Re: Healing a Leper (Mt8:1-4 = Mk1:40-45 = Lk5:12-16)

> This, then, begs the question: are Matthew and Luke actually independent in
> making Jesus appear less "earthy"?  Or is this due to a dependence of some
> kind (say, Luke on Matthew)?  Perhaps one way to resolve this is to look at
> those sections of Mark which parallel only one other synoptic and determine
> that evangelist's proclivities.

I agree with you, Stephen, it does beg the question.  Quite consciously,
in fact!  I was assuming the two-source hypothesis, and saying that
under this hypothesis, this is a recognized phenomenon.  I did not
intend this to be seen as an argument FOR the 2 s. h., and I apologize
if I was unclear on that.

Here is the method that I recommend:  First we decide on our hypothesis
-- in my case, the two-source; then we use that to determine the
redactional tendencies of the gospel writers.  For me, stage one is
complete unless someone can come up with some new evidence, so I'm
moving on to stage two.  The neo-Griesbach people are doing the same, I
think; they are no longer just arguing source criticism, but are
exploring redaction criticism according to their model.  This is good,
for in a few decades it will give us two substantial exegetical corpora
that we can compare with one another, which may then feed back into the
source question (i.e., which body of results has provided a "better"
explanation of the data, in hindsight?).

In other words, my claim is simply that this "coincidence" need not be
seen as a challenge to the two-source hyp., since if one assumes the
two-source hyp. and figures out redactional tendencies, this tendency to
make Jesus appear less "earthy" occurs in both Matthew and Luke.  So it
is not a big coincidence at all, just a very little one.  Not proof
"for" the 2 s. h., but most definitely not a challenge to it either. 
Sorry if I misled you.

Sterling G. Bjorndahl, bjorndahl@Augustana.AB.CA 
Augustana University College, Camrose, Alberta, Canada (403) 679-1516
  When dealing with computers, a little paranoia is usually appropriate.