JESUS AND THE HEMORRHAGING WOMAN IN MARK 5:24–34: INSIGHTS FROM PURITY LAWS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS* Cecilia Wassen Numerous studies examine the story of Jesus and the hemorrhag- ing woman in Mark 5:25–34 (Matt 9:20–22; Luke 8:42b–48) in light of purity laws concerning the woman with an abnormal bleeding described in Lev 15: 25–30.1 Often, interpreters have presented this story against the backdrop of a system of purity laws in Jewish society that is seen as oppressive, particularly for women, who are frequently subject to ritual impurity due to their menstrual cycles, childbirth, or gynaecological disease. Jesus’ actions in the story are often read as a rejection of the purity laws in general and as signifying not only his ability to heal the hemorrhaging woman of a particular disease, but also of the social stigma and isolation that the abnormal bleeding is often thought to have brought women in ancient Jewish society. For example, Marla Selvidge states, “the miracle story about the woman with a ‘flow of blood’ subtly shatters the legal purity system and its restricted social conditioning.” She thus concludes, “traces of restric- tive purity obligations survive in the miracle story (5:25, 29) only to be discarded by a Jesus movement that centered its emphasis not on restricting women but on preserving stories about women who were liberated from physical and social suffering.”2 More recently, a number * It is a great honor for me to contribute to this Festschrift celebrating the scholar- ship of Raija Sollamo, who, with her vast knowledge in Second Temple Judaism and meticulous approach to research, has been a true inspiration to me. I am very grateful to Adele Reinhartz and Eileen Schuller for reading an earlier version of this paper and providing helpful comments. 1 Markan priority is assumed in the following discussion. Both Luke and Matthew have shortened the story considerably, eliminating many details about the woman they deemed as unnecessary (e.g., the woman suffering under physicians, her spending much money). In Matthew’s version, Jesus is in full control; Jesus neither perceives that power (δύναμις) has gone out from him (Mark 5:30; Luke 8:46) nor asks about who had touched him (Mark 5:31; Luke 8: 45–46). 2 Marla J. Selvidge, “Mark 5:25–34 and Leviticus 15:19–20: A Reaction to Restric- tive Purity Regulations,” JBL 103/4 (1984), 623. For her full discussion on this topic, see idem, Woman, Cult and Miracle Recital: A Redactional Critical Investigation of Mark 5:24–34 642 cecilia wassen of scholars have raised important reservations concerning this kind of interpretation. Amy-Jill Levine accuses some New Testament exegetes of (a) misrepresenting how the system of purity laws worked in the society, arguing that it was not oppressive, and (b) misinterpreting the Markan text, which is not about purity but healing.3 Susan Haber, by contrast, views ritual impurity as relevant to the story, but she also addresses the misunderstandings surrounding purity laws in general.4 The present study will address the claim that transmission of ritual impurity is a core issue in the passage by examining the detailed and complex purity laws from the Second Temple period, with particular focus on the purity prescriptions from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Evidently, one cannot assume that Mark knew of the purity laws of the Qumran community; but the applications of Levitical purity laws in the Scrolls provide insights into how at least one segment of the Jewish popula- tion understood this intricate system of laws. Since there are few other sources on purity laws from this period, this evidence should not be neglected. Moreover, given the general halakhic stringency of the Dead Sea community, its views on transmission of impurity provides an important point of comparison for assessing the halakhah among the population in general. I will argue that according to the system of purity laws in the Scrolls, the hemorrhaging woman in the Markan story would not have transmitted impurity. On this basis I propose that most Jewish listeners or readers of Mark would not assume that (London: Associated University Presses, 1990). Similarly, Mary Ann Tolbert describes the woman’s situation as follows, “Her illness, then, has placed her outside the reli- gious community and perhaps also outside the honorable human community,” and also, “Her twelve years of illness constituted a social death in which she was barred from community and kin, a situation not at all removed from the actual death of the twelve- year-old daughter of Jairus [which frames the story; Mark 5:21–24a, 35–43] whom Jesus was also able to revive and incorporate into the human and family circle (5:41–43).” See Mary Ann Tolbert, “Mark,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary (ed. Carol A. Newsom and Sharon H. Ringe; London: SPCK, 1992), 268. The chapter has been reprinted without any changes to these comments in the second, expanded edition (Louisville, KY: West- minster John Knox Press, 1998). 3 Amy-Jill Levine, “Discharging Responsibility: Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and Hemorrhaging Woman,” in Treasures New and Old: Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies (ed. David R. Bauer and Mark Allen Powell; SBLSymS; Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1996), 379–97. Mary-Rose D’Angelo, similarly, notes a lack of concern for purity in the story (“Gender and Power in the Gospel of Mark: The Daughter of Jairus and the Woman with the Flow of Blood,” in Miracles in Jewish and Christian Antiquity [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999], 83–109). 4 Susan Haber, “A Woman’s Touch: Feminist Encounters with the Hemorrhaging Woman in Mark 5:24–34,” JSNT 26/2 (2003): 171–92..