The Church and Greek Medicine

[mindlight]

While doing some research on Greek medicine I was surprised to find that 3 early centres of Greek Medicine in the crucial first century era coincided with early church activity.

So while the apostles John and Paul were healing people in Ephesus there were major medical centres often associated with the temple. They would base their medicinal practice on the "Hippocratic corpus" of medical writings that were loosely traced to Hippocrites in the 4th century BC. Again these writings were largely the standard text until the 18th century. Rufus of Ephesus was based in Ephesus at about the time John died there.

Pedanius Dioscorides who lived in Tarsus from where Paul came wrote the definitive work on Pharmacology that was still being used in the nineteenth century - "On Medical Material" and is still useful today. But seems to have been active across the Asia Minor region.

The other major centre was Alexandria which had a large church very early on.

I wonder to what extent there was an obsession with healing in the era, maybe to do with the peace and prosperity that the Roman empire had brought the region. Over time Christians established themselves as the prime healing community but since the Constantinian era relied heavily on the Greek secular medical writings rather than miraculous healings. The church having a motive to heal people out of human compassion also adopted the methods of the Greeks in doing so. But maybe in so doing they cut themselves off from the kind of miraculous healings of the apostolic era in favour of the empirical methodology of the Greeks regarding healing.

1) Did the adoption of Greek Medicine end the age of miracles?
2) Was the churches adoption and promotion of proper medical practice , based on the early Greeks, a logical progression and outworking of its Christian mission to bless the communities in which it grew?

 

[~Anastasia~]

In what I've seen within the continuity (I attend a Greek Church that has kept writings all the way back and incorporates them) ...

The Christian ethos is to take care of people. First Christians, but anyone in need especially. The ill and infirm are an important category, along with poor, widows, orphans, etc. So it is very natural for there to be Christian efforts to care for the sick.

As to miracles of healing, those continued to be expected. But it has more to do with "the effectual, fervent prayers of a righteous man" ... i.e. that it is through the truly pious and holy persons that God often performs miracles. When there are fewer such people to be found, true miracles are less. Laxity among Christians was something that began to be bemoaned in the very early centuries.

 

[Resha Caner]

Claims of God's miraculous intervention have not really changed much. I couldn't find the book, but there was a study done recently on whether miracle claims have reduced in the scientific age, and the answer was that they haven't.

 

[mindlight]

In what I've seen within the continuity (I attend a Greek Church that has kept writings all the way back and incorporates them) ...

Medical writings also?

The Christian ethos is to take care of people. First Christians, but anyone in need especially. The ill and infirm are an important category, along with poor, widows, orphans, etc. So it is very natural for there to be Christian efforts to care for the sick.

I agree with this of course. But the experience of people with Jesus or the 12 or indeed the 70 disciples that were sent out was of healing almost whenever they prayed. And also some of these miracles are completely impossible from a purely medical point of view. A withered arm growing back for example, a man blind from birth who can now see, raising the dead!!! Obviously this was a major reason why Christians displaced older mystery or magical religions in for example Ephesus. These religions provided healing services in their temples but their success rate was low or due purely to the application of secular knowledge. Christians basically took over the market for healing forcing those who could no longer believe in old gods that had been thoroughly discredited to look for more empirical and secular reasons for disease and for treatment. But then at some point the apostles started dying and though there were miracles after that in the early church the age of miracles died with the apostles. But Christians were now the ones people expected healing from and I wonder if the shift towards being doctors and nurses more than miracle workers started to occur then

As to miracles of healing, those continued to be expected. But it has more to do with "the effectual, fervent prayers of a righteous man" ... i.e. that it is through the truly pious and holy persons that God often performs miracles. When there are fewer such people to be found, true miracles are less. Laxity among Christians was something that began to be bemoaned in the very early centuries.

I really do not know why the age of miracles came to an end, the intensity levels of that first generation of Christ have never really been repeated. I am sure there have been some very righteous people since and people utterly dedicated to God but the regular ability to produce miracles on demand that characterised Paul or Peter for example seems to have stopped with their deaths. Now miracles are rare and wonderful and usually a surprise to the church rather than a choice to simply heal as Paul or Peter seemed to have,

 

[mindlight]

Claims of God's miraculous intervention have not really changed much. I couldn't find the book, but there was a study done recently on whether miracle claims have reduced in the scientific age, and the answer was that they haven't.

The character of these claims has changed. miracles still happen. But if I had gone to see Paul or Peter or indeed Jesus speak miracles would just have happened whereas I cannot think of any speakers today who can give the same guarantee.

 

[Resha Caner]

The character of these claims has changed. miracles still happen. But if I had gone to see Paul or Peter or indeed Jesus speak miracles would just have happened whereas I cannot think of any speakers today who can give the same guarantee.

No one guaranteed miracles. The apostles were definitely special people, and I look forward to talking with them in heaven, but there's just no reason to think miracles are less possible now.

Miracles have always been an extremely rare thing. On a percentage basis very few people saw them in Jesus' day and very few people see them now. People simply don't understand the nature of anecdotal experience. IOW, because they read about all of Jesus' miracles in the NT, they think miracles were more common then.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

They would base their medicinal practice on the "Hippocratic corpus" of medical writings that were loosely traced to Hippocrites in the 4th century BC. Again these writings were largely the standard text until the 18th century.

So, don't really understand what you mean here. The Hippocratic corpus of medical writings are quite diverse. We even use some of it today - the Hippocratic method to reduce a shoulder dislocation is one of the standard ways to do so. Splinting and the like, has never really needed to be abandoned.

However, the standard Medical texts did not stay static and certainly was not Hippocratic in most of Europe. The chief ones were the writings of Galen, from the 2nd century till the 13th, though this was just the base for the Art, not the epitome thereof. This developed into the complex system of humours in balance in the mediaeval period, but Galen was then piecemeal superseded - such as Andreas Vesalius correcting his anatomy by more dissections, Harvey showing blood circulated, and culminated in our more modern medical models of physiology. However, a lot that Galen said is as valid today as back then, such as spinal levels.

Remember, the Hippocratic Oath rejects Surgery - "nor shall I cut". It is a code for a Physician therefore. It is an important part of early medicine, but certainly not the standard for a thousand years (unlike Claudius Galen, which was basically, with caveats).

Besides, the great centre of Hellenistic medicine was Alexandria. That is where the big fight erupted between the two branches of Hellenistic Medicine, the Logikoi and the Empirikoi - the former reasoning that you should investigate through dissection, and the latter that everything you needed to know could be derived from observing the living. They are not unrelated to Hippocrates though, as Philenus of Cos, the founder of the Empirikoi, obviously also studied at Cos, though a pupil originally of the dissecting Herophilus. Galen himself also studied at Alexandria. Regardless, Medicine was never a static tradition, as such.

While the early Church certainly embraced healing, there is a big difference between medicine and the healing as done by the Apostles. One is quotidian, the other miraculous. I don't think the two were so closely aligned in the Apostles' day, only from the late Empire onward. Hellenistic medicine started well before Christianity, and its leading lights remained Pagans.

 

[mindlight]

No one guaranteed miracles. The apostles were definitely special people, and I look forward to talking with them in heaven, but there's just no reason to think miracles are less possible now.

Miracles have always been an extremely rare thing. On a percentage basis very few people saw them in Jesus' day and very few people see them now. People simply don't understand the nature of anecdotal experience. IOW, because they read about all of Jesus' miracles in the NT, they think miracles were more common then.

The population of Judea cannot have been more than a million but Jesus fed 4000 men and families here and 5000 men and families there. Also he travelled all over. Sending out the 72 and the 12 would also have magnified the spread and the impact. So a very large number of Jews would have had a direct experience of him. Also in these large events many people were healed with thousands of witnesses. There was a definite increase in the incidence and quality of miracles in Jesus and the apostles time.

 

[mindlight]

So, don't really understand what you mean here. The Hippocratic corpus of medical writings are quite diverse. We even use some of it today - the Hippocratic method to reduce a shoulder dislocation is one of the standard ways to do so. Splinting and the like, has never really needed to be abandoned.

However, the standard Medical texts did not stay static and certainly was not Hippocratic in most of Europe. The chief ones were the writings of Galen, from the 2nd century till the 13th, though this was just the base for the Art, not the epitome thereof. This developed into the complex system of humours in balance in the mediaeval period, but Galen was then piecemeal superseded - such as Andreas Vesalius correcting his anatomy by more dissections, Harvey showing blood circulated, and culminated in our more modern medical models of physiology. However, a lot that Galen said is as valid today as back then, such as spinal levels.

It is interesting that you say parts of this are still being used. Yes it was a dynamic and evolving set of writings by multiple authors. I was especially interested in the first century period just before Galen. I understand there was not much dissection of human bodies at this time and most knowledge was surmised about anatomy . But I guess with dissection then this understanding would have improved quite markedly. The humours of blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile were already in play in the first century and even before that I believe though not quite sure how a physician would have developed a balanced view of them.

Remember, the Hippocratic Oath rejects Surgery - "nor shall I cut". It is a code for a Physician therefore. It is an important part of early medicine, but certainly not the standard for a thousand years (unlike Claudius Galen, which was basically, with caveats).

Surgery seems so embedded in the practice of modern medicine that does come as a surprise to me actually. Galen was a military medic so I guess amputations and invasive treatments of infected wounds would be part of the job for him.
Pedanius Dioscorides also worked in the army but not with surgical solutions but rather herbal ones though.

Besides, the great centre of Hellenistic medicine was Alexandria. That is where the big fight erupted between the two branches of Hellenistic Medicine, the Logikoi and the Empirikoi - the former reasoning that you should investigate through dissection, and the latter that everything you needed to know could be derived from observing the living. They are not unrelated to Hippocrates though, as Philenus of Cos, the founder of the Empirikoi, obviously also studied at Cos, though a pupil originally of the dissecting Herophilus. Galen himself also studied at Alexandria. Regardless, Medicine was never a static tradition, as such.

The pharmacology book was written in Tarsus and I understood Ephesus had some famous medics e.g. Rufus but Alexandria was a bigger city and had its library also. I would guess that a balance between the 2 schools of thought you mentioned would be the ideal in the long run.

While the early Church certainly embraced healing, there is a big difference between medicine and the healing as done by the Apostles. One is quotidian, the other miraculous. I don't think the two were so closely aligned in the Apostles' day, only from the late Empire onward. Hellenistic medicine started well before Christianity, and its leading lights remained Pagans.

Yes but the original pagan medicine was far more wedded to supernatural causation and temples were often used as medical centres. My theory here is that the discrediting of pagan religions and the supremacy of Christianity on providing supernatural healings hastened the move of pagans to purely empirical methodologies that did not mean they had to accept Christian premises nor the discredited ones of broken pagan religions either.

 

[Resha Caner]

The population of Judea cannot have been more than a million but Jesus fed 4000 men and families here and 5000 men and families there. Also he travelled all over. Sending out the 72 and the 12 would also have magnified the spread and the impact. So a very large number of Jews would have had a direct experience of him. Also in these large events many people were healed with thousands of witnesses. There was a definite increase in the incidence and quality of miracles in Jesus and the apostles time.

Not everybody lived in Judea. An Irish druid was very unlikely to experience Jesus' miracles during his earthly ministry.

Yes, Jesus performed more miracles than the average Jew, but that's not the point. Moses also witnessed more miracles than the average Jew, as did Abraham, Elijah, Daniel, etc. But there were sometimes hundreds or thousands of years between those spikes in miraculous activity. So you're a few thousand years and a few thousand miles from the moment of miraculous activity. In that regard you're just like billions and billions of other people across time and space.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yes but the original pagan medicine was far more wedded to supernatural causation and temples were often used as medical centres. My theory here is that the discrediting of pagan religions and the supremacy of Christianity on providing supernatural healings hastened the move of pagans to purely empirical methodologies that did not mean they had to accept Christian premises nor the discredited ones of broken pagan religions either.

That's an interesting idea. Maybe. But it's also a misunderstanding of at least the Roman mind.

Roman devotion to the Pantheon was not really a religious devotion, but a pragmatic one. Few actually believed Jupiter was a real god. Rather, it was more a matter of, "The world's a mysterious place we don't understand well. This ritual works (Rome rules the world) so don't mess with it."

 

[mindlight]

Not everybody lived in Judea. An Irish druid was very unlikely to experience Jesus' miracles during his earthly ministry.

Yes, Jesus performed more miracles than the average Jew, but that's not the point. Moses also witnessed more miracles than the average Jew, as did Abraham, Elijah, Daniel, etc. But there were sometimes hundreds or thousands of years between those spikes in miraculous activity. So you're a few thousand years and a few thousand miles from the moment of miraculous activity. In that regard you're just like billions and billions of other people across time and space.

The key centres were Judaea by source ( ended by destruction of Jerusalem)/ Greece / Asia Minor by culture and Rome by power. Ireland did not matter. It became Christian later asa result of the overflow from Rome and Greece. Late apostolic activity focused on Greece and Rome.

 

[mindlight]

That's an interesting idea. Maybe. But it's also a misunderstanding of at least the Roman mind.

Roman devotion to the Pantheon was not really a religious devotion, but a pragmatic one. Few actually believed Jupiter was a real god. Rather, it was more a matter of, "The world's a mysterious place we don't understand well. This ritual works (Rome rules the world) so don't mess with it."

The medical discussion here focuses on Greece not Rome. But the different cultures were converted by different styles of witness.

 

[Resha Caner]

The key centres were Judaea by source ( ended by destruction of Jerusalem)/ Greece / Asia Minor by culture and Rome by power. Ireland did not matter. It became Christian later asa result of the overflow from Rome and Greece. Late apostolic activity focused on Greece and Rome.

I'm aware of the history. You seem to miss my point. Or maybe I'm missing yours. I thought you had made a claim that miracles have decreased since the apostolic age. Is your claim more precise, i.e. that miracles in Judea have decreased since the apostolic age?

 

[Resha Caner]

The medical discussion here focuses on Greece not Rome. But the different cultures were converted by different styles of witness.

Greece was part of the Roman empire during the era you're discussing, and Rome had a habit of co-opting what it admired from its conquered territories.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I understand there was not much dissection of human bodies at this time and most knowledge was surmised about anatomy

So Herophilus dissected humans in Alexandria about 200s BC as the Ptolemies supplied him (there are sources claiming he dissected prisoners alive). Thereafter, dissection declined, but was still done on occasion. There is a modern myth that dissections were made illegal, but there is no evidence for this, and evidence against, like Galen's claims to have dissected people. It is difficult to procure fresh bodies in a warm climate, as they rot quickly, making dissection very much a rare opportunity. So many doctors, such as Galen, dissected animals such as monkeys, and extrapolated to humans.

The humours of blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile were already in play in the first century and even before that I believe though not quite sure how a physician would have developed a balanced view of them.

Illness was thought to derive from an imbalance in the humours. Medicine did not stay static, but new theories and ways developed. For instance, the popularity of Bleeding someone in the mediaeval period is derived from the fact that bleeding someone with Haemosiderosis, relieves their aches and such (as the excess Iron is lost - in fact, still a form of treatment for this disease). This was extrapolated to fevers and other conditions with generalised body pain, as mediaeval medicine followed the empiric tradition of Galen (as we still do).

Surgery seems so embedded in the practice of modern medicine that does come as a surprise to me actually. Galen was a military medic so I guess amputations and invasive treatments of infected wounds would be part of the job for him.

Galen was not a 'military medic', but practiced in Gladiatorial schools to be able to see wounds. He was however, the court physician of Marcus Aurelius, but refused to accompany him on the Marcomannic Wars (to his regret, as he later learned he had allowed other doctors to dissect Germanic corpses on the battlefield. He derisively said they learned "no more than butchers do").

Medicine has always been split between Physicians and Surgeons. Even today, many medical degrees refer separately to them, the MBChB of many commonwealth countries (Medicinae Baccalaureate and Chirurgiae Baccalaureate) . In the past, most surgery was done by others like Barber/Surgeons. Stitching an existent wound is different from cutting someone open.
Many medical programmes split interns between those going into surgical and those into medical fields. It is a deep division within Medicine, that still very much exists today.

I would guess that a balance between the 2 schools of thought you mentioned would be the ideal in the long run.

The fight continues, between those that purely want to work on experimental empiric data (such as in Evidence-Based Medicine, which currently have the upper hand) and those that also want to extrapolate based on Physiology and theorising (the Consensus Conferences, Scientific-Based Medicine, and old-fashioned Clinical Medicine). The problem is that epidemiology has often not born out the conclusions of the latter.

Yes but the original pagan medicine was far more wedded to supernatural causation and temples were often used as medical centres. My theory here is that the discrediting of pagan religions and the supremacy of Christianity on providing supernatural healings hastened the move of pagans to purely empirical methodologies that did not mean they had to accept Christian premises nor the discredited ones of broken pagan religions either.

So, Hellenistic Medicine was already devoid of charms and the like, prior to Christianity. While amulets and charms still abounded, the Medical fraternity did not necessarily use them. A good example here, was Claudius' court physician that had him pass winds for health reasons, and scoffed at the charms others brought him from renowned shrines.
The very success of the Hippocratic corpus, was that it treated illness as wholely a natural event, explicable by observation and treatable by diet, drugs and techniques - and this greatly precedes Christian healing. This differs from things like the Ebers Papyrus of Egypt, that mixed prayers and charms with practical things like honey antiseptic dressings.

A good way to think of it, is to walk into your average pharmacy. Behind the counter you'll find prescription drugs - that is the descendant of Hellenistic Medicine, of Hippocrates and Galen; at the same time, you'll find Homeopathic cures, herbal concoctions, amber or copper bracelets, etc. which represent the same impulse as charms and hanging models of limbs in Temples in ancient times. I don't think it is really that different today - there are still Faith-Healer quacks, Homeopaths and Chiropracters; and Medicine on the other side, with people placing various levels of trust in each. There is also a little overlap on the borders. The difference with the Apostles was truly miraculous healing, that does not fall on this spectrum, and I don't think their showing up of Pagan shrines would really have touched the medical fraternity much (though they were often associated with Asclepius, themselves).

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The medical discussion here focuses on Greece not Rome. But the different cultures were converted by different styles of witness.

There is no functional difference between Greek and Roman Medicine. Galen was as much Roman as Greek.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Celsus: On Medicine - Prooemium

"Therefore even after these I have mentioned, no distinguished men practised the Art of Medicine until literary studies began to be pursued with more attention, which more than anything else are a necessity for the spirit, but at the same time are bad for the body. At first the science of healing was held to be part of philosophy, so that treatment of disease and contemplation of the nature of things began through the same authorities; clearly because healing was needed especially by those whose bodily strength had been weakened by restless thinking and night-watching. Hence we find that many who professed philosophy became expert in medicine, the most celebrated being Pythagoras, Empedocles and Democritus. But it was, as some believe, a pupil of the last, Hippocrates of Cos, a man first and foremost worthy to be remembered, notable both for professional skill and for eloquence, who separated this branch of learning from the study of philosophy. After him. During the same times the Art of Medicine was divided into three parts: one being that which cures through diet, another through medicaments, and the third by hand. The Greeks termed the first Diaitika, the second Pharmaceutika, the third Cheirurgia. But of that part which cured diseases by diet those who were by far the most famous authorities, endeavouring to go more deeply into things, claimed for themselves also a knowledge of nature, without which it seemed that the Art of Medicine would be stunted and weak. After them first of all Serapion, declaring that this kind of reasoning method was in no way pertinent to Medicine, based it only upon practice and upon experience. To him followed Apollonius and Glaucias, and somewhat later Heraclides of Tarentum, and other men of no small note, who in accordance with what they professed called themselves Empirici. Thus this Art of Medicine which treats by diet was also divided into two parts, some claiming an Art based upon speculation, others on practice alone. But after those mentioned above no one troubled about anything except what tradition had handed down to him until Asclepiades changed in large measure the way of curing. Of his successors, Themison, late in life, diverged from Asclepiades in some respects. And it is through these men in particular that this health-giving profession of ours has grown up."

" They, then, who profess a reasoned theory of medicine propound as requisites, first, a knowledge of hidden causes involving diseases, next, of evident causes, after these of natural action also, and lastly of the internal parts.
They term hidden, the causes concerning which inquiry is made into the principles composing our bodies, what makes for and what against health. For they believe it impossible for one who is ignorant of the origin of diseases to learn how to treat them suitably. They say that it does not admit of doubt that there is need for differences in treatment, if, as certain of the professors of philosophy have stated, some excess, or some deficiency, among the four elements, creates adverse health; or, if all the fault is in the humours, as was the view of Herophilus; or in the breath, according to Hippocrates; or if blood is transfused into those blood-vessels which are fitted for pneuma, and excites inflammation or if little bodies by being brought to a standstill in passing through invisible pores block the passage, as Asclepiades contended his will be the right way of treatment, who has not failed to see the primary origin of the cause. They do not deny that experience is also necessary; but they say it is impossible to arrive at what should be done unless through some course of reasoning."

---

As you can plainly see, Hellenistic Medicine was more naturalistic and not really peddling supernatural cures, long before the rise of Christianity. This medical tradition continued in an unbroken fashion to the present day, though falling a bit in abeyance in the West before the High Middle Ages. Rather, there have always been amulets and charms and quackery running concurrently to Real Medicine since the days of the Greek schools of Kos and Cnidus. This is modern Chiropracters, as much as mediaeval soil from the grave of Oswald.

Real miraculous healing also occurs. Normal Medicine largely ignores it, or explains it away; Quackery tries to co-opt it. Neither really have much to do with it. The Apostles' practice of healing I doubt made much difference to how Hellenistic doctors practiced medicine or were perceived by the populace.

 

[mindlight]

There is no functional difference between Greek and Roman Medicine. Galen was as much Roman as Greek.

Galen was almost a hundred years after the age of the apostles. The integration of the functional advantages of Roman and Greek cultures probably took time to integrate. Greeks still had simpler architecture and better medicine in the first century

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Galen was almost a hundred years after the age of the apostles. The integration of the functional advantages of Roman and Greek cultures probably took time to integrate. Greeks still had simpler architecture and better medicine in the first century

Flaminius declared the freedom of the Greeks in 169 BC, Lucius Mummius sacked Corinth in 146 BC ending it. Greece was plundered for art and Greek slaves taught Roman children.

By the 1st century, all educated Romans spoke Greek, they had Greek paedagogus teaching their children, sent aristocrats to finish their education in Greece, built Greek-style theatres, created native Roman literature on Greek models (though Terence had been doing this in the 2nd BC already, but brought to artistic completeness in the Golden Age of Virgil's Aenead).

Roman Civilisation had already absorbed all it would of Greece by that time, which certainly included Greek Medicine. I mentioned Claudius' physician earlier, after all. There is no functional difference between Greek and Roman medicine in the 1st century, as Romans had Greek doctors educate their own for centuries and often they would visit Alexandria or such, renowned for Medical schools. Besides, Tarentum, in Italy itself, was one of these.

As an aside, the Romans were excellent engineers. Knowledge on construction, like concrete, arches, road construction, etc. flowed the opposite way. A big brouhaha is made of the Artistic sensibilities of the Parthenon, rightly so, but the Pantheon, the aquaducts or Hagia Sophia are a cut above it technique wise, and certainly not without art.