Abstract
The structure/pattern of miracle narratives of Jesus in the gospels has been a critical area of attention for many form critics. The healing miracles of Jesus in the gospels have been studied and a general structure/pattern deduced. Although the structure/pattern propounded fit some healing miracles in the gospels, it does not adequately fit a group of healing miracle narratives in which victims (sick folks) touch Jesus. This study focuses on the Lukan version of the narrative of the woman with the hemorrhage (Luke 8:43-48) to propound a specific structure/pattern for healing miracle narratives in which victims touch Jesus to appropriate a healing miracle. Even though some aspects of the structure/pattern of healing miracles in which victims touch Jesus may share some similarities with the general structure/pattern of healing miracles asserted by form critics, no doubt, the structure/pattern of healing miracles in which victims touch Jesus is unique.
The general classification of miracle narratives of Jesus in the gospels and subsequent sorting of healing miracles has yielded many results in terms of ease of research. In some cases of historical forms, the similarities, or otherwise, between the gospel documents and other ancient religious documents have been outlined. It offers the opportunity to understand the broad literary context in which the gospels emerged and the socio-cultural catalyst of religious communication in ancient Mediterranean society. This is not to argue that the general structure/pattern has no limitation(s). In some instances, the gospel documents were benchmarked with other Jewish and Hellenistic religious tenets to postulate that they were composed to mimic what prevails in other religions (Bultmann 1963; Travis 1977; Marshall, 1977; Cotter, 2003; Keener, 2011; Novakovic, 2011; Twelftree, 2007; Witmer, 2012; Poythress, 2016). In addition, some of the healing miracles do not fit the general structure/pattern. This study contributes to the classification of the healing miracles of Jesus in the gospels using the narrative of the woman with the hemorrhage as a case study (Lk. 8: 43-48).
The serious issue of the forms of the miracles of Jesus in the gospels was given attention by many New Testament scholars in the early 1960 and 1970. The phenomenon led to the classification of the miracle narratives into three (3) categories: (i) healing miracles, (ii) exorcism miracles, and (iii) nature miracles (Bultmann 1963; Fuller 1963; Richardson 1969; Travis 1977; Meier 1977; Cotter, 2003; Keener, 2011). Although this categorization is most popular among scholars whose work is concentrated on miracles in the gospels, it is not sacrosanct or without nuances. For example, some exorcisms led to healings: (i) in Luke 4: 38-41, Mark 1: 32-34, Matthew 8: 16-16, the multitudes that were brought to the house of Simon in the evening; (ii) the healing of the Gennesaret Demoniac in Luke 8: 26-39, Mark 5: 1-20, Matthew 8: 28-34, and (iii) the healing of the boy with a demon in Luke 9: 37-43, Mark 9: 14-29, Matthew 17: 14-21 etc. Rudolf Bultmann (1963: 210) referred to this phenomenon as exorcism healing and categorized it under healing miracles due to the final result of the exorcism. The other problem with the three-fold categorization is miracles of resuscitations, and whether they should belong to nature miracles or be categorized separately. Both exorcism healing and resuscitation miracles exhibit unique structure/pattern that is begging the attention of scholars in the field for classification and acknowledgement. This problem will be given the needed focus in subsequent research. However, per the categorization, exorcism healing belongs to healing miracles whiles resuscitation miracles belong to nature miracles.
A skim through the gospel shows that healing miracles, which include healings that were achieved through exorcism, are the largest of the miracles in the gospels. These healing miracles demonstrated the various diseases/illnesses that Jesus cured. These diseases/illnesses have been classified into four categories: lame walking, blind men seeing, cleansing of leprosy, and physical afflictions (where specific diseases/illnesses) were not mentioned (Richardson 1969: 123; Meier 1994: 678; Martin 1995: 68). The classification is based on the prevailing diseases/illnesses during the ministry of Jesus in the ancient Mediterranean world. It may not be based on a scientific determination of these diseases/illnesses but on what the victim complains of and can be observed by others. With these diseases/illnesses that Jesus cured, it demonstrates that Jesus dealt with grave health problems of his day (Graber and Müller 1978: 164-165; Eve 2009: 52-53), and deserve critical analysis. This study generally belongs to the category four of the types of diseases/illnesses that Jesus healed in the gospels – hemorrhage.
