who, though he was in the form of God,
did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited,
7 but emptied himself,
taking the form of a slave,
being born in human likeness
?
Did emptied forms perform miracles?
Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
-
GakuseiDon
- Posts: 2334
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
I guess it depends on what "emptied himself" means. I personally believe (note: I'm just a rank amateur who hasn't studied history or the Bible, and don't know anything about the ancient languages used in the Bible) that Phil 2 is an expression of Adam Christology. Adam was in the image of God, Jesus was in the form of God. Jesus could have been exempt from the sin of Adam and remained in the form/image of God, but by "emptying himself" he came as a slave to the old Law that came about because of the sin of Adam.
Phil 2 does have Jesus "born in human likeness", and since it was thought that humans could work miracles it's possible that Paul thought that Jesus also worked miracles before Jesus ascended. But there is nothing in Paul's letters to suggest Paul thought that.
Paul does mention several times that miracles were wrought in the early church. For example:
1 Cor 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to each one for the profit of all:
8 for to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, to another the word of knowledge through the same Spirit,
9 to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healings by *the same Spirit,
10 to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues.
11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills.
But IIRC Paul never gives actual examples of them, not even the ones he did.
-
neilgodfrey
- Posts: 6161
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
1 Corinthians 1:22 -- Jews seek a sign, says Paul, in vain. Curious that Paul does not say that Jesus performed many signs before them yet they still did not believe. For Paul Jesus himself was the sign. Paul appears not to have ever thought of Jesus as performing signs. He was the sign.
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
Acts 19:11-12
"God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchief and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them."
Luke 8:44-45
"She came up behind him [Jesus] and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 'Who touched Me?' Jesus asked. But they all denied it."
Re: Did emptied forms perform miracles?
I don't know what Paul knew about Jesus working miracles, but he thought that the "super-apostles" worked miracles. If they were commissioned directly by Jesus, then it would seem he knew.
According to 12:12, Paul wrote:
"I am in no way inferior to those 'super-apostles,' even though I am nothing. The TRUE marks of an apostle— signs, wonders, and miracles— were performed among you with great perseverance."
"God did extraordinary miracles through the hands of Paul, so that even handkerchief and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and the diseases and evil spirits left them."
Luke 8:44-45
"She came up behind him [Jesus] and touched the fringe of his garment, and immediately her discharge of blood ceased. 'Who touched Me?' Jesus asked. But they all denied it."
Re: Did emptied forms perform miracles?
I don't know what Paul knew about Jesus working miracles, but he thought that the "super-apostles" worked miracles. If they were commissioned directly by Jesus, then it would seem he knew.
According to 12:12, Paul wrote:
"I am in no way inferior to those 'super-apostles,' even though I am nothing. The TRUE marks of an apostle— signs, wonders, and miracles— were performed among you with great perseverance."
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
That's another one of those "dumb" questions that makes you feel really dumb that you never wondered about it yourself...
Even as egocentric as Paul is, it is rather odd indeed that he doesn't mention any of it, isn't it.
Would it have hurt his case to do mention them?
-
Secret Alias
- Posts: 18922
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
If you are interested in this subject I would recommend early sections of Tertullian's Against Marcion where the author argues against a Marcionite presumably:
You see the highlighted section above. If we assume that Tertullian is preserving a debate that COULD HAVE existed between an orthodox and a Marcionite what does he mean by "there was no need for such an ordering of events" (non fuit ... ordo eiusmodi necessarius). Order is an interesting word with respect to the gospel of Mark. Papias says that Mark preserves the right sayings but 'in the wrong order.' We know that Papias also speaks of the Lordly logia which at once seems to mean 'scriptures' and that this improved Matthew's gospel over Mark's gospel.
I see this discussion of miracles as a critical understanding of Paulism. Paul understood Jesus to have been a god who came down from heaven. He proved his divinity, according to the oldest Pauline Christians, by simply performing miracles. This actually sounds remarkably similar to the Samaritan understanding of the 'returning Moses' figure. Moses would come back and prove himself by performing two of three 'witnesses' of divine power first performed by the historical Moses. In other words, for both Samaritans and Marcionites only the miracles mattered. The gospel is clearly built around this understanding. Jesus is like Moses as Origen and Ambrose declare repeatedly. Papias however seemed to have argued that miracles weren't enough. The gospel needed to be structured according to a proper order which included explicit mention of scripture to show what kind of a god Jesus was - i.e. the 'Old Testament god' the one god of the Jews or in the words of Against Marcion 3 the Marcionite "assume the arrival of a Christ of whom there had been no previous announcement, than of one who has been foretold of all down the ages." As always the orthodox deliberately distort when they exaggerate.
As such according to the oldest Paulism, Paul not only accepted that Jesus performed miracles but saw them as a necessary proof of Jesus's divinity.There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events, seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God. My answer will be that this form of proof by itself could never have provided satisfactory testimony to him, and in fact he himself subsequently discounted it. When he affirmed that many would come, and would work signs and perform great miracles, to the leading astray even of the elect, but must not on that account be made welcome, he made it clear that the credit of signs and miracles is precarious, as these are quite easy even for false Christs to perform. How could he possibly have been content to accept for himself approval and understanding and recognition from sources—miracles, I mean—which he disallowed in the case of others who themselves were to come no less unexpectedly, vouched for by no previous announcement? If you suggest that by coming before these others, by having, before they
did, marked as his own the evidences of miracles, he had staked his claim to credit, as one marks one's turn at the baths, and had thus forestalled all later comers, take care that he himself is not caught in the position of those late-comers, when he is seen to have come later than the Creator who had been known long before, had in consequence worked miracles long before, and in similar terms had given warning that no credence was to be given to others—others after him, that is. It follows that if the fact that one has come first, and has first made this pronouncement concerning those who should come later, is to discredit these in advance, he will himself have been condemned in advance by that one subsequent to whom he too has come to our notice: the Creator alone, who cannot be subsequent to anyone, will have the right to lay down this rule against late-comers. That being so, I propose to prove that the same miracles which are the only evidence you lay claim to for belief in your Christ, the Creator had already of old wrought from time to time by his servants, and from time to time had indicated that they would be performed by his Christ: and from this I can with justice claim that miracles are no sufficient reason for <your> acceptance of Christ, the more so as those miracles would have been capable of proving that Christ belongs to the Creator and no other, since they correspond with those miracles of the Creator which he performed by his servants and promised in expectation of his own Christ. And besides, even if other evidences were found in your Christ, new ones I mean, we should find it easier to believe that even the new ones belonged to the same <God> as did the old ones, and not to a god who possesses none but new things, such as have not been submitted to the test of that antiquity which gives faith its victory. So his coming would need to have been indicated by previous announcements of his own to build up credibility for him, as well as by miracles, especially as he was going to present himself as an opponent of the Creator's Christ, himself furnished with his own particular signs and prophecies. Only so could his rivalry of Christ be made clearly evident by all possible forms of difference. Yet how could a god never previously prophesied of, prophesy beforehand of any Christ of his? This it is then that demands that no credence be given either to your god or to your Christ: a god had no right to remain unknown, and a Christ did require to obtain recognition by virtue of a god's commendation.
You see the highlighted section above. If we assume that Tertullian is preserving a debate that COULD HAVE existed between an orthodox and a Marcionite what does he mean by "there was no need for such an ordering of events" (non fuit ... ordo eiusmodi necessarius). Order is an interesting word with respect to the gospel of Mark. Papias says that Mark preserves the right sayings but 'in the wrong order.' We know that Papias also speaks of the Lordly logia which at once seems to mean 'scriptures' and that this improved Matthew's gospel over Mark's gospel.
I see this discussion of miracles as a critical understanding of Paulism. Paul understood Jesus to have been a god who came down from heaven. He proved his divinity, according to the oldest Pauline Christians, by simply performing miracles. This actually sounds remarkably similar to the Samaritan understanding of the 'returning Moses' figure. Moses would come back and prove himself by performing two of three 'witnesses' of divine power first performed by the historical Moses. In other words, for both Samaritans and Marcionites only the miracles mattered. The gospel is clearly built around this understanding. Jesus is like Moses as Origen and Ambrose declare repeatedly. Papias however seemed to have argued that miracles weren't enough. The gospel needed to be structured according to a proper order which included explicit mention of scripture to show what kind of a god Jesus was - i.e. the 'Old Testament god' the one god of the Jews or in the words of Against Marcion 3 the Marcionite "assume the arrival of a Christ of whom there had been no previous announcement, than of one who has been foretold of all down the ages." As always the orthodox deliberately distort when they exaggerate.
Re: Jesus Became a Therapeut?
Philippians 2:6: "...who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, (2:7) but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness."
Berean Study Bible, Philippians 2:7: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
Philippians 2:7: ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος• καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος.
Part 1: δούλου = servant
Am I mis-reading this? Paul has Christ Jesus {Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ} - who was in the form of God {μορφῇ θεοῦ} - empty his Divine Essence to become an earthly Therapeut. Why? Metaphysically, 'that like may know like.' I am certainly not the first to connect Jesus to the Therapeuts; see Carl Jung's Lecture IV, 5 March 1930. We should elaborate this thesis abit, here.
In Revelation 15:3, Moses is called a “δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ” (servant of God); there is a strong resemblance in this expression to Philo’s (Alexandrian) Therapeut as a “Servant of God.” A contemporary of Paul, Philo describes the Law from the vantage point of a Therapeut (DVC 78), where the Law resembles a living creature with literal ordinances for its body and mind. Philo’s mystical Jewish Therapeut had actualized the Law in his (once human, now blessed) body. In his writings, Philo alludes to a Mosaic cult, ‘The Sons of God’; he was once a member. His familiarity with the so-called ‘Therapeutae’ have led some scholars to conclude these are one and the same. There were a number of heterodox cults and Judaic brotherhoods operating within the Diaspora practicing variant forms of 1st C AD mystical Judaism, if Philo (DVC 3.29) is truthful and accurate. I presume Paul was well-aware of and operating within that Proto-Gnostic subculture.
I have some doubt that ‘Therapeutae’ was the term universally employed, although Publius Aelius Aristides Theodorus (c.145 AD), among several other famous writers, uses θεραπευταί often. There's no clear evidence that Paul read Philo's work, is there? Paul uses a synonymous expression in his vernacular, but δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ = τον του θεού θεραπευτής {Vita Mosis 2(3).14.135, Cohn IV, p.231}; τὸ θεραπευτικὸν αὐτοῦ [sc. τοῦ θεοῦ] γένος {Vita Mosis, 2.164} etc.
See Joan E. Taylor, David M. Hay Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life: Introduction, Translation and Commentary [2020}, p.53:
With regards to Philippians 2:7, Paul (62 AD) would refer to such mystical symbolism in terms familiar (and as would be easily understood) to the first converts in Thracian Philippi. They may have been ‘Romans’ of indeterminate ethnicity (cosmopolitan/quasi Jewish immigrants). And there were also (eventually) members of the cult of the Kabeiroi, as archeological evidence reveals from the 4th C AD “Basilica of Paul” excavated at Philippi and attached to a pagan shrine: “in the beginning of the fourth century the pagan and Christian sanctuaries were functioning simultaneously side by side” (Bakirtzis 1998:43; cf Pelekanidis 1978b:396).” {E. Verhoef, “Syncretism in the church of Philippi” in HTS 64(2) 2008, p.702}. See Verhoef [2008], p.707:
Price (1999:169) and others have argued that “the ancient functions of Asclepios may have been incorporated into the new Christian structures” at Athens and elsewhere, so there is a fair presumption that syncretism often occurred where such cultic sites were taken over by Xtians. It is not surprising the Judaic cult's 'servant of God' (substitute High Priest=Therapeut) was like Moses. Indeed, there was - as Philo repeatedly tells us - a Mosaic brotherhood approximately (if not explicitly) conflated with these mysterious "Therapeutae". In the Diaspora and Gentile milieu of Asia Minor, Paul would have often encountered antinomian Judaic groups and preached in their peculiar synagogues.
...
Berean Study Bible, Philippians 2:7: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
Philippians 2:7: ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος• καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος.
Part 1: δούλου = servant
Am I mis-reading this? Paul has Christ Jesus {Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ} - who was in the form of God {μορφῇ θεοῦ} - empty his Divine Essence to become an earthly Therapeut. Why? Metaphysically, 'that like may know like.' I am certainly not the first to connect Jesus to the Therapeuts; see Carl Jung's Lecture IV, 5 March 1930. We should elaborate this thesis abit, here.
