Re: Healing a Leper (Mt8:1-4 = Mk1:40-45 = Lk5:12-16)
I'm brand new to this list so I imagine that I am jumping into the middle
of an ongoing discussion. I hope that I may be forgiven if my statement
doesn't quite follow the discussion so far.
On Fri, 4 Nov 1994, Stephen Carlson wrote:
> In the story of Jesus healing a leper, Matthew and Luke agree against for
> eighteen consecutive words, caused by, apparently, four different editorial
> Mt8: 2 ... LEGWN, KURIE, EAN QELH|S DUNASAI ME KAQARISAI. 3 KAI
> Mk1:40 ... KAI LEGWN AUTW| O(TI EAN QELH|S DUNASAI ME KAQARISAI. 41 KAI
> Lk5:12 ... LEGWN, KURIE, EAN QELH|S DUNASAI ME KAQARISAI. 13 KAI
> Mt8 EKTEINAS THN XEIRA H(YATO AUTOU LEGWN,
> Mk1 SPLAGXNISQEIS EKTEINAS THN XEIRA AUTOU H(YATO KAI LEGEI AUTW|,
> Lk5 EKTEINAS THN XEIRA H(YATO AUTOU LEGWN,
> Mt8 QELW, KAQARISQHTI: KAI EUQEWS
> Mk1 QELW, KAQARISQHTI: 42 KAI EUQUS APHLQEN AP' AUTOU H( LEPRA, KAI
> Lk5 QELW, KAQARISQHTI: KAI EUQEWS H( LEPRA APHLQEN AP' AUTOU.
> Mt8 EKAQARISQH AUTOU H( LEPRA.
> Mk1 EKAQARISQH. 43 KAI EMBRIMHSAMENOS AUTW| EUQUS EXEBALEN
> Mt8 4 KAI LEGEI AUTW| O IHSOUS, O(RA MHDENI EIPH|S,
> Mk1 AUTON 44 KAI LEGEI AUTW| O(RA MHDENI MHDEN EIPH|S,
> Lk5 14 KAI AUTOS PARHGGEILEN AUTW| MHDENI EIPEIN,
> Here, the agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are:
> 1. Dropping KAI before the leper's first statement.
> 2. Replacing AUTW| O(TI with KURIE. Although Matthew used KURIE somewhat
> more frequently than Luke (31 times versus 24), suggesting a form of a
> Farmer-Griesbach hypothesis, I think it is too inconclusive.
> 3. Removing SPLAGXNISQEIS (moved with compassions). Did Matthew and Luke
> both independent felt it to be too crude?
> 4. Reversing AUTOU and H(YATO. Cleaner expression? Does A(PTOMAI require
> an object (but see Col2:21)?
> 5. Simplifying KAI LEGEI AUTW| to LEGWN.
> 6. Using EUQEWS instead of EUQUS.
> It is reasonable to expect two independent editors to occasionally come up
> with the same changes. But six identical ones in a row?
> Also, Mk1:42 almost feels conflated. Why was Mk1:43 missing in both?
This lays out the situation quite nicely. THis is one of those passages
where a comparison of the 3 synoptics can be quite nicely laid out. But
it is a little more complicated than it seems.
1. KAI is already dropped in some mss of Mark. Which text of Mark was
original? Which text did Matthew and Luke have? Was KAI omitted to
harmonize Mark with Matthew? That is apparently what the editors of
NA26 think. But its omision is support by B & aleph, not to mention the
whole Latin tradition. In either case, it could not have stood in Mt or
Lk, since their syntax is quite different from Mark's. In mark it
connects two participles; In Mt & Lk there are no participles for LEGWN
to be connected with and so KAI could not have been written, regardless
of what source(s) they might have been using.
3. Did Mt and Lk remove SPLAGCHNISTHEIS or ORGISTHEIS? It seems to me
that ORGSITHEIS is the better reading for Mark.
4. Of course the order of Mt and Lk is cleaner and clearer. No verb
absolutely requires an object. But many transitive verbs really like to
have objects. In this case an object is sufficiently "required" that one
should read AUTOU in Mark as the object of HPSATO.
My point is not to argue that the coincidence of readings in Mt and Lk
are not significant, but that before we discuss the implications, we
should be precise about what agreements we are talking about.