Structural Analysis

These few words are prime evidence of our joint theses of Marcan and Matthean independence from one another, and a clue that Luke may be using an Ur-Matthew with a more Marcan order rather than Mark directly. Matthew has his intro because he has displaced the healing of this leper from inside a synagogue gathering (see below) and put it after the Sermon on the Mount. For those who think this might pose problems for inerrancy, we bring up Rihbany's comments about this sort of thing:

There is much more of intellectual inaccuracy than of moral delinquency in the Easterner's speech. His misstatements are more often the result of indifference than the deliberate purpose to deceive. One of his besetting sins is his ma besay-il -- it does not matter. He sees no essential difference between nine o'clock and half after nine, or whether a conversation took place on the housetop or in the house. The main thing is to know the substance of what happened, with as many of the supporting details as can be conveniently remembered.

To an Easterner like Matthew it is a matter of indifference where this healing took place -- and if that is so, then there is no error if he reports a different place than Mark, for his re-placing of the incident is intentional. In that light as well a criticism of Lachs [Neville, 221] that Matt creates a "problem" by on the one hand telling the leper to keep his mouth shut, and on the other hand being in the presence of a crowd, dissipates; though it would be supposed to favor Markan priority, at best it favors only Markan originality, and Matthew was just as capable of displacing the episode from a common tradition. However, there are numerous reasons why Lachs is wrong anyway. For one, he does not understand the reason for the secrecy. For another, Mark and Luke have the healing before people in a synagogue, and so have the same "problem," just with an unspecified number of people (but at least ten for a synagogue)!

Here we see once more touches in Mark from a Petrine eyewitness: the man being put out of the synagogue; Jesus' reaction to the man. It is on this last point that Q theorists find some ammo. There is some question about whether the word in Mark used was one that means Jesus had pity, or is another meaning he was angry. (Witherington, Mark commentary 103, notes that the words in Aramaic for these things are similar and could be confused, which points to Mark using Aramaic sources -- perhaps his own written notes from a sermon of Peter!) Under the supposition of the latter, it is argued that Matt and Luke removed this "embarrassing" reaction by Jesus. Why this should be embarrassing is not explained; this is the same Matthean and Lukan Jesus who cleansed the temple and gets p.o.'d at the Pharisees. A little social science goes a long way to noting the real problem, and we will see what that is when we round off:

Q theorists suppose that Marcan priority is shown here in that Matthew cuts this last part of Mark, for he needs to get Jesus into Capernaum in the next block. This is perhaps evidence of the priority of the way Mark has things arranged (prior to Matthew's rearrangement in Greek). But note that Mark STILL has Jesus re-entering Capernaum after "some days". Why? The same reason Jesus would be angry and it would not be embarrassing: because having to touch the leper made him ritually unclean and he would not be allowed to stay in the cities. The man in Mark came tromping into the synagogue gathering and essentially forced Jesus' hand, and caused him to have to leave town so as not to cause a ruckus. The real reason Matt removes the "angry" is not because it is embarrassing, but because he already has Jesus out of town!

In any event, the social theory that Q is used to support here fails; and Q itself is superfluous if the rearrangement is from an Ur-Matthew. In terms of Markan priority theorists may construct any number of reasons -- plausible or not -- for Matthew to have made the move (i.e., the story illustrates the theme in Matt. 5:17 that Jesus came to fulfill the law; it illustrates the actions of Jesus that fulfill his words, and the "powerful word" of Jesus as used in Matthew's entire cluster of miracle stories), but such reasons are just as applicable to Matthew re-arranging his own Ur-Matthean original for a new, didactic format. The theories can of course also be turned around. If the Markan prioritist argues that Matthew placed the story because of his concern for showing Jesus fulfilling the Law, why not argue as Neville does [229] that Mark moved the account from Matt's order because he was not concerned about the fulfillment of the Jewish law and wanted to "build on the fame that Jesus experienced as a result of his teaching and healing activity in Capernaum"? Neville appeals to:

1. the observation that Mark 1:45 is redactive in nature;
2. that this pericope lacks a clear connection to it's surrounding context;
3. Mark 1:45 and 3:7-8 form a "frame" around Mark 2:1-3:6, which may point to an artificial arrangement;
4. Mark may have moved this story showing Jesus ordering compliance with the Law in order to offset the "controversy stories" (where Jesus is accused of violating the Law) following;
5. Mark 1:42 offers a redundancy in which Matthew has one parallel half and Luke the other; why not see Mark conflating Matt and Luke on this point, or under our thesis, Mark adding a duplication to Matt's original or an oral core, and Luke merely selecting as a matter of course to use Mark's "newer" half?

Neville concludes that it is most prudent to say (with Davies and Allison) that the implications of source criticism here are "ambiguous" in terms of Markan priority.

Ur-Matthew reconstruction

We think it likely again that Luke had both Ur-Matthew (notice that Luke has Matthean touches like "behold") and Mark to work with, but to be complete:

And behold leper seeing the Jesus falling on face begged him saying Lord if you-will you-are-able me to-cleanse. And stretching the hand touched him the Jesus saying I-will be-cleansed. And instantly was-cleansed of-him the leprosy. And says to-him the Jesus See no-one you-tell but go yourself show to priest and offer the gift which commanded Moses for testimony to-them. he But going-out began to-proclaim much and to-spread about the matter so-as no-longer he to-be-able openly into city to-enter but outside in deserted places he-was and they-came to him from-every-quarter.