Departing from Capernaum and Healing a Leper

NA27 Matthew 4:23a,
8:2-4, 9:30b-31
B Mark 1:35-45 T Mark 1:35-45 D Mark 1:35-45 W Mark 1:35-45 D Luke 4:42-44, 5:12b-16 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 exhl
hluqa.

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. 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 and kai legwn Kurie in W. This type of harmonization is typical of B Mark, whereas 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. Luke 4:43 could preserve evidence of an early tradition. 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).