The Evidence: Petronius, Part 4

I also differ from Burkett's explanation in that I think the dying person was not originally a DOULOS. First, Burkett points out that Matthew's version speaks of the centurion's PAIS, whereas Luke speaks of both a PAIS and a DOULOS, to mean the same person. In addition, GJohn refers to an UIOS, and a PAIDION/PAIS. The official, in John's version, also meets his DOULOI on the road while returning home. So here's what I think happened: (Edited 4/9/11, 2/21/15, and 7/6/15)

1) The Signs Gospel wrote of a BASILIKON who had a PAIS.  His DOULOI come to tell him the child is healed.  These narrative elements parallel those found in the Talmudic stories.

2) Mark, in original/secret GMk, altered this, writing of an ARXISUNAGWGOS who had a QUGATRION.  Jesus goes to heal her himself, so the servants drop out, and there is only a crowd of unidentified people.  This is the version we now see in canonical GMk.

3) Q then wrote of an EKATONTARCOS (based on Petronius in Josephus and perhaps also prompted by the ARXI- of ARXISYNAGWGOS) who had a PAIS (as in Signs).  He also speaks of his DOULW--the mention of the servant is moved to the speech of the centurion.  There appears to have been a delegation of some sort at the end, since Luke introduces not one, but two of them, despite their absence in GMk.  Q may also have had an alternate version of the Jairus episode, but this is unclear.

4) John, in GJn, mostly follows Signs, writing of a BASILIKON who had an UION/PAIS (alternating) and his DOULOI come to tell him the child is healed.  "UION" is Johannine redaction.

5) Again, the canonical redactor of GMk copies original GMk faithfully here (ARXISUNAGWGOS, QUGATRION, --)

6) Matthew basically follows Q, writing of an EKATONTARCOS who had a PAIS and speaks of his DOULW, but then drops the delegation altogether.  The child is simply said to be healed.  This could be Matthean fatigue in Q material, or could be under the influence of the Jairus episode he found in GMk, where there is no delegation.

7) Marcion roughly follows Q, but is more creative, and blends it with elements from the Jairus episode in GMk.  Marcionites were supposed to be celibate, so to de-emphasize the idea that a child is being healed, he switches it around: it's still an EKATONTARCOS, but the sick person is introduced as a DOULOS.  


He then replaces the servants with two delegations: 


i) one of PRESBUTEROUS TWN IOUDAIWN, inspired by GMk's "ruler of the synagogue" in the Jairus episode, and taken either from GMk or from a Q version of the episode (Marcion also makes sure to mention a SUNAGWGHN, related to GMk one way or another)


ii) one of "FILOUS", possibly found in Q but perhaps just Marcionic/Lukan filler for a more vague delegation from Q notice they turn into a mere "OI" at the end.  


The servant then turns back into a PAIS, as found in Q, and Marcion makes sure to mention the DOULW, also from Q.  

So why does Marcion have two delegations?  There are several possible answers to this, but I think the best explanation for the first delegation is just a combination of Marcion’s awareness of the Jairus episode (even though he uses it independently later), and his desire to clearly explain why the centurion deserves a miracle.  In the Q original, the centurion insists he is not "sufficient" (IKANOS), but Marcion sends the first delegation of elders to insist that he is "worthy" (HCIWSA), motivating Jesus to head out for the centurion's house.  The use of HCIWSA indicates Marcionic redaction.  The delegation itself was inspired by a delegation that was originally found at the end of Q, but which Matthew has redacted out.


Once he's sent this first delegation, however, Marcion can't have the centurion himself come out and meet Jesus, because then why didn't he come himself in the first place?  So, again taking the delegation in Q as an inspiration, he sends a second delegation of "friends" so Jesus can still have the parley about the centurion's faith.  Notice Marcion makes an effort to provide a reason why the centurion didn't go to Jesus himself, indicating that in Q, he did go to Jesus himself.  Marcion has the centurion repeat, as in Q, not only that he is not IKANOS, but he also insists that he doesn't consider himself ECIWSA, and so did not approach him personally.  The centurion is worthy for a healing, but not worthy enough to approach Jesus personally.  


This preoccupation with "worthiness" is peculiar, but seems to be Marcionic redaction, and I suggest that it is a demonstration of Marcionic theology: the Jewish elders declare the centurion worthy, but he himself knows he is not.  Just so does Marcion think that adherence to the Jewish law is insufficient for righteousness (in contrast with Cerinthus).  Hence the two delegations: the first introduce the subject of worthiness, but the second dispense with it.

Later, Luke simply keeps this Marcionic pericope intact.

For my next series, I'll turn to the patristic evidence for Cerinthus, and discuss how it's congruent with the Gospel of Peter.