jesus heals a leper.pdf

http://jhj.sagepub.com

Historical Jesus Journal for the Study of the

DOI: 10.1177/1476869006064875 2006; 4; 177 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

Robert L. Webb Jesus Heals a Leper: Mark 1.40-45 and Egerton Gospel 35-47

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/2/177 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus Additional services and information for

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by on November 4, 2007 http://jhj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jhj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jhj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


JESUS HEALS A LEPER:

MARK 1.40-45 AND EGERTON GOSPEL 35-47

Robert L. Webb

McMaster University

Hamilton, ON, Canada

ABSTRACT

While recent historical Jesus studies often appreciate the role played by Jesus’

characteristic activities, debate continues over the historicity of specific examples

of such activities. This essay examines the story of Jesus healing a leper as a speci-

fic example of Jesus’ activity of healing. In particular it shows the contribution to

be made by analyzing the account in the Egerton Gospel 35–47 alongside Mark

1.40-45. The nature of leprosy in the ancient Mediterranean world and the socio-

cultural realities of a first-century Jewish context contribute to this analysis. The

essay concludes that within the bounds of historical probability Jesus healed a

leper (not Hansen’s disease but a flaking skin condition). Jesus responded to the

man’s request by anticipating the priestly declaration that he would be clean and

making this possible by curing the man’s disease (i.e., his bio-medical condition)

by means of verbal command and probably also through touch. Jesus instructed the

man to seek a priest’s declaration of cleanness in order to heal his illness (i.e., his

socio-cultural condition) which Jesus had anticipated would be the result of his

response.

Key words: disease and illness, Egerton Gospel, historical Jesus, Jesus as a healer,

leper, leprosy, Mark 1.40-45

Recent historical Jesus studies have given considerable attention to Jesus’

characteristic activities for understanding his ministry, including eating with tax

collectors and sinners, calling and teaching disciples, and his ‘mighty works’ of

healings and exorcisms. While the significance of these activities is increasingly

appreciated in historical Jesus studies, the debate continues over the historicity

of particular events that exemplify these characteristic activities. For example,

while the view is often expressed that Jesus was understood to be a healer, the

historicity of Jesus healing a leper in Mk 1.40-45 is debated. For example, John

P. Meier concludes that ‘during his ministry Jesus claimed to heal lepers and was

thought by other people to have done so’.1 But with reference to Mk 1.40-45 in

1. John P. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles. II. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the

Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1994), p. 706.

Journal for the Study of the

Historical Jesus

Vol. 4.2 pp. 177-202

DOI: 10.1177/1476869006064875

© 2006 SAGE Publications

London, Thousand Oaks, CA

and New Delhi

http://JSHJ.sagepub.com



178 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus

particular he is agnostic: ‘the narrative exemplifies the bare bones of what would

be needed to tell the story of the cleansing of the leper… [T]his stereotypical

outline…tells neither for nor against the historicity of the story’.2 An interesting

contrast to Meier’s view is the Jesus Seminar’s analysis in The Acts of Jesus

which concluded with a pink vote that the core of this pericope (Mk 1.40-42) is

probably historical.3

One of the factors that contributes to the differing views of Meier and the

Jesus Seminar is the role played by the extra-canonical Egerton Gospel (abbrevi-

ated EgerG). Meier does note the impact that this text could play in the discus-

sion,4 but he does not pursue it further because he has already concluded in his

earlier volume that the Egerton Gospel is dependent on the Synoptics.5 The con-

clusions of the Jesus Seminar, on the other hand, were influenced by viewing the

Egerton Gospel as independent.

This essay discusses the historicity of the pericope of Jesus healing a leper and

demonstrates the significant role played in the discussion by a careful analysis of

the Egerton Gospel alongside Mark’s Gospel.

General Considerations With Respect to Jesus Healing a Leper

Before examining the specific narrative elements in the relevant texts, a number

of more general observations need to be made in order to provide a framework

in which to evaluate the historicity of this particular healing story.

2. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, p. 701.

3. See the discussion in Robert W. Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus: The

Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998), pp. 61-63.

It is interesting to note in the Seminar’s work that of the inventory of 176 events attributed to

the life of Jesus in the early Christian sources, only 29 received a red or pink vote (indicating

the Seminar considered these events to be virtually certain or probably reliable). Of these 29

events, six of these are healing stories. A complete list of the 176 events and the 387 reports of

them as well as the voting records on each is found in Funk and the Jesus Seminar, Acts of

Jesus, pp. 558-64. A list of the 29 events voted red or pink is found in Funk and the Jesus

Seminar, Acts of Jesus, pp. 566-68.

My own interest in this pericope originated with the Jesus Seminar discussion on this topic,

and an earlier form of this essay contributed to that discussion at the Seminar’s 1993 Spring

meeting.

4. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, p. 746 n. 96.

5. John P. Meier, The Roots of the Problem and the Person. I. A Marginal Jew: Rethink-

ing the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 119. He does admit, however, that

Dodd’s view (cited below) of the text’s independence ‘is also possible’.



Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 179

Multiple Attestation of the Story about Jesus Healing a Leper

The story of Jesus healing a leper is found in all three synoptic Gospels (Mk 1.40-

45 = Mt. 8.2-4 = Lk. 5.12-16) as well as an extra-canonical text, EgerG 35-47.

The Egerton Gospel is a fragmentary text of extra-canonical material, the first

portion of which was published in 1935 as Papyrus Egerton 2, named after the

man who provided the funds for its purchase. In 1987 another papyrus fragment

was published, Papyrus Köln 255, which proved to be the lower portion of the

first fragment of P. Egerton 2. For the text under consideration here, EgerG 35-47,

lines 35-42 come from the first fragment of P. Egerton 2, lines 35-42, while lines

43-47 are provided by P. Köln 255.6 The following is the text and a translation

of EgerG 35-47.7

EgerG 35-47

35 kai\ [i0]dou_ lepro_j proselq[w_n au)tw|~] And behold, a leper approaching him

36 le/gei: dida&skale 'Ih(sou~) le[proi=jsun*]

says, ‘Teacher Jesus, while traveling with

lepers

37 odeu&wn kai\ sunesqi/w[n au)toi=j] and eating with them

38 e0n tw|~ pandoxei/w| e0l[epri/asa] in the inn, I became a leper

39 kai\ au)to_j e0gw&: e0a_n [o]u}n [su_ qe/lh|j] also myself. If, therefore, you are willing,

40 kaqari/zomai: o( dh_ k(u&rio)j* [e1fhau)tw|~:]

I will be clean’. Then the Lord said to him,

41 qe/l[w] kaqari/sqhti: [kai\ eu)qe/wj] ‘I am willing, be clean’. And immediately

42 [a)]pe/sth a)p' au)tou~ h( le/p[ra: le/gei] the leprosy departed from him.

6. P. Egerton 2 was first published by H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat (eds.), Fragments of

an Unknown Gospel and Other Early Christian Papyri (London: The Trustees of the British

Museum, 1935). P. Köln 255 was first published by Michael Gronewald, ‘Unbekanntes Evan-

gelium oder Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aud dem “Evangelium Egerton”)’, in Kölner

Papyri (P. Köln), VI (ed. Bärbel Kramer and Robert Hübner; Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-

Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sonderreihe Papyrologica Coloniensia, 7;

Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1987). For a complete description, analysis and translation of

these texts, see Jon B. Daniels, ‘The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity’ (PhD

dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1989), pp. 1-26. For a less literal translation, see ‘The

Egerton Gospel’, in Robert J. Miller (ed.), The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Verson

(Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992), pp. 406-11; see also Joachim Jeremias and Wilhelm Schnee-

melcher, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2’, in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher;

trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadelphia: Westminster John Knox, rev. edn, 1991), I, pp. 96-99;

J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature

in an English Translation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 37-40.

Some translations refer to EgerG lines 35-47 as EgerG 2.1-4, that is, by chapter and verse.

In either case the reference is to the same text. This essay uses the line numbers for referencing

the text.

7. The text of the Egerton Gospel is from Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, p. 14. The trans-

lation is my own, though it is close to that of Daniels (pp. 24-25). It attempts to be somewhat

literal. The following translations were also consulted: Jeremias and Schneemelcher, ‘Papyrus

Egerton 2’, p. 98; Elliott, Apocryphal New Testament, p. 40; Miller, Complete Gospels, p. 409.




43 de\ au)tw|~ o( 'Ih(sou~j)[:] pore[uqei\jseau*]

And Jesus says to him, ‘Go, show

44 to_n e0pi/deicon toi=[j* i9ereu~sin] yourself to the priests

45 kai\ a)ne/negkon [peri\ tou~ ka*] and offer for the

46 [q]arismou~ w(j pro[s]e/[tacenMw(u"sh~j) kai\]

cleansing as Moses commanded, and

47 [m]hke/ti a([ma&]rtane [ sin no longer…’

Since the publication of the Egerton Gospel, the relationship between it and

the canonical Gospels has been a matter of considerable debate,8 in which there

are four basic positions with respect to the text at hand:9 (1) the Egerton Gospel

is directly dependent on one or more of the synoptic Gospels;10 (2) the author of

the Egerton Gospel is dependent upon a memory of the synoptic Gospels;11 (3)

the Egerton Gospel is independent of the synoptic Gospels and is using common

oral traditions;12 (4) the author of Mark is directly dependent on the Egerton

Gospel.13 The most extensive analysis of this issue was conducted by Jon B.