My procedure is to: (i) discuss the worldview and definition of a miracle; (ii) examine some structures/patterns of the healing miracles of Jesus in the gospels; (iii) categorize the healing miracles in the gospels; (iv) analysis of previous Structure/Pattern of healing miracle narratives with Luke 8: 43-48; (v) the proposition of the Structure/Pattern of healing miracle where victims touch Jesus: The case of Luke 8: 43-48; and then (vi) draw a Conclusion.
Worldview and Definition of Miracle
The belief in miracles in the natural world varies from one context to the other. The ancient Mediterranean world that served as the background and context in which Jesus ministered is receptive to miracles in the natural world and vehemently sought them, particularly when other scientific and social modes of seeking solutions failed. The biblical Hebrew worldview considers the natural and spiritual worlds as playing complementary roles. In other words, there is no barrier between the natural and spiritual worlds. Spirit entities can perform activities in the natural world. Hence, God is not an absentee deity. This is not to demonstrate the existence of God but the providence and sustaining power of God (Kahl 2018: 47-76; Kallas 1961: 14-21; Richardson 1969: 1-16; Court 1972: 1-15). The biblical Hebrew worldview has been challenged by some philosophers to argue that miracles violate the natural order of creation because it does not have a scientific explanation. And no amount of human testimony will give credence to miracles in the natural world because miracles often happen among barbarous people whose testimonies cannot be relied upon for any cogent argument. After all, they are unlettered. Subsequently, the ancient Mediterranean society is infested with myths that lack substance (Keener 2011; Spinoza 1891: 82; Lewis 1947: 15; Bultmann 1958: 7; Kant 1960: 79; Hume 1988: 75-91).
A miracle can hardly make scientific sense. It will cease to be a miracle when scientific elucidation is reached because it will defy the various definitions of a miracle. According to John P. Meier (1994: 512), “a miracle is (1) an unusual, startling, or extraordinary event that is in principle perceivable by any interested and fair-minded observer, (2) an event that finds no reasonable explanation in human abilities or in other known forces that operate in our world of time and space, and (3) an event that is the result of a special act of God, doing what no human power can do.” The common element in the three (3) definitions is a supernatural occurrence that is beyond human comprehension. The third definition clearly describes a miracle as a “special” act of God in situations that human endeavour could not handle. Therefore, humans cannot fully make scientific sense of miracles in the natural world.
Some Propositions of the Structure/Pattern of Healing Miracles
A lot of scholarly attention has been dedicated to the miracle of healing by Jesus in the gospels. Subsequently, a general structure/pattern has been asserted for the healing miracles of Jesus. Deducing from the work of Martin Dibelius, Stephen H. Travis (1977: 153-164) presented a basic structure and pattern of healing narratives in the gospels. He posited a three (3) parts pattern: “(1) a description of the disease or situation to be remedied; (2) a statement of the cure or solution achieved by Jesus; (3) a statement of the results of the miracle – either the effects on the person healed or the reaction of the onlookers.” The description of the structure by Travis can be traced in some healing miracle narratives in the gospels: Luke 5: 17-26; 6: 6-11; 7: 11-17; 8: 40-56; 9: 37-43; 13: 10-17; Matthew 9: 2-8; 12: 9-14; 9: 18-28; 15: 21-28; Mark 2: 1-12; 3: 1-6; 5: 21-43; 9: 14-29; John 4: 46-54; 9: 1-12 and miracles on nature (Lk. 8: 22-25; Mt. 14: 22-33; Mk. 4: 35-41; 6: 45-52; Jn. 6: 16-21). However, Travis stated that the structure/pattern “is a natural pattern of any story of this kind, shared by Jewish and pagan miracle stories, as well as TV adverts for vitamin pills and medicated shampoos,” (1977: 156). This is based on his conviction by Dibelius and Bultmann that these miracle narratives were formulated by the early Hellenistic church for propaganda purposes. Hence, they adopted an established structure/pattern for ease of acceptance (Travis 1977: 156).
The structure/pattern of the healing miracle at the shrine of Asclepius is captured by Keener (2011: 41) thus:
Statement of the suppliant’s original infirmity, sometimes including the infirm person’s name and home city, probably for documentation
The suppliant comes to the sanctuary
(Optional: the suppliant sometimes mocks the cures listed in the inscriptions)
(Usually) the suppliant sleeps in the sanctuary
(Usually) Asclepius appears to the suppliant in a dream
When day arrives, the person emerges cured.
Although there may be some similarities in some aspects of the description of the infirmity/illness in the structure/pattern of the miracle narratives of Jesus in the gospels and that of Jewish and pagan miracle narratives, it is a statement of over-generalization by Travis. Many ancient sources attest to the fact that Jesus performed miracles (Keener 2011: 22-23). It may be correct that the miracles of Apollonius of Tyana written by Philostratus that appeared in the third century may be framed by his disciples because there is no witness to those miracles that were performed in private (Keener 2011: 46), the miracles of Jesus have ancient witnesses and were performed in public (Keener 2011: 46; Kahl 2018; Richardson 1969). In addition, it will be extremely difficult to prove that miracles did not take place at the deity of Serapis, Asclepius, etc. shrines, which are similar to those at Lourdes today (Richardson 1969: 28; Keener 2011: 40). Ancient evidence abounds to prove that miracles took place at those shrines (Keener 2011: 46). The similarities of the structure/pattern between the miracles of Jesus, Jewish, and pagan traditions could be due to geographical culture around diseases/illnesses and religious healing. It may be due to the “forms of miracle narrative across the whole spectrum of antique culture” (Cotter 1999: i). The analogous structure/pattern of the miracles of Jesus that can be found in Jewish and pagan traditions does not place them on the same level in terms of authenticity (Poythress 2016: 27).
Further, Travis (1977) likened the structure/pattern to adverts of vitamin tablets/capsules and shampoos in the media today. It implies that the structure/pattern was targeted at advertising the efficacy of the power of the miracle-worker. Although rules regarding adverts drugs vary from one country to the other, obviously, there will not be a “statement of cure” issued to anyone who buys the product before that person gets well. The structure/pattern propounded by Travis (1977) could be referred to as a general one that effectively corresponds to many healing miracle narratives in the gospels and shares some degree of similarities with ancient Jewish and pagan miracle narratives.
Reginald H. Fuller (1963: 33) postulated a threefold structure/pattern that is similar to that of Travis:
Setting (description of the illness; its length, previous failures of physicians to cure).
Cure (the technique – a word, gesture or application of physical means; the cure performed secretly).
Demonstration (the reality of the cure attested by an action of the patient or by the attestation of witnesses; frequently by a ‘choric ending’).
Step (1) of the structure/pattern of healing miracles by Fuller (1963) share commonality with step (1) of Travis’ (1977). The difference is that Fuller demands previous attempts made towards cure/healing. Step (1) of Fuller’s structure/pattern of healing miracles of Jesus required more details. Step (2) of Fuller’s structure/pattern was specific to the various means/modes that could be used for the cure while Travis’ was a general “statement of cure.” The addition by Fuller (1963) that the miracle is performed in secret does not largely relate to the healing miracles of Jesus but to some Hellenistic miracle-workers. Step (3) of Fuller’s structure/pattern and that of Travis are almost the same. Both Travis (1977) and Fuller (1963) were influenced by Martin Dibelius with their unique tweaks. Subsequently, Fuller’s structure/pattern of healing miracle narratives can equally correspond with the healing miracles that the structure/pattern of Travis corresponds to.
Werner Kahl (2018: 54) offered a structure/pattern he referred to as four (4) schema pattern progression of healing miracle narratives in Table 1 below.
