This is technically correct, but in these kinds of societies, it’s virtually, and sometimes literally, a distinction without a difference. People with physical deformities are often presumed to be so because they are being punished by gods or karma.
In ancient Judaism, even in Jesus’ times, lepers, or people with other skin conditions (it was believed that a person was "impure’ if his skin was not “whole” and unbroken), or other infirmities such as blindness were ghettoized and regarded not only as impure, but as being punished by God. It was believed that even touching such people made them impure. When Jesus “heals” his first leper, the disciples are shocked not that he healed a leper, but that he touched a leper. Jesus’ “healings,” (which are desribed by a word designating ritualistic and symbolic healings, not literal cures) in the historical/cultural context of the Gospels were significant and transgressive because he was taking it upon himself to “forgive” and thus confer a kind of social “healing” on people who it was thought that only God could forgive or heal. Jesus said the “Son of man” could forgive as well. Depending on how he meant this phrase (and in the vernacular of his culture, it was just a way to refer to human beings in general), he was either saying that human beings themselves had the power to forgive, or if he was using the phrase in a titular manner – as an understood allusion to a verse in Daniel describing the Messiah as “one like a son of man” (i.e. a human being), then he was claiming a special status for himself to forgive and “heal.”
In any case, it definitely was thought that certain physical maladies denoted moral inferiority.
This may well be true but it is important to understand the difference.
We are discussing the evolution of religious traditions over time; modern-day Judaism retains in some portion the notions of ritual derived from these ancient sources, but has long ago discarded the notion that the infirm are cursed (not something I’m totally certain can be found in the texts).
I am not certain how much of that notion is mandated by the religion in any event, as opposed to popular social taboo: given the alleged contagious nature of leprosy, touching a leper could be ‘transgressive’ even if leprosy had no moral component. May I ask what your source on the ancient interpretation of the meaning of leprosy is?
I first encountered it in John Crossan’s The Historical Jesus (which has a lot of anthropology in it), but also later heard the same thing from my New Testament prof in college. I guess I can’t cite the latter, but I can probably find the page numbers from Crossan’s books if you want (he reiterated the same thing in Jesus: A Radical Biography).
I’m generally a bit leery about too much precision in our actual knowledge about ancient societies’ social habits, as evidence tends to be lacking, particularly in relation to ancient Judea. Sadly, aside from Josephus and the like, there really isn’t much not contained within the sacred texts themselves that provides a literary source.
Crossan uses a lot of cross-cultural anthropology, and I don’t recall offhand how much of it he applied to the leprosy thing, but I do recall that part of what he was saying was based on the fact that linguistically, the word for “leper” (Gr. lepros) was liberally applied to anybody with skin conditions, and was not yet used exclusively to designate the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease – that this would be an anachronistic definition of “leprosy” relative to ancient Israel.
It seems to me that he even said the specific condition of Hansen’s Disease was not even particularly prevalent (possibly non-existent?) in that area at the time. I’ll find the books and try to find more details on his reasoning and sources.
As I said, though, this was something I also heard independently from Crossan in a college New Testament class.
Which is why, in the bible, even clothing and buildings can have leprosy.
And I don’t know if “uncleanliness”, which includes leprosy, necessarily has a moral component. It can…in the bible, leprosy is sometimes due to a divine curse, but I think that instead of seeing unclean as equal to immoral, it’s better to see unclean as unable to participate in religious ritual.
Actually, it is a Biblical notion of what GOD is about.
And it is not a particularly nice notion.
That is why I wonder why so many theists choose that god (or more correctly, that description of a god) to be their god…or their description of a god.
Okay, for you it is that. For some…it is pathetic, childish mythology.
Who knows?
All I can do is to guess…and I guess it to be a rather self-serving history of the ancient Hebrews with an almost comical theology interspersed. I suspect the ancient Hebrews created such a barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed god…because they wanted protection from the barbaric, murderous, vengeful, wrath-obsessed gods of their enemies.
Whatever.
But many theists hold out the Bible to be the “word” of their GOD…and I am trying to understand why any intelligent, reasonable theist would want their GOD to be anything like that god.
That is the purpose of these posts.
Why choose this god?
Do you understand where I am coming from on this, Multhas?
:rolleyes: Well, yes, if we’re going to be strictly literal about it, it would be more precise to say that the covenant between God and humanity set forth in the New Testament is very different from the one set forth in the Old. Most of the rules of Leviticus, for instance, have been superseded.
By the way…I am assuming the “yes” in the first sentence…means you are agreeing that “Yes, the god of the New Testament is the same god as the god of the Old Testament.”
Oh I understand. I just don’t think it is a particularly convincing attack, even for folks who aren’t believers.
Most modern-day believers aren’t biblical literalists who believe the OT is the inerrant word of God. They would be pretty open to the concept that the description of God as obsessed with the rules in Leviticus isn’t correct - even the most orthodox of Jews don’t follow all of the rules in Leviticus today.
As for why believers "choose’ it - I doubt in the vast majority of cases that they do. They “choose” the judeo-christian God in the same way that they “choose” their parents.
You might be interested in reading some comparative mythology. Most ancient world mythology, or that of primitive folks generally world-wide, is “barbaric” and “comical” etc. by modern standards. Of the lot, that of the ancient Hebrews is relatively enlightened in many ways. Look at the family lives of the Greek pantheon for comparison …
A big part of Jesus’ message was that he was establishing a new path to salvation, through his sacrifice. It wasn’t immediately clear what this meant for Judaism’s rules set forth in the OT, and later, Paul and Peter had a big disagreement over the future of the church. Peter wanted to limit the church only to Jews, while Paul wanted to allow anyone to join. Paul won out, and one consequence of this is that in his letters, he specified that most of the old rules were no longer to be followed. For instance, gentiles could be admitted into the church without having to be circumcised. That had been a big stumbling block to recruiting new members, as it were.
It is interesting that more modern translations don’t use “leprosy”.
In any event, the treatment of infectious skin diseases in Leviticus appears more medical than moral - it is clearly considered, in some cases at least, a temporary condition. See Leviticus 13:1 - 13:45.
The result of being found “unclean” is isolation - because, according to the (primitive) medical guidance of the day, an unclean person is considered infectious.
and
Again, this seems more consistent with an (admittedly primitive) medical code, than a notion that skin diseases are a symptom of god’s curse. Priests are here acting as a sort of medical corps, making the decision as to whether to isolate the infectious from others to prevent the spread of infection - and that isolation isn’t necessarily permanent.
