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

On Tue, 15 Nov 1994, Sterling Bjorndahl wrote:

> 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. 
I have appreciated this discussion, and I have found myself agreeing with 
Sterling more often than not.  But I think that Stephen has raised 
important questions and suggested some interesting alternatives.  It 
seems to me that the method suggested by Sterling is a good one if our 
objective is to decide between the 2 source hypothesis and a 
neo-Griesbachian hypothesis.  On the other hand, if our objective is to 
figure out what to do with some of the more troublesome "coincidences," 
then we may need a method that can help us to refine one or more existing 
theories.  Now, I agree that mere counting of "coincidences" is 

Coincidences clearly should be expected to "bunch up"  sometimes.  What we
need is an analysis of the Matt/Luke agreements against Mark.  Can all of
them be conveniently explained on the basis of Matthean and Lukan
redactional tendencies?  I doubt it.  Clearly many (maybe most) can. 
Others require different kinds of explanations. 

For example, 
Mark 9:19  W genea apistos
Matt 17:17 W genea apistos kai diestrammenh
Luke 9:41  W genea apistos kai diestrammenh

Vincent Taylor (p. 398) proposes (and rejects the proposal) that "Matthew
and Luke may independently have inserted the word from Deut.[32:5], but it
is more probable that they found it in the Markan text."  The problem is
that it is only the text of Mt and Lk that echo Dt 32:5. 

Is there some redactional tendency that Matt and Luke share that could 
conceivably cause them both to add "and perverse"?  Here the solution is 
probably text-critical.  Matt and Luke both had the text preserved in (W) 
P45 fam13, pc.  Was that the "original" text of Mark or did Matt and Luke 
have a defective or edited copy?  Or is the reading of W P45 fam13 a 
harmonization to Matt and Luke, so that Matt & Luke had the reading 
before any mss of Mark?  That seems very unlikely.  If the solution here 
is that the mss of Mark available to Mt and Lk differed from what we 
usually would consider to be the more primitive text, then maybe that 
sort of solution should be applied to other Mt/Lk agreements against 
mark, even when we don't have any mss evidence of the alternate reading 
in Mark.  In other words, did the Mark of Matt and Luke differ from the 
Mark that is extant today?  Was it an earlier version or a later, 
defective version?

On another issue... I don't think that a comparison of Matt & Luke with Q
is the best way to get at Matthean and Lukan redactional tendencies.  It
has come to my attention that students of Q occasionally propose Mt/Lk
agreements against Q, but these are usually more trivial than at least
some of the Mt/Lk agreements against Mark.  But perhaps no one ever
implied that it was the best way(?). 

Pat Tiller
Harvard Divinity School