ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005

Jesus and the eye: New Testament miracles of vision Ahmad M. Mansour,1 Abla Mehio-Sibai,2 Joseph B. Walsh3 and Zaher H. Sbeity4 1

Department of Ophthalmology, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon 3 Department of Ophthalmology, New York Eye and Ear Infirmary, New York Medical College, New York, New York, USA 4 Department of Ophthalmology, Bonn University Eye Hospital, Bonn, Germany 2

ABSTRACT. Purpose: To compile and appraise the accounts of the miracles of vision in the New Testament. Methods: We carried out a critical analysis of the compilation of ocular miracles using past medical knowledge and historical reconstruction based on the accounts of the apostles and of various historians living in the first three centuries AD. Results: Three blind adult male beggars residing on three different street locations were described. Two had previously had good vision that had declined over a long time and the third had been born blind. The manifestations of the ocular diseases in these cases were meagre, precluding any precise diagnosis. The healing methodology did not rely on physical examination, detailed history, or the use of medicines. Jesus’ tools consisted of spitting, touching, praying and the use of words. Visual outcome reported as a complete cure was realized in all three incidents. Conclusions: The accounts of miracles in the Gospels appear to be historically reliable, yet subject to different interpretations: faith in the miracle (the Christian perspective); sorcery (the Jewish perspective); mythology (the atheist perspective), and scientifically possible human action by a charismatic, compassionate, knowledgeable man (the scientific perspective: psychotherapy or suggestion). Key words: blindness – Christ – Gospels – history of ophthalmology – miracles – New Testament – Old Testament

which has lasted for two millennia. Part of Christian religious tradition involves the ongoing study of the Gospels, with the application of current knowledge to enable us to more fully understand the information, both literal and symbolic, they bring us. It is in this spirit that we present this compilation of the ocular miracles described in the New Testament. For this purpose, we shall first examine who Jesus was in the eyes of his contemporaries, and what he taught and how he behaved. We shall then unravel the circumstances of his period in order to understand, pragmatically and historically, why people believed what they then believed and what took place by separating the opinions of the authors (apostles) from the actual facts of the events. We aim in this appraisal to examine the veracity of the accounts of the miracles and assess their different interpretations across time.

Acta Ophthalmol. Scand. 2005: 83: 739–745 Copyright # Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2005.

Blindness and ophthalmology in evangelical times

doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00608.x

Introduction The New Testament (Alexander 1974) is not a medical manual, but its content is considered by believers  although

this is subject to interpretation  to be completely true; others perceive it as representing a historical, spiritual or moral guide. It is a work of great significance in the history of humanity,

The arena of Gospel medicine (Tannaim, Gospel time) lies in the land of Canaan (ancient Palestine, modern Israel). Under Titus (Roman domination), the Jewish State was destroyed around 63 BC. A large proportion of the Jews

739

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005 remained in Persia and Babylon. In Alexandria, the Jews derived their education from and lived in full equality with the Greeks. During Tannaim, understanding of the cause of disease was very limited. Greco-Roman physicians had limited diagnostic powers and few effective means of treatment (Gwilt 1986). Greek ophthalmology centred on humoral theory: everything was founded on a united confluence of all humours (blood, phlegm, yellow bile and black bile), and the pupil was described as the site of vision. Shimkin (1935) presented evidence of widespread blindness in the land of Canaan during Tannaim. Across the land of Canaan ran the ‘caravan road’, a highway for both peaceful and military communications between the countries lying to the north and south. This led to the spread of diseases such as acute conjunctivitis and trachoma, which were endemic in Egypt (Basta 1976), then known as the ‘land of the blind’ (Wagemans & Bijsterveld 1988) into Canaan (Shimkin 1935). The treatment of eye diseases included dietary modifications, drinking wine, bathing, purging, bloodletting or cleansing medication (Hirschberg 1982). Celsus (25 BC50 AD), a contemporary of Jesus Christ, treated sties by incision and drainage, and advised the excision of large pterygia (Hirschberg 1982).

The compilation of the New Testament and the importance of the eye The Gospels were written, in chronological order, by the evangelist Mark in Greek around 64 AD, the evangelist Matthew, perhaps in Aramaic, around 70–80 AD (only the Greek translation is available) and the evangelist Luke in Greek around 70–80 AD. These three Gospels are described as synoptic because they all narrate events in the life of Jesus (Alexander 1974, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels). The Gospel written later by the evangelist John in Greek was published around 100– 120 AD, after several additions and corrections by his disciples (Alexander 1974, Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels). Except for Luke, who was a Greek physician, the apostles did not practise medicine as a profession (Eusebius 1980) (p 19). Luke was the only Gospel

740

writer to have been accurate in his medical analysis, for example, by portraying a paralysis with precision using Hippocratic expressions and terms. As both a physician and a narrator, Luke appears as an expert witness, with the medical know-how for authenticating miracles. The New Testament contains around 75 references to the healing work of Jesus, one of the most prominent elements of which was the healing of the blind. According to the New Testament, ‘the lamp of the body is the eye. It follows that if your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light. But if your eye is diseased, your whole body will be all darkness’ (Matthew 6 : 22).

Who was Jesus of Nazareth? Was he a physician? Jesus was born in Bethlehem to the Virgin Mary (Irenaeus 1868) (p 183) when she was 17 years of age (Eusebius 1980) (p 47). Following the persecution of Jewish newborns by the Roman ruler, Mary fled with Jesus to Egypt for 28 years. Jesus returned to the land of Canaan at the age of 30 years and started preaching (Eusebius 1980) (p 75). His mission ended at the age of 33 years. He was the last messenger from the tribe of Israel and the forty-second generation of Abraham (Matthew 1). Christ’s life was a model of gentleness, compassion and asceticism. He was a constant traveller, living in abandoned ruins and championing the virtues of humility, love for the poor and care for the sick. His clothing consisted of a cloak made of camel stub. Whenever night fell, his lamp was the moonlight, his shade the blackness of the night, his bed the earth, his pillow a stone and his food the plants of the fields (Khalidi 2001). He was not a showman; he never accepted payment for the miracles. He recognized the limits of his knowledge (‘We speak only about what we know’ [John 3 : 11]; ‘Only God knows the end of the world’ [Matthew 24 : 36; Mark 13 : 32]) and repeatedly reaffirmed that while healing comes from God, there is yet a need to seek medical help (‘The sick need to be attended by a physician’ [Matthew 9 : 13]). Without doubt, Jesus was exceptionally gifted as ‘. . . he could tell what a man had in him’ (John 2 : 25). In a few

words, he was a ‘man on a mission’ and a ‘teacher of men’ (Eusebius 1980) (p 83). A number of Old Testament prophets had medical knowledge. Noah and Solomon, for example, were credited with enormous medical knowledge, while Elisha (Ginsberg 1913) and Isaiah (Friedenwald 1944) possessed scientific understanding. Did Jesus possess medical skills? Jesus’ role as a ‘physician’ is very pervasive in his biographies and was essential to his mission. He was a healer whose time was consumed with encounters with sick people (Table 1). Grundmann (1932) pointed out: ‘He was the doctor who came to the sick to heal them, i.e. he gave new meaning to the life of sinners, sufferers, and those who lost faith in life by making them part of the fellowship with God.’ For some, he was the greatest physician, while for others he was the instrument of the Healer: every healing is in essence God’s work and a display of divine mercy, ‘. . . for I am the Lord that healeth thee’ (Exodus 15 : 26; Deuteronomy 32 : 39). God healed the sick through Jesus in the same manner that He healed Abimelech in answer to Abraham’s prayer (Genesis 20 : 17).

Miracles Definition

A miracle is an occurrence that transcends the empirical course of its events; it cannot be fitted into any immanent explanation, requires the working of a supernatural agent, and is performed for the purpose of authenticating the message or the messenger. Throughout the Bible, miracles were used by God to visually represent His divine power and authority over man and nature (Amundsen 1989). From time to time, God also empowered His followers with miracles in order to substantiate their commission as teachers. During the course of his 3-year public ministry, Jesus performed miracles that demonstrated an ability to heal. Cures were often signs that stood for something more fundamental, such as ascertaining God’s power, benevolence, or mercy, arousal of faith and propaganda (Kee 1983). Non-ocular miracles

Table 1 lists the miracles of Jesus grouped under separate categories as miracles of nature, life, health and

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005

Table 1. Nature, life, medical and ocular miracles of Jesus. Miracles of nature Speaking as a newborn Changing water into wine Feeding 5000 people with two loaves and five fish Calming the storm Walking on water Foretelling what people have eaten and what food they have stored Creating birds from clay

Tabari 1984 (p 95) John 2 : 1–11 John 6 : 1–14; Matthew 14 : 13–21; Mark 6 : 32–44; Luke 9 : 10–17 Mark 4 : 35–41; Matthew 8 : 23–27; Luke 8 : 22–25 Matthew 14 : 22–33; John 6 : 15–21; Mark 6 : 45–52 Goldstein 1950 (p 147); van der Loos 1965 (pp 168169) Tabbari 1984 (p 106) Goldstein 1950 (p 147); van der Loos 1965 (p 169)

Miracles of life Raising the widow’s son Raising of Lazarus Raising Seth, son of Noah, dead for several millennia

Luke 7 : 11–16 John 11 : 40–44 Tabari 1984 (p 106)

Miracles of health Healing a paralytic Healing a woman with an 18-year infirmity Healing a man with a withered hand Healing a nobleman’s son Healing Peter’s mother-in-law Healing the man at Bethesda Healing the centurion’s servant Casting out a dumb and blind spirit Casting out a spirit Casting demons out of a lunatic boy Delivering a man in the synagogue from demonic spirits Healing a man possessed by demons at Gadara Delivering the Syrophoenician’s daughter Healing a woman with an issue of blood Healing a man with dropsy Healing a deaf-dumb man Healing of Malchus’ ear Cleansing a leper Cleansing of 10 lepers

Mark 2 : 1–12; Matthew 9 : 2–8; Luke 5 : 17–26 Luke 13 : 10–17 Luke 6 : 6–11; Matthew 12 : 9–13; Mark 3 : 1–5 John 4 : 46–54 Mark 1 : 29–31; Luke 4 : 38–39; Matthew 8 : 14–15 John 5 : 1–13 Luke 7 : 1–10; Matthew 8 : 5–13 Luke 11 : 14–26; Matthew 12 : 22–32; Mark 3 : 22–30 Matthew 9 : 32–34 Mark 9 : 14–29; Matthew 17 : 14–21; Luke 9 : 37–42 Mark 1 : 21–28; Luke 4 : 31–37 Mark 5 : 1–20; Matthew 8 : 28–34; Luke 8 : 26–34 Matthew 15 : 21–28 Mark 5 : 25–34; Matthew 9 : 18–26; Luke 8 : 40–56 Luke 14 : 1–6 Mark 7 : 31–37 Luke 22 : 49–51 Mark 1 : 40–45; Matthew 8 : 1–4 Luke 17 : 11–19

Miracles of vision Healing the blind at Jericho Healing the blind man of Bethsaida Healing a born-blind man in Siloam

vision. Jesus treated chronic diseases that did not respond to contemporary medical therapy with immediate and long-lasting cures. The diseases cured by Jesus were of lengthy duration (12 years in Matthew 9 : 20, 18 years in Luke 13 : 11, and 38 years in John 5 : 6). In the patients described, there was an account of the failure of classical medicine in treating the disease (a woman ill for 12 years became worse after medical treatment [Mark 5 : 26]), and a description of the instantaneous nature of the cure with further evidence of the permanence of the cure (‘taking up the bed’ [Mark 2 : 12], and ‘after a while Jesus met him [man with paralysis for 38 years] in the

Matthew 9 : 27–31; Mark 10 : 46–52 Mark 8 : 22–26 John 9 : 1–41

Temple’ [John 5 : 14]) (Irenaeus 1868) (p 198).

‘‘‘Receive your sight, your faith has saved you’’; and instantly his sight returned to the blind man in Jericho.’ (Luke 18 : 35)

Ocular miracles and their interpretation

‘The blind man at Jericho ‘‘Master let me see again,’’ and replied: ‘‘Go on, your faith has you,’’ and immediately his returned.’ (Mark 10 : 46)

Jesus’ ocular miracles are identified in three incidents. According to the New Testament, Jesus cured blind men in Jericho, Bethsaida and Siloam. These events are described below and discussed thereafter. The blind man at Jericho

With reference to the blind man (Bartimaeus) at Jericho, both Luke and Mark refer to only one blind man, while Matthew mentions two. The former version is assumed here.

said: Jesus saved sight

‘The two blind men at Jericho said, ‘‘Lord, let us have our sight back.’’ Jesus touched their eyes, and immediately their sight returned.’ (Matthew 20 : 34) The blind man at Bethsaida

Similarly, Matthew mentions two blind men, while the rest of the apostles mention one only.

741

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005 ‘Then he touched their eyes saying, ‘‘Your faith deserves it, so let this be done for you,’’ and their sight returned to the two blind men.’ (Matthew 9 : 29) ‘Then putting spittle on his eyes [blind man at Bethsaida], Jesus said, ‘‘Can you see anything? ’’ The man replied, ‘‘I can see people; they look like trees to me’’; then Jesus held his hands on the man’s eyes again and he saw clearly and distinctly.’ (Mark 8 : 22) The blind man at Siloam

‘Jesus spat on the ground, made a paste with the spittle, put this over the eyes of the blind man and said to the man born blind: ‘‘Go and wash in the Pool of Siloam,’’ and the man had his sight restored.’ (John 9) Animated conciliatory vision miracles

explanation

of

The following section conciliates the various versions of the vision miracles based on interpretation of the original Greek Gospels. In the case of the blind man from Jericho, visual recovery after touching the eyes was immediate and not gradual as in the other cases. Moreover, the narratives suggest that the patient had not always been blind and his petition was to regain sight. The account by Matthew additionally hinted that the patient, approaching Jesus unaided, was not totally blind. ‘Jesus stopped, and said, ‘‘Call him.’’ Then they called the blind man, saying to him, ‘‘Take courage! Get up, he is calling you.’’ Throwing off his cloak he jumped up and went to Jesus’ (Micklem 1922) (p 106). Some critics have taken into account the possibility that the visual disability was functional (Micklem 1922) (p 109), and that Jesus manifested a remarkably keen insight into human character, presenting himself as a man of real sympathy and authority (Micklem 1922) (p 5), hence the conclusion that psychotherapy (no drug, no knife) represented his healing avenue (Micklem 1922) (p 6). Robson (1930) narrated similar historical notes about Christ’s means of healing the blind: ‘Rub your eyes with your hands and say, ‘‘In the name of God.’’ So they did that, and lo! They were both standing seeing.’ For the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8 : 22–26), the account translated from

742

the original Greek version of the Gospel reads: ‘So he took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village. Then after spitting on his eyes, he laid his hands on him and asked him if he saw anything. Beginning to see, the man said. At this he laid his hands on his eyes once more’ (Micklem 1922) (p 102). According to Micklem (1922) (p 102), the man had not always been blind. In this narration, Jesus gave his time and attention to the blind man, and in using saliva, he was employing a popular remedy (Preuss 1993). Jesus was not a healing machine; he dealt with patients individually and personally, and not in a mechanical way. The three figures with blindness were healed differently, possibly because the nature of their diseases was different. This is the animated version for the blind man of Siloam: ‘As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth.’ He did not wait to be appealed to by the sufferer; the sight of his wretchedness was enough to move his heart. When the disciples observed his interest in the poor blind beggar sitting by the wayside, they asked: ‘Rabbi, who did sin, this man or his parents, so that he was born blind?’ In the distant past there was a strong belief that diseases were of divine origin and served as punishment. Jesus replied negatively and proceeded to affirm that he was born blind in order that ‘the works of God should be made manifest in him’ (Taylor 1900) (p 358). He added: ‘We must work the works of Him that sent me while it is day.’ Taylor (1900) (p 360) explains: ‘The work must be done at once as there is no time for speculation’, stressing the practical aspect of Jesus’ care versus the speculative attitudes of classical treatment. The details of the miracle are further described: ‘He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and anointed the eyes of the blind man with the clay, and said unto him, ‘‘Go and wash in the pool of Siloam.’’’ He went away, therefore and washed. He went alone because he was accustomed to the streets of Jerusalem and needed no assistance. When he returned, seeing, Jesus said: ‘This is the work of God, so that you believe in Him whom He hath sent.’ While the anointing of the eyes with clay was better perceived as making a seeing eye blind than as

making a blind man see (Taylor 1900) (p 362), it was, perhaps, carried out to strengthen the faith of the man to be cured and to give him something upon which to build and with which to raise his hopes. Or, alternatively, Jesus performed this complex procedure in parallel with the creation of Adam from clay and therefore the blind man received new eyes made of clay (van der Loos 1965 [p 426]; Twelftree 1999). In the healing of the blind man at Siloam, we observe the perfection of the cure: ‘He returned seeing.’ Seeing is a quality which, in all ordinary cases, needs to be learned (colour, form, distance). Whatever Jesus did for the blind man, he evidently did extremely well as the man saw at once (Taylor 1900) (p 364). His neighbours were puzzled after observing the change of expression caused by the opening of his eyes. Investigations by Jewish officials of the family of the blind man confirmed that he had been born blind. The healed blind man concluded on his own: ‘He [Jesus] is a prophet’ (Taylor 1900) (p 366). Furthermore, the Siloam pool was brought into the symbolism: the water of the pool was characteristic of baptismal water, for baptism also represented enlightenment (van der Loos 1965) (p 430). The purpose of the laying on of hands was to make the man realize that something important was happening to him (van der Loos 1965) (p 429). According to Burkill (1973), Jesus healed those born blind (congenital blindness) by the will of God. Valvo (1968) stated that the miracle of curing congenital blindness was two-fold: removing the media opacity and reversing the amblyopia. For some, the miracles of vision in born-blind and blind men make of Jesus a model for eye care professionals, hence the epithet ‘Christus Ophthalmicus’, drawn in parallel to the designation of ‘Christus Medicus’ by Ignatius of Antioch 1900 years ago (Eijk 1999).

The tools of the miracles The encounters of the miracles did not occur in a clinic, and involved no history taking or physical examination. The sick persons came by themselves to meet Jesus in gatherings or on the street; and neither

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005 physical examination nor history taking were necessary as Jesus was able to tell ‘ . . . what a man had in him’ (John 2 : 25); ‘One man there had an illness which had lasted 38 years and when Jesus saw him lying there he knew he had been in this condition for a long time’ (John 5 : 6). Furthermore, Jesus did not employ any medicines (drugs or herbs) (Eusebius 1980) (p 89), but simply used such means as spitting, praying, touching and laying on of hands (Matthew 8 : 3, 9 : 29, 20 : 34), particularly the right hand and certain fingers. Jesus often put his hands on people for healing and blessing, conveying empathy and his awareness of his role as a channel for God’s help (Matthew 19 : 13–15; Mark 8 : 23, 10 : 16; Luke 4 : 40–44, 24 : 50; Acts 6 : 6, 19 : 12, 28 : 8). Jesus’ touch accomplished three purposes: to extend healing power into sick bodies; to convey compassion and solidarity to suffering people, and to extend grace to the sinful. The praying of Jesus, representing yet another means of healing, is also referred to on several occasions in the Gospels. Luke, in particular, stated that Jesus retired to pray (Luke 5 : 16, 9 : 18), and some miracles were regarded as answers to prayers. On other occasions, Jesus prayed or looked towards heaven and pronounced a blessing (Matthew 14 : 19), or looked towards heaven and sighed (Mark 7 : 34). John (11 : 41–42) refers to the prayer of Jesus before the resuscitation of Lazarus, and Goldstein (1950) mentions an apocryphal Gospel reporting that Jesus spoke the Ineffable Name of God over birds of clay for them to fly into the air, as well as over a millstone placed upon the waters, causing it to float like a boat (Goldstein 1950; van der Loos 1965). According to Robson (1930), the prayer by which Jesus was curing the sick was: ‘O God, Thou art the God of those who are in heaven and those who are on earth; there is no god in them other than Thee and Thou art the almighty One . . . and Thou art the King . . . and Thou art the Judge . . . I ask Thee by Thy noble names. Verily Thou art omnipotent.’ Cairns (1930) regarded such miracles as ‘the answers of God to the prayers’ of Jesus.

Critical evaluation of the miracles Historical evidence

Like all other historical events, the credibility of a religious miracle should be viewed in accordance with rules of evidence, weighing factors such as the veracity of the recorded account and the credibility of the eyewitnesses to the miracle event. While some critics have expressed the opinion that the miracles may have been ‘inflated’, especially those cited in the Gospel of John (van der Loos 1965) (p 184), with a bit of earnest investigation, we find the eyewitness accounts of the four Gospel writers and various contemporary historians of the miracles of Jesus to be competent, and their testimony trustworthy. Naturally, the Christians wished to adorn their Messiah with greater power than that possessed by the prophets and miracle-workers of the Old Testament (van der Loos 1965) (p 21). Nevertheless, the witnesses, simple men of character, were still alive when the written accounts were published and distributed; only a short period elapsed between the miracles and the writing, too short to allow the development of myths. The apostles were considered credible and reliable and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their testimony (Irenaeus 1868) (p 258). Many hostile Jewish religious leaders witnessed the miracles of Jesus, but few apparently disputed their occurrences (Goldstein 1950). Furthermore, the number of contemporary historians who narrated events related to the early Church and the miracles is not few. Among others, these historians included Josephus (37–100 AD), Africanus (165–225 AD), Philo (30 BC55 AD), Clement of Alexandria (150–217 AD), Hegesippus (?–175 AD), Papias (70–163 AD), Ignatius (?107 AD), Irenaeus (120– 189 AD), and Eusebius (260–339 AD) (Eusebius 1980; Introduction). The earliest historical testimony by Flavius Josephus stated: ‘At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if at least he may be called a man, for he did miraculous works and was the teacher of men who gladly received the truth’ (Josephus 1979). The work of Irenaeus is one of the most precious remains of early Christian antiquity (Irenaeus 1868)

(p 18). According to Irenaeus (Irenaeus 1868) (p 297), Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of powers, wonders and signs, which ‘God did by him’. Similarly, Eusebius (1980) (p 85) stated that: ‘Jesus Christ became famous among all men because of his wonderworking power, and led to him myriads even of those in foreign lands were far remote from Judea, in the hope of healing from diseases and from all kinds of sufferings.’ Moreover, one of the prominent historians of the first millennium AD, Tabari (839–923 AD) mentioned that Jesus healed born-blind conditions which had no medical cure, implying that he was not a physician but a prophet (Tabari 1984) (p 105). New Testament miracles as a continuum to Old Testament miracles

Miracles fill the history of religions and figure quite largely in the Old Testament, among them the miracles of Moses (crossing of the Red Sea), Elijah (several medical miracles), and Elisha (Syrian army blinded) (II Kings 6 : 18–20). Moreover, the Old Testament speaks of the blind and of the special protection they enjoyed (Mansour et al. 2004), prophesying on a number of occasions that God would make the blind see (Psalms 146 : 8; Isaiah 29 : 18, 35 : 5, 42 : 7, 42 : 16, 42 : 18). In the prophecy of Isaiah ‘... then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped’, the Old Testament specifically speaks of the miracles of the Messiah (Isaiah 35 : 5). Hence, the miracles of Jesus did not take place in a world that might have regarded his deeds as new and unprecedented, but rather in a world that was miracleminded and imbued with belief in miracles. Jesus performed miracles to satisfy the desire for miracles that was prevalent in his day, but, when all is said and done, the real significance of the miracles lies in their symbolism (van der Loos 1965) (p 15). According to Mauthner (1963), the miracles of the New Testament were not as unreasonable as those of the Old Testament; the major difference concerned the punitive nature of the miracles in the Old Testament (Popp et al. 2003). Eusebius (1980) (p 39) (260–339 AD) wrote: ‘No one should think of Jesus as a novelty. But that no one may suppose that his teaching was new and strange,’

743

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005 implying Jesus’ mission to be a continuation of Old Testament prophecies and his miracles a continuation of Old Testament miracles.

Interpretations The Christian perspective: miracles and faith in healing

faith

in

A key belief in Christianity is that God is sovereign and believers trust in God’s goodness. In one of Jesus’ miracles, a woman touched the garments of Jesus and became well. Jesus said, ‘Your faith has healed you’ (Matthew 9 : 22). The Christian perspective asserts that there is a greater meaning in illness, of which humans may not be aware. When faced with illness, some question God’s existence and benevolence, but many pray for miraculous cures as a sign of God’s authority. These people believe that miracles can occur and believe that God works through human ingenuity and technology to cure illness and relieve suffering (Dawe 1965; Pauls & Hutchinson 2002).

The Jewish perspective: sorcery

According to the Talmud, Jesus brought his magic powers from Egypt (van der Loos 1965) (p 140); ‘Jesus practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy’ (Sanhedrin 43a, 107b; Sotah 47a) (Nashim 1936). The sorcerer is one who insists on exact paraphernalia, such as demanding particular properties for different kinds of magic (Sanhedrin 67b) (Nashim 1936). The atheist perspective: mythology

According to the atheist point of view, the miracles belong to the realm of fantasy. According to some, the miracles of Jesus were a ‘showman’s publicity stunt’ (van der Loos 1965) (p 9). Most of the miracles were humane, as Jesus refused to perform purely epideictic or ostentatious miracles (van der Loos 1965) (p 18), and did not request or accept payments for his benefactions (van der Loos 1965) (p 197). Other atheists describe Jesus’ miracles as allegories, mythical, mythological fancies, or as the distillation of legends (van der Loos 1965) (pp 10–14).

Conclusion The scientific perspective: psychotherapy

The underlying natures of the diseases involved in Jesus’ miracles are seldom, if ever, described, thereby hampering any precise diagnosis. The diseases are labelled by their most striking symptoms or manifestations: blindness, convulsions, palsy, etc., but this does not tell us anything about their actual nature. Some historians have attempted to analyse and interpret the terms used for diseases in the Gospels from the Greek versions (‘nosos’, ‘astheneia’, ‘arrostos’, ‘malakia’) as well as from the Syriac versions (van der Loos 1965) (p 102), but to no avail. The diseases were of chronic nature, excluded surgical entities (fractures, etc.) and organic diseases (pulmonary, stomach, cancer, infection), and their general descriptions open the way for many interpretations. Some authors have ascribed them to mental illnesses (Fenner 1930), and others to hysterical reactions (van der Loos 1965) (p 104). Hence, the so-called miracles represented, according to some (van der Loos 1965) (p 17), the beneficial effect on the nervous system of the sick person (psychotherapy).

744

In conclusion, the present study reveals the accounts of miracles in the Gospels to be historically reliable. A miracle is a direct act of God in which He reveals himself to mankind, with an intention. It is a new observable reality, which can only be fully understood by faith. The evangelists told us of the events that occurred and described those events. The various interpretations of these historically documented phenomena lie in the contexts of faith in miracles, faith in sorcery, mythology, and psychotherapy. The method of the literature search

This study was based on material drawn from The Jerusalem Bible in English (Alexander 1974); the History of Ophthalmology (Hirschberg 1982); various history books, in particular those written in the first millennium AD, and especially those written in the first three centuries (in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian), and articles (in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian) retrieved by Medline in a search conducted up to December 2004 using the following

key words: New Testament or Christ and blindness or eye disease.

References Alexander J (ed) (1974): The Jerusalem Bible. London: Darton, Longman & Todd 4, 112. Amundsen DW (1989): New Testament times: medicine, miracle, and magic in New Testament times. Bull Hist Med 63: 140– 144. Basta LL (1976): Sorcery and scientific medicine in ancient Egypt. J Okla State Med Assoc 69: 173–180. Burkill TA (1973): Miraculous healing in the Gospels. Cent Afr J Med 19: 99–100. Cairns DS (1930): The faith that rebels. A reexamination of the miracles of Jesus. 4th edn. London: Student Christian Movement Press 80–85. Dawe DG (1965): The place of Jesus in the history of medicine. Minn Med 48: 346. Eijk WJ (1999): Carrying on the healing mission of Christ: medical ethics in the Christian tradition. Acta Neurochir (Suppl) 74: 53–58. Eusebius (1980): The Ecclesiastical History. Lake K (trans). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Fenner F (1930): Die Krankheit im Neuen Testament: eine Religions- und MedizinGeschichtliche Untersuchung. Leipzig: JC Hinrich 74–75. Friedenwald H (1944): The Jews and Medicine. Vol. 1. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press 101. Ginsberg L (1913): The Legends of the Jews. IV. Bible Times and Characters from Joshua to Esther. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America 208. Goldstein M (1950): Jesus in the Jewish Tradition. New York: Macmillan 147–179. Grundmann W (1932): Der Begriff in der Neutestamentlichen Gedankenwelt. Stuttgart: W Kohlhammer 78. Gwilt JR (1986): Biblical ills and remedies. J R Soc Med 79: 738–741. Hirschberg J (1982): The History of Ophthalmology. Vol. 1. Blodi FC (trans). Bonn: Wayenborgh 77, 168, 233. Irenaeus (1868): The Writings of Irenaeus. Roberts A & Rambaut WHIrenaeus (1868): The Writings of Irenaeus. (trans). Edinburgh: T Clark. Josephus III (1979): The Jewish War, Books IVVII. Thackeray HSJ (trans), Goold GP (ed). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 648–650. Kee HC (1983): Miracle in the Early Christian World. A Study in Sociohistorical Method. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press 253–289. Khalidi T (2001): The Muslim Jesus: Sayings and Stories in Islamic Literature. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press 125.

ACTA OPHTHALMOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA 2005 van der Loos H (1965): The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to the New Testament. Vol. 8. Leiden, The Netherlands: EJ Brill. Mansour AM, Gold D, Salti HI, Sbeity ZM (2004): The eye in the Old Testament and Talmud. Surv Ophthalmol 49: 446–453. Mauthner F (1963): Der Atheismus und seine Geschichte im Abendlande. Hildesheim, Germany: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung 417. Micklem ER (1922): Miracles and the New Psychology: a Study in the Healing Miracles of the New Testament. London: Oxford University Press. Nashim S (ed) (1936): The Babylonian Talmud. Epstein I (trans). London: Soncino Press. Pauls M & Hutchinson RC (2002): Bioethics for clinicians: 28. Protestant bioethics. CMAJ 166: 339–343. Popp C, Luborsky L, Descoteaux J, Diguer L, Andrusyna TP, Kirk D & Cotsonis G (2003): Relationships between God and

people in the Bible. Part II: The New Testament, with comparisons with the Torah. Psychiatry 66: 285–307. Preuss J (1993): Biblical and Talmudic Medicine. Rosner F (ed). Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson 277. Robson J (1930): Christ in Islam. New York: Dutton E. New York 34–37. Shimkin NI (1935): Blindness, eye diseases and their causes in the land of Canaan. Br J Ophthalmol 19: 548–576. Tabari A (1984): Les prophetes et les rois: de salomon a la chute des Sassanides. Bernard P (ed), Zotenberg H (trans). Paris: Sindbad 49. Taylor WM (1900): The Miracles of Our Saviour. 5th edn. New York: AC Armstrong. Twelftree GH (1999): Jesus the Miracle Worker, a Historical and Theological Study. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press 301303. Valvo A (1968): Les guerisons des aveugles de l’Evangile, nouvelles acquisitions

scientifiques. Ann Oculist 201: 1214– 1222. Wagemans M & Bijsterveld PV (1988): The French Egyptian campaign and its effects on ophthalmology. Doc Ophthalmol 68: 135–144.

Received on March 7th, 2005. Accepted on June 5th, 2005. Correspondence: Ahmad M. Mansour MD Clinical Professor Department of Ophthalmology American University of Beirut Beirut Lebanon Tel: þ 96 11 374625 Fax: þ 96 11 744464 Email: [email protected]

745