8. The relationship of the Egerton Gospel to John’s Gospel is also an issue, but since the

healing of the leper is not found in John, this relationship will not be examined here. See

Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, pp. 75-138; John W. Pryor, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Fourth

Gospel’, AusBR 37 (1989), pp. 1-13; Kurt Erlemann, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2: “Missing Link”

zwischen synoptischer und johanneischer Tradition’, NTS 42 (1996), pp. 12-34.

For the purposes of this discussion I am assuming the two-source hypothesis: Matthew and

Luke used Mark and Q in addition to diverse other traditions.

9. See the survey and discussion by Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, pp. 75-138.

10. The position has been held by numerous scholars, but most recently it has been

argued by Frans Neirynck, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper’, ETL 61 (1985),

pp. 153-60; cf. his more general discussion in Frans Neirynck, ‘The Apocryphal Gospels and

the Gospel of Mark’, in The New Testament in Early Christianity (ed. Jean-Marie Sevrin;

BETL, 86; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 123-75, esp. 161-67.

11. Joachim Jeremias, ‘An Unknown Gospel with Johannine Elements (Pap. Egerton 2)’,

in New Testament Apocrypha (ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher; trans. R. McL. Wilson; Philadel-

phia: Westminster Press, 1963–65), I, pp. 94-97. The revised edition (Jeremias and Schnee-

melcher, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2’, pp. 96-99) appears to continue this view, but also considers the

first position noted above as advanced by Neirynck.

12. Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’; Jon B. Daniels, ‘The Healing of a Leper: The Egerton

Gospel and the Synoptic Parallels’, paper presented at the Jesus Seminar of the Westar

Institute, 24-27 October 1991. See also Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their His-

tory and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 205-16, esp. 211-

13; C.H. Dodd, ‘A New Gospel’, in New Testament Studies (repr.; Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 2nd edn, 1967 [1936]), pp. 12-52.

13. John Dominic Crossan, Four Other Gospels: Shadows on the Contours of Canon (San

Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), pp. 65-87. However, Crossan (John Dominic Crossan, The

Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant [San Francisco: HarperSan-

Francisco, 1991], p. 321) has more recently stated: ‘Whether Mark knew the Egerton Gospel

or not is probably beyond proof or disproof and therefore without interest, so I am willing to




Daniels in his doctoral dissertation. I find his handling of the question to be quite

convincing and so refer the reader to that discussion; I will only summarize it

here,14 and focus the discussion only on the pericope of Jesus healing a leper.

While there are verbal agreements between the accounts of the healing of a

leper in the Egerton Gospel and the Synoptics, such agreement does not necessar-

ily establish a relationship of direct dependence between texts. Daniels’ detailed

analysis comparing EgerG 35-47 with Mk 1.40-45 = Mt. 8.2-4 = Lk. 5.12-16 led

him to conclude that EgerG 35-47 ‘shows very little agreement with wording that

stems from editorial work clearly attributable to Matthew or Luke. Evidence for

Matthean phrasing is slight… Most telling is the result that Egerton’s story pre-

serves no elements attributable specifically to Markan handling’.15 The ‘slight’

evidence Daniels alludes to is the similarity between the Matthean introduction

to the pericope in Mt. 8.2a (which differs from Mk 1.40a) and the introduction to

the pericope in EgerG 35-36:

EgerG 35-36 Mt. 8.2a Mark 1.40a

kai\ [i0]dou_ lepro_j proselq[w_nau)tw|~] le/gei…

kai\ i0dou_ lepro_j proselqw_nproseku&nei au)tw~| le/gwn…

Kai\ e1rxetai pro_j au)to_nlepro_j parakalw~n au)to_n

[kai\ gonupetw~n] kai\ le/gwn au)tw~|…

And behold, a leper approaching

him says…

And behold, a leper

approaching, kneels before him,

saying…

And a leper comes to him,

begging him, [and kneeling,]

and saying to him…

As does Matthew, the Egerton Gospel uses the introductory expression kai\i0dou& (‘and behold’) and the verb proselqw&n (‘approaching’). Since it is to be

expected that the Egerton Gospel would have some form of introduction to the

pericope, the use of a common verb form such as proselqw&n (‘approaching’)

hardly constitutes dependence, for most of the healing stories about Jesus involve

the person approaching Jesus. And the expression kai\ i0dou& (‘and behold’) is a

common technique to heighten immediacy in narrative as well as direct speech.

It is found frequently throughout the Gospels and the rest of the NT. Its wide-

spread use in early Christian discourse may have arisen due to its frequency in

withdraw the proposal. But I am still completely convinced that the Egerton Gospel did not

know the intracanonical Gospels.’

14. Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, pp. 27-74.

15. Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, p. 73; cf. the complete analysis on pp. 27-74. Koester

(Ancient Christian Gospels, p. 215) concurs: ‘What is decisive is the fact that there is nothing

in this pericope that clearly reveals redactional features of any of the gospels in which parallels

appear’. Daniels (‘Egerton Gospel’, p. 33) also cites the earlier dissertation by Goro Mayeda

(Das Leben-Jesu-Fragment: Papyrus Egerton 2 und seine Stellung in der urchristlichen Lit-

eraturgeschichte [Bern: Verlag Paul Haupt, 1946]) as coming to the same conclusion.




the LXX.16 Franz Neirynck concluded on the other hand that ‘[t]he contact with

Mt 8,2a is obvious in the first words of the story…’17 But, given the observations

just made, Neirynck’s view is hardly as obvious as he claims. For Lk. 5.12 also

uses kai\ i0dou& (‘and behold’) as a redactional change to Mark (one of the ‘minor

agreements’ between Matthew and Luke against Mark), but Luke uses a differ-

ent verb. Thus the argument at this point is that the Egerton Gospel is dependent

on Matthew rather than Luke. That the most specific evidence for dependence of

the Egerton Gospel on Matthew is also a ‘minor agreement’ between Matthew

and Luke is hardly compelling, for those who hold to the two-source hypothesis

conclude that such a minor agreement is not evidence of a dependent relation-

ship between Matthew and Luke. This demonstrates just how tenuous is the argu-

ment that the Egerton Gospel is dependent on Matthew at this point.

Other minor points of similarity between the Egerton Gospel and the Synop-

tics involve the core of the story; that is, elements central to the narrative.18 These

do not evidence literary dependence.19 Furthermore, we may observe that EgerG

35-47 also lacks three features common to all three synoptic Gospels: (1) an act

of obeisance by the leper; (2) Jesus’ touching the leper, and (3) Jesus com-

manding him to tell no one. If the Egerton Gospel used one of the Synoptics, the

elimination of the first feature in particular is difficult to explain.20 I conclude,

therefore, as C.H. Dodd did several decades ago:

The resemblances are after all confined to that minimum which could not be absent if

the story was to be told at all. The differences, both by way of omission and of

addition, are more striking. It may well be that the story had taken different forms in

the oral tradition, and that it reached the author of the ‘Unknown Gospel’ [i.e., the

Egerton Gospel] in a form different from that which it took in the tradition underlying

Mark, which is itself the basis of all the canonical reports.21

We are able to conclude then that EgerG 35-47 and Mk 1.40-45 are most

likely two independent texts which recount the story of Jesus healing a leper.

Based on the criterion of multiple attestation, there is, therefore, a greater

16. Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, pp. 41-42. Daniels (p. 42 n. 1) observes that kai\ i)dou&(‘and behold’) may have been viewed as particularly appropriate to use in a story about leprosy

given that this same expression is used 22 times in Lev. 13–14 in the discussion of leprosy, but

it is not used anywhere else in LXX Leviticus.

17. Neirynck, ‘Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper’, p. 158.

18. The point here is that a basic story about Jesus healing a leper has to include certain

basic elements and expressions if the story is going to be told at all. Similarity in these core

elements do not provide evidence of dependence unless they are distinctive and unusual.

19. E.g., Neirynck (‘Papyrus Egerton 2 and the Healing of the Leper’, pp. 154-55) also

argues for this pericope’s dependence upon Luke, but these involve elements involving the

core of the story. His arguments are equally tenuous, and they have been well addressed by

Daniels (‘Egerton Gospel’, pp. 43-46).

20. Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 212-13.

21. Dodd, ‘A New Gospel’, p. 36.




possibility that we are dealing with a narrative which may represent a historical

event in the life of Jesus.22

Multiple Levels of Tradition concerning Jesus Healing Lepers

While this essay concentrates its attention on Mk 1.40-45 and EgerG 35-47—two

independent points in the Jesus tradition,23—we must observe as well that Jesus

is also presented as a healer of lepers in other levels of the tradition as well.

At a very early level of the tradition, namely Q, Jesus responds to the question

from John the Baptist about whether or not he was the one who was to come, to

which Jesus responds ‘Go report to John what you have seen and heard: The

blind see again, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed (leproi\ kaqari/zontai), the

deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the good news preached to

them’ (Q 7.22; Lk. 7.22 = Mt. 11.4-5).24 It has been observed frequently that the

elements in Jesus’ response are derived from a number of Isaianic texts, includ-

ing Isa. 26.19; 29.18-19; 35.5-6; 42.18; 61.1. While this is true with most of the

six elements, it is interesting to observe that cleansing lepers is in fact not found

in Isaiah.25 It would be difficult to reject all these elements from Jesus’ healing

and preaching ministry merely on the grounds that Isaianic language is used in

framing Jesus’ response. This would hold even more for the element which is not

derived from Isaiah—Jesus cleanses lepers.

In Lk. 17.11-19—a tradition unique to Luke—the story is told of Jesus healing

ten lepers. Whether Luke was the first to put the story into writing, having mod-

eled it after 5.12-16,26 or heavily redacted a pre-Lukan form,27 it is unlikely that

he created this story, for he already has the healing story under consideration here

in 5.12-16 (having used Mk 1.40-45 as a source), and Luke avoids doublets.28

22. See, for example, Crossan’s provisional acknowledgement (Historical Jesus, pp. 321-

23) of independent attestation, and his consequent analysis of the story with respect to Jesus’

ministry.

23. In addition to Mk 1.40-45, the Markan level of the tradition also portrays Jesus eating

in the house of Simon the leper, Mk 14.3 = Mt. 26.6.

24. On this pericope see Robert L. Webb, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-

Historical Study (JSNTSup, 62; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991), pp. 49-50, 278-82.

25. John J. Pilch (‘Biblical Leprosy and Bodily Symbolism’, BTB 11 [1981], pp. 108-113

[p. 113]) has suggested that the reference to lepers is derived from Isa. 35.8, which makes

reference to the highway through the wilderness on which ‘the unclean shall not travel…’. This

suggestion is unsatisfactory because the text does not refer to lepers, nor does it make reference

to healing. The language of ‘unclean’ is used in many and varied contexts other than leprosy.

26. E.g., C.F. Evans, Saint Luke (TPINTC; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,

1990), p. 623.

27. E.g., Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB, 28; 2 vols; Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1981–85), II, p. 1149; Hans Dieter Betz, ‘Cleansing of the Ten Lepers

(Luke 17.11-19)’, JBL 90 (1971), pp. 314-28.

28. The foundational work on Luke’s avoidance of doublets is by Heinz Schürmann, ‘Die




To this may also be added the more general statements in the Gospel tradi-

tion about Jesus as a healer. In addition, there are the Jewish and non-Christian

sources which identify Jesus as one who did mighty works or was a magician.29

Stories about Healing Lepers Outside the Jesus Tradition

When one considers the quantity and variety of miraculous healing stories outside

the Jesus tradition, it was somewhat surprising to search Jewish and Graeco-

Roman sources only to find how rare are references to miraculous healing of

leprosy.30 In Graeco-Roman literature I am aware of only one reference to healing

leprosy. Galen, a second-century CE physician whose writings were influential in

the western medical tradition, reports in Subfiguratio Empirica 10:

Another wealthy man, this one not a native but from the interior of Thrace, came,

because a dream had driven him, to Pergamum. Then a dream appeared to him, the

god [Asclepius] prescribing that he should drink every day of the drug produced from

the vipers and should anoint the body from the outside. The disease after a few days

turned into leprosy (ei0j le/pran); and this disease, in turn, was cured (e0qerapeu&qh) by

the drugs which the god commanded.31

Dubletten im Lukasevangelium’, in Schürmann, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu

den synoptischen Evangelien (Kommentare und Beiträge zum Alten und Neuen Testament;

Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag, 1968), pp. 272-78; idem, ‘Die Dublettenvermeidungen im Lukas-

evangelium’, in ibid., pp. 279-89.

29. E.g., b. Sanh. 43a; 107b; t. ul. 2.22; Josephus, Ant. 18.63-64. See the discussion in

David Aune, ‘Magic in Early Christianity’, in ANRW II.23.2 (ed. H. Temporini and W. Haase;

Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1980), p. 1525. For other references see H. van der Loos, The Miracles

of Jesus (NovTSup, 9; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 156-75.

30. This search has been extensive, but not exhaustive. It would appear that others have

also had a difficult time in this search. For example, while Wendy Cotter (Miracles in Greco-

Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook for the Study of New Testament Miracle Stories [London:

Routledge, 1999]) provides a wide variety of Graeco-Roman examples of healing stories and

discusses healing of leprosy in her interesting study, she is not able to provide any examples of

a Graeco-Roman miracle story involving leprosy.

31. The text and translation are from Emma J. Edelstein and Ludwig Edelstein, Asclepius:

A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies (2 vols; repr. 1945; Salem, NH: Ayer Com-

pany, 1988), I, p. 250. I am indebted to Rikki E. Watts for bringing this text to my attention.

There are the occasional stories of other conditions involving the skin, but the terms ‘leper,

leprosy’ are not used. One example is from the Epidaurus inscriptions (fourth century BCE).

These marble plaques commemorate healings by Asclepius, the god of healing, and were

found inside the temple at Epidaurus. One inscription describes a boy healed of a growth on

his neck. Cf. Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius, I, pp. 226, 234; Francis Martin (ed.), Narra-

tive Parallels to the New Testament (SBLRBS, 22; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), p. 229.

David L. Dungan and David R. Cartlidge (Sourcebook of Texts for the Comparative Study of the

Gospels [SBLSBS, 1; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 4th edn, 1974], p. 53) provide a reference

to an Epidaurus inscription of a boy healed of a ‘skin rash’, but the Greek text describes the con-

dition as liqiw~n (‘stones’), which is a medical term for stone in the bladder (cf. LSJ, 1049).




In this instance having an unnamed disease caused a man to seek Asclepius’

aid. The healing is in two stages: the unnamed disease is transformed into leprosy,

and this in turn is ‘cured’ by means of ‘drugs’.32 While this is the only Graeco-

Roman miraculous healing story involving leprosy that I have been able to

identify, the healing of leprosy is discussed by Graeco-Roman medical and

natural-history texts.33

The only other miraculous healing stories concerning lepers are contained

within the Hebrew Bible, of which there are three.34 (1) In Exod. 4.6-7 Yahweh

provides the prophet Moses with a second sign that he spoke on his behalf.

Moses put his hand inside his cloak and it became leprous; he put it in again and

‘it was restored like the rest of his body’ (v. 7). (2) In Numbers 12 Miriam

becomes leprous as punishment for questioning Moses’ leadership (vv. 1-10).

But Moses intercedes and prays for Miriam’s healing (v. 13). The result is that

Miriam must bear her shame by being isolated for seven days and then she may

return to the camp (vv. 14-15). The narrative flow suggests that Miriam is in fact

healed, but she must still be excluded for the seven days. (3) In 2 Kings 5 Naaman

washes seven times in the Jordan river on the instructions of the prophet Elisha.

As a consequence, ‘his flesh was restored like the flesh of a young boy, and he

was clean’ (v. 14).35

These accounts of healing leprosy are intriguing, for they suggest that, while

pronouncing someone clean from leprosy was within the priestly realm of

authority (Lev. 13–14), curing someone of leprosy was perceived as being more

within the realm of the prophet. Priest and prophet functioning in distinct yet

related realms with reference to leprosy had the possibility of leading to tension

between these two, especially in light of the tension exhibited between priest and

prophet within the Hebrew Bible with reference to other matters. If a prophet

were to step over the bounds into the priestly realm, there would be the possi-

bility for tension with respect to the cleansing/curing of lepers.

Thus, the translation by Dungan and Cartlidge is incorrect; cf. Edelstein and Edelstein,

Asclepius, I, pp. 223, 231, and the translation in Martin, Narrative Parallels, p. 227.

32. It is debatable whether this should actually be considered a ‘miraculous’ healing, for

while the man did seek the aid of Asclepius, the god of healing, the healing itself appears to

have involved the medicinal application of ‘drugs’. The point here still stands: stories about

healing a leper are very rare.

33. See the discussion in the next section below.

34. The Hebrew Bible also recounts other individuals who had leprosy, but no mention is

made that they were healed: Gehazi, 2 Kgs 5.27; four lepers, 2 Kgs 7.3; Uzziah, 2 Kgs 15.5 = 2

Chron. 26.20-21.

35. In Liv. Pro. 22.12-13, the healing of Naaman’s leprosy is referred to, but only in sum-

mary fashion. Josephus, in C. Ap. 1.228-320, defends the Jews against the stories of Manetho

that the Jewish race originated as a large group of Egyptian lepers who were evicted from the

country.




The Nature of Leprosy in the Ancient World

Leprosy in the ancient world is not to be identified with the modern disease by

the same name. Modern leprosy is produced by the bacillus, Mycobacterium

leprae. It was first identified by Dr Gerhard Hansen in 1868. Some leprologists

prefer to use the term ‘Hansen’s disease’ to distinguish it from the biblical term.

Hansen’s disease was known in the Graeco-Roman world, but it was referred to

as e0lefanti/asij (elephantiasis, ‘elephantiasis’) or e0le/faj (elephas, ‘elephant’),

and not as le/pra (‘leprosy’).36 In this essay I use the term ‘leprosy’ to refer to

the ancient disease identified as le/pra in Graeco-Roman times and as t(arAcf

( ra’at) in the Hebrew Bible.37

Leviticus 13–14 provides an extensive description of t(arAcf ( ra’at), with

Leviticus 13 describing the process by which a priest would distinguish what is

in fact t(arAcf ( ra’at) and thus to be declared unclean, and what may only

appear to be t(arAcf ( ra’at), but is not, and thus to be declared clean. Leviticus

14 describes the rituals to be performed by a priest and the person who has been

healed of the leprosy in order to be declared clean once again.38 The process

described in Leviticus 13 is not meant to diagnose the precise disease which the

person might or might not have. Rather, it is a description of primary and secon-

dary symptoms which were used to decide whether or not the person’s condition

was one of a number of diseases identified as t(arAcf ( ra’at) and thus was un-

clean.39 The characteristics of t(arAcf ( ra’at) and le/pra (lepra) indicate that it

36. E.V. Hulse, ‘The Nature of Biblical “Leprosy” and the Use of Alternative Medical

Terms in Modern Translations of the Bible’, PEQ 107 (1975), pp. 87-105, esp. pp. 87-89. See

also J.G. Andersen, ‘Leprosy in Translations in the Bible’, BT 31 (1980), pp. 207-12. John

Wilkinson, ‘Leprosy and Leviticus: The Problem of Description and Identification’, SJT 30

(1977), pp. 153-69; David P. Wright and Richard N. Jones, ‘Leprosy’, in ABD, IV (ed. David

Noel Freedman; New York: Doubleday, 1992), pp. 277-82. Cf. a possible reference to

Hansen’s disease in 2 Macc. 9.9, and to elephantiasis in a quotation from Artapanus (second–

first century BCE) in Eusebius, Praep. Ev. 9.27.20.

It has been reported that the Israeli archaeologist Shimon Gibson has discovered a first-

century CE tomb in Israel’s Hinnom Valley which contained the remains of a man who suffered

from Hansen’s disease. This was confirmed by DNA testing. He claims that this is apparently

the oldest finding of Hansen’s disease and the first in the Middle East. A news report of the dis-

covery may be found at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3849407/. I am indebted to John S.

Kloppenborg for pointing out this discovery to me.

The confusion between leprosy and Hansen’s disease (termed elephantiasis in the ancient

world) is further complicated by the fact that the term ‘elephantiasis’ today is used to identify

another disease, ‘lymphatic filariasis’, which involves the massive enlargement of limbs or

other body parts.

37. The LXX translates t(arAcf ( ra’at) by the term le/pra (lepra); e.g., Lev. 13.2. See

Hulse, ‘Nature of Biblical Leprosy’, pp. 90-100.

38. Philo has an interesting interpretation of Lev. 13.11-13: once a leper has turned white

all over, that person may be declared clean. Cf. Philo, Quod Deus 127; Plant. 111.

39. For example, Lev. 13.1-8 describes the primary appearances as ‘a swelling or an




is best understood as a scaly or flaking skin condition. Modern equivalents prob-

ably include ‘psoriasis, seborrhoeic dermatitus, fungus infections of the skin

particularly favus, patchy eczema, and pityriasis rosea’.40 It should be noted

that, as a fungal growth, t(arAcf ( ra’at) may also infect fabrics and houses

(Lev. 13.47-58; cf. 14.34-53).

Sometimes in the Hebrew Bible t(arAcf ( ra’at) is attributed to divine judg-

ment for sinful behaviour,41 but this is not always the case.42 Such a view is also

represented in other ancient cultures. We should observe, however, that in the

Hebrew Bible the disease itself is not considered a sin, only the mishandling

of it.43

Leprosy is not necessarily a permanent condition, though it certainly may be.

This observation applies to several of the modern equivalent diseases. It also

needs to be pointed out that Leviticus 14 does assume that healing of t(arAcf( ra’at) is possible and provides the means for declaring a healed person to be

clean. While the purification rites in Leviticus 14 do not heal persons with t(arAcf

( ra’at), the rites do describe the practical means for removing t(arAcf ( ra’at)

from fabrics and houses (13.54, 56; 14.40-42). The possibility of recovery from

leprosy is assumed in Josephus’ account in Ant. 3.264, for he goes on to state:

‘But if any by supplication to God obtains release from this disease and recovers

a healthy skin, such a person returns thanks to God by different sacrifices…’

(revised from Thackeray, LCL). The assumption that healing of leprosy is pos-

sible is expressed in other texts as well.44

Similarly, Graeco-Roman literature frequently makes reference to le/pra(lepra).45 Hippocratic writings refer to it, often in conjunction with a variety of

skin conditions.46 Various suggestions are made for treating leprosy. For example,

eruption or a spot’. From this, three different sets of secondary features are considered: (1) if in

addition to the primary appearances there are white hairs present and the skin has been pene-

trated, then it is t(arAcf and is declared unclean; (2) if in addition to the primary appearances

there are white spots present but neither white hairs nor skin penetration, and the condition

spreads in 7 to 14 days, then it is t(arAcf and is declared unclean; (3) if in addition to the

primary appearances there are white spots present but neither white hairs nor skin penetration

(same as in the previous set of features), and the condition does not spread in 7 to 14 days, then

it is not t(arAcf and is declared clean. See the discussion by Wilkinson, ‘Leprosy: Description

and Identification’, pp. 164-65.

40. Hulse, ‘Nature of Biblical Leprosy’, p. 96; see also pp. 96-100. See Philo, Post. 47,

for a description of leprosy as ‘that changeful disease which assumes so many different forms’.

Cf. Philo, Somn. 1.202.

41. E.g., Num. 12, esp. vv. 10-11; 2 Sam 3.29; 2 Kgs 5.27; Gen. Rab. 16.1.

42. E.g., Exod. 4.6-7.

43. Wright and Jones, ‘Leprosy’, pp. 279-80.

44. E.g., L.A.B. 13.3; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1.118; Josephus, C. Ap. 1.281-282.

45. Hulse, ‘Nature of Biblical Leprosy’, p. 88.

46. E.g., Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.1.7; 6.3.23; Prorrhetic 2.43.




‘For white or scaly leprosy (le/prhj), gypsum in water; be careful not to cause

ulceration’ (Hippocrates, Epidemics 2.5.23 [Smith, LCL]). Similarly, ‘Vinegar

has about the same effect on the skin and joints as sea-water; it is more powerful

when applied in affusions and vapour-baths… It [i.e., vinegar] also exerts an

effect on other conditions such as lichen, leprosy (le/prh|sin), and alphos…’

(Hippocrates, Use of Liquids 4 [Potter, LCL]).47 Elsewhere Hippocrates states that

leprosy, along with a variety of other skin conditions, ‘are disfigurements rather

than diseases’ (Hippocrates, Affections 35 [Potter, LCL]). A later example is

reported by Pliny the Elder who discusses the use of fenugreek in treating a

variety of conditions, including leprosy: ‘He [i.e., Diocles] treated leprosy

(lepras) and freckles with equal parts of sulfur and fenugreek meal, the skin

having first been prepared beforehand with soda, applying the mixture several

times a day… Theodorus treated leprosy (lepras) with fenugreek and one-fourth

part of cleaned cress steeped in the strongest vinegar’ (Pliny, Natural History

24.120.186 [Jones, LCL]).48

It may seem strange to examine these Graeco-Roman discussions of treating

and healing leprosy in light of the claim that is sometimes made that the ancient

Jewish view was that curing a leper was as difficult as raising someone from the

dead.49 As far as I have been able to determine, such a view is frequently derived

from Strack and Billerbeck who cite only b. Sanh. 47a as support.50 This text

states: ‘He healed the leprosy of Naaman, which is the equivalent of death, as it

is written, Let her not, I pray Thee, be as one dead’.51 In actuality, nothing is

stated concerning the difficulty of curing a leper; only that a leper is compared to

a dead person. The biblical support for this is the citation of Num. 12.12, in

which Aaron intercedes with Moses for Miriam who has leprosy: ‘Do not let her

be like one stillborn, whose flesh is half consumed when it comes out of its

47. Similarly, Hippocrates reports that bathing in special water was also helpful in this

account: ‘In Athens, a man was taken by itching over his whole body, but especially his

testicles and forehead. It was very severe, and his skin was thick over the whole body, and like

leprosy (le/prh) (white scale) to the view… [H]e went to Melos where the warm baths are, and

was cured of the itching and thick skin. But he became dropsical and died’ (Hippocrates,

Epidemics 5.9 [Smith, LCL]).

Similar discussion of leprosy and its treatment may also be found in later medical writers

such as Dioscorides Pedanius and Galen.

