Synopsis: 45 Healing a Leper

Departing from Capernaum and Healing a Leper

NA²⁷ Matthew 4:23a, 8:2-4, 9:30b-31	B Mark 1:35-45	À^T Mark 1:35-45	D Mark 1:35-45	W Mark 1:35-45	D Luke 4:42-44, 5:12b-16	À^T Luke 4:42-44, 5:12b-16	B Luke 4:42-44, 5:12b-16
23aKai perihgen en olh th Galilaia didaskwn en taiV sunagwgaiV autwn kai khrusswn to euaggelion thV basileiaV 2Kai idou leproV proselqwn prosekunei autw legwn, Kurie ean qelhV, dunasai me kaqarisai. 3Kai ekteinaV thn ceira hyato autou legwn, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. Kai euqewV ekaqarisqh autou h lepra. 4Kai legei autw o IhsouV, Ora mhdeni eiphV alla upage seauton deixon tw ierei kai prosenegkon to dwron o prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 30bkai enebrimhqh autoiV.. 31Oi de exelqonteV diafhmesan auton en olh th gh ekeinh.	35Kai prwi ennuca leian anastaV exhlqen eiV erhmon topon kakei proshuceto. 36Kai katediwxen auton Simwn kai met autou. 37Kai euron auton kai legousin autw oti PanteV zhtousin se. 38Kai legei autoiV, Agwmen allacou eiV taV ecomena kwmopoleiV ina kai ekei khruxw eiV touto gar exhlqon. 39Kai hlqen khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV autwn eiV olhn thn Galeilaian kai ta daimonia ekballwn. 40Kai ercetai proV auton leproV parakalwn auton kai legwn autw Kurie oti Ean qelhV, dunh me kaqarisai. 41Kai splagcnisqeiV ekteinaV thn ceira autou hyato kai legei autw, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. 42Kai euquV aphlqen ap autou h lepra kai ekaqerisqh. 43Kai embreimhsamenoV autw euquV exebalen auton. 44Kai legei autw, Ora mhdeni mhden eiphV alla upage seauton deixon tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou a prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 45O de exelqwn hrxato khrussein polla kai diafhmizein ton logon, wste mhketi auton dunasqai fanerwV eiV polin eiselqein, all exw ep erhmoiV topoiV hn; kai hrconto proV auton pantoqen.	35Kai prwi ennuca leian anastaV exhlqen kai aphlqen eiV erhmon topon kakei proshuceto. 36Kai katediwxen auton Simwn kai oi met autou. 37Kai euron auton kai legousin autw oti PanteV zhtousin se. 38Kai legei autoiV, Agomen allacou eiV taV ecomenaV kwmopoliV ina kakei khruxw eiV touto gar exhlqon. 39Kai hlqen khrussin eiV taV sunagwgaV autwn eiV olhn thn Galilaian kai ta daimonia ekballwn. 40Kai ercetai proV auton leproV parakalwn auton kai gonupetwn legwn autw oti Ean qelhV, dunase me kaqarisai. 41Kai splagcnisqeiV ektinaV thn ceira autou hyato kai legei, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. 42Kai euquV aphlqen ap autou h lepra kai ekaqarisqh. 43Kai embrimhsamenoV autw euquV exebalen auton. 44Kai legei autw, Ora mhdeni eiphV alla upage sauton dixon tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou a prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 45O de exelqwn hrxato khrussein polla kai diafhmizein ton logon, wste mhketi auton dunasqai fanerwV eiV polin eiselqein, all exw ep erhmoiV topoiV hn; kai hrconto proV auton pantoqen.	35Kai prwi ennuca leian exhlqen kai aphlqen eiV erhmon topon kai ekei proshuxeto. 36Kai katediwxan auton to Simwn kai oi met autou. 37Kai ote euron auton legousin autw oti PanteV zhtousin se. 38Kai legei autoiV, Agwmen eiV taV enguV kwmaV kai eiV taV poleiV ina kakei khruxw eiV touto gar exhlhluqa. 39Kai hn khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV autwn eiV olhn thn Galilaian kai ta daimonia ekballwn. 40Kai ercetai proV auton leproV erwtwn auton kai legwn Ean qeleiV, dunasai me kaqarisai. 41Kai orgisqeiV ekteinaV thn ceira autou hyato autou kai legei autw, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. 42Kai euqewV aphlqen ap autou h lepra kai ekaqarisqh. 43Kai enebrisamenoV autw euquV exebalen auton. 44Kai legei autw, Ora mhdeni eiphV alla upage deixon seauton tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou a prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 45O de exelqwn hrxato khrussein polla kai diafhmeizein ton logon, wste mhketi dunasqai fanerwV eiselqein eiV polin, alla exw en erhmoiV topoiV hn; kai hrconto proV auton pantoqen.	35Kai ennuca anastaV aphlqen eiV erhmon topon kai ekei proshuceto. 36Kai katediwxen auton Simwn kai oi met autou. 37 LegonteV autw zhtousin se panteV. 38Kai legei autoiV, Agwmen eiV taV ecomenaV kwmopoleiV khrussin eiV touto gar exhlqon. 39Kai hn khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV autwn eiV olhn thn Galilaian kai ta daimonia ekballwn. 40Kai ercetai proV auton leproV parakalwn auton kai legwn, Kurie ean qelhV, dunasai me kaqarisai. 41 O de IhsouV, splcnisqeiV ektinaV thn ceira hyato autou legwn, Qelw. Kaqarisqhtei. 42 Kai euqewV aphlqen ap autou h lepra. 43 44Kai legei autw, Ora mhdenei eiphV alla upage deixon seauton tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarsiou sou o prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 45O de exelqwn hrxato khrussin kai diafhmizein ton logon, wste mhketi dunasqai fanerwV eiV polin eiselqein, all exw ep erhmoiV topoiV hn; kai hrconto proV auton pantoqen.	42GenomenhV de hmeraV exelqwn eporeuqh eiV erhmon topon. Kai oi ocloi epezhtoun auton; kai hlqon ewV autou kai epeicon auton tou mh poreuesqai ap autwn. 43O de eipen proV autouV oti dei me kai eiV taV allaV poleiV euaggelisasqai aut thn basileian tou Qeou eiV touto gar apestalhn. 44Kai hn khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV thV GalilaiaV. 12bKai idou anhr leproV. kai eidwn ton Ihsoun epesen epi proswpon legwn, Kurie ean qelhV, dunasai me kaqarisai 13 ekteinaV de thn ceira hyato autou legwn, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. Kai euqewV ekaqarisqh. 14Kai autoV parhggeilen autw mhdeni eipein apelqe de kai deixon seauton tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou kaqwV prosetaxen MwushV ina eiV marturion hn umein touto. [O de exelqwn hrxato khrussein kai diafhmeizein ton logon, wste mhketi dunasqai fanerwV eiselqein eiV polin, alla exw hn en erhmoiV topoiV; kai sunhrconto proV auton. Kai eiselqwn palin eiV Kafarnaoum.] 15Dihrceto de o logoV mallon peri autou kai sunhrconto ocloi polloi akouein kai qerapeuesqai apo twn asqeneiwn autwn. 16AutoV de hn upocwrwn en taiV erhmoiV kai proseucomenoV.	42GenomenhV de hmeraV exelqwn eporeuqh eiV erhmon. Kai oi ocloi epezhtoun auton; kai hlqon ewV autou kai kateicon auton tou mh poreuesqai ap autwn. 43O de eipen proV autouV oti kai taiV eteraiV polesin euaggelisasqai me dei to euaggelion tou Qeou oti epi touto apestalhn. 44Kai hn khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV thV IoudaiaV. 12bKai idou anhr plhrhV lepraV. idwn de ton Ihsoun peswn epi proswpon edehqh autou legwn, Kurie ean qelhV, dunasai me kaqarisai 13kai ektinaV thn ceira hyato autou legwn, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. Kai euqewV h lepra aphlqen ap autou. 14Kai autoV parhggeilen autw mhdeni eipein alla apelqwn deixon seauton tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou kaqwV prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 15Dihrceto de mallon o logoV autou kai sunhrconto ocloi polloi akouein kai qerapeuesqai apo twn asqeniwn autwn. 16AutoV de hn upocwrwn en taiV erhmoiV kai proseucomenoV.	42GenomenhV de hmeraV exelqwn eporeuqh eiV erhmon topon. Kai oi ocloi epezhtoun auton; kai hlqon ewV autou kai kateicon auton tou mh poreuesqai ap autwn. 43O de eipen proV autouV oti kai taiV eteraiV polesin euaggelisasqai dei me thn basileian tou Qeou oti epi touto apestalhn. 44Kai hn khrusswn eiV taV sunagwgaV thV IoudaiaV. 12bKai idou anhr plhrhV lepraV. idwn de ton Ihsoun peswn epi proswpon edehqh autou legwn, Kurie ean qelhV, dunasai me kaqarisai 13kai ekteinaV thn ceira hyato autou legwn, Qelw. Kaqarisqhti. Kai euqewV h lepra aphlqen ap autou. 14Kai autoV parhggeilen autw mhdeni eipein alla apelqwn deixon seauton tw ierei kai prosenegke peri tou kaqarismou sou kaqwV prosetaxen MwushV eiV marturion autoiV. 15Dihrceto de mallon o logoV peri autou kai sunhrconto ocloi polloi akouein kai qerapeuesqai apo twn asqeneiwn autwn. 16AutoV de hn upocwrwn en taiV erhmoiV kai proseucomenoV.

Notes:

Here are a few thoughts and questions about the Cleansing the Leper pericope:

1. Mark 1:42 has both aphlqen ap autou h lepra and ekaqarisqh, while Alexandrian Luke 5:13 has the first expression and Western Luke has the second. Is the text of Mark best explained as a harmony in this pericope? What does this say about the evolution of the two text types in Luke?

2. Note that Western Luke 5:12b has anhr leproV (one man, a leper), as does Syriac Matthew 8:2. This double noun could be a semitic pun, as the words have almost the same spelling in Eastern Aramaic. Does this point to a semitic origin for this pericope?

3. Speaking of semitic, does this explain the confusion in Mark 1:41 between splagcnisqeiV and orgisqeiV? The spelling in Aramaic is almost the same: ethraham (he had pity) and ethra'em (he was enraged). Tatian had enraged in the Diatessaron, and he surely knew Syriac. Credit to Wieland Willker for posting this bit of insight.

4. Along the same lines, which is more original in Mark 1:40, parakalwn (begging) or the Western erwtwn (asking)?

5. The "Western" section of Mark in Codex W (1:18 to 5:7) shares many readings with Matthew and Luke (minor agreements), and even more with Luke alone. This is evident in many places in this pericope. Is W Mark an example of a Deutero-Mark, or conversely, is Alexandrian Mark a "free" text?

6. I displayed the Cleansing of the Leper here in an atypical way, by framing it between material that appears only in Mark and Luke - the Departure from Capernaum and the narrative conclusion. I am struck by how highly conserved the triple tradition is in the central pericope compared to the double tradition in the flanking regions.

7. There is a great deal of similarity in narrative detail and vocabulary between this pericope and the Healing of the Blind Man in Mark 8:22-26. Both are healings by touch and have the Messianic secret. This is incongruous with Mark's redaction, which has Jesus being received by the crowds like a rock star. Matthew has verses in the Healing of Two Blind Men (9:30-31) that are similar to Mark 1:43, 45. Did the healing of a blind man once follow the healing of a leper in a pre-Markan source?

8. À Mark 1:40 has kai gonupetwn (and kneeling) against other early witnesses. This could be a conflation of two early traditions (begging and kneeling down).

9. B Mark has kai legwn autw Kurie oti in Mk 1:40. This is a harmonization of two different versions: legwn autw oti in À and kai legwn Kurie in W. This type of harmonization is typical of B Mark, whereas À Mark tends to harmonize with Matthew.

10. The near duplication in B Mk 1:44 mhdeni mhden eiphV appears to be a scribal error, but in the Healing of the Blind Man in Mk 8:26, f¹³ has mhdeni eiphV mhde while other texts have one or the other. So, B may preserve an original reading or a conflation of two readings. This is another piece of textual "DNA" that links these two pericopes together.

11. À Luke 4:43 could preserve evidence of an early tradition. À has Jesus "preaching the good news of the gospel of God" euaggelisasqai me dei to euaggelion tou Qeou. This could be a conflation of "to preach the good news" with the more usual "to preach the gospel of the kingdom of God".

12. In his "Hypotyposeis" (6.12, 12), written around 203 to 210, Clement quotes from an early reading related to D Luke 5.14: apelqe kai deixon seauton toiV iereusin eiV marturion. Clement's quotation is much shorter and he has "the priests" instead of the problematic singular tw ierei in canonical Mark and Luke. The unique ending of D Lk 5:14 eiV marturion hn umein touto is similar to what Epiphanius reports for Marcion ina h marturion touto umein and may be a very old reading.

A bold conjecture: 1. The original setting for the Cleansing of the Leper was outside the walls of Jerusalem. Lepers were barred from entering the city. The proximity to Jerusalem is why the man has access to a priest and can make a sin offering at the Temple. It's also why Jesus sets out to preach the gospel in Judea in Luke 4:44. 2. The Healing of the Blind Man followed immediately in the source narrative and took place in Bethany (Western text) not Bethsaida. The narrative envelopes of the evangelists reflect the remnants of that arrangement.

Additional thoughts:

Here are a few more thoughts that may explain a lot of the confusion. It could be that there are two ancient versions of the pericope that preceeded the gospels, a healing and an exorcism. Mark conflates both versions and parts of each are preserved by Matthew and Luke to a lesser degree. Here is my best guess at a reconstruction of the two the versions:

Version 1 - The Healing
This is the more familar version preserved by Matthew, Luke, and the Egerton gospel. In this version, leprosy is viewed as a state of uncleaness as a punishment for sin. The healing takes the form of a three part oral story, plus a narrative conclusion.

Part 1. The leper comes and begs Jesus, saying, if you are willing, you can cleanse me.

Part 2. Jesus feels compassion and touches the leper, saying, I am willing. Be Cleansed!

Part 3. And immediately, he was cleansed.

Conclusion: Jesus instructs the man to tell no one (the Messianic secret) and to go to a priest and make a sin offering (at the Temple). D Luke 5:14 probably has the most original version ina eiV marturion hn umein touto (for a witness this would be to you). This was changed to a Messianic proof text eiV marturion autoiV (as a testimony for them). That is why the singular tense of the priest does not agree with the plural here.

This version has the same source text as the healing of the blind man in Mk 8:22-26, the healing of Jarius' daughter in Mk 5:22-24, 35-43, and the healing of a deaf and mute man in Mk 7:32-37. All are healings by touch, three of them have an emphatic short command specific to the healing, and all have the Messianic secret.

Version 2 - The Exorcism
This version is more conjectural, as so little of it remains. In this version, leprosy is viewed as being caused by an unclean spirit. Jesus encounters and is challenged by the demon, and he casts it out. The story again takes three parts.

Part 1. The leper comes and the demon asks Jesus, Can you cleanse me?, perhaps as a taunt, and the leper reaches out and touches Jesus, rendering him unclean. Mark is ambiguous here about who is touching who.

Part 2. Jesus becomes angry and casts out the demon with a sharp command - Kai embrimhsamenoV autw euquV exebalen auton (and addressing him sternly, he immediately cast him out).

Part 3. The leperous spirit immediately leaves the man - Kai euqewV aphlqen ap autou h lepra (and immediately, the leprosy went away from him).

Summary
Two conflated versions of the story in Mark explain how Jesus can be both compassionate and angry, why there is a double command for the cleansing, and why there is a double conclusion to the healing (and he was healed; and the leprosy went away from him).