E. R. Dodds' observation, quoted above, on the importance for early Christian apologists of miracle and prophecy, is both accurate and important for the historical analysis of this period. It has a direct hearing on the relationships among the three sets of phenomena with which we are concerned in this study: medicine, miracle, and magic. All three are modes of achieving or sustaining human welfare. All manifest methods for dealing with the universal problems of human suffering and death, and by extension with the problem of evil. Each assumes the existence and operation of some system of order which can be perceived, understood and exploited in order to attain a maximum of benefit for those who have the wisdom to utilize these resources. Yet the assumptions on which each system operates are significant different.

Medicine builds on the foundation of natural order. The goal of the physician is to discern the patterns of the natural functioning of the human body, by direct observation where possible, by analogy from the organisms which can be studied at first hand, and by inference from the philosophical principles of cosmic order which experience and reason have led him to adopt as normative. The study of the environment – topography, weather, flora, fauna – provides the physician with the means for aiding the healthy function of the human organism or for avoiding those factors which are injurious to health.

The popular esteem in which physicians were held in fifth century B.C. Greece is set forth by Pindar in his Pythian Ode (III.47–53) in which he extols the one skilled in medicine who enables:

Though Pindar is speaking here of Asklepios, it is his role as patron and prototype of physicians that is celebrated. In the Iliad (2.728–33) Homer mentions the two sons of Asklepios among those assembled with the ships for the attack on Troy, and in passing notes that they were “good healers both themselves”. The implication is that sons carry on the paternal vocational skill: like father, like sons. In the Pythian Ode of Pindar quoted above, Asklepios is an extraordinarily endowed human being, who is warned against seeking the life of the immortals. In other traditions, however, Asklepios is both the progenitor of a hereditary clan of physicians, known as the Asklepiads, and the god who comes to the aid of the sick when they visit his shrines, curing their diseases.

Although the New Testament authors were living, thinking, and writing within the larger context of the Graeco-Roman world, they were all in varying degrees, in overt and subtle ways, influenced by the Jewish tradition out of which Christianity emerged. It is essential, therefore, in assessing the New Testament evidence concerning healing, that we examine as well the biblical and post-biblical evidence concerning health, healing and medicine. The direct and indirect references within the New Testament to this aspect of tradition remind us that these dimensions of the Jewish heritage were indeed present in the consciousness of the early Christians, even though they did not merely reproduce the attitudes and practices of their spiritual ancestors.

Stories of healing

Stories of healing are relatively rare in the Old Testament. The first is the curious narrative in Gen 20 of the death threat addressed to Abimelech, who had taken Abraham at his word and acquired Sarah (Abraham's wife) to be his concubine on the basis of Abraham's (half-true) declaration that she was his sister (Gen 20:12). After the deceived king showered Abraham with gifts, the patriarch prayed to God, who healed Abimelech, his wife and female slaves – who had been stricken with barrenness (Gen 20:18). Thus is established a direct cause-and-effect relationship between human disability and divine action. In this case, the inability of the monarch's wives to bear children is the immediate consequence of his having inadvertently violated a divine statute against adultery.

There is abundant evidence from the Hellenistic and early Roman periods for the flourishing of healing shrines and for the belief in the direct intervention of the gods for healing purposes – the phenomenon we have defined as miracle. Alongside this is the evidence for the developing medical tradition which we surveyed in the previous chapter. From literary, inscriptional and archaeological sources comes extensive information about the miracle-working gods and goddesses of the first two centuries of our era. Chief among these wonder-working divinities are Isis and Asklepios in the Hellenistic and Roman traditions, and the God of Israel in the Judaeo-Christian traditions. Although there are discernible patterns or modes in which the divine actions are perceived, not only is there no simple uniformity within any one of these traditions, but each of these types of miracle phenomenon can be seen to change and adapt with the changing context in which it is said to have occurred.

Isis and Asklepios

Among the best-attested of the cults in which the divinity acts on behalf of seeking devotees is that of Isis. By Hellenistic times Isis had taken over from Ma'at the tasks of ordering the universe and preserving justice, but in addition she also had come to be viewed as the benefactress of those in particular need who sought her aid. The hymn-like utterances in praise of her beneficent powers (άρ∈ταλoγíα) go back as early as the second century B.C.

