[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Healing a Leper (Mt8:1-4 = Mk1:40-45 = Lk5:12-16)
Pat Tiller wrote:
>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.
No problem, jump right in! For the sake of convenience, I'll collate your
specific remarks below mine.
>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
>> 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.
>
>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.
I'll accept the explanation that dropping the KAI before LEGWN is probably
demanded by the fact that Matthew and Luke do not have participles to
connect.
>> 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.
The more I look at it, it seems that KURIE (in the vocative) is usually Q or
M. I'll need to investigate further on the synoptic distribution of KURIE,
but this particular change is very difficult for the two-source hypothesis
to explain.
>> 3. Removing SPLAGXNISQEIS (moved with compassions). Did Matthew and Luke
>> both independent felt it to be too crude?
>
>3. Did Mt and Lk remove SPLAGCHNISTHEIS or ORGISTHEIS? It seems to me
>that ORGSITHEIS is the better reading for Mark.
Regardless of which is the better reading, it is missing in both the
Matthean and Lucan parallels.
>> 4. Reversing AUTOU and H(YATO. Cleaner expression? Does A(PTOMAI require
>> an object (but see Col2:21)?
>
>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.
This change is probably one that any redactor would make, so it does not
especially challenge the two-source hypothesis.
>> 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.
[Specific points moved supra.]
>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.
I agree that the situation is quite complicated, but it looks like Luke
and Matthew agree against Mark on the unmotivated emendations (nos. 2,
3, 5, and 6; also the Mk1:43 deletion). If this is the case, then for
this passage at least, Luke and Matthew are not independent. I would say
that of the two, Luke is more likely to be dependent on Matthew because of
#2 (KURIE). Even so, Luke shows knowledge of Mark as well in the Mk1:42
parallels.
There are other possibilities, by the way. Perhaps Matthew and Luke used
an earlier version of Mark, which explains some of Mark's differences
(additional words, conflation) better than others (rougher style in #4).
Even less likely is that Matthew and Luke integrated a lost Q-type passage
into a Marcan section.
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
References: