Introduction
CONCLUDING NOTES.
(1.) There is much disagreement among biblical scholars respecting the nature of the leprosy and the grounds of its treatment in the law of Moses. Some strongly insist that the term leprosy is a misnomer introduced by the Greek translators, and that the real disease is the elephantiasis, because the skin resembles the elephant’s in colour, roughness, and insensibility, or because the foot, after the loss of the toes and enlargement of the ankle, resembles the foot of that animal. But it is essentially different from the leprosy, as will be seen by a study of recent medical reports from fifty places on the shores of the Mediterranean, in India, China, Africa, and the West Indies, in answer to a series of questions relating to this subject. The answers returned give a good description of the ulcers which afflicted Job, but they are not by any means so accurate a description of the Mosaic leprosy as we could desire. Hence we have not adopted the theory which identifies the elephantiasis with the leprosy described in this chapter.
(2.) Was the Levitical leprosy contagious, and was this the ground of the cautious treatment enjoined by Moses? Modern biblical scholars are inclined to answer in the negative, though not unanimously. “There are in England, now, hospitals built for lepers, so ancient that their origin is unknown, such as the St. Bartholomew Hospital at Gloucester, and others. It is known that there were at least nine thousand hospitals in Europe for leprosy alone. Louis VII. of France left legacies to over two thousand hospitals for lepers in his country. Hubert, Archbishop of Canterbury, held a synod at Westminster, in the year 1200, to carry out the decree of the Council of Lateran, (1172,) to build a number of churches solely for leprous people, for they had long been expelled from all parish churches. They were to have priests, officers, and graveyards exclusively for themselves. They were released at the same time from all claims for tithes for their land or cattle. So careful and determined were our ancestors to remove from sight and smell every leper, that a law was early in existence to enforce their removal out of towns and villages ‘to a solitary place.’ At the city of Bath, a bath, with physicians and attendants, was endowed exclusively for lepers and the endowments are still paid.” Joseph Parker.
The following facts would justify the conclusion of biblical scholars: 1.) No precautions are prescribed to the priests who are brought into constant and close contact with this disease. 2.) The priests did not become leprous more than the laity. 3.) The wholly leprous person was pronounced clean.
Be the first to react on this!
