Jesus and Asklepios

JESUS AND ASKLEPIOS

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................... 4

2. WHAT IS IT ABOUT? ............................................................................................................. 5

2.1 THE HEGELIAN MODEL 5

2.2 ESTABLISHING AN IDENTITY 6

2.3 GROUP PROPAGANDA 7

3. GROUPS ................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1 WHAT IS A GROUP? 7

3.2 WHY DO PEOPLE JOIN GROUPS? 7

3.3 HOW IS A GROUP FORMED? 8

3.4 GROUP COHESIVENESS 9

4. LEADERS ............................................................................................................................... 10

4.1 WHAT IS LEADERSHIP? 10

4.1.1 The charismatic leader 11

5. THE CONTENDERS.............................................................................................................. 12

5.1 INTERPRETATIVE FRAMEWORK: THE HERO-FIGURE IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY 12

5.1.1 Hero cults 12

5.1.2 The use of myth 14

5.1.3 Charismatic leaders and hero worship 15

5.1.4 The hero scheme 15

5.2 ASKLEPIOS 15

5.2.1 The name 15

5.2.2 The person 16

5.2.3 The myth 16

5.3 JESUS 17

5.3.1 The name 17

5.3.2 The person 17

5.3.3 The myth 17

5.4 COMPARING HEROES 17

6. HEALINGS AND MIRACLES .............................................................................................. 18

6.1 HYDROPSY 20

6.1.1 The texts 20

6.1.2 The disease 20

7. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 21

9. WORKS CONSULTED .......................................................................................................... 23

JESUS AND ASKLEPIOS

ABSTRACT

The study of myth is not just indulgence. It appears that

myth provides us with information that is based on facts

that can be deemed historical, albeit interpreted facts. In

addition, myths can be informative of the state of scientific

insight of the time frame in which they functioned. They

are also existentially important in that they have an

etiological, integrative or explanatory function with regard

to important questions of existence and ultimate

destination. It is from this perspective that the present study

is undertaken.

The basic tenet is that the portrayal of Jesus as miracle worker

and healer is not unique in the social and historical time frame of

the first century Mediterranean world. The emphasis on his

prowess in this sphere was intended to rival him to the Graeco-

Roman healer-god, Asklepios, in order to present him (Jesus) as

superior and therefore a leader worth following and believing in.

In this way the Jesus myth had a propaganda and identity-forming

motif.

1. Introduction

Why is there such emphasis in the gospels of the New Testament on Jesus as healer and

miracle-worker? Should one take that portrayal of Jesus to be purely theologically

motivated?

I believe not. Other, much more mundane matters also had a role to play. Matters such as

survival in a frequently hostile environment. This was pursued through the establishment of

a Christian group identity over and against philosophical, political, religious and secular

groups in the immediate vicinity.

Furthermore, it is possible that the extent of acculturation of first-century Palestine to the

Graeco-Roman culture is not fully appreciated in our own minds. Present-day examples

that could serve as analogy for the process of acculturation are countries that were

subjected for any considerable length of time to the influence of a dominant foreign culture,

such as South Africa, Quebec, the former colonies of Spain and Portugal, etc. To take

South Africa as example: In the 300-odd years of European presence in this country, the

initially mainly Dutch population underwent various influences. Of these the involvement

of England in the history of this land in both the military and the cultural spheres had a

most profound influence, notwithstanding fierce opposition by the Afrikaans community

that was evolving at the time. The net result of that influence is inter alia that many

Afrikaans people today are fully bilingual; have an appreciation for the works of

Shakespeare, Keats and Shelley; have knowledge of the works of Hume, Locke and

Newton; have a passion for rugby and cricket; have learnt much about snobbishness and

class difference, and acquired a peculiar habit of eating their food with their forks downside

up.

Palestine at the time of the formation of the New Testament was subject to much the same

sort of conditions as described above. There has already been a lengthy period of Greek

dominance in the area. The Greeks consciously advanced their culture in the areas occupied

by Alexander the Great (cf Foerster 1955:32; Lohse 1974:10-11). The Seleucid and

Ptolemaean rulers continued this policy after his death (cf Lohse 1974:12). Whole cities

were built in occupied areas as cultural extensions of Greece itself. Even in existing cities

Greeks and Greek culture got a foothold (cf Lohse 1974:11). Greek religion and philosophy

was practiced there. The Greek language acquired the status of lingua franca and language

of record in the Greek sphere of influence. Comparing modern-day analogies it is therefore

not only conceivable but also highly likely that the people of Palestine were bilingual,

speaking their native Aramaic tongue as well as being fully conversant in Greek. While

they guarded their own culture and religion jealously, they were nevertheless influenced by

Graeco-Roman culture through the proximity of cities such as Sepphoris. We find traces of

the attire and ideals of cynic philosophers in the description of the sending out of the

seventy-two (Lk 10:4-12). We find Paul quoting from the Greek poets. We find parallels

between the ethics of the paraenetic sections in the letters of the New Testament and the

ideas of contemporary pagan moral philosophers such as Seneca, Dio Chrysostom and

Musonius Rufus. Philosophers and orators of the time expound upon several themes (Greek

topoi, Latin loci). We find discourses ‘On friendship,’ ‘On household management,’ ‘On

sexual conduct,’ ‘On brotherly love.’

2. What is it about?

2.1 The Hegelian model

Some studies about Jesus focus mainly on the Judaistic cultural setting as interpretative

framework for his words and deeds. Others focus mainly on the Graeco-Roman or

Hellenistic cultural setting. Which is the better approach? According to cultural

anthropologists the material acculturation of the subjugated or ‘lesser’ culture to the

values of the dominant culture takes place relatively quickly. That happens through the

acceptance of status indicators such as clothes, houses, proper conduct, proper speech,

etc. Spiritual acculturation - i.e. assimilation of intellectual, conceptual, philosophical or

religious values and theorems - however, takes much longer. Based on these observations

I believe that the application of the Hegelian scheme of thesis::antithesis → synthesis is

the appropriate approach in determining cultural influences on the portrayal of Jesus.

In some areas the synthesis between Judaism and Hellenism must already have been

established, notably the mastering of the Greek language and assimilation to social aspects

that can be classified as part of material acculturation. In respect of especially their faith,

however, the Jews were and stayed vehemently opposed to the Greek and Roman

multiplicity of gods. Jewish monotheism can therefore be regarded as the (Hegelian) thesis,

while the Graeco-Roman polytheism functions as the antithesis.

Magic, healing and religion was inextricably linked to one another in the thought processes

of antiquity. I believe that through the emphasis on Jesus’ healing activity he is portrayed

as rival and superior of the leaders and patrons of philosophical and religious groups, in

particular the personage of Asklepios, the Graeco-Roman healer-god. On the basis of this

point of departure I contend that the portrayal of Jesus as healer and miracle-worker

becomes the synthesis in accordance with the Hegelian scheme:

Jewish monotheism::Graeco-Roman polytheism →Jesus, Son of God.

The tension between Jewish monotheism and Graeco-Roman polytheism is, in New

Testament terms, resolved by the figure of Jesus, identified as Son of God. This model

provides the conceptual basis for the fact that Jesus is painted, with subtle strokes of the

brush, as rival and superior of Asklepios.

2.2 Establishing an identity

Why would anybody bother to go to the trouble of creating elaborate stories in which Jesus

seems to be competing with a prominent figure like Asklepios? To take up a previous point

(cf Introduction above): In order to survive in a frequently hostile environment the

Christian communities needed to establish a unique group identity. Such an identity hinges

firstly on a prominent leader around whom the group can rally, and also on the safe haven

that the group provides for its members in a cold and dangerous world. In order to become

such a haven, the group needs to adhere to a distinct code of conduct that identifies it as

different and unique. They also need to have a clearly defined goal and a common purpose.

Efforts in the formation of such a unique identity can be classified under mainly two

headings: the first is organizational, the second conceptual. As far as organization is

concerned, very specific ground rules had to be established for the post-Easter Christian

community:

Rituals and pre- and proscribed conduct were instituted that would serve in remem-

brance of their leader, would strengthen the cohesion within the group and would

identify them as unique.

Personnel had to be appointed to oversee the group and keep them intact.

Disciplinary measures had to be formulated and applied to dissident or apostatized

members.

Conceptually, the content of their faith had to be agreed upon. This development

established the unique character of the community, because the primary content of their

faith did not take the form of a philosophy or a creed, but of a person: Jesus of Nazareth.

Inevitably, of course, to be recognized and proclaimed not simply as Jesus the carpenter,

but as Jesus the hero. The Son of God. The one who can contend with any and all other

leaders or gods, and come out victorious. The one in whom the grace and compassion of

God himself is embodied.

2.3 Group propaganda

A group or cult leader is usually understood, revered and portrayed by his/her followers as

a charismatic, commanding, powerful and persuasive figure, with these attributes variously

emphasized according to need. I shall therefore start by describing the need for and the

formation of a group. Secondly, we shall have a closer look at the profile of the leader-

figure, constructing an interpretative model based on the assumption that the leader was

modelled on the well-known Greek hero-figure. The model will be applied to Asklepios

and to Jesus, taking into consideration their conformity to and divergence from the model.

Thirdly, a model of the healing event will be applied to a specific healing performed by

both Jesus and Asklepios, namely the healing of dropsy (or hydropsy), to determine what

measure of equivalence exists between them.

To summarize: Jesus’ role as healer will be interpreted in terms of:

a socio-religious frame of reference, referring to the peculiar Jewish-Hellenistic

social and spiritual environment at the time, and

An identity-seeking personal or collective frame of self-understanding pertaining to

the early Christian community.

The hypothesis is that Jesus is cast as rival of Asklepios in the role of healer, magician and

miracle-worker. This is done through a manipulative literary construct in which he is

actually modelled on the mythical figure of Asklepios himself. This requires that Jesus’

healings should be interpreted within the socio-religious frame of reference of first-century

Hellenistic life and according to the personal self-understanding amongst Christians that is

mediated by that (socio-religious) frame of reference.

3. Groups

3.1 What is a group?

Most social psychologists agree with the definition that a group consists of ‘two or more

interacting persons who share common goals, have a stable relationship, are somehow

interdependent, and perceive that they are in fact part of a group’ (Paulus 1989 in Baron &

Byrne 1991:437). A group is thus not simply a random collection of individuals who

happen to be at the same place at the same time. Every individual has to meet the criteria

defined above before such a collection can be called a ‘group’ in the social-scientific sense

of the word.

3.2 Why do people join groups?

Baron & Byrne (1991:439) provide the following reasons for people to join groups:

Groups help us satisfy important psychological or social needs, such as those for

belonging or for receiving attention or affection.

Groups help us achieve various goals that we cannot attain by ourselves.

Group membership provides us with knowledge and information that we would not

otherwise have access to.

Group membership contributes to the establishment of a positive social identity.

Applying each of these reasons to the early Christian community, we can make the

following construct:

The first converts to the message of redemption and compassion relating to the person of

Jesus of Nazareth came from the lower socio-economic strata of society. These existed of

the impoverished, the socially destitute, and the marginalised on account of family

delineation, profession or happenstance. Stegemann (1984:18; See also Gillman 1991:18-

22) describes them as follows:

the poor are destitute, always close to starvation, often identified along

with the disabled and the severely ill, poorly clothed, and dependent on

the help of strangers.

Based on their material and social position they developed very strong emotional and

spiritual needs: the need for acceptance in spite of what they were branded to be; the need

for love, compassion and caring; the need to be convinced that their lives were worth while

in spite of the appearance to the contrary; and, finally, the need to be assured that they were

not rejected by God.

In time, of course, reality showed that the abovementioned needs are not only the

prerogative of the poor. Even well to do people can become spiritually lost, marginalised

within themselves, with the same emotional and spiritual needs. Many people joined this

new group with its message that God favoured no one above the other but had sent his Son

to proclaim his saving grace for all people, irrespective of social standing and manmade

taboos.

The primary goal of the group was to provide a new kind of family where the values of

unconditional caring and love for one another were acted out. In this family God himself

was the caring father and everyone else became each other’s brothers and sisters in a fictive

kinship relation similar to that of the extended family. As individuals they could never

attain this, but within the group their goal came to be realized. Within the group the

members shared and acquired knowledge about other members and eventually about

similar communities in other towns and cities. They also shared thoughts and knowledge

about God and their experiences within the faith. In this way a body of material (scripture;

artifacts) and custom (liturgy; charity) came into existence that later took a central place in

the definition of the church.

Finally, the group provided in a very important need of its members, namely the need for

identity. As adherents of ‘The Way’ they were soon called Christians, and thence started

the more formal structuring of their group.

3.3 How is a group formed?

Groups do not fall from the sky. They move through several stages of development. The

following table illustrates these various stages (Baron & Byrne 1991:440, based on a

suggestion by Tuckman & Jensen 1977):

All these stages, except for the last one, can be identified in the process of the formation of

the early church. Together with the reasons for joining groups identified in 3.2 above, they

provide us with a better understanding of the initial stages of the church, and of the social

frame within which a leader with certain traits would be important.

3.4 Group cohesiveness

There are four factors that influence cohesiveness in a group (Baron & Byrne 1991:443):

First, the greater the cost of getting into the group, the higher members’ attraction to

it.

Second, groups facing an external threat or severe competition are higher in

cohesiveness.

Third, groups that are relatively small are more cohesive than larger groups.

Fourth, groups that have a record of success are more cohesive.

The first, second and third of these factors are clearly applicable to the apostles and to the

early church, as we know from history. The fourth factor, a record of success, is more

complex. Initially it seemed as if the group was headed for total annihilation and oblivion.

They were persecuted, their leader was killed, and they had little prospect of succeeding in

their goals. Their record was one of failure, rather than success. However, the group did not

adjourn - it persisted. Why? Because of faith. They combated the perception of failure by

proclaiming the resurrection of their leader from the dead, and secondly by constructing a

myth around him, building a fiction according to which his whole life, from birth to his

ascension into heaven, was a success story - a total victory, as opposed to the perceived

opposite. So Jesus was portrayed as stronger than the powers of evil and greater than the

gods. This manifested especially in his ability to heal - an ability in which he was measured

against one of the most widely revered gods of all time, namely the Graeco-Roman healer-

god Asklepios. However, this victory was hidden but to the eyes of faith, and faith was

only to be found within the group.

One of the most important cohesive factors in group formation is the establishment of a

unique identity for the group with which all its members can identify. This identity can be

grounded in various factors. I wish to concentrate on two, which I regard as the most

important. The first has to do with the external conduct and recognisability of a group.

Wayne Meeks (1993:36, 179) argues convincingly that it was the morality of the early

Christians that identified them as an autonomous and unique group amongst several socio-

religious groupings in first-century Palestine. The second is a central and common belief or

purpose. This was provided by the person of Jesus of Nazareth, proclaimed to be the Son of

God. The history of success, one of the cohesive factors referred to above, was therefore

founded in the mythological interpretation of the person of their leader.

4. Leaders

Many persons believe that a group without an effective leader is

worse than no group at all; they would do better, in terms of

reaching key goals, on their own (Baron & Byrne 1991:467).

4.1 What is leadership?

The measure of the effectiveness of a leader is directly related to what social scientists call

influence. Therefore leadership is defined as ‘The process through which one member of a

group (its leader) influences other group members toward the attainment of specific group

goals’ (Hollander 1995).

The description of an actual leader or the psychological profile of generalized leaders is not

the same as the literary casting of such a leader for ideological purposes. The two should be

carefully differentiated for the purpose of analysis. The different gospels are a case in point.

Each of the authors of the Gospels portrayed Jesus as leader in such a way that emphasis is

placed on those aspects of his leadership that would further their own ideological goals. So,

for instance, in Luke-Acts he is painted as the representative of God who, by his own

conduct and teaching, demonstrates an encompassing compassion for all people, but

especially those that are socially marginalised and rejected. His actions, words and

discussions are carefully chosen to further the aim of breaking the particularistic constraints

of Judaism and universalizing the church. Such literary use could perhaps be termed

leadership by proxy, where the historically influential figure of Jesus is employed to

influence the church (group) at a later time.

Baron & Byrne (1991:467) pose the question whether some people are born to lead. Great

leaders, it seems, possess key traits that set them apart from other people. According to the

trait theory such key characteristics remain stable over time and across different groups.

This implies that great leaders share certain characteristics regardless of when and where

they lived or their precise role in history.

The trait theory has not been strongly confirmed. Research over time has failed to produce

a shortlist of key traits shared by all leaders, and the conclusion was reached that leaders do

not differ from followers in clear and consistent ways. However, recent studies indicate that

there is some measurable difference between leaders and followers in aspects such as self-

confidence, achievement motivation, dominance and intelligence (cf Baron & Byrne

1991:468). There is one important aspect of personality that seems to relate to actual

leadership, namely self-monitoring. This is not a unitary dimension. It is multifaceted.

Basically, however, it relates to two major factors:

social sensitivity, by which is meant sensitivity for the reactions of others;

acting, whereby the leader is able to modify his/her behaviour to various situations.

Baron & Byrne (1991:469) indicate that the higher individuals were in self-monitoring, the

higher their rating as leader. From these representative results we may tentatively deduce

that the same equivalence between self-monitoring and leadership was found in ancient

times. Figures such as Jesus and Asklepios would, considering the self-monitoring

associated with the healing activity, qualify for high regard as leaders.

However, there is another phenomenon with regard to leadership that may furnish us with a

more suitable model. This is the figure of the charismatic leader.

4.1.1 The charismatic leader

Through time we have record of certain individuals who were able to change the attitudes

or conduct of their followers. So successful were they that they can be described as agents

of social change, ‘transforming entire societies through their visions of a new order’ (Baron

& Byrne 1991:469). Careful analysis of such charismatic leaders shows the following

characteristics of behaviour:

1. A forceful and compelling indictment of reigning conditions within a society or organization,

suggesting that these conditions are intolerable.

2. A vision of another, better society, and the successful and emotion-provoking transference of this vision

to the followers.

3. A willingness to risk everything and to take unconventional actions in order to reach the goals. Coupled

with the social skill of being able to ‘read’ a person’s feelings and to adjust quickly to a situation, such

unconventional actions become a powerful instrument of persuasion wielded by charismatic leaders.

Baron & Byrne (1991:469) define the charismatic leader as follows: ‘In essence, they are

individuals with a powerful message, a stirring personal style, and the interpersonal skills

necessary for translating this combination into a major force for change.’ From an

experiment that was conducted to determine and differentiate the conduct of a charismatic

leader compared to structuring or considerate styles, certain characteristics appeared:

a) Charismatic leaders stated an overarching goal, communicated high expectations for performance, and

expressed great confidence in their followers.

b) They demonstrated high levels of dynamism and energy.

It was found that such charismatic leaders offer both substance and style: they capture and

hold the interest and enthusiasm of followers, and encourage high levels of effort and

output among them (cf Baron & Byrne 1991:471).

