Need help with Biblical Archeology Research. Any suggested resources?

Hey guys,

In a few weeks I'll be preaching on Mark 2, specifically where Jesus heals a paralytic man. I have been googling and using Logos, but I can't find too much information available regarding medical practices in the 1st century.

SPECIFICALLY, I want to know:

1.) How would they have treated someone who was paralyzed

2.) How long would a paralyzed person be expected to live

3.) What would the man have looked like? What would have it been like to be paralyzed in that time.

Any help answering these questions or suggested resources would be MASSIVELY appreciated.

-Daniel

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

Hi Daniel, and welcome to the forum. And wishing you well on your preaching.

You probably have Sirach somewhere in your library (OT apocrypha) which has a chapter on one view of doctoring and their success (ch37-38).

However many more had the opposite view of sin and demons being the source of the problem (eg Tobit and Josephus).

I don't know which dictionaries you have but you might wish to look under 'Medicine' (AYBD has a good entry).

As regards a specific problem and in Palestine, you might get lucky but not likely. Most references are from central and western Asia where the great healing centers were located.

Beloved Amodeo

Hi Daniel,

I too join Denise in welcoming you to the forums. I like your questions they are focused and penetrating.

The meat of what you are asking for is to understand what it would feel like to be that blessed soul who in desperation sought healing from that Nazarene healer.

Answers lie in the text itself and other like texts sprinkled throughout the Gospels.

So get into your favorite translations with some or at least one being a reverse interlinear Bible and delve into key words like paralytic and withered, etc.

Think of the joy of being "saved" from a life made desperate by paralysis; and anything else like it that limits living life to its fullest.

I offer this advice in the happenstance that you do not posses the noteworthy Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (AYBD).

My prayer for you is that your faith be enlarged and the sword of the spirit which is the Word of God go forward with power. That same power that

set the captive free.

Amen.

Into Grace

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516580#Comment_516580

Hi Daniel and welcome to the forum. Someone may have a background commentary that can shed some light on this passage. I will check my library, but it is limited.

Mark Smith

Daniel,

Here is a long article found in Bulletin for Biblical Research, volume 16 (available in Logos) dealing directly with the man in Mark 2 and asking the question, what exactly was his condition. It might be a useful read for you:

Translating παραλυτικός in Mark 2:1–12: A Proposal

DWIGHT N. PETERSON
EASTERN UNIVERSITY

The man who is healed by Jesus in Mark 2:1–12 is denoted in the text by the word παραλυτικός, which is usually translated ‘paralytic’. The problem with this translation by transliteration is that it is by no means clear that the man in view was “paralyzed” in any modern sense of the word. A word study of παραλυτικός, along with related words παραλύειν and παραλύσις, in and beyond the NT shows the lack of etiological, diagnostic, and prognostic specificity that characterizes ancient medical language when compared with modern technical medical terminology. This means that in Mark 2, we do not know what was “wrong” with the “paralytic,” other than that he could not walk. The possible causes of his condition are numerous: stroke, head injury, twisted or badly broken legs that did not heal properly, severe arthritis, or even a psychosomatic condition, to name but a few possibilities. All of these conditions and many others could easily result in a situation in which a person “cannot walk.” A good translation of the word in this context, then, ought to be nonspecific and nontechnical by modern standards and ought not to draw attention to the cause of the man’s condition. I, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, suggest that the word ‘cripple’ fits the bill but provide alternative translation possibilities for those who cannot countenance the use of this word, which comes across as offensive to many people.

Key Words: paralytic, Mark 2:1–12

Mark 2:1–12 tells a story about the healing of a man who cannot walk. The man is carried by four friends to the roof of a house in which Jesus is “speaking the word” to a crowd so large that they have spilled out the door. The friends dig through the roof and lower the man on his mat through the hole they have just dug. Jesus promptly forgives the man’s sins, thereby setting the stage for a conflict with scribes who happen to be there and who question Jesus’ right or ability to forgive sins: only God, they think, is able to forgive sins. As part of the ensuing argument with the scribes, Jesus tells the man who cannot walk to get up, pick up his mat, and go home. The man, who now can walk, complies and leaves the house, to the amazement of all who witnessed the event.

This passage has attracted the attention of commentators, who have used it as an opportunity to discuss a variety of subjects, from the relationship between sin and illness, Jesus’ conflict with Jewish leaders, and Jesus’ first use (in the Gospel of Mark) of the title “Son of Man,” to the compound form of the pericope and the first-century house-construction techniques that allowed people to dig through roofs. An issue that has never been discussed adequately in any treatment of the passage, however, is how best to translate the word that serves to label the man who cannot walk, παραλυτικός.

The translation of choice for most English Bibles is, in effect, a transliteration: ‘paralytic’. English Bibles that choose this translation include the RSV, NAB, NIV, NASB, and the NJB.1 Most recent commentators writing in English (for example, Marcus, Guelich, Gundry, Myers, Lane, Taylor, and Nineham, among others)2 also opt for the same translation. The decision to translate by transliterating is seen as sufficient because the word paralytic is understood as adequately describing what is “wrong” with the man: he “can’t walk” because he is “paralyzed.” The story, told in Mark and its synoptic parallels, Matt 9:1–8 and Luke 5:17–26, is interested in the man only for this reason. He cannot walk. Jesus changes that situation: the healed man walks away. The translation ‘paralytic’ seems to do the job quite admirably.

There is, however, a problem with transliterating παραλυτικός and “being done with it.” The problem relates to the etymological relationship between the word paralytic and the word paralysis in English, and the way that the word paralysis, in our highly medicalized culture, conjures up images of problems with the central nervous system and Spinal Cord Injury (SCI). SCI, in turn, connotes people in wheelchairs. (Note, for example, that the universal symbol denoting handicapped people is a stick figure person in a wheelchair.) Furthermore, when people picture people in wheelchairs, they think in terms of modern medical diagnostic terms such as paraplegia and/or quadriplegia.3 A recent paraphrase of the NT, Eugene Peterson’s Message, makes this connection explicit by translating παραλυτικός ‘paraplegic’.4 This way of imagining the situation of the man who cannot walk in Mark 2:1–12 is problematic, however, because whatever the man’s condition, he was almost certainly not a paraplegic or a quadriplegic.
He was not a paraplegic or a quadriplegic because throughout most of human history, injuries or conditions that resulted in paraplegia or quadriplegia were always lethal. People who sustained such injuries or were beset with such a condition usually died from the initial trauma, either “external” (falling from a height, being hit by a heavy object, slashed by a sword, pierced by an arrow, falling off a chariot5) or “internal” (some sort of pathogen or autoimmune condition). If a person survived the initial trauma, in a world before antibiotics he or she invariably died from infection.6 It has only been since the middle of the 20th century (in the wake of World War II and Korea, and especially after Vietnam) that paraplegics and quadriplegics have been able to survive for long periods of time, and only in the last two or three decades that people who have suffered injuries high on their spinal cords have been able to survive at all.7 It is highly probable, therefore, that the man who could not walk at the beginning of Mark 2 was neither a paraplegic nor a quadriplegic.8

What, then, was medically “wrong” with the man? It turns out that it is impossible to know, since the story seems unconcerned with the cause of the man’s inability to walk and since ancient medical terminology denoting disabled people and disabilities does not meet modern standards of technical medical terminology. The Greco-Roman world had no general category or word corresponding to the modern category “the disabled.” Furthermore, “Greek terms for physical impairment are general, and describe outward appearances, or symptoms.”9 This is quite different from what we expect of modern medical terminology, which usually points to the etiology of the disease or condition, a range of symptoms, and prognosis for the patient. For instance, technical terms such as “cerebral palsy” or “muscular dystrophy” denote the cause of the condition, symptoms related to the condition, and to some extent the prognosis of the person who has the condition. We will see that the word παραλυτικός and related words do not come close to “passing muster” as modern medical technical terms. This is not a criticism of ancient medical terminology; one ought not to expect modern specificity from ancient words in ancient contexts.10

The adjective παραλυτικός, often used substantively, is a rare word, appearing for the first time in Greek literature only in the 1st century c.e.11 These first century uses are to be found in the NT (10 times, with an 11th in a variant reading12) along with the medical writer Dioscorides.13 A look at these uses, along with the uses of some related words, will show the lack of etiological, diagnostic, and prognostic specificity that characterizes ancient medical language when compared with modern medical technical terminology.

Of the 10 NT uses, 8 are found in Mark 2:1–12 (in vv. 2:3, 4, 5, 9, and 10) and its Matthean parallel, 9:1–8 (in vv. 9:2 [2 times] and 6). All that can be inferred from the vocabulary used is that the man in view cannot walk. Nothing in the story implies a particular cause for his inability to walk. In other words, the label is entirely descriptive of a particular lack, the ability to walk. It is neither etiological (what was the cause of his not being able to walk?) nor prognostic (what will happen to him over time?). Nor does it specify a range of associated symptoms. The other 2 NT uses are similarly vague as far as the causes of the person’s infirmity are concerned. Matthew 4:24 lumps παραλυτικοι in with people who suffer from “various diseases” such as demon possession and epilepsy (σεληνιαζομένος), and whom Jesus heals. In Matt 8:6, a centurion’s servant is said to be ‘paralyzed’ and ‘in terrible distress’ (ὁ παῖς μου βέβληται ἐν τῇ οἰκία παραλυτικός, δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος). But the specifics of the servant’s condition recede quickly into the background as the faith of the centurion, exceeding even that of those in Israel, is pushed to the fore. At the close of the pericope, Jesus accedes to the centurion’s request for the healing of the servant, and the servant is healed at a distance. No evidence of the healing (such as taking up a pallet and walking) is articulated so as to give us any insight into the plight of the formerly ill servant. In the Lukan parallel to this story (7:1–10), the servant is not even described with the word παραλυτικός or any other ‘paralysis’ word, but instead is described as being ‘very ill and about to die’ (κακῶς ἔχων ἤμελεν τελευτᾶν). Perhaps Luke recognized that whether or not the man was a παραλυτικός was of no consequence for the story.14
The Lukan parallel to the healing of the “paralytic” in Mark 2 (Luke 5:17–26) denotes the man using a perfect passive participial form of a verb etymologically related to the adjective παραλυτικός: παραλύειν.15 The verb παραλύειν is used five times in the NT (Luke 5:18, 24; Acts 8:7; 9:33; and Heb 12:12), always as a perfect passive participle. The first four uses are substantive uses that denote people who cannot walk until they are healed (by Jesus, Philip, and Peter, respectively). In the Hebrews passage, one of the hortatory passages in that book, it modifies the accusative plural noun γόνατα. The NRSV translates the verse ‘Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees’ (… καὶ τὰ παραλελυμένα γόνατα ἀνορθώσατε). The uses of the word παραλύω, then, like those of its cousin παραλυτικός, lack the medical specificity we have come to expect from medical technical terminology.

The 1st-century A.D. medical writer Dioscorides is no more helpful in providing medical specificity about the condition of παραλυτικοί. The word παραλυτικός is used several times in his De Materia Medica, a work of reference recognized as the authority in pharmacological matters for over fifteen centuries. The only full English translation of De Materia Medica was prepared in the 17th century by John Goodyer.16 In the book, Dioscorides discusses a variety of medicinal uses for which plants and plant products can be employed, along with the sorts of symptoms they can be used to treat. The term παραλυτικός is used exclusively in lists of specific illnesses that may be treated with particular herbal concoctions. Παραλυτικός appears in these lists alongside conditions such as epilepsy, headache, fever, convulsions, coughs, clogged lungs, colic, and menstrual periods. The conditions themselves are neither discussed nor described; the only point is that they may all be treated with a variety of herbal remedies.

To give but one example, De Materia Medica 1:16 describes the uses to which the plant Kostos may be put. The Greek text reads in part: σύγχρισμα τε ῥιγοῦσι μετʼ ἐλαίου πρὸ τῆς ἐπισημασίας καὶ παραλυτικοῖς. Goodyer’s translation of this passage (numbered by him 1:15) is as follows: “an ointment thereof, with oyle, helps such as haue ye Rigor of an ague, before ye coming of ye fitt, as likewise the paralyticall.”17 The word παραλυτικός indicates that something is not right with the person so described, but the precise nature of the condition of παραλυτικοί is not clarified. This medically nonspecific use of the word παραλυτικός is similar to all other uses of the word in De Materia Medica.

There is, of course, other vocabulary that can be used to denote conditions roughly in the neighborhood of παραλυτικός. Louw and Nida, for instance, list words such as παραλύειν, ξηραίνειν, ξηρός, χωλός, and κυλλός as being in the same semantic domain as παραλυτικός.18 A brief glance at the use of the first of these, παραλύειν, along with the related word παραλύσις in some ancient texts makes clear that these words communicate no more specific medical information than does παραλυτικός.19

According to Liddel and Scott, the word παραλύειν has a range of meaning with four major stops on it: to loose from the side; to unyoke; to loose beside; and finally “to disable, enfeeble.”20 The noun παραλύσις has two major stops on its range: “a loosening by the side or secretly”; and “a disabling of the nerves on one side, palsy, paralysis.”21 It is the final meaning in each of these two ranges that is most interesting in this context. In literature outside the NT and medical writings, “paralysis” is referred to in a manner as medically vague as the NT references noted above. Athenaeus, for example, in a little saying about drinking wine in Deipnosophiste (2.36) notes that if wine is drunk mixed half and half with water, the result is ‘madness’ (μανίαν); but if drunk unmixed, the result is ‘bodily collapse’ or, more literally, ‘paralysis of the body’ (παράλυσιν τῶν σωμάτικων).22 The image is clearly drawn of a person so drunk he cannot control the movement of his body. Other examples of the use of the word παραλύσις include those that denote the stupor that attends drunkenness (Diodorus Siculus,History 4.3),23 the lack of ability to move the mouth and legs that accompanies the drinking of certain waters in Arabia (Strabo, Geogr. 16.4.24),24 and the “helplessness” or “paralysis of the soul” that results from the receipt of very bad news (Polybius, History 30.32).25 The gist of the use of the language of paralysis in nonmedical writers is, not surprisingly, related to a lack of proper function of the human skeletomuscular system or a metaphorical extension thereof. The language is not used in a manner that by modern standards conveys medical information.

Medical writers, although they introduce medical specifics absent from nonmedical writers, tend to use the language of paralysis in a similar, nontechnical way. The 2nd-century medical writer Aretaeus, for instance, lumps “paralysis” together with “apoplexy, paraplegia, [and] paresis,” noting that they “are all of the same kind, and denote a defect of motion or of sense, or of both, sometimes of the mind, and at other times of the other senses.”26 The medical writer Soranus writes about difficulties attending the delivery of children and other difficulties women experience should their wombs be “paralyzed.”27

There is a particular usage of the word παραλύειν that merits special attention in this context, since it throws a sharp light on the lack of medical specificity of the vocabulary of “paralysis” in Greek. The passage in which the verb appears is a case study of a woman whom the medical historian and physician Mirko D. Grmek concludes was suffering from chronic tetanus.28 The word, inflected as a perfect passive participle (παραλελυμένον) as it is in all its NT uses, appears in the Hippocratic document Epidemics 7.8. The Greek text reads in part, ἥ τε φωνὴ ψελλὴ διὰ τὸ παραλυμένον καὶ ἀκίνητον καὶ ἀσθενὲς εἶναι τὸ σῶμα. The LCL translates this sentence: ‘Her speech was unintelligible because her body was paralyzed, immovable and weak’. Grmek, however, thinks it unwise to translate διὰ τὸ παραλελυμένον … εἶναι τὸ σῶμα as ‘because her body was paralyzed’, since, as he explains, “the body in such cases of tetanus is immobile but not really paralyzed.” Further, tetanus “is something not situated on the level of the central nervous system. It’s a difficulty in the transmission of the nervous impulse, or a disposition to avoid pain.” In spite of the etymological relationship between the participle παραλελυμένον and the English word ‘paralyzed’, then, the Greek cannot mean ‘paralyzed’ in this case. Consequently, Grmek and Robert choose an “untechnical” translation of παραλελύμενος: ‘inert’.29

All this means that we do not know what was “wrong” with the “paralytic” in Mark 2, other than that he could not walk. We do not know what caused his condition. The possible causes are numerous: stroke, head injury, twisted or badly broken legs that did not heal properly, severe arthritis, or even a psychosomatic condition, to name but a few possibilities. All of these conditions and many others could easily result in a situation in which a person “cannot walk.” We cannot diagnose the man’s condition. Given the nature of ancient medical terminology, we cannot, and ought not, expect more specificity from the ancient text.