In some of these translations the translators chose to transliterate le/pra as ‘lepra’ rather

than translating it as ‘leprosy’ due to the modern confusion over the term. Since this confusion

has been addressed in this essay, I have altered their translations to ‘leprosy’.

48. Cf. also Pliny the Elder, Natural History 28.7 which reports using ‘fasting saliva’ as a

means of treating leprosy.

49. E.g., I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1978), p. 208.

50. Str-B 4.745, 751 (§p).

51. Soncino edition cited; cf. a similar reference in b. Ned. 64b.




mother’s womb’. Aaron’s simile, in which a stillborn fetus is compared with

leprosy, is probably derived from similar characteristics of white flaking skin

associated with both.52 This may explain the origins of the explanation, but the

comparison between leprosy and death developed also to express the lack of

social interaction allowed a leper. Josephus makes such a comparison in Ant.

3.264: ‘Lepers, on the other hand, he banished outright from the city, to have

intercourse with no person and as in no way differing from a corpse’ (Thackeray,

LCL).53 The biblical simile from Num. 12.12 and the lack of social interaction

are probably what is also meant in the reference in b. Sanh. 47a.

From this discussion arise the following conclusions which are relevant to

this essay: (1) leprosy is a flaking or scaly skin condition, not Hansen’s disease;

(2) leprosy is sometimes viewed as divine punishment; (3) leprosy is not neces-

sarily an incurable disease; both the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature

assume that healing of leprosy is possible.

An Analysis of Egerton Gospel 35-47 and Mark 1.40-45

An analysis of EgerG 35-47 and Mk 1.40-45 indicates that each consists of sev-

eral structural elements, though these are not the same in both narratives:

EgerG 35-47 Mark 1.40-45

1

1a

1b

Introduction

a leper approaches Jesus

the leper explains his leprosy

1

1a

Introduction

a leper approaches Jesus

2

2a

2b

2c

Nucleus

the leper makes a request for cleansing

Jesus responds positively to the request

the healing is reported

2

2a

2b

2c

Nucleus

the leper makes a request for cleansing

Jesus responds positively to the request

the healing is reported

3

3a

Conclusion

Jesus instructs the leper

3

3a

3b

3c

3d

Conclusion

Jesus instructs the leper

the leper tells everyone

Jesus must stay out in the countryside

the people still come to Jesus

52. Wright and Jones (‘Leprosy’, p. 278) explain with respect to Num 12.12: ‘Though this

is hyperbolic it nevertheless indicates that ra’at is to a certain extent exfoliative or desqua-

mative [i.e., flaking skin]. A fetus that has died in the womb takes on a reddish color which lasts

for the first few days after death. After this period it becomes an odd brown-gray. As it continues

to become macerated in utero before finally being expelled, the skin is shed in large sheets.’

53. But cf. m. Neg. 13.12 which allows a leper to attend synagogue.




Structural elements 1a and 1b in the Egerton Gospel provide the introduction or

focalizing process54 for the narrative, while Mark has only one structural ele-

ment that performs this function. Elements 2a, 2b and 2c in the Egerton Gospel

parallel elements 2a, 2b and 2c in Mark; these constitute the nucleus of the story.

Element 3a in the Egerton Gospel and elements 3a through 3d in Mark provide

the conclusion or defocalizing process for the story. These three elements—

introduction, nucleus, and conclusion—need to be examined further, though we

will focus primarily on the nucleus and the conclusion because these contain the

elements of primary concern here.

The Introduction to the Pericope

EgerG 35-47 is the only pericope in the Egerton Gospel in which the end of the

preceding pericope and the beginning of the next is extant. We are able to

observe, then, that Egerton’s author provides little explicit literary connection

with the preceding context. In other words, the Egerton Gospel lacks a narrative

transitional connective. Mark’s narrative begins in essentially the same way,

though the summary in 1.39 does help to make the transition from 1.32-38 to

1.40 less abrupt.55

In the introduction to this pericope in the Egerton Gospel the necessary focal-

izing process56 consists of two elements: the leper’s approach and his explanation,

while in Mark’s Gospel it consists of only one: the leper’s approach, though

Mark’s account of the approach is developed by describing the leper’s obeisance.

The leper’s approach is a necessary element in the focalizing process, though the

development beyond this in both the Egerton Gospel and Mark requires exami-

nation. It is widely recognized that within a narrative unit the introduction and

conclusion are usually modified more freely than the nucleus.57 The development

in the Egerton Gospel of the introduction, in which the leper explains his leprosy,

is probably secondary. It may have been designed to complement Jesus’ state-

ment in the conclusion, [m]hke/ti a([ma&]rtane (‘and sin no longer’).58 Since the

contact with lepers described in EgerG 36-38 is contrary to the levitical law

54. See Robert W. Funk’s discussion of narrative criticism in The Poetics of Biblical

Narrative (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988). See also Robert W. Funk, ‘On Distinguishing

Historical from Fictive Narrative’, Forum 9.3-4 (1993), pp. 179-216.

55. Cf. the transitional connectives provided in Mt. 8.1; Lk. 5.12, the Matthaean and

Lukan versions of this pericope.

56. Funk, Poetics, pp. 22-23.

57. Funk, ‘On Distinguishing Historical from Fictive Narrative’, pp. 187-88; E.P. Sanders

and Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International,

1989), p. 54. A classic example is the quite different introductions provided in Mt. 3.7 = Lk.

3.7 for their almost identical use of Q 3.7b-9.

58. Cf. the discussion below of the issue of whether or not Jesus touched the leper.




(Lev. 13–14, esp. 13.45-46), Jesus’ concluding command in EgerG 47 may be

understood as a specific warning against such contact with lepers.59

The introduction to Mark’s pericope consists of only one structural element,

but it is more developed with the description of the leper’s obeisance, para-

kalw~n au)to_n [kai\ gonupetw~n] (‘begging him, and kneeling’). If such a

description had also been part of the tradition used by the Egerton Gospel’s

author, it is very difficult to understand why it would have been removed. On

the other hand, its addition either by Mark or in the tradition stage prior to Mark

is understandable—it could be a narrative device to heighten the drama of the

scene, or else a means of exalting Jesus.60 Yet, such a dramatic approach does

make sense within Jesus’ cultural context. In a culture dominated by patterns of

honor/shame, this act of obeisance indicates that the approach by an inferior (the

leper) to a superior (Jesus) does not constitute a challenge to the honour of the

superior, but is rather a recognition of the superior status of the other person.61

While the introductions provided to this story by the Egerton Gospel and

Mark differ, common to both narratives is the statement that the leper approached

Jesus. In other words, Jesus did not seek out the leper, but rather was sought out

by him. Not only is this common to both forms of this healing story, it is also

found in most other healing stories about Jesus. Furthermore, that individuals

sought Jesus out to be healed is found in many levels of the tradition.62 There-

fore, if an event such as this did happen, the manner by which the story portrays

Jesus and the leper coming together is certainly a possible, if not probable,

description of the event.

The Nucleus of the Pericope

The nucleus of the narrative in both the Egerton Gospel and Mark consists of the

same three elements:

59. Daniels, ‘Egerton Gospel’, p. 144. On [m]hke/ti a([ma&]rtane as an ‘itinerant cliché’—

a very brief saying which could be used in a wide variety of situations, see Robert W. Funk,

‘The Oral Repertoire: Quoted Speech, Gist, Cliches, and Lists’ (paper presented at the Jesus

Seminar of the Westar Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, 22-25 October 1992), p. 4.

On the other hand, leprosy was understood in some circumstances to be a judgment of God

upon a person’s sin. It is, therefore, possible that Jesus’ concluding command may be

understood as warning the man not to commit again the sin which brought upon him this

divine judgment.

60. Furthermore, in Mark’s Gospel, the minor characters who approach Jesus for healing

frequently kneel before him.

61. See the discussion by Bruce J. Malina (The New Testament World: Insights from

Cultural Anthropology [Atlanta: John Knox, 1981], pp. 25-50, esp. pp. 30-39) of honour and

shame, and challenges to honour. See also the discussion by Carl R. Kazmierski, ‘Evangelist

and Leper: A Socio-Cultural Study of Mark 1.40-45’, NTS 38 (1992), pp. 37-50 (p. 44).

62. E.g., Q 7.2-4; Mk 5.22; Jn 5.47.




2a the leper makes a request for cleansing;

2b Jesus responds positively to the request, and

2c the healing is reported.

In each of these three elements the core is essentially the same in both texts.

First, the leper’s request in the Egerton Gospel and Mark are very similar:

EgerG 39-40 Mark 1.40

e0a_n [o]u}n [su_ qe/lh|j]

kaqari/zomai:e0a_n qe/lh|jdu&nasai/ me kaqari/sai.

If, therefore, you are willing,

I will be clean.

If you are willing,

you can make me clean.

Second, Jesus’ positive response to the request is identical in both texts:

EgerG 41 Mark 1.41

qe/l[w] kaqari/sqhti: qe/lw, kaqari/sqhti:I am willing, be clean. I am willing, be clean.