This description fits Jesus perfectly. As overarching goal he enthused people to seek the

Kingdom of God, i.e., to turn in faith to God who will bring meaning into their lives. He

communicated to them that this goal would need high levels of performance from each and

everyone of them, preaching the good news of reprieve from hopelessness and death, and

demonstrating their own commitment through sustained high morals.

Does it also fit Asklepios? This question is more difficult to answer. We know very little

about the historical life of Asklepios. Such historical facts have disappeared in obscurity

and left us with only the ‘facts’ of myth. One might therefore argue that these qualities are

part of the myth rather than the person. However, it is highly unlikely that a hero myth

would have developed around some obscure, unknown citizen of antiquity. The fact that a

myth is built on a historical kernel (cf 5.1.1) suggests that the historical persons themselves

exhibited these qualities. That is exactly why the myths initially formed around them. On

this basis I accept that Asklepios fits into the category of charismatic leader as well.

5. The contenders

5.1 Interpretative framework: The Hero-figure in Greek mythology

Das Göttliche ging in das Menschliche ein,

das Menschliche wurde zu den Göttern erhoben,

und der Mythos vom Heros war da (Kerenyi 1958:21).

Before discussing the principals, Jesus and Asklepios, we need to identify a background

against which a comparison between the two would make sense. Put differently: a model

should be constructed by means of which sufficient structural commonality between the

two can be demonstrated to warrant the hypothesis that Jesus is modelled on Asklepios

when he is presented as both rival and superior of the Greek healer-god. It is my conviction

that the mythical hero-figure (hero-cult) in Greek antiquity provides such a model. I will

endeavour to show that the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels conforms to the broad contours

of the Greek mythical hero, of whom Asklepios is an apt representative.

5.1.1 Hero cults

The hero, as we know him, belongs to philosophical anthropology. It is always possible to

characterize him purely in human terms. However, he also emits a “divine reflection”

(Kerenyi 1958:13) that is in a unique way entwined with the shadow of mortality. From

this a unique being is born to whom a specific kind of historicity applies namely the myths

or legends about him. Should the mythological character be substituted with a purely

human character description, the hero-history changes to the recounting of stories about

courageous men or heroes of the revolution. Those are people who performed

extraordinary deeds in extraordinary circumstances - deeds that symbolize and demonstrate

the highest values and ideals of a society.

Farnell distinguishes seven hero categories, of which categories 1, 2 and 3 have divine

origins, and 4, 5, 6 and 7 are of human origin:

1. Heroes as faded gods.

2. Heroes who are also gods but have secular legends, e.g. Heracles, the Dioscouri and Asclepius.

3. Cultural and functional heroes (Sondergötter).

4. Sacral heroes – real persons who were made heroes because they founded cults.

5. Epic heroes of entirely human legend, e.g. Achilles.

6. Geographical, genealogical and eponymous heroes.

7. Historic and real personages.

McCauly (1993:75) remarks that a reading of Herodotus shows that the Greeks did not

regard myth simply as a source of interesting, though fictional stories. They believed that at

the heart of each myth lay a kernel of historical truth, which had become obscured by

layers of fantasy and misinterpretation. To this we might add that such myths also contain

and display the state of scientific knowledge at the time of writing, and subsequently at the

time of adaptation. Myth and epic were history for the Greeks of the 8th

to 6th centuries

B.C.

Klauck (1996:25) refers to the convergence of divine and human lines in the hero-figure. A

human being could, after death, rise to hero-status. This means that such a person would

become a kind of half-god:

Heroen sind, vereinfacht gesagt..., ehemalige Menschen, die zu

Lebzeiten besondere Taten vollbracht hatten und denen man auch nach

ihrem Tod noch einiges zutraute.

According to Kerenyi (1958:12) a hero did not always receive that status (¹rwj) because of

courage or a heroic deed. It rather concerned a ‘substanzialität, eine eigentümliche

Konsistenz...die sie mit den Göttern als Gestalten teilen’. Heroes act as mediators between

the gods and man.

Rank (1959) collected several myths, from which he abstracts some constantly recurring

motifs. The following are considered representative:

In the Sargon myth, derived from the period of the foundation of Babylonia (ca. 2800

B.C.), Sargon tells of his birth: ‘my mother was a vestal [virgin – PvS], my father I

knew not…. She laid me in a vessel made of reeds, closed my door with pitch, and

dropped me down into the river [danger at birth – PvS], which did not drown me’ (cf

Rank 1959:15).

The Moses myth in the Bible presents great similarities to the Sargon myth,

sometimes even literal correspondence. There was nothing extraordinary about his

birth, but he was also put in a vessel made waterproof with pitch and put on the river

(cf Rank 1959:16).

The ancient Hindu epic Mahabharata gives an account of the birth of the hero Karna.

His mother was the virgin princess Pritha (or Kunti), and his father the sun god Surya.

She put the child in a weaved basket lined with wax, and put him on the river (cf

Rank 1959:18-19).

The Perseus myth recounts how king Acrisius of Argos heard from the Delphian

oracle that his daughter Danaë would bear a son who would kill him. He locked his

daughter up in an iron tower to prevent her from ever bearing a child. However, Zeus

himself penetrated through the roof in the guise of a golden shower and impregnated

Danaë, and she gave birth to a boy. When Acrisius found out about this, he enclosed

mother and son in a box and cast it into the sea (cf Rank 1959:26).

Romulus and Remus were born because the princess Ilia was ‘embraced’ by the war-

god Mars. They, too, were exposed on the river, but found and raised by a she-wolf

(cf Rank 1959:44-48).

The royal Egyptian myth, relating the birth of Amenophis III (ca. 1400 BC), recounts

the divine prophecy to the queen of the birth of a son; her fertilization by the breath of

heavenly fire; divine cows that nurse the new-born child; the homage of kings. The

correspondence with the description of the birth history of Christ is considerable.

It is clear from these few examples that hero myths were quite similar in important

respects. Rank (1959:65) extrapolates the following common features of what he calls the

‘standard saga’:

The hero is the child of most distinguished parents, usually the son of a king [or a god

– PvS].

His origin is preceded by difficulties, such as continence, or prolonged barrenness, or

secret intercourse of the parents due to external prohibition or obstacles.

During or before the pregnancy there is a prophecy in the form of a dream or oracle,

cautioning against his birth, and usually threatening danger to the father (or his

representative).

As a rule, he is surrendered to the water in a box.

He is then saved by animals or lowly people (shepherds), and is suckled by a female

animal or by a humble woman.

After he has grown up, he finds his distinguished parents in a highly versatile fashion.

He takes his revenge on his father, and is acknowledged.

Finally, he achieves rank and honours.

5.1.2 The use of myth

The study of myth reveals that there is not and can never be a canonical version of a myth.

Myths are polymorphous – they change with each retelling (McCauly 1993:75). This has to

do with the pragmatics of oral transmission, consisting in the application of a myth in new

and varied situations and localities, and the deliberate use of myth to influence people.

McCauly (1993:76), following Tudor (1972), refers to this as the ‘political’ use of myth for

the purpose of manipulation. She summarizes the salient features of Tudor’s definition as

follows:

1. Political myth is always the myth of a particular group.

2. Political myth explains the circumstances of those to whom it is addressed. It explains the creation of

the group; often identifies the enemy; promises eventual victory.

An important part of political myth is the element of make-believe, that is, a willing

suspension of disbelief. ‘Those who disseminate these myths often do so because they want

to believe they are true and because believing them is advantageous’ (McCauly 1993:77).

The political (ideological) manipulation of hero cults is therefore the attempt of one group

(or individual) to advance its interests by the institution or reinterpretation of hero cults.

An important instance in the political use of myth is the genre of the ‘bone transferral story’

(McCauly 1993:84). The possession of a hero’s bones was believed to provide protection

from plague, famine, etc., or benefited the keeper in some way. The city would acquire the

(lost) bones by (a) locating them through divine help; (b) stealing the bones [body, as in

Jesus’ case? – PvS] or receiving them from the local inhabitants. In the end the bones prove

efficacious.

5.1.3 Charismatic leaders and hero worship

A final remark pertains to the connection between charismatic leaders and the mythical

heroes. Can such a connection be postulated? I believe that it can. Most, if not all, of the

mythical heroes known to us seem to have possessed the qualities of the charismatic leader

described above (cf 4.1.1):

They were socially sensitive and adaptable – in other words, self-monitoring.

Their conduct suggested that the present conditions were intolerable.

They had a vision of a better society and were able to transfer that vision to their

followers.

They were willing to take risks and perform unconventional actions in order to reach

their goals.

5.1.4 The hero scheme

In view of the information discussed so far there appears to be sufficient correspondence

between hero myths for the following hero scheme to be abstracted:

1. The hero is born from parents (or grandparents) of whom one is divine, the other

human. His status is therefore that of god-man – partly divine, partly human.

2. When the mother is the human, she is usually a virgin.

3. There is danger for the hero child at or soon after birth, from which it is miraculously

saved by the gods.

4. Legends are constructed about the hero’s childhood years.

5. At a certain time the hero starts acting in a way beneficial to others.

6. The hero suffers a tragic, unnatural death.

7. The hero goes to the nether world (Hades).

8. An epiphany occurs - the hero appears (usually on the battlefield), is not recognized

immediately, but is later identified.

9. The hero is elevated to become a star (full divinity).

5.2 Asklepios

5.2.1 The name

The name Asklepios was found in different dialects all over Greece. The following forms

exist (cf Thrämer 1965:616):

\AsklapiÒj - Aeolic and Doric

\AsclapiÒj - Boeotic

\AskleipiÒj - Spartan

\AsklhpiÒj - Ionic-Attic

In the Latin the form of the name was Aesculapius.

Suggestions for the etymology of the name vary (cf. Thrämer 1965:616). Proposals suggest

that the name might be derived from:

¢skelšj - dried up, withered

¢sk£laboj - snake

gl£fw - to scrape up the ground (of a lion)

¥lkw ¢lšxw \Alxhpioj - assist, defend, ward off.

5.2.2 The person

Homer refers to a certain Asklepios, father of the two famous physicians of the Trojan War,

Podaleiros and Machaon. It might be deduced that Asklepios himself was a physician.

Pindar in 474/73 BC describes Asklepios as a mortal physician. He was married to Epione.

He also had five daughters, of whom Hygeia, goddess of health, is the most famous.

5.2.3 The myth

Apollo has always been the healing god of the Greeks (cf Bartels & Huber 1965:348;

Klauck 1995:130). According to myth Asklepios was the son of Apollo and a human girl,

Coronis, daughter of a Thessalian king by the name of Phlegyas, who was so angry when

he heard that his daughter was pregnant that he put fire to the temple of Apollo. Apollo

retaliated by killing the king with an arrow and having him heavily punished in the nether

world. Pindar recounts that Coronis, during the pregnancy, fell in love with a certain

Ischys. Because she was unfaithful she and her lover Ischys were slain by Apollo’s twin

sister, Artemis. Apollo, however, rescued Asklepios from his mother’s womb and entrusted

him to the centaur Chiron, the mythical teacher, who taught him the art of medicine.

In an aside Ovid added that Apollo got word of Coronis’ unfaithfulness through a raven,

who at the time had a white plumage. As reward for its babbling tongue its feathers were

turned black by Apollo (see also Thrämer 1965:618; Kirkwood 1959:10-13).

Zeus killed Asklepios with a thunderbolt and threw him into the nether world when he used

his healing prowess to revive the dead (including Hippolytus, the son of Theseus), thereby

exceeding what was permissible (Jackson 1988:142). This martyrdom on behalf of man,

however, opened the heavens to Asklepios - at the request of Apollo Zeus placed him

amongst the stars (cf Schouten 1963:16 n. 16).

According to Farnell (cf Hammond & Scullard 1970:129) there is strong evidence that

Asklepios was originally a hero, later elevated to full divinity (see also Klauck 1995;

Schouten 1963:16; Hausmann 1948:18).

5.3 Jesus

5.3.1 The name

The name Jesus is a common Hebrew name. Etymologically it means: God saves. Within

the birth narrative the giving of the name is ordered by an angel, and thereby indicated as of

special significance, reflecting the essence of the person who is to carry that name.

5.3.2 The person

The historical facts about Jesus are so well researched and known that it is redundant to

repeat them here. Suffice it to say that enough can be conjectured from the facts to describe

for him a purely human life trajectory - birth, parent(s), family, childhood, adulthood, tragic

death.

5.3.3 The myth

The story about Jesus emphatically presents him as from a human mother and a divine

father (Mk 1:1,11; 5:7; 14:61-62; Mat 1:18,20; 3:17; 4:3,6; 27:40, 43, 54; Lk 1:35; 3:22;

9:35; John 1:14,18). This immediately places him in the category of the Greek heroes, of

which Asklepios seems to have been one.