In Revelation 15:3, Moses is called a “δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ” (servant of God); there is a strong resemblance in this expression to Philo’s (Alexandrian) Therapeut as a “Servant of God.” A contemporary of Paul, Philo describes the Law from the vantage point of a Therapeut (DVC 78), where the Law resembles a living creature with literal ordinances for its body and mind. Philo’s mystical Jewish Therapeut had actualized the Law in his (once human, now blessed) body. In his writings, Philo alludes to a Mosaic cult, ‘The Sons of God’; he was once a member. His familiarity with the so-called ‘Therapeutae’ have led some scholars to conclude these are one and the same. There were a number of heterodox cults and Judaic brotherhoods operating within the Diaspora practicing variant forms of 1st C AD mystical Judaism, if Philo (DVC 3.29) is truthful and accurate. I presume Paul was well-aware of and operating within that Proto-Gnostic subculture.
I have some doubt that ‘Therapeutae’ was the term universally employed, although Publius Aelius Aristides Theodorus (c.145 AD), among several other famous writers, uses θεραπευταί often. There's no clear evidence that Paul read Philo's work, is there? Paul uses a synonymous expression in his vernacular, but δούλου τοῦ θεοῦ = τον του θεού θεραπευτής {Vita Mosis 2(3).14.135, Cohn IV, p.231}; τὸ θεραπευτικὸν αὐτοῦ [sc. τοῦ θεοῦ] γένος {Vita Mosis, 2.164} etc.
See Joan E. Taylor, David M. Hay Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life: Introduction, Translation and Commentary [2020}, p.53:
The Levites are θεραπευταί of God, being Reason “who has found refuge with God and become his suppliant” (Sacr. 118–119). The devout contemplation of God, the only wise being, is symbolized by Levi's service (θεραπεία) (Sacr.120), so the Levites symbolize ὁ θεοῦ θεραπευτὴς, “the minister of God” (Sacr. 127). In Ebr. 126, Philo notes that “it is the task of priests and θεραπευταί of God to offer abstemious sacrifices.” In addition, Phineas is “the priest and θεραπευτής of the only good [God]” (Post. 182). Potiphres, the father of of Asenath, is a “priest and θεραπευτής of Mind” (Somn. 1.78). In Fug. 42, θεραπευτικὸν γένος, describing Jews as “a ministering type of people” (cf. Contempl. 11), we still have a cultic metaphor, since they provide a “dedicated offering” to God, “consecrated for the High Priesthood to him alone.”
In Mos. 2.67 θεραπεία, “service,” is what priest do: they serve God. In Mos. 2.149, it is said that proper rites and sacrificial ceremonies are befitting “to the ministers (θεραπευταί) and servers of God into which they were to be initiated (by Moses).” The priests are “θεραπευταί of holy rites” (Mos. 2.274, cf. 67). In. Spec. 2.192, one who serves God is both a priest and a prophet “the true priest is exactly a prophet: not by birth but rather by virtue, advancing to the service of the existing Being.” As High Priest and initiator of ritual functions, Moses is θεραπευτής and the server of God, who must lay hold of the truth (Sacr. 13). In. Det. 160, Moses pitches his tent outside the camp (body) for only then can he be a perfect suppliant and θεραπευτής of God (and see Mos. 2.135). […] There are “the θεραπευταί of the sun and moon, and all the host of heaven,” who are in error (Decal. 66). Continuing the cultic metaphor, an angel is a “servant and θεραπευτής” of God in the heavenly realm (Conf. 174). In all these cases “attendants,” “servers,” “devotees,” or “ministers” would translate the word; it is used in relation to the cultic service of deities.
In Mos. 2.67 θεραπεία, “service,” is what priest do: they serve God. In Mos. 2.149, it is said that proper rites and sacrificial ceremonies are befitting “to the ministers (θεραπευταί) and servers of God into which they were to be initiated (by Moses).” The priests are “θεραπευταί of holy rites” (Mos. 2.274, cf. 67). In. Spec. 2.192, one who serves God is both a priest and a prophet “the true priest is exactly a prophet: not by birth but rather by virtue, advancing to the service of the existing Being.” As High Priest and initiator of ritual functions, Moses is θεραπευτής and the server of God, who must lay hold of the truth (Sacr. 13). In. Det. 160, Moses pitches his tent outside the camp (body) for only then can he be a perfect suppliant and θεραπευτής of God (and see Mos. 2.135). […] There are “the θεραπευταί of the sun and moon, and all the host of heaven,” who are in error (Decal. 66). Continuing the cultic metaphor, an angel is a “servant and θεραπευτής” of God in the heavenly realm (Conf. 174). In all these cases “attendants,” “servers,” “devotees,” or “ministers” would translate the word; it is used in relation to the cultic service of deities.