How, then, shall we translate παραλυτικός in Mark 2? I suggest using the English word ‘cripple’.30 It is a better choice than ‘paralytic’, since the word ‘paralytic’ can connote—and has connoted—people with paraplegia or quadriplegia for many readers, and it is likely that the man was neither. Like most ancient medical terms, cripple is nonspecific and nontechnical by modern medical standards, it does not draw attention to the etiology or prognosis of the man’s condition, and it is minimally descriptive. It is worth noting in this context that the recent literary translator of the Gospel of Mark, Reynolds Price, himself a paraplegic and wheelchair user, chooses to translate παραλυτικός ‘cripple’.31 In addition, it is interesting that the oldest translation of the Gospels into any form of English, the Lindisfarne Gospels, translates the Latin word paralyticus (itself a transliteration of the Greek παραλυτικός) by the word ‘cripple’,32 so to translate with that word is to follow an ancient tradition. Finally, I think a case can be made that the very bluntness of the word cripple can be seen as fitting into Mark’s own blunt and abrupt esthetic.33

It turns out, however, that translating παραλυτικός with the word ‘cripple’ is off-putting, at least for some. For Americans of a certain age (I count myself among them), public use of the word cripple prompts memories of James Watt, President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, describing his staff: “I have a black. I have a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent.”34 While I was never a fan of James Watt, I confess to not having been offended by his comments when he made them. Instead, I thought it was humorous that a person occupying such a high position would speak in such an unguarded manner in public. I suspect my response was significantly shaped by the fact that by September 21, 1983, the date on which Mr. Watt made the statement, I myself had been a cripple—or, more precisely, a T-5 paraplegic and wheelchair user—for just over four years. Being a cripple myself had inured me to the unguarded words of silly, if powerful, people.

I am gratified by concern for kind and careful language for people with disabilities. In some quarters such care for appropriate language is derided as “political correctness,” but usually, in my experience, such care is a demonstration of good manners and a genuine concern to be respectful to people. This is a sort of care that I appreciate and wish to encourage.

Still, I remain unrepentant about my preference for translating παραλυτικός cripple’ for the reasons stated three paragraphs above. But for those who remain so uncomfortable with the word that they are unable to countenance its use, I suggest three possible alternatives for translation. First (and least satisfactorily), one could continue to use the transliteration ‘paralytic’ while keeping in mind (or explaining) that, despite the similarity to the word paralysis, the “paralytic’s” inability to walk may have had any number of causes that might not be described as “paralysis” in our day. Second, one could follow the lead of BDAG, whose gloss of choice for παραλυτικός is ‘lame’.35 The word lame does not carry the same sort of negative baggage as does cripple—Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, for instance, describes the word cripple as “sometimes offensive” but includes no such reference with respect to the word lame36—and it shares with cripple a lack of medical specificity: one can be “lame” due to any number of causes. The use of ‘lame’ as a translation makes it difficult to distinguish παραλυτικός from χωλός, but there is probably substantial overlap in the meaning of these two words.37 Third, many might think it wise to follow (as I have done several times in this article) the direction of Louw and Nida in their discussion of παραλυτικός where, after offering their gloss, they advocate translating the Greek word not with a single English word but with a phrase: “It is often best to speak of a paralytic as ‘one who cannot walk.’ ”38

Dwight N. Peterson, “Translating Παραλυτικός in Mark 2:1–12: A Proposal,” ed. Craig A. Evans, Bulletin for Biblical Research, Vol. 16 (2006): 261–272.

Josh

Hey guys,

In a few weeks I'll be preaching on Mark 2, specifically where Jesus heals a paralytic man. I have been googling and using Logos, but I can't find too much information available regarding medical practices in the 1st century.

SPECIFICALLY, I want to know:

1.) How would they have treated someone who was paralyzed

2.) How long would a paralyzed person be expected to live

3.) What would the man have looked like? What would have it been like to be paralyzed in that time.

Any help answering these questions or suggested resources would be MASSIVELY appreciated.

-Daniel

It appears that the way they treated paralyzed people was to simply put them in a bed. Aeneas was confined to his bed for eight years before he was healed miraculously.

Acts 9:33 "There he found a man named Aeneas, bedridden for eight years, who was paralyzed."

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516584#Comment_516584

Excellent article, Mark!

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516683#Comment_516683

One other thing I discovered was a resource in the Perseus collection, The Extant Words of Aretaeus, the Cappadocian (English). He was a physician who apparently lived during the First Century AD, so he would reflect practices common in Jesus' day. He has a section on Paralysis, and one on the Cure of Apoplexy (which he says is another term for paralysis). The sections are too long to be quoted here. One approach he took was bleeding the patient. There were other treatments for specific sorts of paralysis (some we wouldn't call paralysis today, in my understanding).

Anyway, the work is available free from Logos in the Perseus Classics Collection.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516683#Comment_516683

Excellent article, Mark!

Thanks, Mark! I concur with Denise! *smile* Psalm 29:11

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516683#Comment_516683

Excellent article, Mark!

Lot's of food for thought in that article, however...

I will point out that while most people die in sky diving accidents, not all do. To say everyone who is involved in an accident that could result in paralysis would also be killed in that accident is bad reasoning. To the author's credit he says "most" instead of "everyone." I would like to ask the author why this man could not have been the exception.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/517396#Comment_517396

I agree that historically, people surprisingly survive bad accidents, warfare injuries, etc all without access to modern medicine (even without insurance too!).

But any probability language ('most') is always suspect for historical writers. I don't know why they write such, since it's obviously unsupportable.

I wonder if Mat 4.24 speaks to the usage, though the greek structure might overload 'illness' as the category (vs born/injured). It's interesting in Mark, that Jesus automatically includes 'bed picking up' in the parallel to sin-removal, suggesting the arms might also be an issue (vs emphasis of completely healed).

Daniel Di Bartolo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/516584#Comment_516584

Mark,

Thanks so much for your help and direction to those resources. I wouldn't have been able to find those without your help!

Blessings,

-Daniel

Mark Barnes

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/517420#Comment_517420

But any probability language ('most') is always suspect for historical writers. I don't know why they write such, since it's obviously unsupportable.

So "most" is "unsupportable", but it's OK to say "always suspect"?

Mark Barnes

How long would a paralyzed person be expected to live

Another journal article briefly deals with that question by noting the parallel between Luke 7:2 ("Now a centurion had a servant who was sick and at the point of death"), and Matthew 8:6 ("Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly.").

Luke indicates that the servant had an illness and was about to die. Matthew indicates that he was lying paralyzed and fearfully tormented. The apparent conflict is in the way one thinks of paralysis. In Luke, it sounds as though a disease is overtaking the young man. Yet contemporary understanding of paralysis does not seem to fit that description. In addition, one usually associates lack of feeling with paralysis, not “grievous torment.” The text, however, indicates that he was tormented greatly.

The difficulty is easily resolved. The term translated “paralyzed” means simply “lame.” The servant has been laid in the house lame—incapacitated due to severe illness, and that is the condition in which he remains when Jesus hears of it. Plumptre suggests perhaps a form of rheumatic fever or tetanus. The termβασανίζω (basanizō) means to “vex with grievous pains.” This affliction is magnified by the use of δεινῶς (deipnōs, “severely, vehemently”), which signifies an extreme point on a scale, underlining the disease’s severity and also to magnifying the healing miracle. That is why he had not been brought to Jesus.

This underlines the earlier point that to be "paralyzed" is very likely to describe the symptoms (unable to walk), rather than the actual medical condition.

There are also article on paralysis and related topics in several Bible Dictionaries. Use your Topic Guide to look up Paralysis and Paralytic.