yalla

There are a whole bunch of these healing 'miracles' in the gospels that bear a close resemblance to each other.

"Mark" has Jairus' daughter at 5.23 and "Matthew" has, as noted, at 9.18 virtually the same story.
As has "Luke" at 8.40-42 continued at 49-56 where he embellishes the story with the detail that the girl is 12 years old [v.42].

Same story, each presented idiosyncratically, and the latter two [assuming "Markan" Priority] based on the first which in turn, as Philosopher Jay notes, is probably based on 1 Kings 17-24.

Similarly, "Matthew" 8.5 has a story about a centurion's servant who JC cures from a distance 'at that very moment' when the centurion shows faith.
"Luke" has the same story at 7.1-10 and "John" repeats it at 4.46 where the centurion becomes an official but the healing is still accomplished at a distance as is, in all 3, verified by characters in the stories viz:
-"Matthew" 8.13 "and the servant was healed at that very moment"
-"Luke" 7.10 "and when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well"
-"John" "Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him".

This story has a resemblance to a story told about Hanina ben Dosa, Scholar and miracle-worker of the first century; pupil of Johanan b. Zakkai [note the chronology], who also cured from a distance:
"Similarly, at the solicitation of Gamaliel II., Ḥanina entreated mercy for that patriarch's son, and at the conclusion of his prayers assured Gamaliel's messengers that the patient's fever had left him .....The messengers thereupon noted down Ḥanina's declaration, and the exact time when it was made; on reaching the patriarch's residence they found that Ḥanina had spoken truly.
Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...&search=hanina ben dosa

spamandham

I think the version which better matches Hebrew scriptures is more likely to be later for 2 reasons:

1. If the earlier version was a better match, the later writer would have probably recognized the ties to scripture and so what would be the motive for removing them? Even if the later writer didn't recognize the links, a rewrite would still tend to maintain them.

2. As time progresses, people tend to find more and more ways of linking ideas to scriptures - such ideas accumulate, so we would expect a later writing to contain more rather than fewer ties.

For the later writing to have fewer links to Jewish scriptures, I think you need an author who recognizes the scriptural links and removes them intentionally. This is possible of course.

Zenaphobe

In order not to derail the topic I suggest you read my post again and start a new thread if you feel inclined.

rhutchin

Matthew was meant to expand on Mark by providing additional information not given by Mark. Almost all of Mark in contained in Matthew, but not all, so it could not replace Mark, but only expand on that which Mark said.

rhutchin

We have no reason to think that each of the Gospel writers is doing other than telling the truth (or that which they perceive to be the truth).

A summary provided by Luke.

And, behold, there came a man named Jairus, and he was a ruler of the synagogue: and he fell down at Jesus’ feet, and besought him that he would come into his house: For he had one only daughter, about twelve years of age, and she lay a dying. But as he went the people thronged him. [Luke 8:41-42]

More information is provided by Mark and Matthew.

Mark describes what Jairus says when he first approached Jesus.

And [Jairus] besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lies at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live. [Mark 5:23]

Jesus does not respond immediately so Jairus continues pleading for Jesus to come with him. Matthew records what Jairus says toward the end of the conversation with Jesus…

My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

And Jesus arose, and followed him, and so did his disciples. (Matthew 9:18-19]

PhilosopherJay

Hi spamandham,

These are good points.

My assumption is that proto-orthodox Christianity attracted few Jewish converts, so sticking to the texts of the Hebrew scriptures quickly became meaningless. I think within ten or twenty years of its beginning (140-150) the overwhelming Christian community was Greek. What would count would be making a more interesting and exciting story about Jesus, changing him from just another Jewish prophet forgiving individual sins as a son of God (pious man), into the Son of God (biologically related like Hercules to Zeus) and forgiving all sins (rejecting Judaism and Mosaic laws completely) through his sacrifice on the cross.

Warmly

Philosopher Jay

show_no_mercy

Matt left out the things he didn't like in Mark (like Jesus' failed healing of the blind man). Ergo Matt is a "new and improved" Mark.

Doug Shaver

I don't see the slightest logical connection between those quotations and what I said.

rhutchin

How do you know that "Matt left out the things he didn't like in Mark"? Maybe he liked them but didn't have anything to add.

spamandham

Then why didn't he include them? Keep in mind that at the time the Gospels were being written, there was not yet a New Testament. A gospel writer could not reasonably expect his readers to be familiar with some other version of the story, and so his motivation would be to maintain prior aspects of the story - unless he had some reason to exclude them.