the other by the Synoptics. While each of these theories has been argued with some degree of logic, the last seems the best. The language of John and that of the Synoptics differ strongly” (“John,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 9 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981], 33). See also Andreas Köstenberger, John (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004), 111.
23. For an explanation of why these events should be viewed separately see Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 689-91. Köstenberger mentions other occasions that involved anointings in ancient literature (John, 361 n. 14). Carson wrote concerning these events that “the discrepancies between Luke’s account and the other three are so large that only unbridled imagination can offer adequate reasons to explain why so many differences would have been invented” (John, 425).
24. For a thorough discussion of the relationship of these two sermons see Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, 548-60, 931-44. See also D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 8:122-29. Both rejected the view that Matthew and Luke documented separate but similar sermons. Leon Morris, however, viewed them as separate events (Matthew, 93). Liefeld suggested that “there was one sermon among many that Jesus preached on similar themes that was something like a ‘keynote’ address” (Liefeld, “Luke,” 890). Jesus would not have been the first itinerate preacher or rabbi who gave his favorite message at more than one location.
25. The tendency of the Gospel writers to provide corroboration of specific practices of Jesus by recording other similar events should be recognized as a principle of biblical interpretation known as “corroboration by replication.” Some scholars refer to redundant reports in the Gospels as “doublets.” When using this term, some are suggesting that a Gospel writer reported the same event twice in his Gospel, but that he redacted the event for his specific theological purposes (e.g., the miraculous feedings of Jesus, Mark 6:33-44; 8:1-9). The term “doublets,” however, assumes a context that the Gospel writers did not acknowledge, nor is it supported by an investigation of their narratives. Instead they presented their materials as accurate reports of real events. So their records should be viewed as corroborations of certain ministry practices of Jesus or events involving Him. Of course simple corroboration occurs when a Gospel writer confirmed an event found in another Gospel by reporting that same event in his Gospel (e.g., the feeding of the five thousand, which is reported in all four Gospels). Corroboration by replication is slightly different. It means that just as scientists corroborate physical reactions through replication, so the Gospel writers corroborated certain practices of Jesus and/or miracles involving Him by reporting other similar events. For example John’s account that Jesus cleansed the temple early in His ministry (John 2:13-22) corroborates the report in the Synoptics that He was displeased with the atmosphere at the temple, and thus He also drove the money changers out a second time late in His ministry. Similarly Luke’s report that Jesus raised the widow’s son (Luke 7:11-17) is further corroborated by his later report that Jesus also raised Jarius’s daughter from death (8:40-56).
26. Regarding the possibility that Matthew and Luke harmonized their accounts with Mark, Blomberg wrote that “it is hard to imagine Matthew or Luke editing Mark and rescinding Jesus’ permission to take at least shoes and walking stick” (Blomberg, TheHistorical Reliability of the Gospels, 145).
27. David Turner suggested that Jesus’ instructions on how the Twelve were to travel implies that His disciples were to live a simple lifestyle (Matthew [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1994], 272).