Third, the report of the healing is similar in both texts also:

EgerG 41-42 Mark 1.42

[kai\ eu)qe/wj] [a)]pe/sth a)p' au)tou~ h(le/p[ra:

kai\ eu)qu_j a)ph~lqen a)p' au)tou~ h( le/pra,

kai\ e0kaqari/sqh.And immediately the leprosy departed from

him.

And immediately the leprosy left him,

and he was clean.

The similarities in the nucleus of these two accounts are impressive. These

similarities led Robert W. Funk to conclude that ‘the words attributed to Jesus,

and even to the leper, were transmitted virtually verbatim in the oral tradition’.63

While the nucleus of both accounts contains the same three elements, and the

core of each element is similar in both accounts, nevertheless, Mark’s account

contains three additional elements: (1) Jesus made an emotional response to the

leper’s request;64 (2) Jesus stretched out his hand and touched the leper; and (3)

following the report of the leprosy disappearing, Mark states that the leper was

clean (e0kaqari/sqh).

63. Funk, ‘Oral Repertoire’, p. 2; cf. pp. 3-4.

64. The text of Mark was either splagxnisqei/j (‘moved with pity’) as in the NA27, but

the more difficult reading is o)rgisqei/j (‘was indignant’). In this essay it is irrelevant which

reading is correct. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger’s explanation (A Textual Commentary on the Greek

New Testament [London and New York: United Bible Societies, 2nd edn, 1975], pp. 76-77) of

the reading splagxnisqei/j; cf. a recent contrary discussion by Kazmierski, ‘Evangelist and

Leper’, p. 40 n. 15.




Two issues arise in this nucleus which require closer examination. First, we

must explore the sense of the verb kaqari/zw (‘to make/declare clean’) and its

relationship to the clause [a)]pe/sth/a)ph~lqen65 a)p' au)tou~ h( le/pra (‘the leprosy

departed from him’). First of all, does the verb kaqari/zw mean ‘to make clean’

(i.e., cure) or ‘to declare clean’?66 The use of the same verb in Leviticus 14 LXX

(e.g., vv. 2, 4, 7, 8, 11) to describe the activity of the priest in cleansing the leper

makes it quite probable that in Mk 1.40-41 the latter is meant: ‘declare clean’.

But how does this act of ‘declaring clean’ relate to the clause ‘the leprosy left

him’ (Mk 1.42 = EgerG 41-42)? In this regard the insights gleaned from the

field of medical anthropology by John J. Pilch are helpful.67 He explains that

sickness is a reality which has two explanatory elements: disease and illness.68

Disease views the sickness from a bio-medical perspective and so understands it

to be a ‘malfunctioning of biological and/or psychological processes…’, while

illness views the sickness from a socio-cultural perspective and so interprets the

sickness as having personal and social meaning.69 As a consequence, dealing

with sickness has two forms: curing the disease and healing the illness.70 For a

person with leprosy (= sickness) in the first-century Jewish context, the experi-

ence of that sickness involved both a bio-medical phenomenon of flaking white

skin (= disease) and a socio-cultural phenomenon of being declared unclean and

excluded from the community (= illness). In other words, according to Pilch,

when the leper says to Jesus: ‘If you are willing, I will be clean’, he is asking

Jesus to heal the illness: ‘Pronounce me clean so that I no longer bear the stigma

of the label, “unclean”, and then I will be able to return to community’.

Pilch’s insights from medical anthropology are helpful, but his application of

these insights to Mk 1.40-45 is problematic: he interprets the story as only

65. EgerG 42 uses the verb a)fi/sthmi (‘to leave’) while Mk 1.42 uses the verb

a)pe/rxomai (‘to go away’). They are essentially synonyms in this context.

66. John Dominic Crossan, ‘Orality and the Miracles of the Jesus Tradition’ (paper pre-

sented at the Jesus Seminar of the Westar Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, 22-25 October 1992),

p. 5.

67. Pilch, ‘Biblical Leprosy and Bodily Symbolism’, pp. 108-13; John J. Pilch, ‘Healing in

Mark: A Social Science Analysis’, BTB 15 (1985), pp. 142-50; John J. Pilch, ‘Understanding

Biblical Healing: Selecting the Appropriate Model’, BTB 18 (1988), pp. 60-66; John J. Pilch,

‘Understanding Healing in the Social World of Early Christianity’, BTB 22 (1992), pp. 26-33.

Some of these essays as well as others have recently been collected in John J. Pilch, Healing in

the New Testament: Insights from Medical and Mediterranean Anthropology (Minneapolis:

Augsburg Fortress, 2000). Pilch’s work is founded upon the work of medical anthropologists,

especially Arthur Kleinman, Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture: An Exploration of

the Borderland Between Anthropology, Medicine, and Psychiatry (Comparative Studies of

Health Systems and Medical Care, 3; Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1980).

68. Pilch, ‘Healing in Mark’, p. 143.

69. Pilch, ‘Biblical Leprosy and Bodily Symbolism’, pp. 108-109.

70. Pilch, ‘Healing in Mark’, p. 143.




having a socio-cultural element, with no bio-medical element; that is, he inter-

prets the story as Jesus healing the illness but not curing the disease—Jesus

declares the man clean and able to return to community, but the man continues

to have flaking white skin. Pilch states as an assumption that ‘in our documents

from the biblical world, there seems to be no interest in disease but only in ill-

ness’. With respect to Jesus he states: ‘Jesus’ activity is best described etically

as healing and not curing. He provides social meaning for the life problems

resulting from the sickness’.71 I would have no difficulty with such an inter-

pretation per se, for it has a certain fascination. But the evidence does not bear

out Pilch’s claim on several grounds.

First of all, both the Egerton Gospel and Mark report the results of Jesus’

activity with the leper as involving the curing of the disease: ‘the leprosy left

him’. And Mark makes clear that this is distinct from healing the illness by

adding the clause ‘and he was clean’. In other words, Jesus deals with the man’s

socio-cultural difficulty by also dealing with the bio-medical condition. In Jew-

ish society, where kinship and community relationships are considered so

important, the socio-cultural aspect of leprosy was probably a greater difficulty

and burden to bear than was the bio-medical aspect of the sickness. For this rea-

son, the conversation between the leper and Jesus focuses on the socio-cultural

dimension of the sickness.

Second, both the accounts in the Egerton Gospel and Mark do not report that

Jesus uttered a declaration that the man was clean, but rather have an imperative

that the man was to become clean. In other words, Jesus does not state, ‘you are

clean’, but rather commands, ‘be clean’ (the imperative kaqari/sqhti). To inter-

pret this as only a declaration addressing the healing of the man’s socio-cultural

illness, and only equating it with a priestly declaration of cleanness, separates

healing illness and curing disease in a way that is foreign to the text.

Third, in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Jewish literature, the clean-

sing of lepers is frequently mentioned or discussed. In every instance, being

cured of the disease of leprosy preceded being declared clean (i.e., healed of the

illness). Both the bio-medical and the socio-cultural elements were involved—

and curing the disease was a required element. I know of no instance in which

one could be healed of the illness without being cured of the disease of leprosy

first. For example, Josephus states in Ant. 3.264: ‘But if any by supplication to

God obtains release from this disease and recovers a healthy skin, such a person

returns thanks to God by different sacrifices…’ (revised from Thackeray, LCL).

Similarly in Spec. Leg. 1.118 Philo states that a priest who contracts leprosy can-

not ‘touch the holy table… [until] the leprosy is converted into a resemblance to

71. Pilch, ‘Healing in Mark’, pp. 143, 149. Cf. a similar view taken by Stevan L. Davies,

Jesus the Healer: Possession, Trance, and the Origins of Christianity (New York: Continuum,

1995), pp. 68-69.




the hue of healthy flesh’ (Colson, LCL).72 In first-century Palestinian culture it

makes little sense to claim the socio-cultural phenomenon of healing the illness

of leprosy without the necessary corollary of the bio-medical phenomenon of

curing the disease.

Fourth, I have difficulty applying Pilch’s claim that ‘in our documents from

the biblical world, there seems to be no interest in disease but only in illness’ to

other narratives in which Jesus heals.73 While other healings by Jesus also have

socio-cultural implications (e.g., the woman with a hemorrhage, Mk 5.25-34),

nevertheless, they also have a bio-medical element. The woman with the hemor-

rhage had spent her money on physicians (v. 26) which is seeking a bio-medical

solution to the problem. Touching the hem of Jesus’ garment produces a bio-

medical result (v. 29), which Jesus subsequently declares (v. 34). Similarly, I

have difficulty perceiving how Jesus heals the illness of the paralytic (Mk 2.1-12)

or the man with a withered hand (Mk 3.1-5) without also curing their respective

diseases.74

Realistically, if we are to talk about Jesus as one who heals a leper, then we

must understand it to have both elements: the man’s disease was cured and his

illness was healed. Therefore, while Pilch’s medical-anthropological understand-

ing of the distinction between healing illness and curing disease is helpful in

understanding the first-century Jewish socio-cultural context and in understanding

this event, his separation of the two from one another is foreign to both these

texts under consideration and to the socio-cultural context.

