We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The majority of scholars interpret the narrative of the Cleansing of the Leper (Mark 1.40–45 par) as a miracle story in which Jesus cures a man sick with leprosy, and, in accord with the precepts of Leviticus 13–14, immediately sends him to the priest to have his cure verified. The leper, however, despite Jesus' warning, spreads the word of his healing far and wide, so much so that Jesus is no longer able to enter into towns because of his great popularity. Such an interpretation seems to fit in well with what is often said to be Mark's concern, in the first part of his gospel, to present Jesus as a powerful miracle worker, under the thematic umbrella of the Messianic Secret.
1 Nineham, D. E., The Gospel of Saint Mark (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963) 85–8Google Scholar; Cranfield, C. E. B., The Gospel according to St Mark (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1966) 90–5Google Scholar; Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1966) 185–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium des Markus (17th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 44–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pesch, R., Das Markus-evangelium 1. Teil (Freiburg: Herder, 1976) 140–9Google Scholar; Kertelge, K., Die Wunder Jesu im Markusevangelium. Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Munich: Kosel, 1970) 62–75Google Scholar. For a recent explication of this model from a structuralist perspective see: Theissen, G., The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).Google Scholar
2 For Elliott, J. K. (‘The Conclusion of the Pericope of the Healing of the Leper and Mark i.45’, JTS 22 [1971] 153–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, this is the clear purpose of v. 44, which in his estimation is the actual end of the pericope.
3 Both Kertelge (Wunder, 62), and Fitzmyer, J. (The Gospel according to Luke I–IX [Anchor Bible 28; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1981] 572)Google Scholar, cite Taylor's characterization of the narrative as exhibiting ‘perfect form as a miracle story’ (The Formation of the Gospel Tradition [2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1935] 122)Google Scholar. But Taylor abandoned that position in his later commentary. See Mark, 185–6.
4 In terms of Redaction Criticism, its place in the gospel remains an embarrassment, for it seems to fit into the flow of the narrative only with great difficulty. See, for example, Egger, W., Frohbotschaft und Lehre: Die Sammelberichte des Wirkens Jesu im Markusevangelium (Frankfurt: Josef Knecht, 1976) 79–84.Google Scholar
5 The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1968) 212.Google Scholar Bultmann saw its origins within the Palestinian milieu. See the summary and discussion of positions in Kertelge, Die Wunder Jesu, 62–4. Wojciechowski, M., ‘The Touching of the Leper (Mark 1,40–45) as a Historical and Symbolic Act of Jesus’, BZ 33 (1989) 114–19)Google Scholar, is a recent attempt to reconstruct an Aramaic source which ‘reflects an early Palestinian tradition close to relations of eye-witnesses’ [117].
6 Harrington, W., Mark (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1979) 23.Google Scholar
7 Nineham, , St Mark, 86Google Scholar. Taylor, (Mark, 185)Google Scholar also allows for this possibility but would prefer not to have to decide this way, even though, despite the broad outlines of a plot, there seemed to him to be little unity or coherence in the parts of the story as it stands.
8 See the discussion of socio-linguistic theory in Leach, E., Culture and Communication: The Logic by Which Symbols Are Connected (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Halliday, M. A. K., Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning (Baltimore: University Park, 1978)Google Scholar; Hudson, R. A., Sociolinguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1980)Google Scholar, and especially its application to the appropriation of models for biblical interpretation in Malina, B. J., Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation (Atlanta: John Knox, 1986) esp. 1–27.Google Scholar
9 See Malina, , Christian Origins, 190Google Scholar. Although Form Criticism proposed a socio-literary description of the traditions (Sitz im Leben) the presuppositions of the method were, in fact, rooted in a functionally theological understanding of the early community, centred in the interpreter's own experience of Church. On the use of models for making sense of data, see: Carney, T. F., The Shape of the Past: Models and Antiquity (Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado, 1975).Google Scholar
10 I use this term more broadly than Taylor, (Formation, 142–67) to include miracle stories. Ever since Form Criticism introduced these categories into the vocabulary of exegesis, study of the narratives has presumed that all other characters must be secondary to the central function of the story which was to glorify Jesus the hero. For Bultmann (History, 219), this was simply ‘the nature of the case’ in such miracle stories. Cf. also M. Dibelius' description of the ‘Tales’ (among which he numbered the Healing of the Leper), which were ‘… meant to show Jesus as the Lord of divine powers’: From Tradition to Gospel (London: James Clark, 1934) 70–103, here 97.Google Scholar
11 This is of course, one of the basic assumptions of Form Criticism first stressed by Schmidt, K. L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu (Reprint of the 1919 edition [Berlin]; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969)Google Scholar. But form critics never attempted to investigate the nature of plot in this pericope except in so far as it fitted the mold provided by the Miracle model. Their expectations were therefore limited to the parameters of the discussion inaugurated by David Hume and responded to by D. F. Strauss and the exegesis of the Enlightenment.
12 Every text that tells a story brings about a transformation between an initial situation and a final situation. The mode of employment reflected in the story of the leper would seem to be satiric tragedy. See Malina, , Christian Origins, 169–72.Google Scholar
13 I accept here the semiotic analysis of Andre Fossion, ‘From the Bible Text to the Homily: Cure of a Leper (Mark 1:40–45)’, Lumen Vitae 35 (1980) 279–90Google Scholar, although I cannot concur in his final interpretation of the story.
14 For the concept of Honour and Shame as pivotal values in Mediterranean society see: Rivers, J. Pitt, ‘Honor’, in: The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. Sills, David L.; London: Macmillan, 1968) VI.503–11Google Scholar; Peristany, J. G., ed., Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1965)Google Scholar; Gilmore, D. D., ed., Honor and Shame and the Unity of the Mediterranean (Washington: American Anthropological Association, 1987)Google Scholar. For its application to New Testament: Malina, B. J., The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981) 25–50.Google Scholar
15 While almost all critical editions read σπλαγχνισθείς in v. 41, the alternate reading όργισθείς is in fact well attested in the Western tradition. According to the canons of text criticism όργισθείς ought to be seriously considered as the more difficult reading. That Matt/Luke omit it is testimony to this. In fact it would fit in quite well with the narrative as a whole (⋯μβριμησ⋯μενος, ⋯ξέβαλεν in v. 43). To argue that ‘At least two other passages in Mark which represent Jesus as angry (3.5) or indignant (10.14) have not prompted over scrupulous copyists to make corrections’, as does the UBS Commentary (76), is not to the point, since in neither of these cases would it make any conceivable sense to have done so, while here, it would. Also Zimmermann, H., Neutestamentliche Methodenlehre. Darstellung der historisch-kritischen Methode (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: KBW, 1970) 72.Google ScholarLake, K., ‘Embrimesamenos and Orgistheis (Mark 1:40–43)’, HTR (1923) 197–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 ⋯μβριμησέμενος is most often translated by ‘sternly charged’ or some such and connected with exorcism or the Messianic Secret, although it nowhere actually occurs in those contexts. Literally it means ‘to snort’ (as a horse), but can be used figuratively to refer to a reaction provoked by a deep inward emotion (Zerwick, M., Analysis, 104Google Scholar) as it does in John 11.33, 38, where it refers to Jesus' reaction to the death of Lazarus. The two remaining NT references can likewise be translated similarly: Matt 9.30 where Jesus reacts to the two blind men, ‘saying to them, “See to it that no one knows about it”’; and Mark 14.15 where the disciples negatively react to Mary with the ointment only to have Jesus contradict them.
17 Schmidt, K. L., Rahmen, 63–4Google Scholar suggested that because of v. 39, as well as the use of ⋯ξέβαλεν in v. 43 and ⋯ξελθών in v. 45 (both of which have been omitted in Matt and Luke), one might conceive that the incident took place within the synagogue, a view which has been too easily dismissed even by Schmidt himself. Others see the use of these words as the remains of an original exorcism story.
18 See e.g. van der Loos, H., The Miracles of Jesus (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 465–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 So e.g. Nineham, , St Mark, 86.Google Scholar
20 ‘Understanding Biblical Healing’, BTB 18 (1988) 60–6Google Scholar; also ‘Biblical Leprosy and Body Symbolism’, BTB 11 (1981) 119–33.Google Scholar
21 Kertelge, , Wunder, 64–5Google Scholar also stresses this but unfortunately does not pursue it to complete advantage in his exegesis.
22 Lev 13.45–46; Num 5.1; 2 Kings 7.3; 15.15. Also Billerbeck IV.2, 751–7.
23 See Cullen, F. T. and Cullen, J. B., Toward a Paradigm of Labeling Theory (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska, 1978) 4–5Google Scholar. Also Pfuhl, E. H., The Deviance Process (New York and Toronto: Van Nostrand, 1980) 25–36.Google Scholar
24 See Cullen, and Cullen, , Paradigm, 15–19.Google Scholar
25 But mutatis mutandis, that is the nature of all such endeavours and stems from the very humanness of both the subjects and objects of this kind of research. See Reason, P. and Rowan, J., ed., Human Inquiry: A Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (New York: J. Wiley, 1981).Google Scholar
26 ‘There can be no deviance until the imputation of labels transpires’ – Cullen, and Cullen, , Paradigm, 10.Google Scholar
27 Cullen and Cullen (Paradigm, 25, with literature) clearly point out that such reaction, i.e., the process of labelling and treatment, can be functional for a system, in terms of normative boundary maintenance and increased social solidarity. In this regard see also Douglas, M., Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Taboo (London, 1967)Google Scholar and Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology (London: Barrie and Rockliffe, 1970)Google Scholar. For an interesting application of deviance theory to Christology see: Malina, B. J. and Neyrey, J. H., Calling Jesus Names: The Social Value of Labels in Matthew (Sonoma, California: Polebridge, 1988) esp. 33–67.Google Scholar
28 Garfinkel, H., ‘Conditions of Successful Degradation Ceremonies’, American Journal of Sociology 61 (1956) 420–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 Four possible specifications present themselves: a person may be both publicly and privately labelled as deviant; or publicly and privately labelled non-deviant; conversely one may be publicly labelled deviant but privately non-deviant, or publicly labelled as non-deviant and privately as deviant.
30 Treatment of, or reaction to, the deviance of the deviant person can be positive, in which case there is a tendency to treat the person more favourably because of the label; neutral, in which case there would be no change in the patterns of personal interchange; or negative, in which case the person would be treated less favourably. See Cullen, and Cullen, , Paradigm, 14.Google Scholar
31 Thus Oppenheimer, A., The ʿAm Ha-Aretz. A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 224Google Scholar: ‘The ʿammei haaretz were not opposed to the observance of purity but simply disregarded it’. See his entire discussion 83–96.
32 Van der Loos, , Miracles, 472–3.Google Scholar
33 See Jeremias, J., Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (London: SCM, 1969) 117Google Scholar. Josephus' claim that lepers could enter neither ‘town nor village’ (Against Apion 1.31 [281]) is tempered by his limiting of the restriction to Jerusalem in War 5.5.6 and Ant. 3.11.3 as well as the context of his remarks which are concerned with opposing the libel of Manetho, that Moses was a leprous priest. His argument is basically that a leper would not make such laws on leprosy that would keep them out of ‘the Holy City’ (Ant. 3.265–8).
34 Van der Loos, , Miracles, 481.Google Scholar
35 The hesitation on the part of commentators to accept these as instances of ‘true leprosy’ is determined by their working with the ‘medical model’ of healing rather than a model suggested by socio-cultural analysis. See e.g. Van der Loos, , Miracles, 479Google Scholar; Pesch, R., Markuseuangelium 2. 331.9.Google Scholar
36 Even in contemporary society, there is a tendency to protect one's own.
37 Sayings such as those in Matt 12.11 and Luke 14.5 make sense only on this presupposition.
38 See Malina, , World, 32–3.Google Scholar
39 That καθαρίζω refers to a declaration of cleansing is not as ‘fanciful’ as Cranfield (St Mark, 92) and others would have it. After examining the evidence Cave, C. H. (‘The Leper: Mark 1.40–45’, NTS 25 [1979] 245–50)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has to admit that the possibility ‘should not be dismissed too quickly’, as indeed it so ‘definitively’ was (Taylor, St. Mark, 185) by Strauss, D. F. (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined [Translated by Eliot, G.; Philadelphia, 1972] 437–41Google Scholar in his haste to confirm the possibility of the miraculous against the rationalists.
40 Bauer–Arndt–Gingrich–Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed.; Chicago and Cambridge: University, 1979) 102–3.Google Scholar
41 Neyrey, J., ‘The Idea of Purity on Mark's Gospel’, Semeia 35 (1986) 91–127Google Scholar, here esp. 111–13.
42 For a discussion of the role of both official and unofficial limit breakers within society see Malina, , Christian Origins, 143–54.Google Scholar
43 The conflict with the Pharisees which permeates the narrative was rightly stressed by Mussner, F., The Miracles of Jesus (Notre Dame: Notre Dame University, 1968) 27–39Google Scholar. On the Pharisees as a sector of the ‘retainer class’ for the élite see: Saldarini, A., ‘Political and Social Roles of the Pharisees and Scribes in Galilee’, 1987 SBL Seminar Papers, 200–9Google Scholar and ibid., Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1988) 1–50.Google Scholar
44 Fossion, , ‘Bible’, 281–3.Google Scholar
45 Christian Origins, 153.
46 Cave, , ‘Bible’, 245, 250Google Scholar, with reference to Knox, W. L., The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels 1 (1953).Google Scholar
47 So e.g. Pesch, , Markusevangelium, 146–7.Google Scholar
48 See Kertelge, , Wunder, 74.Google Scholar
49 Such disregard for the technicalities of ‘empty’ ritual would be typical in low grid societies such as this was.
50 Cave, ‘Leper’, 247–8 cites provisions made for lay assistance in this matter, or even the temporary declaration of a specially authorized teacher.
51 Binding the Strong Man: A Political Reading of Mark's Story of Jesus (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988) 152–4Google Scholar. See also Zervvick, , Analysis, 104.Google Scholar
52 Cave, ‘Leper’, 249, finds it impossible to believe that Jesus would not be angry at the ‘laxity’ of the leper in approaching him. From our perspective, the emotion of Jesus is caused rather by the fact that the leper would even have to ask! There is no need, in any event, to postulate an earlier conflation of stories.
53 Also Kertelge, , Wander, 68–70Google Scholar, but with different emphasis. For arguments see Cave, , ‘Leper’, 249–50.Google Scholar
54 Against Cave, , ‘Leper’, 247.Google Scholar
55 So Myers, , Binding, 153.Google Scholar
56 The notion of ‘sending back’, is, however stressed in the use of ὕπαγε v. 44b (see also 5.19: ὕπαγε είς τòν οἶκον σου πρòς τοὺς σούς…). But this need not imply that the leper was once refused a cleansing. It could more likely refer to the original act of stigmatization.
57 Fossion, , ‘Bible’, 282.Google Scholar
58 According to Meyer (Binding, 154), for instance, the leper aborts his mission so that Jesus is forced to go into hiding.
59 See Malina, , World, 80–2Google Scholar; Christian Origins, 101–6.
60 This is by far and again the most commonly understood reason given. It is, however, clearly an imposition from other parts of Mark.
61 So Malina, , World, 121Google Scholar, followed by Meyer, , Binding, 154.Google Scholar
62 One is not convinced of the ‘contextual’ argumentation to the contrary presented by Kilpatrick, G. D., JTS 40 (1938) 389–90Google Scholar; 42 (1941) 67 and Elliott, J. K., JTS ns 22 (1971) 153–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63 For Egger, (Frohbotschaft, 80–4)Google Scholar, for example, v. 45 is a Markan summary whose main purpose is to take up the theme of 1.35–38 and at the same time to prepare for the summary congregation of the crowds in 3.7–12.
64 The ‘story’ becomes gospel also in 5.19 and 7.36 where the verb κηρ⋯σσειν is used to describe proclamation of healings by the principals of the story.
