To every sincere believer in Divine revelation it must be a matter for unfeigned thankfulness to find how much has been done in recent times to harmonise Scriptural records with the present state of natural science, as well as to show how unreasonable it is to adduce objections based on brief incidental references to subjects of which but little was known when those records were penned. But whatever may be the relation between Scriptural teaching and physical or any branch of natural science, the reader of the Bible cannot fail to be struck with the relation between theology and medicine which is manifest both in the Old Testament and the New. The connexion between sin, which ' 'brought death into the world and all our woe,' so abundantly shown in the Old Testament, and forgiveness of sin and the 'healing of all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people,' so wondrously portrayed in the New, as characterising the Saviour's sojourn on earth, seem not only to warrant but to demand a careful study of those diseases which are mentioned in Holy Scripture, as viewed in their human aspect and in the light of modern medical science.

In the following pages an attempt is made to investigate and illustrate the nature and course of some of the diseases particularly mentioned in the Bible, but not to give either a complete Biblical nosology or an account of Hebrew medicine.

It is indeed remarkable how little Is said of the treatment of disease and how much of Its prevention. Sanitary laws are laid down in the most specific and detailed form, and the Mosaic sanitary code may be said to constitute the basis of modem sanitary legislation. Rules relating to food, clothing, personal cleanliness, Intercourse with the sick and contact with the dead, and various matters connected with social life, are given in minute detail, the value and import of which it is for the most part easy to see.

In what is said of those forms and particular examples of disease of which we have treated, no attempt is made always to discriminate between the different means by which, or purposes for which, they were Inflicted. In some cases they appear to have occurred as ordinary calamities, as in that of the child of the Shunammite woman, caused by exposure to the heat of the sun. In some they were inflicted simply as signs, as in the case of the leprosy of Moses, and were of temporary duration. In others they were evidently brought about by direct Divine intervention, as a punishment for sin, either of individuals or of the people at large. This, In some Instances, was made manifest by prophetic warning and threatening.

But though natural laws may, in most cases, have been maintained, these and every human element were manifestly subject to the Divine will. Hence It may not always be easy to say what we are to designate as miraculous, and what we may explain by natural law. We have, however, abundant evidence that in all cases the mitigation and removal of disease were in the hands of Him 'who healeth all our diseases,' as well as 'forgiveth all our iniquities.' In at least one Instance we have a distinct reprobation of the non-acknowledgment of this, in the case of Asa, who, 'when his disease was exceeding great, sought not to the Lord, but to the physicians'¹ — relying solely on human means. And of the inadequacy of these means alone we have an example, if any be needed, in the case of the woman with the issue of blood, 'who had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any.'² But that human means are both sanctioned and enjoined is evident, and there is nothing that would justify either a culpable neglect of human aid, or a recourse to superstitious observances. There appears, however, to have been a tendency in the Hebrew mind, as with the Assyrians and other Orientals, to refer afflictions to evil spirits, which must be borne in mind, especially when considering the subject of demoniacal possession. When nothing is distinctly stated to the contrary, we are justified in assuming that the diseases, whether inflicted in the ordinary course of Providence or not, were subject to the same ordinary laws as those of the present day.

Some of the diseases mentioned in the Bible are simply named, or so briefly described, that we can only surmise what they were. And with regard to others it will be well to admit in limine that the most learned physicians of the present day find it difficult to identify them with any particular forms of disease with which they are familiar. Nor can this be matter of surprise, both because the diseases in question were described, in the Old Testament at least, by non-professional writers, and at a time when nothing deserving the name of medical science existed; and also because diseases alter much in their characteristics with lapse of time and change of climate and environment, some, there is reason to ' believe, disappearing altogether. This more especially applies to such cutaneous diseases as are delineated, however minutely, in Lev. xiii. and xiv. The case, however, is different when we come to the time of the New Testament and of Greek and Arabian medical writers, whose descriptions are, for the most part, such as are readily recognised.

In Egypt the priests acted as physicians, and appear to have had special diseases, as well as special duties, assigned to them. Some, for example, had diseases of the eye, and some those of the ear,³ allotted to them, and some the duties of embalming. Thus we are told that ' the physicians embalmed Israel.' They were a very numerous body, and formed part of the retinue of the great. They must certainly have acquired some knowledge of anatomy, if only from the process of embalming, together with some experience of diseases and the use of surgical instruments. The Egyptian priests had their canons of practice, as laid down in their sacred books, which they were bound to obey. But such rules of practice consisted largely of superstitious and ceremonial observances. The chief priest-physicians, the Magi, the wise men and magicians of whom Moses speaks, claimed superhuman powers in the control of diseases.

That the Hebrews obtained what knowledge of disease they had mainly from the Egyptians; there can be no doubt, and this would appear to have fallen naturally to their own priesthood. For although the Jewish priests were not ex officio physicians, they evidently had to do with matters of sanitary and medical science. And we may safely assume that Moses, who ' was learned in all the wisdom of Egypt,'⁴ would not be deficient in such knowledge of disease as the Egyptians possessed. But how much or how little this amounted to we cannot tell, notwithstanding the flood of light which, in recent times, has been shed on the manners and customs of the Egyptians, and the evidence we have of their use of remedies and of the reputation in which they were held as medical practitioners in historic times. Nor must we overlook the evidence, scattered and slight though it be, of medical, or at all events surgical, knowledge possessed by the Hebrews in patriarchal times.

It is also deserving of notice that neither in the Levitical laws, nor elsewhere in the Old Testament, is there any mixing up of cures and curative means with the necromantic or superstitious observances which form so prominent a feature in the medical practice of all other people in primitive times. It is Jehovah that healeth (Ex. xv. 2.6), ' Who forgiveth all thine iniquities, and healeth all thy diseases' (Ps. ciii. 3); Who 'bindeth up the breach of His people, and healeth the stroke of their wound ' (Isaiah xxx. 26). The wand of Moses and the brazen serpent constitute no exceptions to this statement, as it is evident that to God alone were the miraculous effects attributed.

From what we know of the geographical features of the country, as well as of the customs and trades, we might safely assume that certain kinds of disease would be likely to prevail, and among these would be certain fevers and cutaneous diseases. And although it would not be quite safe to infer, from the accounts of the Egyptian diseases given by the Greek, Arabian, and Roman medical writers, that the same diseases, having the same characteristics, existed in the time of Moses, yet they are the highest, as well as the most ancient authorities, to which we can appeal on the questions we have to discuss. The medical terms which they employed as most closely corresponding with the Hebrew text must be allowed to have the utmost weight. And when we come to New Testament times, we have the advantage of reference to Greek and Arabian authorities that is of still greater assistance to us. Physicians then were better instructed and their aid more generally available. So far as we know the history of St. Luke we may take him as an example of one who had had the regular medical education of the day.

The third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles abound in words and phrases, which for the most part, are not found in the other New Testament writings, but which are common to Greek medical authors. This has been abundantly shewn in the elaborate work of Dr. Hobart, proving from internal evidence that the third Gospel and the Acts were written by the same person, and that the writer was a medical man⁵.

1) 2 Chron. xvi. 12.

2) Luke viii. 43; Mark v. 26.

3) Specimens of ex voto tablets given by Wilkinson afford curious evidence of this.

4) Acts vii. 22.

5) The Medical Language of St. Luke, &c., by Rev. W. K. Hobart, LL.D. Dublin, 1882.