Throughout the three synoptic gospels, the parable of the hemorrhaging woman argues the same point: Christ has the power of God, which no man can parallel. The woman in the story has been suffering for twelve years, and has spent all her money trying to be cured by different doctors. Hearing of Jesus’ miracles, the woman decides to go out and touch his cloak as a last resort. Although not necessarily clear in the stories, according to another verse in the Bible, Leviticus 15:25-27, “if a woman has a discharge of blood for many days, not at the time of her menstrual impurity…she shall continue in uncleanness…And whoever touches these things shall be unclean…”. This notion of the woman being unclean or unholy is important to the idea behind the story, and is seen in the YouTube video linked on the “Stories” page of the website. Even with the knowledge that every person she encounters in the crowd, including Jesus himself, will be considered unclean, the woman is desperate enough to risk the consequences. After simply touching the cloak of Jesus, the woman is instantly cured. This image is seen in all three of the Gospels, as it represents the purity of Christ… a woman who has been unclean for twelve years cannot corrupt the power of Christ. Additionally, an important characteristic in this story is the fact that Jesus acknowledged the woman’s presence and her faith. Jesus is walking in a large group of people, and there are most likely hundreds of people touching him at once. However, because Jesus felt the faith of the woman, and his healing power, he turned around and acknowledged her presence. This additional detail is important to the story as it makes clear the importance of faith in the miracles Jesus performed throughout the Gospels.
However, even considering those similarities, there are some distinct differences between the story in each of the synoptic Gospels. Matthew has the shortest version of the story and is the most unique out of the three Gospels. The biggest difference in Matthew is the absence of Jesus commenting on someone touching his cloak, and the apostles responding to him. In both Mark and Luke the apostles respond to Jesus’ question, whereas in Matthew the only interaction is between Jesus and the woman. When the woman touches the fringe of Jesus’ cloak, he turns and says to her, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well” (Mt 9:22). This is the only interaction in the story, which is important, as it clearly negates the apostles’ presence in that moment. Gospel of Matthew is more focused on Jesus’ actions and roles as a Messiah, rather than his relationship with the apostles. Additionally, the Gospel of Matthew makes no mention of the woman approaching Jesus in a timid or scared way. In both Mark and Luke, the woman confesses to touching him in order to be healed, and Jesus accepts her faith and lets the woman continue on her way.
The story in the Gospels of Mark and Luke are much more similar, but have some slight differences. For example, in Mark, Jesus poses the question: “who touched my clothes?” (Mk 5:30), to his apostles, and their response is, “you see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, ‘Who touched me?’” (Mk 5:31). In Luke, however, only Peter responds to the question, saying, “Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you” (Lk 8:45). It is interesting that in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no interaction between Jesus and his disciples, in the Gospel of Mark it is between Jesus and the entire group, and in Luke it is only between Jesus and Peter. Although these differences may seem small, it makes a significant difference when comparing the three together. Another example of this is in the Gospel of Luke: the woman makes no reference to the fact that if she touches Jesus’ cloak she will be healed—she just touches it and is healed. In both Mark and Matthew, the woman says, “If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.” (Mk 5:28)/ “if I only touch his cloak, I will be made well” (Mt 9:21). Additionally, in Luke and Matthew, the woman only touches the fringe of his clothes, whereas in Mark, the woman touches his cloak, almost as if it is more intentional. Another difference between Mark and Luke is Jesus’ response to his disciples/Peter’s response to his question. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus does not respond to his disciples, and the woman just approaches him to confess. In the Gospel of Luke, however, Jesus reaffirms to Peter that, “someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me” (Lk 8:46). In Luke, it is a personal conversation between Peter and Jesus, which led to the woman interrupting their conversation. The Gospel states that, “she came trembling, falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him” (Lk 8:47), which forces her to speak out in front of the crowd instead of just to Jesus, as he is speaking directly to Peter. In Mark, the woman is able to confess directly to Jesus, as he is standing in the crowd searching for who touched him. Although the three Gospels have similarities and differences, the end result of all three is the same: the woman is healed through her faith in Jesus.
As mentioned above, there are many similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels. However, each of the differences have a significant impact on how the stories are interpreted by the readers. An example of one event that remains consistent throughout all three Synoptic Gospels is the specific story of the hemorrhaging woman. Although the layout is different between the gospels, the overall story of the hemorrhaging woman is present in all three. The longest hemorrhaging woman scene is in Mark, the shortest scene is in Matthew, and Luke falls somewhere in between. Now, in order to discuss the reader’s interpretation and understanding of the gospels, it is important to acknowledge the general differences between the Synoptic gospels. For example, “the first five chapters of Mark contain material that is also recounted in Matthew and Luke. While Luke roughly follows the order of Mark, Matthew organizes that material in significantly different ways” (Bratcher). Although the Synoptic Gospels follow the same general outline, there are certainly events that are left out in one compared to another, as discussed before. These differences lead readers of the Bible to interpret and understand the Gospels in different ways. In the Gospel of Mark, the presentation of the hemorrhaging woman, “suggests that it is the woman’s health that is the primary concern of the miracle story, and not her ritual impurity” (Haber). According to author, Susan Haber, this specific interpretation of the gospel of Mark is just a small look into the many controversies that come when reading the story of the hemorrhaging woman in the Gospel of Mark. Another difference in interpretation regarding the hemorrhaging woman is be based on the presentation of the scene in the different Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, the scene is only a few verses (9:20-22). Considering the length, readers and interpreters of the Bible may assume that Matthew did not want to focus on the scene as much as Mark and Luke did. Now, why would Matthew not want to spend as much time focusing on the hemorrhaging woman scene as Mark and Luke? Some scholars question whether this has to do with feminism and focusing too much on the women in the Gospel. For example, according to P.J.J. Botha, “Both women exhibit faith and initiative in their approaching of Jesus” (Botha 510). Here, P.J.J. Botha is interpreting the Gospel of Matthew as shedding light on the power of the hemorrhaging woman and her presentation in the Gospel as a whole. Another controversial aspect that the Synoptic Gospels raise regarding the scene of the hemorrhaging woman is whether it was magic or a miracle performed by Jesus. According to an article written by Donald Bromley, “This conception of healing power, as though it were like an electric charge or current, is considered by many scholars to indicate a magical understanding on the part of Mark” (Bromley). Interestingly, this article is specific to Mark which means that something about Mark’s story of the hemorrhaging woman leads scholars to believe that Jesus’ miracle may in fact have been magic.
However, even considering those similarities, there are some distinct differences between the story in each of the synoptic Gospels. Matthew has the shortest version of the story and is the most unique out of the three Gospels. The biggest difference in Matthew is the absence of Jesus commenting on someone touching his cloak, and the apostles responding to him. In both Mark and Luke the apostles respond to Jesus’ question, whereas in Matthew the only interaction is between Jesus and the woman. When the woman touches the fringe of Jesus’ cloak, he turns and says to her, “Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well” (Mt 9:22). This is the only interaction in the story, which is important, as it clearly negates the apostles’ presence in that moment. Gospel of Matthew is more focused on Jesus’ actions and roles as a Messiah, rather than his relationship with the apostles. Additionally, the Gospel of Matthew makes no mention of the woman approaching Jesus in a timid or scared way. In both Mark and Luke, the woman confesses to touching him in order to be healed, and Jesus accepts her faith and lets the woman continue on her way.
The story in the Gospels of Mark and Luke are much more similar, but have some slight differences. For example, in Mark, Jesus poses the question: “who touched my clothes?” (Mk 5:30), to his apostles, and their response is, “you see the crowd pressing in on you; how can you say, ‘Who touched me?’” (Mk 5:31). In Luke, however, only Peter responds to the question, saying, “Master, the crowds surround you and press in on you” (Lk 8:45). It is interesting that in the Gospel of Matthew, there is no interaction between Jesus and his disciples, in the Gospel of Mark it is between Jesus and the entire group, and in Luke it is only between Jesus and Peter. Although these differences may seem small, it makes a significant difference when comparing the three together. Another example of this is in the Gospel of Luke: the woman makes no reference to the fact that if she touches Jesus’ cloak she will be healed—she just touches it and is healed. In both Mark and Matthew, the woman says, “If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.” (Mk 5:28)/ “if I only touch his cloak, I will be made well” (Mt 9:21). Additionally, in Luke and Matthew, the woman only touches the fringe of his clothes, whereas in Mark, the woman touches his cloak, almost as if it is more intentional. Another difference between Mark and Luke is Jesus’ response to his disciples/Peter’s response to his question. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus does not respond to his disciples, and the woman just approaches him to confess. In the Gospel of Luke, however, Jesus reaffirms to Peter that, “someone touched me; for I noticed that power had gone out from me” (Lk 8:46). In Luke, it is a personal conversation between Peter and Jesus, which led to the woman interrupting their conversation. The Gospel states that, “she came trembling, falling down before him, she declared in the presence of all the people why she had touched him” (Lk 8:47), which forces her to speak out in front of the crowd instead of just to Jesus, as he is speaking directly to Peter. In Mark, the woman is able to confess directly to Jesus, as he is standing in the crowd searching for who touched him. Although the three Gospels have similarities and differences, the end result of all three is the same: the woman is healed through her faith in Jesus.
As mentioned above, there are many similarities and differences between the Synoptic Gospels. However, each of the differences have a significant impact on how the stories are interpreted by the readers. An example of one event that remains consistent throughout all three Synoptic Gospels is the specific story of the hemorrhaging woman. Although the layout is different between the gospels, the overall story of the hemorrhaging woman is present in all three. The longest hemorrhaging woman scene is in Mark, the shortest scene is in Matthew, and Luke falls somewhere in between. Now, in order to discuss the reader’s interpretation and understanding of the gospels, it is important to acknowledge the general differences between the Synoptic gospels. For example, “the first five chapters of Mark contain material that is also recounted in Matthew and Luke. While Luke roughly follows the order of Mark, Matthew organizes that material in significantly different ways” (Bratcher). Although the Synoptic Gospels follow the same general outline, there are certainly events that are left out in one compared to another, as discussed before. These differences lead readers of the Bible to interpret and understand the Gospels in different ways. In the Gospel of Mark, the presentation of the hemorrhaging woman, “suggests that it is the woman’s health that is the primary concern of the miracle story, and not her ritual impurity” (Haber). According to author, Susan Haber, this specific interpretation of the gospel of Mark is just a small look into the many controversies that come when reading the story of the hemorrhaging woman in the Gospel of Mark. Another difference in interpretation regarding the hemorrhaging woman is be based on the presentation of the scene in the different Gospels. For example, in the Gospel of Matthew, the scene is only a few verses (9:20-22). Considering the length, readers and interpreters of the Bible may assume that Matthew did not want to focus on the scene as much as Mark and Luke did. Now, why would Matthew not want to spend as much time focusing on the hemorrhaging woman scene as Mark and Luke? Some scholars question whether this has to do with feminism and focusing too much on the women in the Gospel. For example, according to P.J.J. Botha, “Both women exhibit faith and initiative in their approaching of Jesus” (Botha 510). Here, P.J.J. Botha is interpreting the Gospel of Matthew as shedding light on the power of the hemorrhaging woman and her presentation in the Gospel as a whole. Another controversial aspect that the Synoptic Gospels raise regarding the scene of the hemorrhaging woman is whether it was magic or a miracle performed by Jesus. According to an article written by Donald Bromley, “This conception of healing power, as though it were like an electric charge or current, is considered by many scholars to indicate a magical understanding on the part of Mark” (Bromley). Interestingly, this article is specific to Mark which means that something about Mark’s story of the hemorrhaging woman leads scholars to believe that Jesus’ miracle may in fact have been magic.