[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

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

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
> >> 
> >> 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,
 [...]
> >> 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.

> >> 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.

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
instance.

> >> 5. Simplifying KAI LEGEI AUTW| to LEGWN.

Standard answer under the 2 source hyp: Matthew and Luke tend to avoid
Mark's parataxis.

> >> 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.

> >> 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
one.  My experience in producing and reading databases of Q
reconstruction for the International Q Project has led me to some
familiarity with works of people like Cadbury and Hawkins and Luz, who
have done a good job of deducing the styles and agendas of Matthew and
Luke on the assumption that they used Mark.  It presents a very coherent
picture.  As a result, most of our Q reconstructions show a high degree
of certainty (within the framework of the 2 source hyp., of course). 
There are very few differences between Matthew and Luke that remain
unresolved in our Q reconstructions.  Most differences can be explained
quite readily.

The International Q Project will make copies of databases and
reconstructions available to scholars for the cost of photocopying and
shipping.  If you are working on a text that is usually considered to be
part of Q (i.e., it appears in Kloppenborg's _Q Parallels_), write to
the IQP c/o the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, The Claremont
Graduate School, Claremont, California, U.S.A., 91711, for specifics
about availability. (There is a good possibility that these
reconstructions and databases will be published by Peeters Press; we
should know more after the upcoming SBL meeting.)  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.

Sterling
--
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.
Follow-Ups: