Are there any theories as to why leprosy (Hansen’s Disease) virtually vanished several centuries ago?
Hansen’s disease hasn’t virtually vanished.
The disease was still quite active in certain areas of the country in the early part of this century, notably Lousisana, Texas, and Hawaii. In the US 25-35 cases of leprosy are diagnosed each year.
The reason it’s not as prevalent as it once was is cos they’ve figured out how to treat it with antibacterial drugs.
It is now generally believed that the disease referred to in most translations of the Bible as leprosy is not the same disease as the one we today call leprosy (Hansen’s disease).
Hey, Wendell. What is the current theory of the biblical disease called leprosy? What was it?
Hansen’s disease eh?
Pity it didn’t crop up in time to save us from “Ooo Wop”
Chique has provided cites to document that people still suffer from leprosy today.
I would like to add that I am familiar with a humanitarian aid project which accepts donations of crocheted “lepers bandages”. I made a couple of them this spring. They are simple and inexpensive to make and a good way to keep your hands busy while waiting to chauffer kids to or from this lesson or that game. When you’re done you have something to donate to charity! I’ll locate the directions I was given and provided them to anyone who asks via email.
Abby
I’m not Wendell, but what the hell –
Latest theory I heard is that what was called “leprosy” in the Bible was actually a number of skin diseases. I gather than anyone with a chronic oogy skin thing going on could be labeled a “leper”, including such conditions as scabies (parasitic mites), chronic herpes (several varieties of virus, including the condition now called “shingles”), and vitilago (causing pigment loss - it’s what Michael Jackson supposedly has), some veneral diseases, skin cancer, and other skin infections, parasites, disorders and so forth. Some of these conditions are permanent, some can heal up if you’re lucky - hence a bunch of Biblical passages about the examinations a leper has to undergo if he claims he’s cured.
Lepers and their colonies were well known until the Black Death hit. Since lepers already had a chronic medical problem that was often accompanied by skin infections they were even less able to fight off the plague than normal individuals. Lepers died in droves, and the crowded conditions of leper colonies aided the spread of disease. After the plague lepers still existed but not in their previous numbers.
Now, “leprosy” is limited to “Hansen’s Disease” and all the other skin conditions that used to be lumped with it have other names. Most can be treated, a lot can be cured, so leprosy just isn’t the concern it used to be. Which isn’t to say having it would be OK - there’s still social stigma, not to mention the unpleasentness of having a chronic medical condition.
The Biblical disease usually translated as “leprosy” is called “Tzaraas” in the Original Hebrew. While the skin symptoms described bear some resemblance to leprosy, it is clearly not the same thing. For one thing, this is an ailment that supposedly affects clothing and houses as well as people. For another, a person is declared cured if the white spots that are the symptoms of “Tzaraas” cover his entire body, which would be absurd if this was simply a medical condition.
“Tzaraas” is a spiritual ailment and cannot be correlated with any known medical condition. It is not what is scientifically known as leprosy.
Hey, cm are you talking about tsuris? Not trying to be humorous. Is Tzaraas the origin of the modern Yiddish word tsuris meaning “trouble”?
What exactly do you mean, cm, that it is a spiritual ailment? The symptoms certainly sound physical to me, and would surely describe several modern medical conditions. “A swelling or an eruption or a spot” (Lev. 13:2 NRSV*) is the primary symptom, which is then classified according to further physical characteristics as “Tzaraas” or non-“Tzarass”. Nothing relating to lifestyle, worship, favor with God, or anything else spiritual is described as cause or symptom of the disease. The classification of the disease as “Tzaraas” or non-“Tzarass” and the resulting status of “clean” or “unclean” may be spiritual conditions relating to ritual concerns of the temple, but the diseases themselves and the method of diagnosing them seem strictly physical. Does the Talmud explain the spiritual nature of the ailments?
*Sorry, my JPS translation isn’t close by right now. It would be a little more appropriate to use here.
Believe it or not, I actually dragged myself out of bed to post this because before drifting off to sleep, I suddenly realized I had forgotten to capitalize “Temple.” Only when I started to write this did I recall that, of course, there was no Temple in the time of Leviticus, so the lowercase spelling is fine. I’m going back to sleep now.
Well, I’m not Chaim, but…
Nope, no connection whatsoever. The proper pronounciation of the biblical word for leperousy is Tzara’at (Chaim was using the defunct Ashkenazic spelling), the root for which is Tz.R.A. The word Tzuris is a yiddish bastardization of the word Tzarot, “problems” or “trouble”, and the root for that word is Tz.R.H (or perhaps Tz.R.Y; it’s been a long time since highschool). Hebrew is very strict when it comes to roots.
Alan Smithee:
If it were limited to the human body, I’d agree with you on that. However, Tzaraas is described as something affecting houses and clothing as well.
Yes, it has physical manifestations, but the implication of one disease affecting all of these, and the fact that it is a Temple priest who diagnoses the ailment, leads one to conclude that its basis is funadmentally spiritual/supernatural, and not based on mere pathology.
Now that I think about it, though, I suppose that it could be some sort of fungus or mold. That could cause blotches on houses, clothing and human beings.
Not in that portion, but in Numbers 12, Miriam is stricken with that ailment for speaking inappropriately of Moses, which leads to the conclusion that it is a punishment for the sin of inappropriate speech.
Well, if humans were expected to perform certain actions in response to it, G-d would have to manifest it physically somehow.
samclem:
Nope. As Alessan said, “Tzuris,” which is actually Hebrew and not Yiddish, is the plural form of the root TZ-R-H. “Tzaraas” comes from the root TZ-R-* (the asterisk taking the place of the Hebrew letter Ayin, which is actually silent, its sound coming from the vowels attached to it).
Chaim Mattis Keller
Largely agreeing with CM and Alessan that the Yiddish “tsouris” (troubles) is not related directly to “tzaraas” (skin disease)… however, the Yiddish word “tsouris” does come from the Hebrew root-word Tz-R meaning “narrows” or “straits.” The idea is that being in a confined, narrow-choice situation implies “troubles”.
The word for Egypt in Hebrew, Mitzrayim, comes from that same root (M-Tz-R) because Egypt was the narrow land along the Nile.
It is thus possible that tzaraas also has a link to the root Tz-R although it seems pretty unlikely.
“Not a Jew”(as Adam Sandler intoned) here. Just your basic Southern Baptist-raised atheist.
I post questions about Yiddish using spellings from Leo Rosten. For 30 years he has been my link(actually, the jokes are the clincher).
Is it fair to say that “ts” words have been changed to “tz”?
Much the way that Russian spellings have morphed concerning czar and tsar?
Anyway, to get back to the OP, here’s what I know:
IIRC, Discover magazine had an article on leprosy which said the current belief on Biblical leprosy is that it might be smallpox or a variant thereof. The spread of leprosy these days is attributed to armadillos, which can carry the disease for up to 7 years.
Here is Cecil’s Straight Dope on this:Do Armadillos Carry Leprosy?. It is actually not commonly spread by armadillos. If it was, we’d see a lot of it in Texas and Louisiana, and we don’t.
Jill
Chaim, I don’t think it’s necessarilly implied that Tzaraas is a single disease. A fungus or mold could fit the bill, but I think several other (purely physical) conditions would qualify as cases of Tzaraas as well according to the Biblical criteria (including nearly any fungus or mold on cloth or houses). I think the proper translation of Tzarass would be “a disease or infection requiring the intervention of a priest.” Tzarass is therefore a (ritual/spiritual) category that could apply to multiple (physical) biological phenomena.
Back to…well, this doesn’t have anything to do with the OP either…but anyway–what is the connection between Hansen’s Disease and Tzaraas? Did the KJV translators think “hmm…Tzaraas is an apparently serious illness characterised by skin lesions. It must mean leaprosy (i.e., Hansen’s Disease),” or did medieval doctors treating Hansen’s Disease think, “hmm…a disease of biblical proportions characterised by skin lesions. It must be a plague of leprosy (i.e., Tzaraas)”? Or is leprosy one of those words that once had a general meaning that has become more specific as other diseases got other names?
Re: On clothing and houses, as well as on patients. Does the text specifically say it is visible on houses and clothing, or does it just infer that they are in some non-specific way “unclean”? The thought that popped into my head was of smallpox germ-infested blankets. They looked clean, but obviously weren’t.
Samclem: << Is it fair to say that “ts” words have been changed to “tz”? >>
It’s mostly a case of personal preference, I think, in how you transliterate sounds that don’t have a direct English alphabet equivalent. There is now a “standardized” phoentics (that uses things like * and ’ for silent glottal stops), I don’t recollect whether that’s tz or ts.