Re: Healing a Leper (Mt8:1-4 = Mk1:40-45 = Lk5:12-16)
Sterling Bjorndahl wrote:
> Stephen Carlson wrote (much omitted):
> > >> 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
> > >> 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.
> > but this particular change is very difficult for the two-source hypothesis
> > to explain.
> I beg to differ with your last comment. The standard answer under the
> two-source hypothesis is that both Matthew and Luke make an effort to
> make Jesus appear more divine, and to have more characters recognize him
> as such, than in Mark. Those N.T. Intro textbooks that take the
> 2-source hyp. seriously usually have numerous examples of this
> phenomenon, e.g. the disciples' cry during the Stilling of the Storm,
> and the words of the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman. I don't mean to
> start an argument here; I merely wish to point out that this example is
> not "very difficult" and that it is well documented by those who
> practise the two-source hypothesis.
Having looked at the use of KURIE to refer to Jesus in Marcan parallels, I
can say that the only time Luke actually inserts KURIE into a line of
dialog present in Mark is Lk5:12=Mk1:40, where Matthew makes the same
insertion (8:2). Also, both Luke and Matthew modify RABBOUNI to KURIE in
Mt20:33=Mk10:51=Lk18:41. The only other occurences of KURIE in Lucan
parallels to Mark is Lk22:33 where Peter says something different and 22:49
where Luke adds an entirely new line of dialog. Somewhat more difficult to
evaluate is Luke's use of KURIE in 5:8, the Stilling of the Storm, for this
passage seems to be completely rewritten rather than redacted.
In fact, Luke prefers EPISTATA while redacting Mark. He inserts it in
Lk8:45= Mk5:31, and uses it to replace DIDASKALE (Lk8:24=Mk4:38,
Lk9:49=Mk9:38) and RABBI (Lk9:33=Mk9:5). Other times Luke just deletes
these vocatives or leaves them alone.
Matthew has much the same tendency as Luke but prefers the term KURIE, not
EPISTATA. He does add KURIE to Marcan dialog in Syrophoenician woman in
Mt15:22 25 27=Mk7:25 26 28 (parallel missing from Luke), also to Mt20:30f=
Mk10:47f (Luke follows Mark), and to Mt26:22=Mk14:19 (Luke deletes this
line of dialog).
While both Matthew and Luke do contain instances of people calling Jesus
with KURIE in their unique material (Mt 9:28 14:28 30 16:22; Lk9:54 61
10:17 40 11:1 17:37 22:38), I can't say that it is characteristic for
Luke, as a redactor, to insert KURIE into Marcan dialog. On the hand,
Matthew does show such a tendency.
> > >> 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,
> > >> 3. Removing SPLAGXNISQEIS (moved with compassions). Did Matthew and Luke
> > >> both independent felt it to be too crude?
> Again, under the 2-source hyp. we find several examples of Matthew
> and/or Luke removing statements in Mark that describe Jesus' emotions.
> My own rather crude analogy is that Matthew and Luke want Jesus to look
> less Cynic and more Stoic. The EMBRIMHSAMENOS in Mark 1:43 is a similar
Looking at the incidence of SPLAGXNIZOMAI to describe Jesus, I see no such
tendency. Matthew uses it apparently twice from Mk6:34 (cf. Mt9:36 14:14),
and even adds it in Mt20:43 (cf. Mk10:52=Lk18:42). While Luke never
preserves this word from Mark, see Mk1:41=Lk5:13 and Lk6:34=Lk9:11 but
Mk8:2 is completely missing from Luke. Luke, however, has no problem
describing Jesus with that word in Lk7:13 (L material).
Perhaps, EMBRIMHSAMENOS is a similar instance, but it begs the question why
was the whole verse deleted instead of just the word.
> > >> 5. Simplifying KAI LEGEI AUTW| to LEGWN.
> Standard answer under the 2 source hyp: Matthew and Luke tend to avoid
> Mark's parataxis.
Maybe I misunderstand the term, but doesn't the word KAI in Mark mean that
there is no parataxis here?
> > >> 6. Using EUQEWS instead of EUQUS.
> Anyone seeing how often Mark uses EUQUS in the first chapter and a half
> gets sick of that word very quickly. Under the 2 source hyp., it really
> is a very insignificant coincidence to see Matthew and Luke
> independently stumble across the same alternative.
I get sick of it too ;-) but I think a little more research into to Matthew's
and Luke's redactorial tendencies should be in order.
> > >> It is reasonable to expect two independent editors to occasionally come up
> > >> with the same changes. But six identical ones in a row?
> If the whole of the gospel materials were like that, I'd have doubts
> about the 2 source hypothesis. But you won't find many texts like this
Yes, I think that is the issue. I think the 2 source hypothesis must rely
on coincidence to explain the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against
Mark. Coincidence is not necessarily a poor explanation and can even be
statistically verified. I only know that most people's (including my own)
statistical intuition is usually wrong.
> Get the database &
> reconstruction for your pericope, work through the many pages of
> material, and my guess is that you too will be impressed by the staying
> power of this venerable model (I mean the two-source hypothesis). I
> have yet to see anything so detailed and consistent come out of the
> neo-Griesbachian camp.
Thanks for the pointer to the database. The 2-source hypothesis does
explain a lot, but it cannot be strictly two-sourced because Luke's copy of
Mark seems to be defective (missing Mk6:45-8:26, I think). If this is so,
is it possible that other changes in Luke's Mark might account for the
minor agreements with Matthew? Also, scribal harmonization or even
corruption of Mark are possible explanations.
The most difficult part about the Griesbach hypothesis is not that Luke
used both Mark and Matthew, but Matthean priority. Other theories posit
Marcan priority. Still, they must able to handle the infancy narratives
and the resurrection appearances.
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
email@example.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA