A Text-Critical and Grammatical Analysis of Matthew 8:2: The Participle of Approach
This exegetical study of “The Participle of Approach in Matthew 8:2” is based on a discussion regarding the textual variations present in this verse. The initial discourse highlights a significant textual divergence concerning the participle describing the leper’s action before worshipping Jesus, specifically between the compound verb προσελθών and the simple form ἐλθών. This variation has been a point of contention among textual critics and commentators.
The main exegetical issue revolves around the precise nuance of the leper’s action in approaching Jesus and the textual integrity of the verb. Does the text imply a mere “coming” (ἐλθών) or a more deliberate “approaching” (προσελθών)? The choice between these variants affects not only the exact imagery of the scene but also potentially reflects on Matthew’s stylistic preferences and scribal tendencies to assimilate or modify language, particularly when a similar prefix appears in a subsequent verb (e.g., προσεκύνει).
Καὶ ἰδοὺ λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων· Κύριε, ἐὰν θέλῃς δύνασαί με καθαρίσαι. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- The Nestle 1904 text reads προσελθὼν, while the SBLGNT (2010) reads ἐλθὼν. This constitutes the primary textual difference in this verse.
Textual Criticism (NA28) and Lexical Notes
The textual evidence for Matthew 8:2 presents a complex picture. The compound verb προσελθὼν is supported by a wide variety of early and later Greek witnesses (e.g., ℵ B E M N Δ Θ Σ Ω 0211 f1.13 565. 892) and many editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels). Conversely, the simple form ἐλθὼν appears in similarly early and most later witnesses (e.g., C K L S U V W X Zvid Γ Π 047 Byz f35 33. 461. 1500. 2224). The NA28, reflecting current critical scholarship, adopts ἐλθὼν in its text, relegating προσελθὼν to the apparatus.
Arguments for προσελθὼν often suggest that the prepositional prefix προσ- was inadvertently lost due to a homoeoteleuton error with the final syllable of the preceding word λεπρος. This hypothesis posits that the scribe’s eye skipped from the -προς of λεπρος to the προσ- of προσελθών, leading to the omission.
However, an alternative explanation for the origin of προσελθὼν is offered by some scholars, suggesting that the compound form arose from a scribal error of repetition of the final syllable of λεπρός. This view is further nuanced by the possibility that προσ- might have been intentionally deleted in some manuscripts to avoid a perceived cacophony from the triple recurrence of the προσ- sound in “λεπρος προσελθων προσεκυνησε.” Conversely, scribes might have been prone to *adding* προσ- to the simple form ἐλθών, especially when it precedes another verb with the same prefix, such as προσεκύνει, for a sense of stylistic consistency or emphasis.
Lexical Notes:
- ἔρχομαι (BDAG): “to move from one place to another…to come, to go.” This verb typically denotes a general movement without necessarily emphasizing the direction or purpose of approach relative to a destination. The aorist participle ἐλθὼν thus indicates “having come” or “coming.”
- προσέρχομαι (BDAG): “to come to, come near, approach.” This compound verb specifically implies movement *towards* someone or something, often with the nuance of intent or purpose in drawing near. The aorist participle προσελθὼν would therefore mean “having approached” or “approaching.”
The semantic distinction is subtle but significant: ἔρχομαι denotes movement, while προσέρχομαι emphasizes directed movement *towards* a specific entity, suggesting an intentional approach.
Translation Variants with Grammatical & Rhetorical Analysis
The grammatical choice between ἐλθὼν and προσελθὼν impacts the rhetorical flow and the precise nuance of the leper’s action. If προσελθὼν is adopted, the text emphasizes the leper’s deliberate act of *approaching* Jesus before kneeling in worship. This could highlight the leper’s courage and intentionality in seeking out Jesus, despite societal ostracism. The compound verb, in this reading, underscores the directness of his appeal.
However, Matthew’s compositional style provides strong internal evidence favoring ἐλθὼν. When Matthew employs an adverbial participial phrase introducing a finite form of προσκυνέω (to worship), he consistently prefers the simple verb ἔρχομαι over the compound προσέρχομαι. This pattern is observable in several other passages:
- Matthew 2:8: ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω (I will come and worship)
- Matthew 9:18: ἐλθὼν (with variants for προσελθών) προσεκύνει (having come, he worshipped)
- Matthew 14:33: ἐλθόντες (with variants for προσελθόντες or omission) προσεκύνησαν (having come, they worshipped)
- Matthew 15:25: ἐλθοῦσα (with variants for προσελθοῦσα or ἀπελθοῦσα) προσεκύνει/προσεκύνησεν (having come, she worshipped)
In these instances, some witnesses indeed show a tendency to assimilate the simple form to the compound form, likely influenced by the prefix in the subsequent finite verb προσκυνέω. This consistent Matthean pattern, where the simple ἔρχομαι is used to introduce προσκυνέω, suggests that ἐλθὼν aligns better with the author’s characteristic style. The presence of scribal variants across these verses further reinforces the notion that scribes were prone to “normalizing” the simple form to the compound, perhaps perceiving προσελθών as a more precise or “correct” expression of approach, or to avoid what Bloomfield called “somewhat homely Greek.”
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
Based on the strong internal evidence of Matthew’s consistent style when pairing a participle with προσκυνέω, the discernible scribal tendency to expand the simple ἔρχομαι to προσέρχομαι, and the plausible textual critical explanations for both the loss and gain of the προσ- prefix, the simple participle ἐλθὼν is the preferred reading in Matthew 8:2. This reading aligns with the critical text adopted by NA28 and SBLGNT.
The implication of choosing ἐλθὼν is that the leper “came” or “went” and then worshipped, rather than specifically “approached.” While the act of coming necessarily involves an approach, the simple verb avoids an emphasis that Matthew himself seems to reserve for other contexts. The focus remains on the sequential actions: coming, then worshipping, then speaking.
-
And behold, a leper came and worshipped him, saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
This translation prioritizes the sequential nature of the actions, making the act of “coming” an essential prerequisite to worship. -
And behold, a leper having come, worshipped him, saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
This more literal rendering of the aorist participle highlights that the state of “having arrived” precedes and enables the act of worship. -
And behold, a leper went and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you are willing, you can make me clean.”
This translation uses “went” to convey the movement and “knelt before him” for “worshipped,” offering a slightly more dynamic and interpretive rendering while remaining true to the force of ἐλθὼν.