BIBLICAL AND MODERN LEPROSY. 799 



our present knowledge, and, after making due allowance for the neces- 

 sarily imperfect translation of the Hebrew scriptures, we are forced to 

 believe that Moses associated leprosy with other diseases, as many dis- 

 tinguished medical writers have done in later years. Indeed, it is only 

 during the past few decades that the disease has been carefully studied 

 in various parts of the world and its identity thoroughly established. 



In studying the Mosaic laws respecting leprosy, we find statements 

 made and directions given for its recognition by the priests who 

 could not have referred to the disease which we now call leprosy. For 

 instance, it is stated that if the leprosy cover the whole skin of him 

 that hath the plague, the priest shall pronounce him clean. This would 

 hardly apply to modern leprosy, which never involves the whole skin, 

 as far as my observation goes. But there are other cutaneous affec- 

 tions which frequently do cover the afflicted subject "from his head 

 even to his foot." Why the leper should have been pronounced un- 

 clean while the disease was spreading, and clean when it had reached 

 that point where further spreading was impossible, I will leave for 

 others to determine, merely remarking that a law which permitted 

 only such lepers within the camp as were covered by the disease from 

 head to foot could certainly not have had a sanitary origin. Further- 

 more, the rule that the leper should be shut up for seven days, and 

 then examined by the priest, with a view to noting the change that had 

 taken place in the mean time, would seem to indicate some other dis- 

 ease than modern leprosy, for the latter is extremely chronic in its 

 course, and never presents any noticeable change in so short a time 

 even under the most active treatment. What was meant by the ref- 

 erence to leprosy of clothing and of houses is now difficult to under- 

 stand. There are infectious diseases at the present day, the germs of 

 which may dwell for a time in clothing and the walls of houses, but 

 there is nothing in connection with the modern leprosy which would 

 justify us in believing that it ever infects an inanimate object. 



On the other hand, if we assume that the leprosy of ancient times 

 was identical with that of the present day, it seems strange that Moses 

 failed to mention the loss of sensation, the deformity of the hands, and 

 other features which are the most striking characteristics of the dis- 

 ease. That the leprosy which I have described has not changed its 

 type in the course of centuries, as other diseases have done in a com- 

 paratively short time, is shown by the fact that some of the earliest 

 medical descriptions are so correct that they might answer their pur- 

 pose in a modern text-book, and we are therefore led to the conclusion 

 that Moses, though possessing all the learning of the Egyptian priests, 

 including the highest medical knowledge of his age, did not note the 

 distinctive characteristics of leprosy, but classed it under one name 

 with other prevalent diseases. 



In this connection, it may be of interest to consider very briefly 

 the character of the disease mentioned as leprosy in the New Testa- 