There is one further element in the nucleus that is worth a brief examination:

Mark’s text states that Jesus ‘stretched out his hand and touched him’ (v. 41),

but this is not found in the Egerton Gospel. One of the distinctive elements in

the Egerton Gospel’s account is the explanation by the leper in the introduction:

‘Teacher Jesus, while travelling with lepers and eating with them in the inn, I

became a leper also myself’ (EgerG 36-39). This redactional element in the

72. The only possible exception I found was in 11QTemple 45.17-18: ‘And no leper nor

infected person shall enter it [i.e., the Temple] until they have purified themselves; and when

he has purified himself then he shall offer the …’ (quote from Florentino García Martínez and

Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition [2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

1997–98], II, p. 1265). This text taken by itself might imply that a person could still have the

disease of leprosy and yet be cleansed. However, this statement needs to be understood within

the context of the clear regulations later in 11QTemple (46.18; 48.14-15) which required the

isolation of lepers outside the city of Jerusalem. With this context taken into consideration,

Yigael Yadin is correct to conclude that this purification is ‘after their affliction has been cured’

(The Temple Scroll [2 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1983], I, pp. 194-95).

73. This can be observed on the narrative level of the text without having to argue for the

historicity of each account.

74. This same observation may be made of other healing accounts in Jewish and Graeco-

Roman literature.




introduction shows the leper to be in violation of the Torah regulations regard-

ing contact with lepers. This must be linked with the redactional addition in the

conclusion of EgerG 46-47 in which Jesus concludes his instructions to the leper

with the clause, ‘and sin no longer’. In the Egerton Gospel the story of Jesus

healing a leper has been interwoven with a story of Jesus addressing a sinner.

Since the man’s sin in the story is contact with lepers, and since Jesus commands

him to stop sinning, it would be most inappropriate for the Egerton Gospel to

have Jesus touch the leper. It is likely that Mark’s account preserves the oral

tradition more faithfully at this point, and that the Egerton Gospel has excised it

for its own reasons.75 It is unlikely that Jesus’ use of touch in this story was

created by Mark or the early church, for it places Jesus in violation of Torah regu-

lations concerning avoiding contamination from a leper—a type of Torah viola-

tion in which the early church shows no interest.

That at the historical level Jesus may have touched the leper is made more

likely by observing that touching as a healing gesture appears to be part of

Jesus’ healing repertoire.76 It was also a recognized means of healing mentioned

in other Jewish and Graeco-Roman literature.77

The Conclusion of the Pericope and Its Relation to the Nucleus

Mark’s conclusion is considerably expanded beyond that in the Egerton Gospel,

and these elements may reflect some of Mark’s redactional interests. But like the

similarities in the nucleus, there is one significant element that is similar in both

texts, namely, (3a) Jesus instructs the leper:

EgerG 43-47 Mark 1.43-44

le/gei] de\ au)tw|~ o( 'Ih(sou~j)[:]

pore[uqei\j seau]to_n e0pi/deicon toi=[j*i9ereu~sin] kai\a)ne/negkon [peri\ tou~ ka][q]arismou~ w(jpro[s]e/[tacen Mw(u"sh~j)

kai\] [m]hke/ti a([ma&]rtane [

kai\ e0mbrimhsa&menoj au)tw|~ eu)qu_je0ce/balen au)to_n kai\ le/gei au)tw|~:o#ra mhdeni\ mhde\n ei!ph|j,

a)lla_ u#page seauto_n dei=con tw|~i9erei= kai\prose/negke peri\ tou~ kaqarismou~ sou a$prose/tacen Mwu"sh~j,

ei0j martu&rion au)toi=j.

And Jesus says to him,

And after sternly warning him, he sent him

away at once,

saying to him,

75. Cf. Funk, ‘Oral Repertoire’, pp. 4-5.

76. E.g., Mk 1.31; 5.41; 6.56; 7.33; 8.22; Mt. 9.29; 20.34; Lk. 22.51; cf. Mk 10.13. See

also the opposite, in which people seek to touch Jesus; e.g., Mk 3.10; 4.28.

77. E.g., 1QapGen 20.21-34, esp. 22, 29; b. Ber. 5b; Gen. R. 33.3. Cf. the use of the foot

by Vespasian in Tacitus, Hist. 4.81. On Jesus’ use of touching, see Aune, ‘Magic in Early

Christianity’, pp. 15-33.




EgerG 43-47 Mark 1.43-44

‘Go, show yourself to the priests and offer

for the cleansing as Moses

commanded,

and sin no longer…’.

‘See that you say nothing to anyone;

but go, show yourself to the priest, and offer

for your cleansing that which Moses

commanded,

as a witness to [or against] them’.

The examination of this element in the conclusion common to both the

sources needs to be done in relation to the nucleus of the story. We noted above

that the similarities in the nucleus led Funk to conclude that ‘the words attributed

to Jesus, and even to the leper, were transmitted virtually verbatim in the oral

tradition’. The similarities in the report of the healing in addition to the sayings

material also led Funk to conclude that ‘the outline of the story itself is invari-

able… [It] is transmitted as “gist”’.78 While observing the close correspondence

between these texts, John Dominic Crossan has taken a different tack with this

evidence. He compares the similarities and differences between EgerG 35-47 and

Mk 1.40-45 with the way in which Mt. 8.1-4 and Lk. 5.12-16 treat their written

source (Mark). This comparison leads him to conclude that ‘the differences

between Egerton and Mark are much greater than those between Mark and the

other synoptics’.79 Crossan then proceeds to argue that the differences between

the Egerton Gospel and Mark are based on their diverse redacting of a common

written text in contrast to Funk’s emphasis on a common oral tradition.

The concerns of Funk and Crossan focus primarily on the development of

tradition, while the concern in this essay is the historical Jesus. Nevertheless,

their concerns are relevant to the question at hand. I feel like I am stepping

between two giants, but let me make a few observations on their debate: (1) the

similarity between the accounts in the Egerton Gospel and Mark are impressive,

whichever path we choose on this issue. (2) Crossan’s observations are valid

about Matthew and Luke being closer to Mark than the Egerton Gospel and Mark

are to each other. However, this conclusion does not, by itself, invalidate Funk’s

argument about words in stories and outlines of stories in the oral tradition. But

work needs to be done on many stories, not just this one, to fully develop Funk’s

point. (3) Crossan’s argument for the Egerton Gospel and Mark being dependent

on a common written text (rather than oral tradition) is open to question. His

argument leads us back to historical issues, so it is helpful to examine it more

closely.

The core of Crossan’s argument is that


79. Crossan, ‘Orality and the Miracles of the Jesus Tradition’, p. 4.




the first interchange between Jesus and the leper (request/response) and the second one

(command) are not compatible units of tradition. They represent a clash of opinion

about Jesus… Jesus’ response (‘I will; be clean’) and Jesus’ command (‘Go, show…’)

represent contradictory visions of Jesus, the former at least implicitly denying social

authority, the latter dutifully accepting its precise regulations.80

He then observes that the Egerton Gospel and Mark each redact the story in

different directions: the Egerton Gospel moves Jesus more in the direction of

observing Torah, and Mark moves Jesus more in the direction of not observing

Torah. On the basis of these two interpretations of Jesus in the one story, one

labeled ‘anti-Temple’ and the other ‘pro-Temple’, Crossan concludes that these

two conflicting interpretations are evidence of a scribal source for the Egerton

Gospel and Mark rather than oral tradition:

What I cannot plausibly imagine is an oral tradition telling that story with request,

reply, and command more or less verbatim and with the contradiction between them

serenely present. I think that, in an oral transmission, each group would have per-

formed the story much more to its own satisfaction. My alternative reconstruction of

the unit’s history is, therefore: (1) a first stage orally telling how Jesus had ignored

purity regulations in healing the leper and was therefore anti-Temple; (2) a second

scribal stage in which the story is retold in writing precisely to reinterpret it in a pro-

Temple direction and to contain the oral versions; (3) a third stage in which Egerton

(with approval of its pro-Temple stance) and Mark (with disapproval) redacted that

written source each in its own way.81

The basis of Crossan’s argument is his claim that the story contains two con-

flicting interpretations of Jesus: anti-Temple and pro-Temple. I find the use of

Temple in his paradigm to be problematic, for the issue in this pericope relates

primarily to the functional role of the priest rather than the institutional role of

the Temple. A preferable paradigm here would be the priest/prophet tension dis-

cussed earlier. Furthermore, to present this as a conflict between two opposing

interpretations of Jesus states the evidence far too starkly. The initial request/

response exchange between the leper and Jesus is not exclusively a request on

the part of the leper for Jesus to only declare him clean. The request is, in

essence, that the leper does not want to be a leper any longer (i.e., he wants to be

cured of the disease of leprosy and be able to return to his social relationships in

his home village). And in his Jewish socio-cultural context this involves both

curing the leprosy as well as being certified clean by a priest.82 Jesus’ response,

80. Crossan, ‘Orality and the Miracles of the Jesus Tradition’, p. 5.

81. Crossan, ‘Orality and the Miracles of the Jesus Tradition’, p. 6. In fairness to Crossan,

we should observe that he does go on to state: ‘I do not think for one moment that I have

proved that position or even disproved Bob [Funk]’s proposal. I simply find my suggestion

slightly more plausible’ (pp. 6-7).