The “need” can be compared to the “description” and “setting” of Travis and Fuller. “Preparedness” is unique to Kahl and will encompass healing miracles in which the faith of the victim or the relatives played a critical role in the success of the event. The “performance” is equated to the “statement of cure” by Travis (1977), and “cure” by Fuller (1963). However, Kahl (2018) was silent concerning the means/modes of performance just like Travis (1977). The “sanction” can be likened to a statement of the results of the miracle by Travis (1977), and a demonstration by Fuller (1963). Miracles in Luke 5: 12-16; 17: 11-19; Mark 1: 40-45; 2: 1-12; Matthew 8: 1-4 fit the four-schema structure/pattern. The structure/pattern propounded by Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) is helpful for some healing miracles in which Jesus touched or issued a “statement of cure” to effect healing but did not consider miracles of healing performed by victims touching Jesus (Lk. 6: 17-19; 8: 43-48; Matt. 9: 19-22; 14: 34-36; Mk. 5: 25-34; 6: 53-56). Unfortunately, Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) did not clearly state the healing miracles that fall within the purview of their structure/pattern which I refer to as general. It is obvious that healing miracles through the victim touching Jesus have not been considered. This study contributes to the works of Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) to propose a structure/pattern that fits healing miracles through the touch of Jesus by victims.
Categories of Healing miracles in the Gospels
In this section, I categorize the healing miracles of Jesus based on the means/mode used to achieve the result. Each category is modelled with/around some unique vocabulary.
Healing miracles achieved through a “spoken word,” which could be referred to as a “statement of cure,” “cure,” or “performance.”
This category of healings includes: the healing of the paralytic (Lk. 5: 17-26; Matt. 9: 2-8; Mk. 2: 1-12); the healing of the man with a withered hand (Lk. 6: 6-11; Matt. 12: 9-14; Mk. 3: 1-6); raising the widow’s son at Nain (Lk. 7: 11-17); restoring a girl to life (Lk. 8: 49-56; Matt. 9: 18-28; 5: 21-43); healing the boy with a demon (Lk. 9: 37-43; Matt. 17: 14-21; 9: 14-29); and the healing of a crippled woman (Lk. 13: 10-17; Matt. 15: 21-28). This group of healing miracles are associated with some form of medical description of the sickness, which contributes to the study of the specific sickness that Jesus healed. These healing miracle narratives often end in the audience giving glory to God with awe.
Healing miracles performed through touch or laying hand on the victim by Jesus.
These are the healing of the mother-in-law of Peter/Simon (Matt. 8: 14-15; Mk 1: 30-31; Lk. 4: 38-41); healing the deaf mute of Decapolis (Mk. 7: 32-35); healing the man born blind (Jn. 9: 1-7); healing the paralytic at Bethesda (Jn. 5: 2-9); healing the blind man of Bethsaida (Mk. 8: 22-25); raising a dead girl to life (Lk. 8: 49-56; Matt. 9: 23-26; Mk. 5: 35-43); healing the blind man Bartimaeus in Jericho (Matt. 20: 30, 33-34); healing the centurion servant (Lk. 7: 1-10; Matt. 8: 5-13); and healing an infirm woman (Lk. 13: 11-13). This category of healing miracles is associated with word groups of gestures by Jesus, and in some cases, the gesture is coupled with “rebuke”, but the actual statement of “rebuke” is not stated by the implied narrator as was the case for the category 1 healing miracles.
Healing miracles performed through victims/infirm touching Jesus.
They include the crowd touch Jesus and were healed (Lk. 6: 17-19; Matt. 14: 34-36; Mk. 6: 53-56); and the healing of the woman with the hemorrhage (Lk. 8: 43-48; Mk. 5: 25-34; Matt. 9: 19-22). This group of healing miracles recorded testimonies by the beneficiaries of the power of Jesus which is usually in the voice of the implied narrator. There are no specific descriptions of illnesses that were healed. The healing miracles took place among a crowd, but they were silent. In view of the intensity of the crowd, in some cases, Jesus would have to be begged to allow sick folks to touch him.
Healing effected in a distance.
This includes the healing of the royal official’s son (Jn. 4: 46-54); and the healing of the Centurion servant (Lk. 7: 1-10; Matt. 8: 5-13). Healings effected in a distance involve close associates of key and recognizable politicians and religious leaders where the sick individuals were not present. These healing miracle narratives also show a discussion between the public figure (politician/religious leader) and Jesus which culminates in Jesus being convinced based on the trust of the public figure in his power to heal in a distance. Persons around the sick person testify of the healing. This group of healing miracles involves a “statement of cure/healing” or “performance” at a distance, that is, not in the presence of the sick person as seen in category 1 healing miracles.
These modes of healing through a “statement of cure/healing” or “performance”, laying on of hands, touching the miracle-worker, and healing in a distance are not unique to Jesus. Jewish and Hellenistic miracle-workers such as Hanina ben Dosa, and Apollonius (Guttmann 1947: 363-406; Bultmann 1963; Evans 2000: 80-81) among others have also been documented to have performed healing miracles through the same mode. A suggestion that the implied narrators of the healing miracles of Jesus considered the cultural norm of the literary composition of healing miracles.
Analytically, categories 1, 2, and 4 of the healing miracles show physical and obvious manifestations that healing has taken place. In other words, the diseases/illnesses resulted in a kind of physical bodily mangle. Hence, the healing is not limited to the experience of the beneficiary of the healing miracle but the audience at the event. It reflects the third blending of early Christian rhetorolect that focuses on human bodily effects through religious life: “human body as healed and amazingly transformed” (Robbins 2016: 338). The third blending space might have been designed for miracles where there is a visual transformation of physical bodies such as seeing crippled legs, hands, and waist transformed and become active. The structure/pattern developed by Travis, Fuller, and Kahl generally satisfies the healing miracles of categories 1, 2, and 4.
Category 3 of the healing miracles of Jesus in the gospels did not mention/describe sickness that was dealt with besides the mentioning of hemorrhage (Lk. 8: 43-48; Mk. 5: 25-34; Matt. 9: 19-22), which is also a general medical term for any blood discharge which can be the result of any disease. Arguably, the healing miracles that this study attempts to propound a structure/pattern for are those that a specific sickness that is seldom mentioned. It demands an early Christian miracle rhetorolect that deals with healing miracle events where there is no physical transformation of the human body.
Illness in Luke had been generally defined as the lack/loss of bodily function as a social element (Weissenrieder 2003: xiv). In other words, all the elements of the human body are to function as a society with various strata where each operates in conjunction with others. The lack or loss of function of one element affects the rest. This description would apply to illnesses that leave a part of the human body maimed, shrinks, and loses vitality in any part of the human body. The description given to the illness in Luke 8: 43-48 defies the general description of illness in Luke. It rather reflects a theory of bodily fluid where “a balanced mixture of excretion, secretion and hypothetical humor indicates good health and an imbalanced illness” (Weissenrieder 2003: xiv).
Analysis of Previous Structures/Patterns of Healing Miracle Narratives with Luke 8: 43-48
Contrasting Travis’ (1977) structure to Luke 8: 43-48 will show some differences and similarities demonstrated in Table 2 below.
The description of the problem to be remedied was clear to the extent of indicating various attempts made by the woman for a cure but failed. There was no “statement of cure.”
Fuller’s (1963) structure/pattern with Luke 8: 43-48 is shown in Table 3 and the proposition of Kahl (2018) and Luke 8: 43-48 is indicated in Table 4.
The result shows that “need”, “performance” and sanction can be traced in Luke 8: 43-48. “Preparedness” cannot be found in Luke 8: 43-48. No doubt Luke 8: 43-48 reflects portions of the propositions of Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) concerning the structure/pattern of healing miracle narratives in the gospels. The structure/pattern propounded by Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) does not adequately fit healing miracle narratives where victims touched Jesus.
The proposition of the Structure/Pattern of Healing Miracle where Victims Touch Jesus: The Case of Luke 8: 43-48
Luke 8: 43-48 suggests a structure/pattern of healing miracle narratives in the gospels where victims touched Jesus to appropriate healing. It indicates (i) description of illness and past failed attempts for cure (v. 43); (ii) a miraculous touch of the miracle-worker by the victim (v. 44); (iii) testimony of healing by the ex-victim (v. 47); and (iv) confirmation of healing and recommendation of the action of the victim by the miracle-worker (v. 48). This agrees with the requirement for social conflict theory of miracle: (i) miracle power (divine enablement) - which was available in the apparel/garment of Jesus (vs. 46); (ii) miracle touch (mode of appropriation) - the woman touched Jesus’ apparel/garment (vrs. 44, 47); and (iii) miracle agent (usually a person) – Jesus (Theissen 1983: 90). Although this structure/pattern specifically fits Luke 8: 43-48, it generally fits other healing miracle narratives in the gospels (category of healing miracle narratives) where victims touch Jesus to appropriate healing (Lk. 6: 17-19; Mk. 5: 25-34; Mt. 9: 20-22; 14: 34-36).
The structure/pattern propounded by Travis (1977), Fuller (1963), and Kahl (2018) has a portion for the audience who reacted to the miracle with amazement and give glory/praise to God. Thaumazo (wonder, amazement) is a critical umbrella term in the definition of miracles which connotes the uniqueness of the event (Kahl 2018: 47-76). It is usually found on the lips of the audience and beneficiaries of the miracles of Jesus (Lattke 1985: 53-64), because miracles are supernatural occurrences beyond human comprehension (Meier 1977: 512). Although there were audiences at the event of Luke 8: 43-48 and other healing miracle narratives where the victims touch Jesus (Lk. 6: 17-19; Mk. 5: 25-34; Mt. 9: 20-22; 14: 34-36), they did not express amazement. They were silent. Rather, the beneficiary testified in the voice of the implied narrator. It is likely that since the healing of the woman did not physically show on her body for the audience to see, the audience could not express amazement. Often, the expression of amazement by the audience occurs when the illness resulted in a mangled body and the healing made the mangled body corrected almost immediately. The hemorrhage was internal, not external; hence, the audience could not express any amazement. Even though amazement by the audience is an important aspect of healing miracle narratives, where the illness is internal the testimony of the beneficiary (often in the voice of the implied narrator) could replace the expression of amazement by the audience. The response of the audience is not always the expression of amazement to affirm the healing miracle performed by Jesus. Religious leaders at such events do not often express amazement but disgust and opposition to the healing miracle (Lk. 6: 6-11; 14: 1-6).
Statement of cure/healing and “performance” were absent in Luke 8: 43-48 and other healing miracle narratives where the victims touch Jesus (Lk. 6: 17-19; Mk. 5: 25-34; Mt. 9: 20-22; 14: 34-36). It may be because it was the woman who approached Jesus without Jesus’ prior notice. The absence of a “statement of cure/healing” suggests that an act of faith can effectively replace a “statement of cure/healing”.
Touching in miracle narratives is usually the miracle-worker who touches the victim by laying hands. It is usually accompanied or followed by a “statement of cure/healing”. Luke 8: 43-48 and other healing miracle narratives where the victims touch Jesus (Lk. 6: 17-19; Mk. 5: 25-34; Mt. 9: 20-22; 14: 34-36) present a different case. It is not clear when the audience of Jesus realized that there is power in the apparel/garment of Jesus to be appropriated for healing. The issue of touching the apparel/garment of Jesus was first reported in Luke 6: 19: kai pas ho oclos ezetoun aptesthai oti dunamis par’autou ezercheto kai iato pantas (And all the people/crowd seek to touch Jesus because power came out of him and heal them all). The implied narrator seeks to suggest that there is evidence to show that healing miraculous power hails from the apparel/garment of Jesus and healed sick folks. Hence, the sick people in the crowd sought to appropriate the miraculous power of Jesus by touching him. Although the implied narrator reported that all who touched Jesus were healed, the illness from which they were healed was not mentioned. It can be suggested that they would have been illnesses that do not inhibit movement by the victim.