Decree of the League of the Islanders recognizing the Ptolemaieia. Amorgos, about 280–278. Marble stele, third-century lettering, found at Nikuria but originally from Amorgos.

Resolution of the delegates of the Islanders, concerning the matters (about which) | [Philokle]s, the king of the Sidonians, and Bakchon, the Ne|[siarch], wrote to the cities, namely, that they dis|patch delegates to Samos to ∥ deliberate about the sacrifice and sacred en|voys and the contest, which King Pt[o|le]maios has established in honor of his father in Alexandria as equivalent to the Olympi|c, [and (which) now] with those who had come from the cities as dele|gates from the cities who were present Philokles and Bakchon discussed.

Manumission of slaves with paramone restriction. Beroia, Macedonia, either about 280 or 235. Marble stele, late third-or second-century lettering suggesting reinscription of an older document.

vv With good fortune, vv | In the reign of King Demetrios, seventh and twenti|eth year, month Peritios, in the priesthood of Apolloni|des, the son of Glaukios. v Payment for their freedom was made by Kosmas, ∥ Marsyas, Ortyx to Attinas, daughter of Alketas, for themselves v | and their wives, Arnion, Glauka, v Chlidane, | and for their children, both those now alive and any that may later | be born, and for all their possessions, ea|ch fifty gold (staters); v and Spazatis for her∥self and her possessions paid gold (staters), twenty-five of them. | And for them if they remain vvv | with Attinas while Attinas lives and do whatever At|tinas orders, and Attinas dies, they may depart | to wherever they wish. And it shall not be possible for Alketas nor Al∥ketas' wife nor the descendants of Alketas nor Lare|ta to seize them or their wives or | their children or {a} Spazatis or to reduce (them) to slav|ery or to take away anything of their possessions | on any pretext nor by another on their behalf.

The Pergamene Chronicle. Pergamon, second century AD. Three non-contiguous white marble wall blocks, second-century AD lettering.

a

[A]rchias [persuaded (the People)] that prytaneis be elected [for the | city] each year, and the first to hold the office of ptyta|nis was [Archi]as, and from him until now | they continue being governed by prytaneis. And Orontes, the son of Artasy∥[ros], by race a Baktrian, having revolted from Artaxer|[xes], the King of the [Pers]ians, gained control of the Perga|[menians and] resettled them again on the hi|ll [at] the old city. Then Orontes, | having turned over [the city] to Arta]xerxes, died.

b

[—]having married Anaxip∥[pe, — she bore Eu]ippos, [and] Euippos | [—| —] also Daskylos, | [and they had one] sister, [Th]ersippe, | [and she, having married—], a Paphlagonian ∥ [by race, bore —], and after these thing|s [—].

c

[— | —] E[u]me[nes (II), already] having shared [while alive the rule]| with [At]ta[los (II), his brother, died] leav|ing the [kingdom to his own 20 son] | Attalos (III), [with his brother] as guardian. [And he]∥ gave over the [kingdom on dying to Attalos], the son of Eumen[es —| —] having ruled [—].

A decree of Ilion honoring Antiochos I. Sigeum, about 280–278. Marble stele, early third-century lettering.

Nymphis, son of Diotrephes, being epimenios, and the epistates being Dionysios, son of | Hippomedon, Demetrios, son of Dies, introduced the motion. Since King Antiochos (I), son of King | Seleukos (I), at the beginning (of his reign), after having taken over the kingdom and manifested an hon|orable and good policy, sought to bring the cities in Se∥leukis, which were hard pressed by harsh circumstances because of those who had rebelled against | his regime, back to peace and their old prosperity, | and, having advanced against those attacking his regime, as was just, (he sought) to re|gain his ancestral realm; wherefore, acting with a good and just purpose | and taking not only his friends and his army, who were zealous for the struggle for ∥ his regime, but also the divinity as a benevolent hel|per, he restored the cities to peace and his kingdom to its old condition;