Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:06:38.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Woman who Touched Jesus' Garment: Socio-Rhetorical Analysis of the Synoptic Accounts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Vernon K. Robbins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the last thirty years significant advances have been made in the study of early Christian miracle stories. The story of the woman who touched Jesus' garment has been especially well analyzed by Heinz Joachim Held and Gerd Theissen, and recently Manfred Hutter has brought additional information to bear on the Matthean version. It is my goal to look at each version of the story from the perspective of ‘comparative social-rhetorical’ analysis and interpretation. The rhetorical observations are informed especially by Kenneth Burke's chapter entitled ‘Lexicon Rhetoricae’ in Counterstatement and by Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrative. The comparative and social observations are stimulated by various interpreters' use of Hellenistic-Roman data as well as Jewish data for analysis of New Testament literature.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 502 - 515
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

[1] Heinz Joachim Held, ‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’, Bornkamm, G., Barth, G., and Held, H. J., Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963) 165–299;Google ScholarTheissen, Gerd, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983).Google Scholar

[2] Hutter, Manfred, ‘Ein altorientalischer Bittgestus in Mt 9 20–22’, ZNTW 75 (1984) 133–5.Google Scholar

[3] This method was first applied to the entire Gospel of Mark in Robbins, Vernon K., Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984). In this article the method is applied to one pericope.Google Scholar

[4] Burke, Kenneth, Counter-Statement (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California, 1968, c 1931) 123–83.Google Scholar

[5] Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981).Google Scholar

[6] Donahue, John R., Are You the Christ? (SBLDS 10; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1973) 42, 58–63.Google Scholar

[7] Nineham, D. E., The Gospel of Mark (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963) 112, 298–301;Google Scholarcf. Kelber, W. H., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 98–102.Google Scholar

[8] Lane, William L., Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (NICNT 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974) 189–90. In Mark and Luke the woman's ailment has occurred exactly as long as the young girl's life - twelve years. Matthew does not indicate the age of the girl.Google Scholar

[9] For the text of Aelius Theon's Progymnasmata, see Walz, T. Christian, Rhetores Graeci (Stuttgart and Tübingen: J. G. Cotta, 1832) 1, 137–257;Google ScholarSpengel, Leonhard von, Rhetores Graeci (Leipzig: Teubner, 1854) 2, 59–130.Google Scholar The ‘preliminary’ exercises with the chreia, according to Theon, , Progymnasmata 210, 3–6 [Walz], included the following;Google Scholarsee Robbins, Vernon K., ‘Pronouncement Stories and Jesus' Blessing of the Children: A Rhetorical Approach’, Semeia 29 (1983) 48–51:Google Scholar

(a) άπαγγελία: a recitation in a clear version either in the same or different words;

(b) κλίσıς: inflectional versions, using different persons, numbers, and cases;

(c) έπıφωνησıς: comments on what was said or done;

(d) άντıλογία: objections to what was said or done;

(e) έπεκτείνεıν: an expanded version;

(f) συοτέλλεıν: an abbreviated version;

(g) άνασκευάζεıν: a refutation of the chreia;

(h) κατασκευάζεıν: a confirmation of the chreia.

[10] See George Howard's accurate description of the situation among the synoptics in ‘Stylistic Inversion and the Synoptic Tradition’, JBL 78 (1978) 375–89.Google Scholar

[11] It is certainly the case, qua Farmer, W. R., The Synoptic Problem (New York: Macmillan; London: Collier-Macmillan, 1964) 240–1Google Scholar, that the Markan version would result from the Lukan version only if the Matthean version, or something like it, also were present. But with some of the pericopes it will be helpful to distinguish between ‘rhetorical’ relationships and ‘scribal’ relationships. The primary ‘rhetorical’ features in the Lukan version are related to the Markan version, yet the display in Neirynck's, FransThe Minor Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark (BETL 37; Leuven: Leuven University, 1974) 101–5Google Scholar shows a series of ‘scribal’ relationships between Luke and Matthew against Mark: ίδού, ἴρχων, []λθ[], [θυγάτ]ηρ, προσ[ελθσῡσα], τοκρασπέδου, είπεν, ([θύγατ]ερ), έλθων, τήν [οίκ]ίαν, ό [Ίησοῡ;ς], (γάρ), αύτς The primary ‘rhetorical’ features of the Matthean version are related to the Markan version, with a significant series of ‘scribal’ relationships to the Lukan version. See below, n. 41, for the ‘rhetorical’ and ‘scribal’ relation of Acts of Pilate 7 to the Lukan and Matthean versions.

[12] A thorough analysis of the role of the intercalated unit would address at least the topics of ‘fear’, ‘trembling’, ‘amazement’, ‘ecstasy’, ‘faith’, and ‘telling’ or ‘not telling’ in all versions of the woman who touched Jesus' garment, the raising of Jairus' daughter, the women at the empty tomb (Mark 16. 5–6, 8 par.), the healing of the epileptic boy (Mark 9. 14–29 par.), and the discussion after the withering of the fig tree (Mark 11. 22–25 par.). Sharon Dowd has discussed some of these issues in ‘“Whatever You Ask in Prayer, Believe” (Mark 11. 22–5)’, Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1986Google Scholar.

[13] Comparison of the texts in Aland, Kurt, Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Württemberg, 1964)Google Scholar exhibits the common words in the three synoptic versions as follows:

.

[14] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 130–3.Google Scholar

[15] Epidauros 3, 4; Emma J., and Edelstein, Ludwig, Asclepius 1 (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1945) 222;Google Scholarsee Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 131–2.Google Scholar

[16] BAGD,‘σᾠζω’ 1c, 798.

[17] Held, ‘Matthew as Interpreter’, 216, 235.

[18] Ibid., 280–1.

[19] Ibid., 281–3, 286. At this point Held is quoting Schlatter, A., Die Kirche des Matthäus (Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1929) 489.Google Scholar

[20] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 134, 138.Google Scholar

[21] Burke, , Counter-Statement, 124;Google ScholarRobbins, , Jesus, 9.Google Scholar

[22] Alter, , Art, 68.Google Scholar

[23] Ibid. In this example by Alter, David's inner reasoning precedes the narration, but both sequences occur in Hebrew bible narrative.

[24] Ibid., 65.

[25] Hutter, , ‘Bittgestus’, 134–5.Google Scholar

[26] Held, , ‘Matthew as Interpreter’, 283;Google ScholarTheissen, , Miracle Stories, 134–5.Google Scholar

[27] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 132.Google Scholar

[28] Weiser, Artur, ‘πσıτεύω’, TDNT 6, 182–96.Google Scholar

[29] Theon, , Progymnasmata 208. 1–4 [Walz].Google Scholar

[30] Held, ‘Matthew as Interpreter’, 283, 286.

[31] Ibid., 217.

[32] Theon, , Progymnasmata 213, 11–214, 4 [Walz];Google Scholarsee the Greek texts in Robbins, , ‘Pronouncement Stories’, 49–50;Google ScholarHock, Ronald F. and O'Neil, Edward N., The Chreia in Ancient Rhetoric (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986) 1: 100, 102;Google ScholarButts, James R., ‘The “Progymnasmata” of Theon: A New Text with Translation and Commentary’, Ph.D. diss.; Claremont Graduate School, 1987, 215, 217.Google Scholar

[33] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 133.Google Scholar

[34] Ibid., 134.

[35] Burke, , Counter-Statement, 125;Google ScholarRobbins, , Jesus, 9–10.Google Scholar

[36] The Matthean version of the saying is:

(a) Take heart, Daughter

(b) Your faith has made you well.

[37] E.g., Judg 18.6; 1 Sam 1. 17; 2 Sam 15. 9.

[38] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 176.Google Scholar

[39] E.g., Grenfell, B. P. and Hunt, A. S., The Oxyhrynchus Papyri 4 (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1904) 743. 43; 745. 10; 746. 9–10; 805.Google Scholar

[40] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 135.Google Scholar

[41] The Greek text of Acts of Pilate 7 is in Aland, Synopsis, 193.Google Scholar The common words in Luke 8. 42–48 and Acts of Pilate 7 are the basis for the ‘rhetorical’ relationship between the two versions, and the woman's statement as a personal testimony exhibits the relationship:

.

There is ‘scribal’ agreement of Acts of Pilate and Matthew against Luke in only one word:

[42] Theissen, , Miracle Stories, 135.Google Scholar

[43] See Betz, Hans Dieter, ‘De Laude Ipsius (Moralia 539A–547F)’, Plutarch's Ethical Writings and Early Christian Literature (SCHNT 4; ed. Betz, H. D.; Leiden: Brill, 1978) 367–93.Google Scholar