Synopsis: Tax-collectors & Sinners

Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners

NA²⁷ Matthew 9:9-13	B Mark 2:13-17	À^T Mark 2:13-17	P⁸⁸ Mark 2:13-17	D Mark 2:13-17	W Mark 2:13-17	D Luke 5:27-32	À^T Luke 5:27-32	B Luke 5:27-32
9Kai paragwn o Ihsous ekeiqen eiden anqrwpon kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, Maqqaion legomenon, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 10Kai egeneto autou anakeimenou en th oikia kai idou, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi elqonteV sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou. 11kai idonteV oi Farisaioi elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei o didaskaloV umwn; 12o de akousaV eipen Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 13bou gar hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuein ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai geinetai katakeisqai auton en th oikia autou, kai polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw. 16kai oi grammateiV twn Fareisaiwn idonteV oti esqiei meta twn amartwlwn kai telwnwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou Oti meta twn telwnwn kai twn amartwlwn esqiei. 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei autoiV oti Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou alla oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqon palin eiV thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV autouV, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuei ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqi moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai ginetai katakisqai auton en th oikia autou, kai polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw. 16kai grammateiV twn Farisaiwn kai idonteV oti hsqiein meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei o didaskaloV umwn; 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei autoiV Ou crian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuein ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai geinetai katakeisqe auton en th oikia autou, kai polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw 16kai oi grammatiV twn Fareisewn. kai idonteV oti hsqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou oti meta twn telwnwn kai twn amartwlwn esqiei kai pinei. 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei oti Ou crian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen para thn qalassan kai paV ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Iakwbon ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 15Kai egeneto katakeimenwn autwn en th oikeia autou, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi oi kai hkolouqhsan autw 16kai oi grammateiV kai oi Farisaioi. kai eidan oti hsqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn kai elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn amartwlwn kai telwnwn esqiei; 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei, Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	13Kai exhlqen palin para thn qalassan kai paV o ocloV hrceto proV auton, kai edidasken autoV. 14kai paragwn eiden Leuein ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. kai anastaV hkolouqei autw. 15Kai geinetai anakeimenwn autwn en th oikeia, polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqhsan autw. 16kai oi grammateiV twn Farisaiwn elegon toiV maqhtaiV autou, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiei; 17kai akousaV o IhsouV legei, Ou creian ecousin oi iscuonteV iatrou alla oi kakwV econteV. ouk elhluqa kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV.	27Kai elqwn palin para thn qalassan ton epakolouqounta autw ocloV edidasken. kai paragwn eiden Leuei ton tou Alfaiou kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqei moi. 28kai katalipwn panta anastaV hkolouqei autw. 29Kai epoihsen Leuei dochn autw megalhn en th oikeia autou kai hn ocloV poluV tekwnwn kai allwn anakeimenwn. 30kai oi Farisaioi kai oi grammateiV egogguzon proV touV maqhtaV autou legonteV, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn esqietai kai peinetai; 31apokriqeiV de o IhsouV eipen proV autoV Ou creian ecousin oi ugiainonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 32ouk hlqon kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV eiV metanoian.	27Kai meta tauta exhlqen kai eqeasato telwnhn onomati Leuein kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai legei autw Akolouqi moi. 28kai katalipwn apantaV anastaV hkolouqhsen autw. 29Kai epoihsen dochn megalhn LeueiV en tw oikw autou kai hn ocloV poluV tekwnwn oi hsan met autwn katakeimenoi. 30kai egogguzon oi Farisaioi kai oi grammateiV proV touV maqhtaV autou legonteV, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqietai kai pinete; 31kai apokriqeiV o IhsouV eipen proV autoV Ou crian ecousin oi ugiainonteV iatrou all oi kakwV econteV. 32ouk elhluqa kalesai dikaiouV alla asebeiV* eiV metanoian.	27Kai metauta exhlqen kai eqeasato telwnhn onomati Leuein kaqhmonon epi to telwnion, kai eipen autw Akolouqei moi. 28kai katalipwn panta anastaV hkolouqei autw. 29Kai epoihsen dochn megalhn LeueiV autw en th oikia autou kai hn ocloV poluV tekwnwn kai allwn oi hsan met autou katakeimenoi. 30kai egogguzan oi Fareisaioi kai oi grammateiV autwn proV touV maqhtaV autou legonteV, Dia ti meta twn telwnwn kai amartwlwn esqiete kai peinete; 31kai apokriqeiV IhsouV eipen proV autoV Ou creian ecousin oi ugiainonteV iatrou alla oi kakwV econteV. 32ouk elhluqa kalesai dikaiouV alla amartwlouV eiV metanoian.

Notes:

Here are a few comments about the Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners pericope. I have inserted an extra "guest column" for this series of pericopes from papyrus P⁸⁸ to provide additional information about the structure.

1. The Call of Levi and Tax-collectors & Sinners should be regarded as one pericope. The narrative structure is similar to the call of Simon and Andrew, followed closely by the call of James and John. The unity of the structure is also evident from the spacing between pericopes in the original manuscripts.

2. The setting of the story is different in the gospels. Matthew and Luke have the setting in Capernaum as a continuation of a series of controversy stories beginning with the Healing of the Paralytic. Mark's setting is beside the sea where Jesus has gone to teach. It's likely that the seaside setting is more original. Matthew and Luke have streamlined this seemingly unnecessary change in location. Interestingly, D Luke 5:27 also has the seaside teaching. This is usually regarded as a conflation with Mark. However, it could also be evidence of a recension in Alexandrian Luke.

3. The multiple identities of the tax-collector in Mt 9:9/Mk 2:14/Lk 5:27 implies the existence of several parallel versions. The two most common are of course Matthew in the gospel of Matthew and Levi in Mark and Luke. Both versions appear in the Diatessaron. Levi is referred to as the son of Alphaeus in Mark and the Diatessaron. However, the list of candidates is even more complicated. D and Q Mark 2:14 name James the son of Alphaeus as the tax-collector. This James appears in the list of apostles of all three evangelists. Jerome mentions Matthias as the tax-collector in the gospel of the Hebrews. Matthias, who was appointed as the replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts 1:23-26, is mentioned in the Clementine Recognitions as having the surname Barnabus.

4. The gathering of the tax-collectors at table in Mt 9:10/Mk 2:15/Lk 5:29 shows interesting variations and evidence of the conflation of two versions of the pericope in Mark. The tax-collectors are sitting at table in Matthew, W Mark, and D Luke, and they are reclining at table in Alexandrian Mark, D Mark, and Alexandrian Luke. Luke has modified the story into a banquet at Levi's house, a characteristic motif of Luke's redaction. The location is ambiguous in the other versions; it could be taken to be either Levi's or Jesus' house. There is a possible conflation of the ending of Lk 5:29 in B, which appears to combine the endings of D and À.

5. There appears to be an insertion of text from Matthew (or pre-Mt) into Mark 2:15 polloi telwnai kai amartwloi sunanekeinto tw Iesou kai toiV maqhtaiV autou, creating a problematic doublet which the different "text-tendencies" have resolved in various ways. The Alexandrian text, represented here by B, À, and P⁸⁸, has Jesus reclining at table katakeisqai auton / katakeisqe auton, where he is joined by tax-collectors and sinners. The presence of a kai before polloi, similar to Matthew 9:11, allows this to be a smooth transition. However, in the Western text of D and W Mark 2:15, they are reclining (or sitting) at table, causing a duplication with the Matthean text that follows. The Western text resolves this problem by removing the kai before polloi to create an independent clause that restates the assembly of the group of tax-collectors and sinners. The possible insertion is reminiscent of the introduction to the Capernaum Demoniac in Mt 7:29/Mk 1:22b, where Mark has wording identical to Matthew, even though Matthew's version is found in a completely different context.

6. Mt 9:11/Mk 2:16/Lk 5:30, respectively, have the Pharisees, the scribes of the Pharisees, or both the Scribes and Pharisees questioning Jesus' disciples about his association with tax-collectors and sinners. However, a comparison of B, À / P⁸⁸, D, and W Mark, reveals two different structures. À / P⁸⁸ and D Mk 2:16 have an extra "kai", kai idonteV / kai eidan (and seeing / and they saw), respectively, that completely changes the meaning. The passage now reads hsan gar polloi kai hkolouqoun autw kai oi grammateiV twn Farisai, kai eiden oti... (for there were many and they were following him, even the scribes of the Pharisees, and they saw that...). The addition of one "kai" changes the scribes from antagonists into followers! The antagonists are an unnamed party, presumably the Pharisees, who were unhappy about losing their scribes to Jesus. W Mark has the other version, where the scribes are antagonists that question Jesus. B Mark appears to be a hybrid of the two versions. (Note the position of the asterisks.) Also, B Mark 2:16 has esqiei against the more archaic (Attic) hsqiein in À, P⁸⁸, and D.

7. The question Oti in B Mark 2:16 has been recognized as an awkward construction. This awkwardness is caused by two conflated versions of the pericope, one asks a question (What), while the other makes a statement (that). P⁸⁸ shows the structure of the statement version. Note the use of the connecting word oti (that) in three places indicated by asterisks. The other major change caused by the use of kai idonteV is that the expression following the second "oti" in Mk 2:16, oti esqiein meta twn amartwlwn kai twn telwnwn (that they eat with the sinners and the tax-collectors) is now a statement instead of a question. The alternative version is shown most clearly by W Mark. The scribes of the Pharisees interrogate the disciples, beginning the question with Dia ti (Why). The interrogative version is a minor agreement with Matthew and Luke, and it is also found in À Mark, so it has broad textual support. This is a prime example of why B Mark should be used with caution as the concensus text of Mark when its readings are difficult to interpret.

8. There are some minor variations in vocabulary worth mentioning.
a. There is evidence of harmonization in B Mark 2:17 where B has autoiV oti while À has autoiV and P⁸⁸ has oti (and D, W have neither).

b. À Mark 2:17 has o didaskaloV umwn (the teacher of you) as a harmonization to Matthew 9:11, while P⁸⁸ has kai pinei (and drinks) in agreement with Luke. À has a tendency to agree with Matthew where the text of Mark is uncertain. The question Dia ti and the omission of twn from kai twn amartwlwn may also be harmonizations of Mk 2:17 to Matthew. The addition of kai pinei in P⁸⁸ is said to be Byzantine. If it is, it must be an early variant. The text has not completely undergone the "ei" to "i" vowel transition. This is a rare example of À and P⁸⁸ going their separate ways with additions to the text of Mark.

c. D Luke 5:32 has ouk hlqon (I came not) in agreement with Mark while W Mark 2:17 has ouk elhluqa (I have not come) in agreement with Alexandrian Luke. Codex W in Mark 1:17 to 5:7 shares many more readings with Alexandrian and/or Western Luke than does Alexandrian Mark. Does this imply that a text very similar to W Mark, a Deutero-Mark, was the precursor for Luke, or are these harmonizations to Luke? If they are simple harmonizations, why are they to both the Alexandrian and Western text-types?

d. D Luke 5:30 mentions only the tax-collectors twn telwnwn, whereas Alexandrian Luke has both tax-collectors and sinners. This may be a harmonization of Alexandrian Luke to Mt 9:11. There is no reason for an omission.

e. À^* has the interesting variant asebeiV (ungodly) in Lk 5:32 which appears elsewhere only in Jude 1:4 and 1:15. Luke 5:32 adds the words eiV metanoian (to repentance), which is a major theme for Luke. The Lukan version is quoted in the Justin Martyr in his First Apology 1.15:8 in agreement with D, and as such is the earliest homiletic witness to Luke's gospel in the second century.

9. A few words about textual criticism are in order.
a. This pericope has one of the highest levels of triple agreement in the gospels. Even here, however, there is some evidence for multiple versions that don't fall cleanly within text-types. In Mark 2:16 the scribes first think to themselves that the disciples are eating with tax-collectors and sinners and then immediately say it. This type of doublet is a characteristic of the Son of Man material in Mark and could be further evidence for two harmonized versions. The composition of Luke can be explained very well in this pericope using Mark alone as a source. This is a good example in support of Markan priority.

b. In the dialogue of the story, the critics speak to the disciples and Jesus overhears, whereas in the controversy stories that follow, they complain directly to Jesus. Some of the scribes are also followers, at least in the Alexandrian version, whereas they are adversaries in other stories. From a form-critical perspective, does this point to a difference in sources?