82. Cf. the discussion above on the distinction between curing disease, understood as a

bio-medical condition, and healing illness, understood as a socio-cultural condition.




‘I am willing, be clean’, could be understood as infringing into the priestly realm

(i.e., declaring clean). The statement, ‘I am willing’, declares a positive response

by Jesus to the man’s request, but, as noted above, the command ‘be clean’ should

not be understood simply as a declarative statement equivalent to a priestly decla-

ration. As an imperative, ‘be clean’ suggests this command will accomplish the

man’s request. Furthermore, the narrative is clear that the significance of Jesus’

words is not merely in what he says, but in the result: ‘And immediately the

leprosy departed from him’ (i.e., making clean). In his verbal response Jesus

anticipates the priestly verdict, but the heart of Jesus’ response to the man’s

request goes beyond the verbal: it is an active response which was to cure the

man of his leprosy.83 Thus, while Jesus’ verbal response hints at an infringement

on priestly prerogative (i.e., declare clean), the focus of both the verbal response

and the active response addresses the man’s need for a cure of his leprosy (i.e.,

make clean) so that he could then be declared clean.

This emphasis on making clean with a hint of infringement on priestly pre-

rogative of declaring clean may be observed in the stories of healing lepers noted

above in the Hebrew Bible. All the healings were done by prophets, and the

priestly prerogative of pronouncing clean is conspicuous by its absence in each

case. Furthermore, in the story about Naaman, the words of Elisha and the nar-

rative itself attribute not only the healing to Elisha, but Elisha’s words also

make a declaration that Naaman will be clean: ‘Go, wash in the Jordan seven

times, and your flesh shall be restored and you shall be clean’ (2 Kgs 5.10b).

While Elisha does make the verbal declaration, ‘…you shall be clean’—which

could also be understood as an infringement of the priestly realm—the focus of

the narrative is on the active response to Naaman’s need: curing him of his

leprosy.

While Jesus’ verbal response in both the Egerton Gospel and Mark, ‘I am

willing, be clean’, hints at an infringement on priestly prerogative (but only a

hints, for the words imply more than this), the conclusion in both texts also report

Jesus instructing the leper to show himself to the priest and make an offering as

Moses commanded (EgerG 43-46; Mk 1.44). Crossan identifies this as the con-

flicting pro-Temple element in the narrative, in contrast to the anti-Temple

declaration by Jesus in the nucleus (which has been critiqued above). However,

to characterize this concluding element as pro-Temple (and thus not historical in

Crossan’s view of an anti-Temple Jesus) does not take into account the first-

century social realities. For this leper to be truly clean in the eyes of his family

and village, the declaration by a healer who was also not a priest (and also some-

one who was quite likely unknown to his family and fellow villagers?) would

83. In EgerG 40-42 the cure of the leprosy is accomplished only as a means of Jesus’

verbal response, whereas in Mk 1.41-42 the cure of the leprosy involves Jesus touching the

leper as well. Cf. the discussion above concerning Jesus touching the leper.




probably be inadequate to them. For the man to be truly declared ‘clean’ in his

social context he would need to have met the social requirement of a priest’s

pronouncement.84 This was needed to certify that the cure of the leprosy was

legitimate and that he could be reintegrated into his social world. From another

point of view, this may be compared with other of Jesus’ healings: when the

blind, deaf, dumb and lame are healed, no formal certification is needed; only

the informal evidence that the person is able to see, or can hear, or speak, or is

able to take up their mat and walk. And then the community is able to respond

by being amazed. But the situation with leprosy is different, in that it required a

formal certification, and that by a priest.85 Only then is the community able to

respond appropriately by welcoming the former leper back.

In Mark 1.44 the expression (lacking in the Egerton Gospel) that going to

the priest was ei0j martu&rion au)toi=j could be understood as ‘as a witness

against them’ or ‘as a witness to them’. This latter view could understand ‘them’

as a reference to either the priests in the Temple where the sacrifice would be

offered, or else to the people in the man’s village. If referring to the villagers,

then this phrase could almost be understood as the equivalent in other healing

stories of ‘and the people were amazed’. The ‘against them’ view understands

‘them’ as a reference to the priests and provides another hint of an antagonistic

relationship between Jesus and the priests. Given that this final phrase specifies

something that is not a required element of what the man needed to do to be

healed, this latter view may be more likely. As such, it heightens the prophet/

priest tension considerably.86 By itself, this phrase is not inconsistent with Jesus’

conflict with Jewish leadership, but in this context it may be the result of Markan

redaction.

To sum up: in this reconstruction the leper’s request of Jesus is to address the

entire problem of his leprosy (i.e., he wants to be cured and to be able to go home

to his village). Jesus’ verbal response hints at an infringement of priestly pre-

rogative in that it anticipates at some point the man would be declared clean.

However, the imperative ‘be clean’ is not a declaration of cleanness but a verbal

84. In his activity as a healer, Jesus has assisted the leper to break the boundary from

being an unclean leper to a clean, restored member of his village. But in his role as healer,

Jesus is not official. As such, Jesus is functioning in the role of an unofficial limit breaking

agent. Cf. Bruce J. Malina, Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for

Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986), pp. 143-54. Cf. Malina’s comment (ibid.,

p. 153) that those who use unofficial limit breakers (i.e., the leper using Jesus) must still follow

the guidelines of the officials who have control of the ceremonies and rituals (i.e., the priests).

See also Kazmierski, ‘Evangelist and Leper’, pp. 46.

85. I am indebted to John S. Kloppenborg for this interesting contrast between healing a

leper and other forms of healing.

86. For further discussion, see Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8.26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas, TX:

Word Books, 1989), pp. 76-77.




command intended to accomplish the man’s request. The verbal command (and

probably Mark’s reference to Jesus using touch) are the means by which Jesus

addresses the man’s request. The heart of Jesus’ response (both verbal and

active, that is, word and touch) addresses the man’s need for the disease to be

cured (i.e., bio-medical). Only then will a priestly declaration of being clean be

possible and meaningful in addressing the man’s need for his illness to be healed

(i.e., socio-cultural). The story does not reflect conflicting interpretations of

a pro-/anti-Temple Jesus in a later, written tradition. Rather, the hint of Jesus

infringing on priestly prerogatives is the result of a tension arising within the

ministry of the historical Jesus himself because prophetic elements within his

ministry led him to infringe on the realms of various leaders, and in this instance

it was the priests.87 I must, therefore, reject Crossan’s hypothesis that there is a

conflict between anti-Temple and pro-Temple elements in the pericope. So I do

not see it necessary to follow Crossan in positing a common written source

behind the Egerton Gospel and Mark. Rather, the common elements in these

two independent sources are a result of their transmission ‘virtually verbatim in

the oral tradition’.88

Conclusion

In light of the above examination of both general considerations and specific

elements of these two sources, I conclude that EgerG 35-47 and Mk 1.40-45

reflect two independent traditions of what is a historical event within the min-

istry of Jesus, taken within the bounds of historical probability. Certain ele-

ments, particularly within the introduction and conclusion of the pericope, are

more likely the results of each author’s compositional interests. But other ele-

ments in the introduction and conclusion have historical basis, and certainly the

elements in common in the nucleus and conclusion of the story should be

understood to be historical.

87. Rudolf Pesch’s objection (Jesu ureigene Taten? Ein Beitrag zur Wunderfrage [QD,

52; Freiburg: Herder, 1970], pp. 52-87) to the historicity of this story emphasizes that healing a

leper links Jesus with the miracle-working of Elijah and Elisha in order to portray him as an

eschatological prophet. But, as Graham H. Twelftree (Jesus the Miracle Worker: A Historical

and Theological Study [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999], p. 311) notes, Pesch’s

argument fails in light of the extensive historical evidence that Jesus acted in a prophetic role.

See also the work by Eric Eve (The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles [JSNTSup, 231; London:

T&T Clark International, 2002]) which concludes that Jesus understood as a prophet provides

the appropriate context in which to understand Jesus’ miracles. Wendy Cotter (Miracles in

Greco-Roman Antiquity, p. 52) also rejects Pesch’s argument citing the lack of any distinctive

elements that would ‘signal a deliberate association with the Elisha account…’.





The disease that this man suffered from was not Hansen’s disease but a

flaking-skin condition. Jesus responded to the man’s request by anticipating the

priestly declaration that he would be clean and making this possible by curing the

man’s disease (i.e., his bio-medical condition). The cure was accomplished by

means of a verbal command and probably also through touch. Jesus instructed

the man to seek a priest’s declaration of cleanness in order to heal his illness

(i.e., his socio-cultural condition) which Jesus had anticipated would be the

result of his response to the leper’s request. While this story portrays Jesus pri-

marily in the role of a healer, the hint of tension between Jesus and priests sug-

gests that Jesus’ healing activities should be understood within a broader role as

prophet.



jesus heals a leper.pdf

Documents