Matthew's deletions of verses in
Mark's story of the woman
with the issue of blood

Episodes from Mark's Gospel that were deleted in Matthew's edited versionMatthew deletions of Mark's story of the woman suffering from perpetual menstruation

     Matthew's deletions and editorial revisions of Mark's account are often very revealing of Matthew's theological agenda, and indicative of the differences of thinking between the two authors. This becomes quite apparent when comparing the differences between Matthew's version of the story of the woman with the perpetual issue of blood and Mark's original version of the story.

     Mark addresses the issue of menstruation in two chiasmus in the gospel, which are related. In the first, related below, the woman with perpetual menstruation is juxtaposed with a leader of the synagogue who requires mercy from Christ. In the second related chiasmus, Mark creates a classic chiasmus of the cursing of the Jerusalem temple. The ‘outer brackets' of the structure use the symbolism of a fig tree as a wrap around of the image of the cursing of the Jerusalem temple. Within the temple Mark places next to each other the symbol of money and the pigeons used in the pigeon sacrifice (which had to be purchased with money, of course). The pigeon was to be sacrificed to ‘atone' for the ‘sin' of menstruation, so the connection between this chiasmus and the earlier story of the menstruating woman can be understood. In both cases menstruation and the temple are connected symbolically (a menstruating woman embedded in the story of the temple authority in the first instance, and the cursed temple and the pigeon sacrifice in the second instance). The fig tree symbolism in the chiasmus has the fig tree first cursed, then the temple and the pigeon sacrifice is cursed, the pigeon juxtaposed next to money, and the temple authorities condemned as a ‘band of theives', and then the fig tree is shown withered and dead in the outer bracket of structure. The disciples remark, ‘look, the fig tree you cursed has withered and died.' The symbolic meaning of this chiasmus is obvious. The connection between the story of the constantly woman plagued with constant menstruation, and the temple authority is also obvious, if you understand that menstruating women were considered unclean and untouchable, and thus the woman in question was an outcast for many years, and Mark is making a point about mercy in this sequence. The temple authority wants mercy for his daughter ‘who is dead', the menstruating woman might as well be dead, and she touches Yeshua, which is taboo. Both receive mercy, so some commentary is being made here on the harsh severity of the temple authorities and their regulations that made outcasts and pariahs out of those who were helpless to do anything about their condition, and simply required mercy.

     Now, Matthew's problem with this story of the menstruating woman is directed now at the topic of mercy, but rather relates to the high theology of the Matthew gospel, as contrasted with the low Christology of the gospel of Mark. For example in Mark's account Yeshua is adamant that no one call him good, ‘for there is no one who is good except God.' This is low Christology. Similarly in two parables in the gospel of Mark, the author shows Yeshua using mud and spit to heal someone, and making unsuccessful attempts before finally succeeding. Both parables are cut by both Matthew and Luke. They show a messiah with a weakness struggling to heal, thus are in character with the low Christology of Mark's gospel, but quite out of character with the high Christology of the later accounts, and so are deleted. Something similar is seen in the story of the woman cursed with perpetual menstruation, and Matthew edits the account for the same reason that Matthew deletes the two stories of healing with spit and mud (and the struggle to heal, achieving only partial success, before finally being accomplished). Everything is divinely powerful and instantly miraculous in Matthew's gospel and so the spit and mud stories are out, and the story of the woman with the issue of blood also requires theological redaction in order to be acceptable to Matthew's high theological outlook.

In Mark's version we read:

"Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, he fell at his feet, and besought him, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death. Come and lay your hands on her, so that she may be made well, and live." And he went with him. And a great crowd followed him and thronged about him. And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years, and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse. She had heard the reports about Yeshua, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his garment. For she said, "If I touch even his garments, I shall be made well." And immediately the hemorrhage ceased; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. And Yeshua, perceiving in himself that power had gone forth from him, immediately turned about in the crowd, and said, "Who touched my garments?" And his disciples said to him, "You see the crowd pressing around you, and yet you say, ‘Who touched me?'" And he looked around to see who had done it. But the woman, knowing what had been done to her, came in fear and trembling and fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. And he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease."While he was still speaking, there came from the ruler's house some who said, "Your daughter is dead. Why trouble the Teacher any further?" But ignoring what they said, Yeshua said to the ruler of the synagogue, "Do not fear, only believe." And he allowed no one to follow him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. When they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, he saw a tumult, and people weeping and wailing loudly. And when he had entered, he said to them, "Why do you make a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But he put them all outside, and took the child's father and mother and those who were with him, and went in where the child was. Taking her by the hand he said to her, "Talitha cumi"; which means, "Little girl, I say to you, arise." And immediately the girl got up and walked (she was twelve years of age), and they were immediately overcome with amazement. And he strictly charged them that no one should know this, and told them to give her something to eat. Mark chapter 5 verse 22

     Matthew's version of the tale is considerably shortened and contains ideologically significant revisions.

"While he was thus speaking to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Yeshua rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a hemorrhage for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment; for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I shall be made well." Yeshua turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Yeshua came to the ruler's house, and saw the flute players, and the crowd making a tumult, he said, "Depart; for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district." Matthew chapter 9 verse 18

     Let us examine the theological alterations Matthew has made to the story. First, in Matthew's account the child is dead when the ruler appeals for help. Christ is recognized as so god-like in his powers that even the temple authorities know enough to ask him to raise the dead. In Mark's account, the ruler only asks for help when he thinks his daughter is still alive, and they are ready to throw in the towel, when, on their way to the healing news reaches them that in the interim she has died. This example of Matthew like redaction is theologically significant when considered in the over all context of the high, high Christology of the Matthew account when compared to the low Christology found in Mark. So let us say that for ideological reasons Matthew is not averse to indulging in some hyperbole on occasion. The woman who had been menstruating for years touches Christ's garment and here Matthew makes another revision. As in the case of the unsuccessful healings, which Matthew ditches altogether, Matthew cannot allow into his high Christology any suggestion that the Messiah did not know who touched him. In Mark's lower version of the story, the woman was healed, and then Christ, not knowing who touched him, was forced to search for her. In Matthew's edited version, the woman touches him, he recognizes her instantly, pronounces her cured, and ‘instantly she was healed.' So events are rearranged for theological reasons, and as in the case of the girl being ‘already dead' Matthew makes the changes in order to promote a high Christology, and will not allow any suggestion that somehow the Messiah was weak or powerless in any situation. In Mark's version we are given the rather incredible story of the people being told ‘not to tell anyone of the raising of the dead', a rather fantastic notion, but in keeping with the theme of the ‘hiding messiah' in Mark's gospel. Matthew, apparently finding this to be unbelievable, also cuts this business from the story, and insists that ‘the report went out everywhere', which in the context of the overall story is more credible than Mark's suggestion that one would keep such fantastic events secret.

     The changes in the story of the menstruating woman clearly indicate that Matthew had an editorial agenda centering on promoting a high Christology, and this helps to explain why Matthew should write a second account, that follows Mark's earlier account so closely. In the mind of Matthew this repetition was not redundant, but rather was ‘required' because of the ‘theological errors' in Mark's inadequate account (at least in the mind of Matthew).