With regards to Philippians 2:7, Paul (62 AD) would refer to such mystical symbolism in terms familiar (and as would be easily understood) to the first converts in Thracian Philippi. They may have been ‘Romans’ of indeterminate ethnicity (cosmopolitan/quasi Jewish immigrants). And there were also (eventually) members of the cult of the Kabeiroi, as archeological evidence reveals from the 4th C AD “Basilica of Paul” excavated at Philippi and attached to a pagan shrine: “in the beginning of the fourth century the pagan and Christian sanctuaries were functioning simultaneously side by side” (Bakirtzis 1998:43; cf Pelekanidis 1978b:396).” {E. Verhoef, “Syncretism in the church of Philippi” in HTS 64(2) 2008, p.702}. See Verhoef [2008], p.707:
Penna (1995:226) argues with respect to an underground grave complex outside the city that “The society of the Roman colony of Philippi [...] seems to have incorporated Christian worship into the pagan pace of life”. The Christians in Philippi built their church on holy ground and the Hellenistic shrine was not levelled to the ground, but was adopted with the emotional value attached to it. The cult around this shrine was continued in Christianity, though rather than the Hellenistic hero a Christian was venerated who in my opinion is the apostle Paul (Brenk 2003:38).
Price (1999:169) and others have argued that “the ancient functions of Asclepios may have been incorporated into the new Christian structures” at Athens and elsewhere, so there is a fair presumption that syncretism often occurred where such cultic sites were taken over by Xtians. It is not surprising the Judaic cult's 'servant of God' (substitute High Priest=Therapeut) was like Moses. Indeed, there was - as Philo repeatedly tells us - a Mosaic brotherhood approximately (if not explicitly) conflated with these mysterious "Therapeutae". In the Diaspora and Gentile milieu of Asia Minor, Paul would have often encountered antinomian Judaic groups and preached in their peculiar synagogues.
...
Last edited by billd89 on Wed Aug 11, 2021 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Jesus Became a Therapeut?
You may find it interesting to learn about Thomas logion 31billd89 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 10:03 am Philippians 2:6: "...who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, (2:7) but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness."
Berean Study Bible, Philippians 2:7: “but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness.”
Philippians 2:7: ἀλλὰ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος• καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος.
Part 1: δούλου = servant
Am I mis-reading this? Paul has Christ Jesus {Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ} - who was in the form of God {μορφῇ θεοῦ} - empty his Divine Essence to become an earthly Therapeut. Why? Metaphysically, 'that like may know like.' I am certainly not the first to connect Jesus to the Therapeuts; see Carl Jung's Lecture IV, 5 March 1930. We should elaborate this thesis abit, here.
ⲡⲉϫⲉ ⲓ̅ⲥ ̅ ⲙⲛ ̄ ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϣⲏⲡ` ϩⲙ ̄ ⲡⲉϥ ϯⲙⲉ
ⲡⲉϫⲉ- ⲓⲥ ⲙⲛ- ⲡⲣⲟⲫⲏⲧⲏⲥ ϣⲱⲡ+ ϩⲛ- ⲡⲉϥ ϯⲙⲉ
said IS there-is-not Prophet receiving in his village
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ ⲥⲟⲉⲓⲛ ⲣ̄ ⲑⲉⲣⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ̄ ⲛⲉⲧ` ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙ̄ ⲙⲟ ϥ`
ⲙⲁⲣⲉ- ⲥⲁⲉⲓⲛ ⲉⲓⲣⲉ ⲑⲉⲣⲁⲡⲉⲩⲉ ⲛ- ⲛⲉⲧ ⲥⲟⲟⲩⲛ ⲙⲙⲟ⸗ ⲛⲧⲟϥ
not-usually physician make-be Heal [dop] they-who know [dop] he
A Greek loanword, https://coptic-dictionary.org/entry.cgi?tla=C9161
Luke 4:23 Καὶ (And) εἶπεν (He said) πρὸς (to) αὐτούς (them), “Πάντως (Surely) ἐρεῖτέ (you will say) μοι (to Me) τὴν (the) παραβολὴν (proverb) ταύτην (this), ‘Ἰατρέ (Physician) θεράπευσον (heal) σεαυτόν (yourself)! ὅσα (Whatsoever) ἠκούσαμεν (we have heard) γενόμενα (has been done) εἰς (in) τὴν (-) Καφαρναοὺμ (Capernaum), ποίησον (do) καὶ (also) ὧδε (here) ἐν (in) τῇ (the) πατρίδι (hometown) σου (of You).’”
16 occurrences of the verb θεράπ-, 30 of θεραπ
Especially Luke 12:42 is awkwardly interesting in his choice of words, as well as Acts 17:24, as is Hebrews 3:5
Re: Did Paul know that Jesus performed miracles?
Is Luke 8:46 effectively an example of emptying oneself in the very act of performing a miracle?
As merely an aside, if Jesus was "all powerful" how could there be a perception of experiencing such a power drain? Isn't infinity minus 1 still infinity? And ditto isn't infinity minus any tangible quantity still infinity? And are not some infinities demonstrably larger than other infinities? Which of these infinities do deities claiming all powerful status lay claim to? And after experiencing an admitted power drain, is their infinity of power in any way diminished? Etc....46 But Jesus said, “Someone touched me, for I perceive that power has gone out from me.”
Lukan priority: the fringe of the garment
44 προσελθοῦσα (having come) ὄπισθεν (behind), ἥψατο (touched) τοῦ (the) κρασπέδου (fringe) τοῦ (the) ἱματίου (of cloak) αὐτοῦ (of Him), καὶ (and) παραχρῆμα (immediately) ἔστη (stopped) ἡ (the) ῥύσις (flux) τοῦ (of the) αἵματος (blood) αὐτῆς (of her).
45 Καὶ (And) εἶπεν (said) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), “Τίς (Who is) ὁ (the one) ἁψάμενός (having touched) μου (Me)?”
Ἀρνουμένων (Were denying it) δὲ (however) πάντων (all); εἶπεν (said) ὁ (-) Πέτρος (Peter), e “Ἐπιστάτα (Master), οἱ (the) ὄχλοι (people) συνέχουσίν (surround) σε (You) καὶ (and) ἀποθλίβουσιν (press in).”
46 Ὁ (-) δὲ (But) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) εἶπεν (said), “Ἥψατό (Touched) μού (Me) τις (someone); ἐγὼ (I) γὰρ (for) ἔγνων (know) δύναμιν (power) ἐξεληλυθυῖαν (has gone out) ἀπ’ (from) ἐμοῦ (Me).”
45 Καὶ (And) εἶπεν (said) ὁ (-) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus), “Τίς (Who is) ὁ (the one) ἁψάμενός (having touched) μου (Me)?”
Ἀρνουμένων (Were denying it) δὲ (however) πάντων (all); εἶπεν (said) ὁ (-) Πέτρος (Peter), e “Ἐπιστάτα (Master), οἱ (the) ὄχλοι (people) συνέχουσίν (surround) σε (You) καὶ (and) ἀποθλίβουσιν (press in).”
46 Ὁ (-) δὲ (But) Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) εἶπεν (said), “Ἥψατό (Touched) μού (Me) τις (someone); ἐγὼ (I) γὰρ (for) ἔγνων (know) δύναμιν (power) ἐξεληλυθυῖαν (has gone out) ἀπ’ (from) ἐμοῦ (Me).”
A story unfolds here over the many MSS changes
The yellow is unattested to by Bezae, the orange by Bezae and all or a majority of Old Latin witnesses.
There are differences in MSS as well here, that story is too long to tell...
A) the fringe
Matthew is clearly last here, with no variants attested for with regards to the fringe: his 9:20 as well as his 14:35 are untouched and state the full phrase.
Matthew 23:5 actually accuses the Pharisees of extending the fringes of their garments, like little princesses LOL. That, on a side note.
Mark 6:56 (similar to Matthew 9:20 and not 14:35) likewise is unchanged, and once again there seems to be a case for Lukan priority here, with both Mark as well as Matthew attesting to "more complete and better" versions from their beginning, and Luke showing variants for those: attempts to harmonise him with his offsprings
IIRC the story goes that Marcion had this, in whose text Jesus allegedly was not a regular living being, otherwise he would have left out the garment entirely and just said "touched him". Why the canonicals added the fringe is unclear, but perhaps I'm confusing my stories
B) the power gone out
Needless to say, Luke's addition isn't repeated by Matthew (nor Mark, of course). That's what I call the criterion of embarrassment
How does one notice someone touching merely his clothes?