Touching Jesus to appropriate miraculous power for healing in Luke 8: 43-48 could be considered a continuation of what began in Luke 6: 19. In Luke 8: 43-48 a general illness and the gender of the beneficiary were mentioned. In other words, Luke 6: 19 was general in terms of touching Jesus to appropriate healing miracles while Luke 8: 43-48 was specific. In the Lukan perspective of touching Jesus for miracles, it is often done in public (in a crowd) not private. “In the Gospel of Luke, the society in which the healings take place is characterized as a “berufene Versammlung’ (chosen gathering): It is the multitude of people that follows Jesus in order to listen and be healed” (Weissenrieder 2003: 3). It presents a situation where the victim of illness would have to struggle through the crowd in other to touch Jesus. Lukan ideology of “power and space” have been reflected upon (Penner 2012: 160) but it is not a placebo-effect situation where a healing miracle happens unexpectedly due to a situation. Placebo effects do not often have a miracle-worker. Luke 8: 43-48 has a miracle-worker-Jesus, the crowd, a sick person who desired to be healed by the miracle-worker (Engelbrecht 1988: 145), and a situation to be remedied – hemorrhage. These components set apart miracles as a result of the power of Jesus from other miracles – placebo effects. The author of Luke maintains that the miracle power of Jesus indicates the presence of God in Jesus to perform healing miracles even through his apparel/garment (Engelbrecht 1988: 145). “Here as in Luke, God is not immediately involved in the healing performance but thought to stand behind the substitute BNPs [Bearer of Numinous Powers] or MNPs [Mediator of Numinous Powers] as the originator of their miracle power” (Kahl 1994: 226). The healing miracle of Luke 8: 43-48 was performed at the will of Jesus based on the faith of the woman. This makes Jesus a BNP, whose power even flows through his apparel/garment.
Clothing is an important factor in biblical literature that speaks to others concerning the bearer. Not only the cloth, but how and when it is worn. “The ways in which bodies are clothed have far-reaching and sometimes dramatic implications for identity, for movement, for relationships with others, for behavior, for economic, social and spiritual status, for sexual roles, and for religious, ideological, and political discourse” (Jeal 2016: 393). In rhetorical parlance, it presents non-verbal communication, which can also be ambiguous because the interpretation of clothes on a particular body without explicit inscription/description is subjective. Supported by the incident of Luke 6: 19, it can be argued that the cloth/apparel/garment of Jesus in Luke 8: 43-48 serves a social and spiritual status based on faith. In this case, the cloth does not define Jesus, but the power of God in Jesus defines the cloth. It is the reverse order of clothing playing a definitive role in the power of the bearer or wearer of the cloth personality and spiritual status being reflected on the cloth. This is so because there is no indication that the particular clothes of Jesus transmit power to heal illnesses. It appears as if any cloth worn by Jesus could transmit his power to heal sick folks.
The body of Jesus that possess the healing power transmitted through the apparel/garment/cloth may signify a weak body that exhibited the power to heal the weak body of a woman. In other words, the body of Jesus could not contain the power inherent in it, which demonstrates weakness in that it became polluted by the woman towards her advantage (Martin 1995; Moss 2010: 507-519). That notwithstanding, they demonstrate the social network or reliance of the human body on each other where the weaker body draws on the stronger body and the stronger body becomes weak or allows itself to be drawn upon by the weaker body for healing/wholeness. The common good in this coalition of bodies is to make the weaker body strong and healthy. These bodies have no gender implications.
Conclusion
Luke 8: 43-48 demonstrates that touching the apparel/garment of Jesus to appropriate miraculous healing is an alternative means of healing where the miracle-worker touches the victim usually through the laying on of hands. Luke 8: 43-48 shows a deviation from the general structure/pattern of healing miracle narratives of Jesus in the gospels propounded by Travis, Fuller, and Kahl. It demonstrates an amalgamation of the three structures/patterns with additions and variations leading to a proposition of a new structure/pattern of healing miracle narratives where the victims touch Jesus. This new structure/pattern excludes “statement of cure/healing” or “preparedness”, expression of amazement by the audience, and the absence of “God”. It is generally applicable to other healing narratives where victims touch Jesus to appropriate healing (Lk. 6: 17-19; Mk. 5: 25-34; Mt. 9: 20-22; 14: 34-36). This calls for the need to examine each healing miracle narrative to determine its unique structure/pattern and for a move from general principles to specific models of healing miracle narratives in the gospels.