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 specic examples
of such activities. This essay examines the story of Jesus healing a leper as a speci-
c example of Jesus activity of healing. In particular it shows the contribution to
be made by analyzing the account in the Egerton Gospel 3547 alongside Mark
1.40-45. The nature of leprosy in the ancient Mediterranean world and the socio-
cultural realities of a rst-century Jewish context contribute to this analysis. The
essay concludes that within the bounds of historical probability Jesus healed a
leper (not Hansens disease but a aking skin condition). Jesus responded to the
mans request by anticipating the priestly declaration that he would be clean and
making this possible by curing the mans disease (i.e., his bio-medical condition)
by means of verbal command and probably also through touch. Jesus instructed the
man to seek a priests 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 signicance 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 exemplies the bare bones of what would
be needed to tell the story of the cleansing of the leper [T]his stereotypical
outlinetells neither for nor against the historicity of the story.
2
An interesting
contrast to Meiers view is the Jesus Seminars 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 inuenced by viewing the
Egerton Gospel as independent.
This essay discusses the historicity of the pericope of Jesus healing a leper and
demonstrates the signicant role played in the discussion by a careful analysis of
the Egerton Gospel alongside Marks Gospel.
General Considerations With Respect to Jesus Healing a Leper
Before examining the specic 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 Seminars 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 Seminars 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
Dodds view (cited below) of the texts 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 rst
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 Kln 255, which proved to be the lower portion of the
rst fragment of P. Egerton 2. For the text under consideration here, EgerG 35-47,
lines 35-42 come from the rst fragment of P. Egerton 2, lines 35-42, while lines
43-47 are provided by P. Kln 255.
6
The following is the text and a translation
of EgerG 35-47.
7
EgerG 35-47
35 |oi [i]ou itpo, pooti[ov ouo] And behold, a leper approaching him
36 ityti ioo|oit Iq(oou) it[poi,
ouv]
says, Teacher Jesus, while traveling with
lepers
37 otuov |oi ouvtoio[v ouoi,] and eating with them
38 tv o ovo_tio ti[tpiooo] in the inn, I became a leper
39 |oi ouo, tyo tov [o]uv [ou tiq,] also myself. If, therefore, you are willing,
40 |oopiooi o q |(upio), [tq
ouo]
I will be clean. Then the Lord said to him,
41 ti[o] |oopioqi [|oi tuto,] I am willing, be clean. And immediately
42 [o]t oq o ouou q it[po ityti] the leprosy departed from him.
6. P. Egerton 2 was rst 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. Kln 255 was rst published by Michael Gronewald, Unbekanntes Evan-
gelium oder Evangelienharmonie (Fragment aud dem Evangelium Egerton), in Klner
Papyri (P. Kln), VI (ed. Brbel Kramer and Robert Hbner; Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-
Westflischen 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.
180 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
43 t ouo o Iq(oou,)[] opt[uti,
otou]
And Jesus says to him, Go, show
44 ov titiov oi[, itptuoiv] yourself to the priests
45 |oi ovtvty|ov [tpi ou |o] and offer for the
46 []opioou o, po[o]t[otv
Mo(uoq,) |oi]
cleansing as Moses commanded, and
47 []q|ti o[o]povt [ 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 Johns 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, 196365), 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
rst 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
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 181
Daniels in his doctoral dissertation. I nd 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 Egertons story pre-
serves no elements attributable specically 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
|oi [i]ou itpo, pooti[ov
ouo] it yti
|oi iou itpo, pootiov
poot|uvti ouo ityov
Koi tp_toi po, ouov
itpo, opo|oiov ouov
[|oi yovutov] |oi ityov
ouo
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 |oi
iou (and behold) and the verb pootiov (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 pootiov (approaching)
hardly constitutes dependence, for most of the healing stories about Jesus involve
the person approaching Jesus. And the expression |oi iou (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.
182 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
the LXX.
16
Franz Neirynck concluded on the other hand that [t]he contact with
Mt 8,2a is obvious in the rst words of the story
17
But, given the observations
just made, Neiryncks view is hardly as obvious as he claims. For Lk. 5.12 also
uses |oi iou (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 specic 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 rst feature in particular is difcult to explain.
20
I conclude,
therefore, as C.H. Dodd did several decades ago:
The resemblances are after all conned 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 |oi iou
(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. 1314 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 pericopes 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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 183
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 35-47two
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 (itpoi |oopi ovoi), 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 difcult 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 IsaiahJesus cleanses lepers.
In Lk. 17.11-19a tradition unique to Lukethe story is told of Jesus healing
ten lepers. Whether Luke was the rst 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, Crossans 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; Shefeld: Shefeld 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, 198185), 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 Lukes avoidance of doublets is by Heinz Schrmann, Die
184 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
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 nd 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 inuential in
the western medical tradition, reports in Subguratio 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 (ti, it pov); and this disease, in turn, was cured (ttpotu q) by
the drugs which the god commanded.
31

Dubletten im Lukasevangelium, in Schrmann, Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu
den synoptischen Evangelien (Kommentare und Beitrge zum Alten und Neuen Testament;
Dsseldorf: 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. pul. 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 difcult 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 iiiov (stones), which is a medical term for stone in the bladder (cf. LSJ, 1049).
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 185
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 Miriams 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 ow 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 esh was restored like the esh 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. 1314), 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 Naamans 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.
186 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
The Nature of Leprosy in the Ancient World
Leprosy in the ancient world is not to be identied with the modern disease by
the same name. Modern leprosy is produced by the bacillus, Mycobacterium
leprae. It was rst identied by Dr Gerhard Hansen in 1868. Some leprologists
prefer to use the term Hansens disease to distinguish it from the biblical term.
Hansens disease was known in the Graeco-Roman world, but it was referred to
as titovi ooi, (elephantiasis, elephantiasis) or tit o, (elephas, elephant),
and not as itpo (leprosy).
36
In this essay I use the term leprosy to refer to
the ancient disease identied as itpo in Graeco-Roman times and as t(arAcf
(raat) in the Hebrew Bible.
37
Leviticus 1314 provides an extensive description of t(arAcf (raat), with
Leviticus 13 describing the process by which a priest would distinguish what is
in fact t(arAcf (raat) and thus to be declared unclean, and what may only
appear to be t(arAcf (raat), 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 persons condition
was one of a number of diseases identied as t(arAcf (raat) and thus was un-
clean.
39
The characteristics of t(arAcf (raat) and itpo (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 Identication, 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
Hansens 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 rst-
century CE tomb in Israels Hinnom Valley which contained the remains of a man who suffered
from Hansens disease. This was conrmed by DNA testing. He claims that this is apparently
the oldest nding of Hansens disease and the rst 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 Hansens 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 lariasis, which involves the massive enlargement of limbs or
other body parts.
37. The LXX translates t(arAcf (raat) by the term itpo (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
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 187
is best understood as a scaly or aking 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 (raat) may also infect fabrics and houses
(Lev. 13.47-58; cf. 14.34-53).
Sometimes in the Hebrew Bible t(arAcf (raat) 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
(raat) is possible and provides the means for declaring a healed person to be
clean. While the purication rites in Leviticus 14 do not heal persons with t(arAcf
(raat), the rites do describe the practical means for removing t(arAcf (raat)
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 sacrices
(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 itpo
(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 Identication, 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.
188 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
For white or scaly leprosy (itpq,), 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 (itpqoiv), and alphos
(Hippocrates, Use of Liquids 4 [Potter, LCL]).
47
Elsewhere Hippocrates states that
leprosy, along with a variety of other skin conditions, are disgurements 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 rst 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 difcult 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 difculty 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 esh 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 (itpq) (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 itpo 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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 189
mothers womb. Aarons simile, in which a stillborn fetus is compared with
leprosy, is probably derived from similar characteristics of white aking 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 aking or scaly skin condition, not Hansens 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 raat is to a certain extent exfoliative or desqua-
mative [i.e., aking skin]. A fetus that has died in the womb takes on a reddish color which lasts
for the rst few days after death. After this period it becomes an odd brown-gray. As it continues
to become macerated in utero before nally being expelled, the skin is shed in large sheets.
53. But cf. m. Neg. 13.12 which allows a leper to attend synagogue.
190 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
Structural elements 1a and 1b in the Egerton Gospel provide the introduction or
focalizing process
54
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 conclusionneed 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 Egertons author provides little explicit literary connection
with the preceding context. In other words, the Egerton Gospel lacks a narrative
transitional connective. Marks 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 process
56
consists of two elements: the lepers approach and his explanation,
while in Marks Gospel it consists of only one: the lepers approach, though
Marks account of the approach is developed by describing the lepers obeisance.
The lepers 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 modied 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, []q|ti o[o]povt (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. Funks 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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 191
(Lev. 1314, esp. 13.45-46), Jesus concluding command in EgerG 47 may be
understood as a specic warning against such contact with lepers.
59
The introduction to Marks pericope consists of only one structural element,
but it is more developed with the description of the lepers obeisance, opo-
|oiov ouov [|oi yovutov] (begging him, and kneeling). If such a
description had also been part of the tradition used by the Egerton Gospels
author, it is very difcult 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 understandableit 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 []q|t i o[o]povt as an itinerant clich
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 persons 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 Marks 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.
192 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
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 lepers request in the Egerton Gospel and Mark are very similar:
EgerG 39-40 Mark 1.40
tov [o]uv [ou tiq,]
|oopiooi
tov tiq,
uvoooi t |oopiooi.
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
ti[o] |oopioqi tio, |oopioqi
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
[|oi tuto,] [o]toq o ouou q
it[po
|oi tuu, oqitv o ouou q itpo,
|oi t|oopioq.
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, Marks account
contains three additional elements: (1) Jesus made an emotional response to the
lepers 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 (t|oopioq).
63. Funk, Oral Repertoire, p. 2; cf. pp. 3-4.
64. The text of Mark was either oioy_vioti, (moved with pity) as in the NA
27
, but
the more difcult reading is opyioti, (was indignant). In this essay it is irrelevant which
reading is correct. Cf. Bruce M. Metzgers 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 oioy_vioti,; cf. a recent contrary discussion by Kazmierski, Evangelist and
Leper, p. 40 n. 15.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 193
Two issues arise in this nucleus which require closer examination. First, we
must explore the sense of the verb |oopio (to make/declare clean) and its
relationship to the clause [o ]toq/oqitv
65
o ouou q it po (the leprosy
departed from him). First of all, does the verb |oopio 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
eld 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 rst-century Jewish context, the experi-
ence of that sickness involved both a bio-medical phenomenon of aking 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.
Pilchs 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 oioqi (to leave) while Mk 1.42 uses the verb
otp_ooi (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). Pilchs 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.
194 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
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 diseaseJesus
declares the man clean and able to return to community, but the man continues
to have aking 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 difculty with such an inter-
pretation per se, for it has a certain fascination. But the evidence does not bear
out Pilchs 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 mans
socio-cultural difculty 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 difculty
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 |oopioqi). To inter-
pret this as only a declaration addressing the healing of the mans 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
rst. 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 sacrices (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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 195
the hue of healthy esh (Colson, LCL).
72
In rst-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 difculty applying Pilchs 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 difculty 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 mans disease was cured and his
illness was healed. Therefore, while Pilchs medical-anthropological understand-
ing of the distinction between healing illness and curing disease is helpful in
understanding the rst-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:
Marks 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 Gospels 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 puried themselves; and when
he has puried himself then he shall offer the (quote from Florentino Garca Martnez and
Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Study Edition [2 vols.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
199798], 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 purication is after their afiction 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.
196 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
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 mans 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 Marks 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 lepera 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
Marks conclusion is considerably expanded beyond that in the Egerton Gospel,
and these elements may reect some of Marks redactional interests. But like the
similarities in the nucleus, there is one signicant element that is similar in both
texts, namely, (3a) Jesus instructs the leper:
EgerG 43-47 Mark 1.43-44
ityti] t ouo o Iq(oou,)[]
opt[uti, otou]ov titiov oi[,
itptuoiv] |oi
ovtvty|ov [tpi ou |o][]opioou o,
po[o]t[otv Mo(uoq,)
|oi] []q|ti o[o]povt [
|oi tpiqootvo, ouo tuu,
ttoitv ouov |oi ityti ouo
opo qtvi qtv tiq,,
oiio uoyt otouov tiov o
itpti |oi
pootvty|t tpi ou |oopioou oou o
poototv Mouoq,,
ti, opupiov ouoi,.
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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 197
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 Funks 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) Crossans 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 Funks
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 Funks
point. (3) Crossans 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 Crossans argument is that
78. Funk, Oral Repertoire, p. 2; cf. pp. 3-4.
79. Crossan, Orality and the Miracles of the Jesus Tradition, p. 4.
198 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
the rst 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 conicting 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 units history is, therefore: (1) a rst 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 Crossans argument is his claim that the story contains two con-
icting interpretations of Jesus: anti-Temple and pro-Temple. I nd 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 conict 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 certied 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 nd 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.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 199
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 mans 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
mans request. Furthermore, the narrative is clear that the signicance 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 mans
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 mans 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 Elishas words also
make a declaration that Naaman will be clean: Go, wash in the Jordan seven
times, and your esh shall be restored and you shall be clean (2 Kgs 5.10b).
While Elisha does make the verbal declaration, you shall be cleanwhich
could also be understood as an infringement of the priestly realmthe focus of
the narrative is on the active response to Naamans 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 identies this as the con-
icting 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
Crossans view of an anti-Temple Jesus) does not take into account the rst-
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.
200 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
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 priests
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 certication 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 certication, 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 ti, opupiov ouoi, 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 sacrice would be
offered, or else to the people in the mans 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 nal phrase species
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
conict with Jewish leadership, but in this context it may be the result of Markan
redaction.
To sum up: in this reconstruction the lepers 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 ofcial. As such, Jesus is functioning in the role of an unofcial 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. Malinas comment (ibid.,
p. 153) that those who use unofcial limit breakers (i.e., the leper using Jesus) must still follow
the guidelines of the ofcials 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 18.26 (WBC, 34A; Dallas, TX:
Word Books, 1989), pp. 76-77.
Webb Jesus Heals a Leper 201
command intended to accomplish the mans request. The verbal command (and
probably Marks reference to Jesus using touch) are the means by which Jesus
addresses the mans request. The heart of Jesus response (both verbal and
active, that is, word and touch) addresses the mans 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 mans need for his illness to be healed
(i.e., socio-cultural). The story does not reect conicting 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 Crossans hypothesis that there is a
conict 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 specic
elements of these two sources, I conclude that EgerG 35-47 and Mk 1.40-45
reect 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 authors 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 Peschs 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, Peschs
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 Peschs argument citing the lack of any distinctive
elements that would signal a deliberate association with the Elisha account.
88. Funk, Oral Repertoire, p. 2; cf. pp. 3-4.
202 Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
The disease that this man suffered from was not Hansens disease but a
aking-skin condition. Jesus responded to the mans request by anticipating the
priestly declaration that he would be clean and making this possible by curing the
mans 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 priests 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 lepers 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.