[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Healing a Leper (Mt8:1-4 = Mk1:40-45 = Lk5:12-16)
In the story of Jesus healing a leper, Matthew and Luke agree against for
eighteen consecutive words, caused by, apparently, four different editorial
decisions:
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
Lk5
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?
Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen Carlson : Poetry speaks of aspirations, : ICL, Inc.
scc@reston.icl.com : and songs chant the words. : 11490 Commerce Park Dr.
(703) 648-3330 : Shujing 2:35 : Reston, VA 22091 USA
Follow-Ups: