Synopsis: 13 Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law

Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law and Evening Healings

NA²⁷ Matthew 8:14-16	B Mark 1:29-34	À^T Mark 1:29-34	D Mark 1:29-34	W Mark 1:29-34	D Luke 4:38-41	À^T Luke 4:38-41	B Luke 4:38-41
14Kai elqwn o IhsouV eiV thn oikian Petrou eiden thn penqeran autou beblhmenhn kai puressousan; 15kai hyato thV ceiroV authV, kai afhken authn o puretoV, kai hgerqh kai dihkonei autw. 16OyiaV de genomenhV proshnegkan autw daimonizomenouV pollouV; kai exebalen ta pneumata logw kai pantaV touV kakwV econtaV eqerapeusen.	29Kai euquV ek thV sun- agwghV exelqwn hlqen eiV thn oikian SimwnoV kai Andreou meta Iakwbou kai Iwanou. 30H de penqera SimwnoV katekeito puressousa kai euquV legousin autw peri authV. 31 kai proselqwn hgeiren authn krathsaV thV ceiroV. kai afhken authn o puretoV kai diekonei autoiV. 32OyiaV de genomenhV ote edusen o hlioV eferon proV auton pantaV touV kakwV econtaV kai touV daimonizomenouV. 33Kai hn olh h poliV epi- sunhgmenh proV thn quran. 34kai eqerapeusen pollouV kakwV econtaV poikilaiV nosoiV kai daimonia polla exebalen; kai ouk hfien ta daimonia lalein oti hdeisan auton Criston einai.	29Kai euquV ek thV sun- agwghV exelqonteV hlqon eiV thn oikian SimwnoV kai Andreou meta Iakwbou kai Iwannou. 30H de penqera SimwnoV katekeito puressousa kai euquV legousin autw peri authV. 31 kai proselqwn hgeiren authn krathsaV thV ciroV. kai afhken authn o puretoV kai dihkonei autoiV. 32OyiaV de genomenhV ote edu o hlioV eferon proV auton pantaV touV kakwV econtaV kai touV daimonizomenouV. 33Kai hn olh h poliV epi- sunhgmenh proV thn quran. 34kai eqerapeusen pollouV kakwV econtaV poikilaiV nosoiV kai daimonia polla exeballen; kai ouk hfien lalein ta daimonia oti hdisan auton.	29Exelqwn de ek thV sunagwghV hlqen eiV thn oikian SimwnoV kai Andreou meta Iakwbou kai Iwanou. 30Katekeito de h penqera SimwnoV puressousa kai euquV legousin autw peri authV. 31 kai proselqwn ekteinaV thn ceira krathsaV hgeiren authn. kai euqewV afhken authn o puretoV kai dihkonei autoiV. 32OyiaV de genomenhV ote edusen o hlioV eferosan proV auton pantaV touV kakwV econtaV nosioV poikilaiV kai touV daimonizomenouV. 33Kai hn olh h poliV epi- sunhgmenh proV thn quran autou. 34aKai eqerapeusen autouV kai touV daimonia econtaV exebalen auta ap autwn; kai ouk hfien auta lalein. Oti hdisan auton 34bkai eqerapeusen pollouV kakwV econtaV poikilaiV nosoiV kai daimonia polla exebalen.	29Exelqwn de ek thV sunagwghV hlqen eiV thn oikeian SimwnoV kai Andreou meta Iakwbou kai Iwannou. 30Katekeito de h penqera SimwnoV puressousa kai legousin autw peri authV. 31 kai proselqwn ektinaV thn ceira kai epilabomenoV hgeiren authn. kai afhken authn o puretoV kai dihkoni autw. 32OyiaV de genomenhV ote edu o hlioV eferon proV auton pantaV touV kakwV econtaV. 33Kai h poleiV olh sunhgmenh hn proV taV quran. 34kai eqerapeusen pollouV kakwV econtaV poikeilaiV nosoiV kai daimonia polla exebalen ap autwn; kai ouk hfien lalin ta daimonia oti hdisan auton Criston einai.	38AnastaV de apo thV sunagwghV hlqen eiV thn oikian SimwnoV kai Andraiou. Penqera de tou SimwnoV hn katecomenh puretw megalw kai hrwthsan auton peri authV. 39Kai epistaqeiV epanw authV epeteimhsen tw puretw, kai afhken authn paracrhma wste anastasan authn diakonein autoiV. 40DunantoV de tou hliou panteV osoi eican asqen- ountaV nosoiV poikilaiV eferon autouV proV auton; o de eni ekastw taV ceiraV epitiqeiV eqerapeuen autouV. 41Exhrceto de kai daimonia apo pollwn kraugazonta kai legonta oti Su ei o UioV tou Qeou! kai epitimwn ouk eia auta lalein oti hdeisan auton Criston einai.	38AnastaV de apo thV sunagwghV eishlqen eiV thn oikian tou SimwnoV. Penqera de tou SimwnoV hn sunecomenh puretw megalw kai hrwthsan auton peri authV. 39Kai epistaV epanw authV epetimhsen tw puretw, kai afhken authn o puretoV paracrhma de anastasa dihkoni autoiV. 40DunontoV de tou hliou panteV osoi eicon asqen- ountaV nosoiV poikilaiV hgagon autouV proV auton; o de eni ekastw autwn epiqeiV taV ceiraV eqerapeusen autouV. 41Exhrconto de kai daimonia pollwn krazontwn kai legonta oti Su ei o UioV tou Qeou! kai epitimwn ouk eia auta lalin oti hdisan ton Criston auton einai.	38AnastaV de apo thV sunagwghV eishlqen eiV thn oikian SimwnoV. Penqera de tou SimwnoV hn sunecomenh puretw megalw kai hrwthsan auton peri authV. 39Kai epistaV epanw authV epeteimhsen tw puretw, kai afhken authn paracrhma de anastasa dihkonei autoiV. 40DunontoV de tou hliou apanteV osoi eicon asqen- ountaV nosoiV poikilaiV hgagon autouV proV auton; o de eni ekastw autwn taV ceiraV epitiqeiV eqerapeuen autouV. 41Exhrceto de kai daimonia apo pollwn krazonta kai legonta oti Su ei o UioV tou Qeou! kai epiteimwn ouk eia auta lalein oti hdeisan ton Criston auton einai.

