Leprosy and the Bible

Lev 14:33-55, basically stating that clothing, stones and a house could all have leprosy. Now everyone knows that none of these can have leprosy, however I was once informed that the bible was not actually refering to leprosy, but another disease (I have forgotten it's name). Are there any diseases that can affect both an organism and a stone? And if the bible is in fact refering to another disease (or something other than leprosy) why was it translated as leprosy? This would appear to be either a contradiction or an error to me.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

A possible apologetic would be that the items in question could be contaminated and therefore spread the disease in question. So avoidance would be a practical thing.However, I haven't actually heard this being claimed. My guess is that this is just part of the ritually pure/unclean customs, like circumcision and not eating pork, that served to set the Hebrews apart from the other local peoples.

leviticus is largely concerned with ritual cleanliness.one of my bibles (the first one at hand) says "a mark of leprosy" which could be of human origin, marking the inhabitants as unclean? i'm not sure, i'd have to read a bit more.

Again, a stone cannot be contaminated with leprosy.Lev 14:34 When ye be come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession, and I put the plague of leprosy in a house of the land of your possession; 35 And he that owneth the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, It seemeth to me there is as it were a plague in the house..........40 Then the priest shall command that they take away the stones in which the plague is...It appears that whoever authored these verses believes otherwise.

I'm quite sure that is exactly what they believed. And at the time, it was not an unreasonable belief.No one understood desease, or how desease was transmitted, what vectors were involved or more than the fact that it was a horrible thing to have and frightening.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

in my reading (i'm way behind where i should be for class) i just came to the first passage in the bible, in leviticus, concerning leprosy. (the chapter before)the note at the bottom of the page says: so the question is: what is the bible actually talking about? the modern hebrew scholars don't seem to think it's actually leprosy, as the term is general. is it a real disease, or a mythical affliction from god?the word itself seems to just mean "skin disease" and might include everything from pimples to boils to burns, so long as they are infected. so what infects human beings as well as stone?maybe it's talking about fungus.my jps translation does not say "leprosy" in that verse, btw, it says "eruptive plague" and with the description of green or red streaks, it sounds like it could be talking about a fungal outbreak.

And that brings us back to my original question, if sara'ath is translated more simply as disease, then what disease can effect both a living organism and a non-living rock? Fungus is not a disease, so that would not be what the author was refering to.

strictly speaking, fungus is a contagious infirmity or aberation of the skin, and causes the person dis-ease. by almost any definition, fungal infections can be called a form of disease.you also have to remember we're not dealing with modern english definitions, we're dealing with ancient hebrew concepts. fungus seems to be the prime candidate from the reading of the text.

What was Tzaraas? In this Jewish teaching they don't look at tzaraas as a disease but an affliction sent by God.Here is a Jewish perspective of "leprosy" including comments on the house. This link on Hanson's Disease or leprosy gives the following possibility of how the term leprosy came about for use in the Bible. The definition given for "tzaraas" in Strong's concordance concerning buildings or clothing calls it mildew or mold. Given the description in Lev 14:33-53, what is being described is ridding a house of mold or mildew.From what I have read, "tzaraas" seems to be a general or generic term not a specific disease.When you use the word "tzaraas" in the final part of Lev 14, as done in "The Complete Jewish Bible", you can see the generic feel of the word.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

So then are the translators of the bible not divinly inspired? I thought the gist was that the authors of the stories in the bible were divinly inspired, as well as the translators of it, the Redactor, etc. But if the translators mistakenly translated the word as leprosy instead of fungus or mold or mildew or skin diesease or plague or sores or general affliction or whatever, it would seem a mistake was made. If it was a general term why not just translate it into something to the effect of impurities? Also, I'm confussed as to which word was originally used, sara'ath or tzaraas. And, how could the same word be used for both a disease and also mold or mildew? And if Strong's translates it as mold or mildew when refering to a house having it what does Strong's translate it to when it refers to a person having it? Can a person suffer from mildew?

The writers, authors, editors, redactors, translators and compilers of the Bible were and are people. That is why there is no single canon.The Bible was written by people of a given age, with the knowledge and limitations, preconcieved notions and prejudices of their age. Leprosy was a rotting sickness. Mold and mildew did the same to garments and leather. Fungus growing on wood broke it down. Wipe the moss from rocks and you find weathering beneath.They all showed the same symptoms and it was not unreasonable at the time to consider them all manifestations of the same thing.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I think it would be unreasonable for God to not know the difference between leprosy and mildew. Heck I would expect my child to know the difference between the two and she is only 10!

Likely GOD does.GOD did not write the Bible, men did.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

So then are the translators of the bible not divinly inspired?

---

Apparently not. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that should these words be translated into another language they would never deviate from the original (or anything to that effect). The languages translated are dead languages. (Ever try to read old English?)

quote:

---

But if the translators mistakenly translated the word as leprosy instead of fungus or mold or mildew or skin diesease or plague or sores or general affliction or whatever, it would seem a mistake was made.

---

Depends on your translation. My NIV doesn't use the word "leprosy" in Leviticus, but it is used in the later part of the OT and the NT. It may have been attached to a specific condition by the time the later or first centuries rolled around. Could have been a slang term also.Just in my lifetime the word "gay" has gone from being used to denote a joyous mood or bright colors to being a slang word for a homosexual and stupid (sorry Lam). "Grass" has gone from being the plant we have to mow to a slag word for marijuana and my daughter has some words I don't think I want to know what they mean.I'm not sure why we think that the people in the Bible remained static for hundreds of years, but I'm sure they had slang, euphemisms, etc. These things change over time, but once something is written down, it is stuck in its time and the world moves on.I have some cassette tapes with the Bob Hope radio show. Alot of his jokes were centered around the war and the people of the time. My parents will laugh and I'm just lost. It's like being on the outside of an inside joke.So do translators interpret what they think was meant and use the best word that applies from the current culture or do they translate verbatim? If they interpret, then we have to trust them. If they translate it verbatim, all of it may not make sense.Like they say when they've tried to explain why an inside joke is so funny and you just don't see it. You had to be there!

quote:

---

Can a person suffer from mildew?

---

You're being too specific. It isn't that the people had mildew, but they had something on their skin that behaved in the same manner as they saw the mildew behave or vice versa.

quote:

---

which word was originally used, sara'ath or tzaraas

---

I don't know Hebrew or old Hebrew so this is the best I can do.
Sara'ath is the transliterated word.
Tzara'as is what the Jews call it today.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.