His birth is announced by divine proclamation to the virgin Mary. He is born in a stable

with animals present. Kings from afar come and pay homage to him. His life is endangered

when King Herod decides to kill all baby boys. Jesus is taken to Egypt where they stay

until it is safe to return. He starts his public career, proclaiming that the kingdom of God

has arrived. He acts beneficially towards other people. He is endowed with supra- and

supernatural abilities, demonstrated in the prowess to perform all kinds of miracles, but

especially healing miracles (cf Davies 1995:66). He is even able to raise people from the

dead. Care is taken to indicate that he is imbued with power from God, repeatedly called

his father. His actions are legitimate - in fact, they are in complete accordance with the will

of God himself.

He is accused of two things: being a pretender for the throne, and being a pretender for

God. He is tried and convicted, and put to death. But then he is vindicated on both counts

when God raises him from death, takes him ‘up’ into heaven, and grants him all power over

life and death. Following this account given by his followers as their interpretation of

events, the initial group starts a missionary activity through which it is expounded and

grows into the church, where Jesus is worshipped as God.

5.4 Comparing heroes

From an analysis of the myths of Jesus and Asklepios the salient points are abstracted and

compared to the hero scheme described in 5.1.4.

It is clear that both the Jesus story and the Asklepios myth fit the hero model. Furthermore,

they resemble each other so closely, especially in the healings that dependence has to be

assumed. Logic would dictate that the Jesus story is dependent on the Asklepios myth,

because the latter is much older.

Ayres (1998:58), referring to Koester (1990), points out that the Secret Gospel of Mark

typified Jesus as a healer in the Asklepios tradition. Jesus actually used the Asklepios cult

centres to perform his own healings, demonstrating his superior power (Ayres 1998:58,

referring to Coffman 1993:435).

6. Healings and miracles

The basic aim of the healing event was (and is) the acquisition (or demonstration) of the

authority to intervene. Therefore the healing pattern takes the form of correct diagnosis

followed by the “reassertion of order through setting the present condition into the context

of natural law or regularity, drawing from the stock of shared knowledge” (Gordon

1995:363). There were five main kinds of traditional practitioner (in contrast to the

organized temple medicine on the one hand and magico-religious practitioners on the

other) namely: diviner-healers, root-cutters, purifiers, exorcists and sorcerers. They healed

by divining; by simple application of materia medica; by incantation alone; by both

medicine and incantation; by lustration; by phylactery or amulet, and by counter magic (cf

Gordon 1995:363). In many cases there was no explicit model for the cause of specific

disorders, and the treatment by root-cutters and diviner-healers was therefore mostly

implicit.

Very little reliable information on the complete healing rite has come down to us. Many of

the spoken components of the rite, the healing charms, are lost. It is clear, though, that there

was structure to the healing rite that took the form of a transaction within which the

participants enacted certain roles.

The social basis of healing is the acknowledgement of the practitioner’s authority to

intervene. Most disorders were self diagnosed by the patient, who then could either employ

remedies known from practical experience, or take recourse to remedies provided by a

practitioner. Root-cutters and diviner-healers established the authority of their remedies in

the following ways:

Asserting the natural effectiveness of the remedies;

Appeal to knowledge practices from long ago, preserved in a prestigious form such as

writing;

Using the standard manipulative power of ritual contained in the repetition of actions,

i.e., three or seven or nine times or multiples of these, using spittle, nakedness, fasting,

etcetera, recognizable as peculiar and serving to isolate the event as socially

remarkable;

By the use of a charm, that is, a verbal utterance.

These four elements are the components of the healing event (Gordon 1995:366). The

crucial moment in this event is when the practitioner intervenes to create a social situation

between him, the patient and the disorder. The most important aspect of the healing event is

the charm or utterance:

...belief in the force and the perceived efficacy of magic is rooted in the

perception that speech acts have the power to disrupt and destroy, or to

persuade, influence and convince others (Weiner 1983:705, quoted by

Gordon 1995:367 n 22).

Charms are less explicit than incantations. They are:

typically allusive, pregnant, pithy, following the implicit rules of

condensation and displacement. They are intended to be (over)heard but

not (fully) understood. Incantation is explicit, discursive, more or less

elaborated, obeying the implicit rules of specificity and concreteness

(Gordon 1995:367).

Charms were typically orally composed and transmitted and most frequently connected

with the practice of healing. Many were secret, but others were in the public domain,

suitable for cases taken by the patient to be within his or her own competence. There are

roughly four types of charm in folk-medical contexts (cf Gordon 1995:367):

addresses to a plant or

declarations of intent;

voces magicae, quotations or names from authoritative texts;

discursive charms

According to Davies (1995:66) the New Testament gospels widely and repeatedly attest to

the fact that Jesus was a healer of people in mental and physical distress. He states: ‘It is

entirely possible that Jesus thought of himself as a physician. Three times he is reported to

have used the term physician self-referentially…’ (Davies 1995:67).

Davies (1995:69) argues that Jesus did heal the cases as reported in the ways reported.

However, those cases had to be of a sort that could be healed ‘on the spot, by the words or

self-presentation of the healer.’ A prerequisite for such healings is faith. Davies assigns the

cases to two related categories, namely conversion disorders and somatization disorders.

Both of these are classified in modern terms as psychosomatic in nature. He quotes the

following definition of such disorders:

The essential feature of this disorder is an alteration or loss of physical

functioning that suggests physical disorder, but that instead is

apparently an expression of a psychological conflict or need.

Faith as a prerequisite for healing is also attested in the Epidauros inscriptions, relating to

the healings of Asklepios. Lloyd (1979:46 n 201) remarks:

The need for faith, and the folly of doubting or scoffing at the god, are

recurrent motifs in the inscriptions (e.g. cases 3, 4, 9, 10, 35, 37: in case

36 the god punishes a scoffer by crippling him).

The similarities between Jesus and Asklepios are therefore not confined to structural

agreements in relation to the hero scheme, but extend to the types of healing they

performed as well.

6.1 Hydropsy

Kaˆ Ð ™n 'OlÚnqJ ØdrwpikÕj, ™xa…fnhj ¥fwnoj,

œkfrwn nÚkta kaˆ ¹mšrhn, œqanen.

Both Jesus and Asklepios are reported to have healed persons suffering from (hy)dropsy.

6.1.1 The texts

In Lk 14:1-6 the healing by Jesus is associated firstly with a meal at a Pharisee’s house and

secondly with the Sabbath. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus and the Pharisees are the

main characters of Luke’s story, embodying opposing points of view (cf Van Staden 1991;

1996; 1997). This makes it evident that Luke uses the healing for ideological purposes. The

setting of a meal is important because it replicates closely much of what is considered to be

self-evident values and customs in society. Against this background a man who has the

obvious symptoms of hydropsy suddenly appears amongst the guests. Jesus takes pity on

him, grabs hold of him and heals him. This healing seems to have more of a social than a

medical purpose, and can therefore be considered propagandistic in nature.

In the inscriptions from the sanctuaries of Asklepios there is an account of a woman who

has a daughter suffering from dropsy (cf Klauck 1995:137). She visits the sanctuary in her

daughter’s place where, in a dream, she sees the god Asklepios as he cuts off her daughter’s

head and turns her upside down to drain the water. When the woman got home, her

daughter had seen the same dream and has been healed. This is a case of sympathetic

healing, intended to indicate that the god is not restricted to his temple but has the power to

heal over distance. This healing is clearly also propagandistic.

6.1.2 The disease

Dropsy or hydropsy could be a serious illness. In the quotation at the beginning of section

5.4.1 Hippocrates describes how the illness develops. Modern views do not regard dropsy

as a disease but as a syndrome, the causes of which include heart failure, peritoneal

tuberculosis or cirrhosis of the liver (Grmek 1983:41-42).

In the Judaic sphere dropsy or hydropsy was seen as directly related to sin. Julius Preuss

(1978:167) refers to Rabbi Nachman bar Yitzchak, who stated that those who indulge in sin

are punished with hadrokan, and become covered with weals and wounds. He expounds

further:

The Sages distinguish three types of this illness: the thick one (abbah)

which is a punishment for sin, the swollen one (thapuach) which is

caused by hunger, and the thin one (dak) which is caused by magic. The

Sages also teach that three types of people die suddenly while they are

conversing: one who suffers from bowel disease, a woman in

confinement and one afflicted with dropsy (hadrokan). According to

Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel, the illness arises from the withholding of

one’s bowels (Preuss 1978:167)

Preuss adds: “...the sins for which hadrokan is the punishment seem to be lewdness in the

sexual sphere” (Preuss 1978:168, n 221 referring to Yebamoth 60b).

7. Conclusion

People in ancient times valued good health as much as we do today. Although medical

knowledge and practice is much more advanced today than in antiquity, there are times

when medicine alone is not enough. Disease and illness also have a social side that cannot

be cured by doctors. Only God(s) can do that. For this reason it was important that Jesus, as

God’s representative on earth, possessed the power to heal and demonstrated that power in

(sometimes miraculous) healings. Whether this was truly and historically the case is

another matter. What is important is that he was perceived to have this power. The literary

portrayal of Jesus in the Gospels reflects the conviction that he was more than a mere

mortal. However, in the sphere of divine action to procure the physical and mental well-

being of devotees, he had to contend with the existing cult of the healer-god Asklepios. It is

hardly surprising, therefore, that the gospel authors would have modelled Jesus on

Asklepios in expressing their conviction that he (Jesus) was the true iatroς (healer) and

swthr (saviour).

We have put forward the hypothesis that the portrayal of Jesus in the gospels was a strategy

to resolve the tension between Jewish monotheism and Greek polytheism in the process of

establishing a unique identity for the early church. In order to qualify as synthesis in the

Hegelian scheme of thesis :: antithesis → synthesis, Jesus’ character in the gospels took on

the proportions of the Greek hero. To be more specific: the emphasis on Jesus’ healing

activities, together with the fact that he fits into the typical hero scheme, suggests that he is

actually modelled on another hero-figure very popular at the time, namely the healer-god

Asklepios.

To prove this hypothesis, three aspects needed explication:

1. The description of the formation of a group, and an indication of the individual and

collective needs of the group members for forming a new identity.

2. The importance of a leader for the effective functioning of a group is self-evident.

The charismatic leader type presented itself as a model that applies to both Jesus and

Asklepios, because charismatic leadership is deemed to be a prerequisite for the

formation of myth. Most of all, however, the myths indicate that the figures of Jesus

and Asklepios qualify to be designated heroes in accordance with the hero scheme.

Jesus is portrayed as rival of Asklepios, competing with him in accordance with the

hero scheme in terms of genealogy (god-man), birth (danger), altruistic motives on

behalf of others (healings, miracles), vicarious death, epiphany, full divinity

(ascension). However, he is also considered superior to Asklepios for being able to

heal any place; to heal birth defects, which were considered untreatable; to heal by

word only; to heal over distance; to heal by proxy, to heal unwittingly when power

flows out of him. As with Asklepios, the prerequisite to healing seems to be faith.

3. Finally, the healing prowess of both Jesus and Asklepios is demonstrated in the

episodes of the healing of the dropsical patients.

The correspondence between Jesus as he is portrayed in the gospels and Asklepios is not

absolute. Many differences in detail may be indicated. However, the broad contours do

match. Within the socio-spiritual frame of reference the first century Mediterranean citizen

knew about Asklepios and his cult; probably visited or knew someone who visited the

Asklepieion (hospital); may have been treated by Asklepiads (doctors). The salient facts of

the respective myths would have been adequate to provide a basis for comparison between

Asklepios and Jesus.

Would anyone have been convinced by the Jesus myth alone to substitute Jesus for

Asklepios as healer-god, as swthr (saviour), by which title both were named? I think not.

Asklepios had the advantage of being worshiped in this role for centuries before Jesus

arrived. His cult was attested throughout the Greco-Roman Empire with major centres

everywhere. His association with healing and medicine was so strong that even the

‘scientific’ healers of the Hippocratic School were associated with his name. One has to

conclude, therefore, that the portrayal of Jesus as superior to Asklepios in itself would not

have been enough to convince someone to switch his/her allegiance.

A combination of factors probably accounted for the growth of the Christian communities.

There is no denying that the healings were very important, otherwise they would not have

received such prominence in the gospels. However, the faith community itself attracted the

initial group of socially destitute and marginalized people. It provided a substitute family

where the familial values of caring and loving were expected and practiced. Within the

frame of personal self-understanding of these people the group coherence, the vision for the

future and the safe haven they experienced, safeguarded by their new hero Jesus, would

have been a powerful incentive to join the group. Apart from the social factors, the most

powerful attracting force would have been the message that the one God who was above all

had compassion with them, loved them, removed their sins in an expiatory act and healed

them both physically and spiritually. This comprehensive approach, with attention provided

to both the social and spiritual needs of people, is what made the difference.

To this end Jesus and Asklepios were instrumental.

9. WORKS CONSULTED

American Psychiatric Association 1987. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. Rev Ed. Washington.

Ayres, J 1998. Jesus - `n Geloofsgeneser? M A thesis. Pretoria: University of Pretoria.

Baron, R A and Byrne, D 1991. Social psychology: Understanding human interaction.

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bartels, K and Huber, L (eds) 1965. s v Asklepios. Lexikon der Alten Welt.

Betz, H D 1994. Jesus and the cynics: Survey and analysis of a hypothesis. JR 74, 462.

Charlesworth, J H 1992. Jesus as 'Son' and the Righteous Teacher as 'Gardener,' in

Charlesworth, J H (ed) 1992. Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York: Doubleday.

Coffman, R J 1993. Historical Jesus the healer: Cultural interpretations of the healing

cults of the Graeco-Roman world as the basis for Jesus movements. SBL 1993 Seminar

Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Davies, S L 1995. Jesus the healer: Possession, trance, and the origins of Christianity.

New York: Continuum.

Eddy, P R 1996. Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the cynic Jesus theory. JBL 115/3,

449-469.

Edelstein, E J and Edelstein, L 1945. Asclepius: A collection and interpretation of the

testimonies. 2 Volumes. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins.

Elson, J 1995. The New Testament's unsolved mysteries. Time Magazine 146 (25).

Farnell, L R 1921. Greek hero cults and ideas of immortality. The Clifford lectures

delivered at the University of St. Andrews in the year 1920. Oxford.

Foerster, W 1955. Das Judentum Palästinas zur Zeit Jesu und der Apostel. Hamburg:

Furche.

Gillman, J 1991. Possessions and the life of faith: A reading of Luke-Acts. Collegeville,

Minnesota: The Liturgical Press. (Zaccheus Studies: New Testament.)

Gordon, R 1995. The healing event in Graeco-Roman folk medicine, in Van der Eijk et al

1995:363-376.

Grmek, M D 1989. Diseases in the ancient Greek world. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins

University Press. Translated by Mireille Muellner and Leonard Muellner from the

French.

Hammond, N G L and Scullard H H (eds) 1970. s v Asclepius, in The Oxford Classical

Dictionary, 129-130.

Hausmann, U 1948. Kunst und Heiltum: Untersuchungen zu den Griechischen

Asklepiosreliefs. Potsdam.

Hippocrates et Corpus Hippocraticum Med. (0627) De morbis popularibus (Epidemiae)

(006). Book 5, chapter 1, section 106, line 1.

Hollander, E P 1985. Leadership and power, in Lindzey, G and Aronson, E (eds) 1985.

The handbook of social psychology. Vol 2. New York: Random House.

Jackson, R 1988. Doctors and diseases in the Roman Empire. Oklahoma: University of

Oklahoma Press.

Kee, H C 1986. Medicine, miracle & magic in New Testament times. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Kerenyi, K 1958. Die Heroen der Griechen. Zürich: Rhein Verlag.

Kirkwood, G M 1959. A short guide to classical mythology. New York: Holt, Rheinhart

and Winston.

Klauck, H-J 1995. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums I: Stadt- und Hausreligion,

Mysterienkulte, Volksglaube. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Klauck, H-J 1996. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums II: Herrscher- und

Kaiserkult, Philosophie, Gnosis. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Koester, H 1990. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their history and development.

Philadelphia: Trinity.

Lloyd, G E R 1979. Magic, reason and experience: Studies in the origin and development

of Greek science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lohse, E 1974. Umwelt des Neuen Testaments. Göttingen. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Longstaff, TRW 1996. The story of Sepphoris. The Internet at http://www.colby.edu/

rel/Info 1996.html

McCauly, B A 1993. Hero cults and politics in fifth century Greece. Unpublished Ph.D.

thesis. Iowa: University of Iowa.

Meeks, W A 1993. The origins of Christian morality: The first two centuries. London:

Yale University Press.

Merkel, R and Ehwald, R (eds) 1928. Metamorphoses. Teubner Verlag.

Monson, T C, Keel, R, Stephens, D and Genung, V 1982. Trait attributions: Relative

validity, covariation with behavior, and prospect of future interaction. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 42/6, 1014-1024.

Paulus, P B (ed) 1989. Psychology of group influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Preuss, J 1978. Biblical and Talmudic medicine. New York: Sanhedrin. (Translated by

Fred Rosner from the original Biblisch-talmudische Medizin, published in 1911.)

Rank, O 1959 [1932]. The myth of the birth of the hero. New York: Vintage Books.

Roscher, W H (red) 1965. Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen

Mythologie. Erster Band, erste Abteilung. Leipzig: B G Teubner.

Royal College of Physicians 1998. So who is Chiron? The Internet at http://

www.rcpe.ac.uk/ chiron.html

Schouten, J 1963. De slangestaf van Asklepios: Symbool der geneeskunde. Amsterdam:

Brocades-Stheeman & Pharmacia.

Stegemann, W 1984. The Gospel and the poor. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Thrämer, E 1965. Asklepios, in Roscher 1965:616-642.

Tuckman, B W and Jensen, M A 1977. Stages of small group development revisited.

Group and Organizational Studies 2, 419-427.

Tudor, H 1972. Political myth. New York.

Van Aarde, A G 1998. Jesus' father: The quest for the historical Joseph. HTS 54/1 & 2,

315-333).

Van der Eijk, Ph J, Horstmanshoff, H F J and Schrijvers, P H (eds) 1995. Ancient

medicine in its socio-cultural context. Amsterdam: Rodopi. (Papers read at the

congress held at Leiden University, 13-15 April 1992.)

Van Staden, P 1991. Compassion, the essence of life: A social-scientific study of the

religious symbolic universe reflected in the ideology/theology of Luke. Pretoria:

Perskor (Hervormde Teologiese Studies, Supplementum 4).

Vermes, G 1987. The dead sea scrolls in English. Sheffield: JSOT Press.

Weiner, A B 1983. ‘From words to object to magic: hard words and the boundaries of

social interaction,’ Man 18, 690-709.

Wolmarans, J L P 1996. Asclepius of Epidauros and Jesus of Nazareth. Acta Patristica et

Byzantina 7:17-125.