Notes:

Here are a few thoughts about the Healing of Simon's Mother-in-law and the Evening Healings.

1. It is striking that there is only one (minor) minor agreement between Matthew and Luke. In fact, there are only a few words and phrases that agree in all three gospels, and these are the most basic facts of the story.

2. There is a major plot difference in the healing pericope. Matthew and Mark narrate a healing miracle in which Jesus raises up Simon's mother-in-law by the hand. Luke's version is an exorcism where Jesus rebukes the fever. These differences in content suggest two different sources for the story.

3. Luke's version agrees closely in style with the preceeding pericope. In the exorcism of the Capernaum Demoniac, Jesus goes down into Capernaum and the demons come out. Here Jesus arises from the synagogue and the mother-in-law arises to serve them. The catchwords and the rebuking language suggest these pericopes were already linked together in Luke's source.

4. The connection between the two pericopes in Mark is less clear. The degree of difference in vocabulary between Mark and Luke is about the same as the Capernaum Demoniac, if the double-tradition material common to Matthew is not included. The Matthean vocabulary in Mark is close to a direct match, whereas Mark and Luke tend to paraphrase each other. This could be interpreted as an insertion of source material from Matthew into the text of Mark. The opposite interpretation, that Matthew and Luke took their material from Mark, is also possible of course. However, it requires Luke to change the plot of his story from a healing to an exorcism and a systematic exclusion of virtually all Matthean material.

5. There are differences between the gospels as to who enters the house and who the mother-in-law serves at the end of the pericope. In Matthew's version, Jesus alone enters the house and she serves him. In Mark, Jesus and the four disciples enter the house and she serves them. The ending of W Mark agrees with Matthew, that she serves Jesus alone. This could be a formula similar to the ending of the Capernaum Demoniac in Mark. Luke has Jesus enter the house but she serves them at the end, so the presence of the others is understood.

