Leprosy. Perhaps the disease which would occur to us as most common in the Old and especially New Testament is the skin-rash or infection called “leprosy”: sara’at 35 times, plus verbal usages; lépra only Mk 8,3 || and leprós 9 times. Before investigating what this biblical word really means, we may note two more general allusions to skin-disease. Some Qumran Cave 4 fragments not in the known Geniza text of the Damascus Zadokite document seem to indicate that hair-sprouts on the skin are due to the entry of an evil “spirit”, possibly physiological rather than demonic (Baumgartner 1990). And the Hippocratics are claimed to have wrongly and dangerously ascribed skin-disease to internal fluids; two marble plates in Epidaurus Asclepius temple describe 48 cures, most in a dream, only two involving the treatment by ointment which is usual today (Mustakallio in Castén).

In dealing with biblical “leprosy”, our hopes are aroused by the fact that the celebrated case if Naaman in 2 Kgs 5 was made the subject of a special research by one of the most esteemed scholars in recent times, Gerhard von Rad. But there we will be disappointed; he sees fit to deal chiefly with the social background of guru-style healers like Elisha, and with Naaman’s own high status and the gifts he rings; not a word is said about what his “leprosy” really was, nor about its healing. But precisely this problem is treated by many (Mull 1992; Hulse 1975; Seidl ThWAT; Stol, 1987).

We may take as out starting-point the trivial but significant fact that Leviticus speaks of the sara’at or “leprosy” of a garment (13,47-59) or of the mud0wall of a house (14,34-48). Obviously there is question here of some discoloration due either to stain or to corruption of the material, and in this sense identical with a skin-rash such as Hippocrates and Polybius describe which is a human disease, but more likely psoriasis or erysipelas. The Babylonians describe similar conditions, e.g. “If the skin of am an exhibits white pusu-areas and it dotted with nuqdu-spots, such a man has been rejected by his goal and should be rejected by mankind” (text copied, transliterated, and translated by Kinnier Wilson in Ishida 1982).

In Palmer’s compilation the chapter by Browne on leprosy alone is almost as long as Wiseman’s treating leprosy along with all other biblical diseases. In view of the “leprosy” of garments or walls, Browne considers that sara’at refers to several different disorders, which cannot be reduced to any one definition or class. He rightly notes also that it often means either “scab” or “eruption”, both of which are clinically quite different from a mere rash or discoloration. He appropriately emphasizes that although Naaman was publicly well known to have leprosy, this did not disqualify him from holding a high office involving frequent contact with important people, not only in Syria where the ritual regulations might have been quite different form those in Leviticus, but also in Israel where he came without concealment for healing.

Through the LXX lepra applied to various diseases (including possibly even our modern leprosy), or the similar elephantiasis IDB 3,112), there is almost a consensus that in no case do the biblical descriptions correspond to what is today known as leprosy. Moreover in the whole background of the Middle East not a single sure case of (our) leprosy has ever been attested: even in Egypt, so sensitive and advanced in medical matters (Bucaille 1990). Hundreds of well-embalmed skeletons have afforded modern physicians ample evidence for declaring they show no trace of what we call “leprosy” before some Coptic examples around 500 A.D. (Grmek 1983,154; Zias 1985).

A rendition like “dreaded skin disease” (Verbov 1976) for sara’at is preferred in modern translations of 2 Kgs7,3; 15,5 and such. This well indicates that we have to do here with a real sickness, probably contagious (in a way that real modern leprosy is not), and sometimes developing horribly, even if not to the gruesome extent favored by medical and modern art. In short, the term covered a variety of symptoms which caused dread even in slight or initial stages.

Thus in Leviticus it is above all a ritual matter, something for the priests to decide (as Deut 24,8; Mk 1,43). This needs not necessarily imply the survival of some superstition akin to that which the Babylonians called “the disfavor of one’s god” (even in the “curse” of 2 Sam 3,28). It may merely imply that just as in the Middle Ages apart form population-centers only the priestly class had sufficient educator not apply the necessary criteria.

Although in general the Bible, though perhaps no more than most people everywhere and always, tended to regard sickness as a divine punishment for sins, yet this was not specially the case with sara’at, as if it were a venereal disease. Hence it is surprising to see a serious archaeological journal “correlating” leprosy and lust (Zias 1987; milder Baruch 1964).