6. There are some differences between text types as to how the mother-in-law receives Jesus' hand. The Western text of Mark has Jesus extending his hand using wording, ekteinaV thn ceira, similar to the Cleansing of the Leper in the next pericope. À and B Mark have thV ceiroV, which may be a harmonization to Matthew.

7. There are similarities between Matthew's and Mark's version of the Healing of Simon's Mother-in-law and the Woman with the Hemorrhage in Mt 9:20-22/Mk 5:25-34/Lk 8:43-48. In both cases, the healing takes place spontaneously by touch without Jesus having to do anything special, essentially by healing power flowing out of him.

8. The Evening Healings in Mt 8:16/Mk 1:32-34/Lk 4:40-41 is a transitional pericope that provides a bridge to the Stilling of the Storm in Matthew, and it ends the Day in Capernaum series of pericopes for Mark and Luke. Matthew's version probably relies upon phrases that were taken from Mt 4:24, such as proshnegkan (they brought), pantaV touV kakwV econtaV (all the ones having illness), daimonizomenouV (being demon possessed), and eqerapeusen (he healed). Mark uses all of these phrases verbatim except the first one and shares poikilaiV nosioV (various diseases), also found in Mt 4:24, with Luke. It's probable that all three evangelists knew the pericope in Mt 4:23-25 as an independent source and that Mark also knows Mt 8:16 (or a pre-Mt 8:16).

9. Mark has apparently translocated the expression pantaV touV kakwV econtaV to Mk 1:32, earlier in the pericope. Mark retained part of it in Mk 1:34, in the same position as Matthew, using the same wording as Mt 4:24 kakwV econtaV poikilaiV nosioV.

10. D Mark has a duplication in 1:34a, which may be the Western version (and he healed them, and those having demons, he cast them out from them). The awkward grammar may point to a non-Greek origin.

11. The Evening Healings has parallels with another transitional pericope in Mk 3:7-12/Lk 6:17b-19. An interesting difference is the name for the demons. The Evening Healings uses the term daimonia (demons), whereas Mk 3:11 uses the more semitic term pneumata ta akaqarta (unclean spirits), similar to the Capernaum Demoniac. Luke may have changed the second pericope from what was originally an ending to a beginning for his sermon, and in so doing, moved the cry of the demons to it's present location. Luke conflates the original version in 4:41a,c, where the demons know Jesus is the Messiah, with the second version in 4:41b where the demons know Jesus is the Son of God.

12. Luke 4:40 has an interesting little aside o de eni ekastw autwn taV ceiraV epitiqeiV eqerapeuen autouV (and he, upon each one of them laying hands, he healed them). Up to this point, Luke has not mentioned any healings by touch.

13. B Mark 1:29 has exelqwn in agreement with D and W against exelqonteV in À, although the word order is the same as À Mark. This is probably a harmonization. B Mark 1:32 has edusen in agreement with D against edu in À and W.

14. À Mark has a major omission at 1:33-34. It's unclear if the omission at the end of 1:32 kai touV daimonizomenouV is accidental or an agreement with W.

15. À Luke has probable harmonizations to Mark and Matthew at Lk 4:39 kai afhken authn o puretoV and Lk 4:40 eqerapeusen.

16. D Mark 1:31 has euqewV (immediately) in agreement with paracrhma (at once) in Luke 4:39, so this is probably original. D Mark mixes euqewV with the Alexandrian form euquV in Mark 1:30. This is another indication of the harmonization of the two text types.

A bold conjecture: D Luke 4:40-41 and D Mark 1:34 preserve parts of an older pericope about Jesus healing by touch and casting out demons. I have attempted to recover the pericope as follows:

...eferon autouV proV auton; o de eni ekastw autwn taV ceiraV epitiqeiV eqerapeuen autouV kai touV daimonia econtaV exebalen auta ap autwn; kai ouk auta lalein oti hdeisan auton Criston einai.

...they were bringing them to him; and he, upon each one of them laying hands, healed them, and those having demons, he cast them out from them; and he would not permit them to speak because they had known him to be the Messiah.

Any educated guesses as to the original language of the above pericope?

In summary, the combined data from Mark and Luke suggest that there were three versions of these two pericopes, now combined in different ways in the two gospels.