I. Christian Impressions of Asclepius
I. 2. Second and Third Century Evidence
Second-century Christian documents contain numerous depictions of Jesus as a physician. They also indicate a rivalry between Jesus and Asclepius. Latin and Greek patristic writers consistently attacked Asclepius as they did the other gods of the pagan pantheon by insisting that Asclepius was not a god at all. They insisted that Asclepius was merely a man or a demon but definitely not a god. However, they treated Asclepius slightly differently than other pagan gods since he was firmly entrenched as a healer and boasted a large number of devotees. Asclepieia throughout the Mediterranean healed the rich and poor alike. Healing was a tangible benefit for supplicants of the cult.
Debunking Asclepius’ divinity on the basis that he was only an apotheosized man was not a strong enough argument for the church fathers. Christian writers offered an alternative to the healing power of Asclepius by depicting Christ as a viable competitor and practitioner with superior methods. For the patristic authors, Christ was greater than Asclepius in every way. They made Christ as the supreme physician that heals the soul as well as the body. The church fathers emphasized the cleansing of the soul and the future life, and associated physical healing with communal interaction in a Christian setting.
Apocryphal Texts
The apocryphal texts generally depicted miracles of healing, exorcism or punishment.
The frequent appearance of healing miracles was meant to highlight Christ as the preeminent
healer.33 In the Acts of John, John prays to Christ the “physician who heals freely.”34 The Acts of John, a late second-century text, appeared to understand that Christ’s competitor Asclepius also healed the poor. The author of the Acts of John stressed Christ as a physician that healed for free.35 François Bovon notes the numerous instances of the image of the physician in the Acts of Philip, as the apocryphal author insisted that Christ was the physician of soul and body: “le guérisseur du caché et du visible.”36 Even in the instances of the apostles performing healings, their goal was the deeper cure of the soul: “L’apôtre est guérisseur, mais ce sont les âmes qu’il entend surtout soigner et sauver.”37 The early third-century, Acts of Peter and the Twelve recorded Jesus ordering his disciples to go out into the world and heal.
John questioned Jesus, asking how they could possibly act as true physicians. Jesus answered that the physicians of the world heal only the body, while the disciples have the power to act as physicians of the soul, healing the heart.38 The third-century Acts of Thomas repeatedly referred to Christ as the “physician of the souls,” even offering a distinction between earthly physicians and Christ, “Yes, he is the physician, and he is different from all other physicians,
33 See François Bovon, “Miracles, magie, et guérison dans les Actes apocryphes des apôtres,” in JECS 3 (1995), 245-259. Bovon agrees on 248, “…des miracles sont les signes visibles d’une guérison supérieure.”
34 Acts of John, 22-4 and 108; Also see 69 where he compares miraculous works to a physician. French and Greek text in Acta Iohannis, CCSA 1-2, E. Junod and J.D. Kaestli (Turnhout: Brepols, 1983). Later apocryphal texts use the term such as the Gospel of Thomas (10; 37; 95; 143) from the third century, and the Acts of Philip from the fourth-fifth century (40). See Acta Philippi, CCSA 11, François Bovon, Bertrand Bouvier, and Frédéric Amsler (Turnhout: Brepols, 1999).
35 Gervais Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,” in RAC, no. 1-4, (Rome: Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, 1972), 123-124. Dumeige thinks that Asclepius can be witnessed in the Acts of John, and the author of Acts of John has Asclepius firmly in mind. While the competition between Asclepius and Christ is explicit in these texts, I find that conclusion likely given that the phrase “physician who heals freely” occurs in the longer version of the Acts, read on the saints’ day (108). This designation is not limited to the Acts of John in the apocryphal genre, in the Acts of Thomas, 156, Christ was the “physician that heals without payment,” another reference to Christ’s competitor in Asclepius.
36 Acts of Philip, 40, Nicanora’s husband believed she was healed by magicians, while she rebuked her husband, telling him of the inner cleaning of the Physician; Bovon, “Miracles, magie…,” 251.
37 Bovon, “Miracles, magie…,” 251.
38 Acts of Peter and the Twelve, 11 (See Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha II, 423).
for all other physicians heal these bodies which shall be dissolved, but this physician heals the bodies with the souls, which shall never more be dissolved.”39 In the Acts of Euplus, the martyr’s executioner asked him to relent and adore the gods, “You poor fellow, adore the gods. Worship Mars, Apollo, Asclepius.”40 In the third-century Acts of Pilate, a spurious account details the Roman governor’s interaction with Jesus. In this text Christ was directly associated with Asclepius, a unique event in apocryphal literature. Pilate claimed Jesus’
healing actions were not the “casting out of demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Asclepius.”41 With this association between Jesus and Asclepius, Pilate attempted to subordinate Jesus’ power to the healing power of the god and stated that Asclepius was the higher authority.42 While the apocryphal examples were more implicit in their comparison of Christ and Asclepius, the Acts of Pilate offered a very direct comparison and juxtaposition, as Pilate reflected a possible position early Christians may have faced in Late Antiquity:
Asclepius was considered greater than Christ.
Greek Patristic Texts: Justin and Clement of Alexandria
The patristic texts exhibited quite plainly the general threat the cult of Asclepius posed. Just as the gospel and apocryphal writers made sure to portray Christ and his followers as healing both body and soul, many of the church fathers also emphasized Christ
39 Acts of Thomas, 95; also see 143, 156 and 37. See text and commentary in A.F.J. Klijn’s, The Acts of Thomas (Leiden: Brill, 2003). Thomas was also called “sorcerer” or “wonder worker,” not in a derogatory sense, but intentionally connected him with the wonder works of Jesus.
40 From the Latin version. See translation in Herbert Musurillo, The Acts of the Christian Martyrs, (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1972), 317.
41 Acts of Pilate, or Gospel of Nicodemus, 1.1 (Musurillo).
42 Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,” 121. Dumeige claims that the text is “affirmation peu surprenante de la part d’un païen, maid qui subordonne le Christ au dieu d’Epidaure.”
as a physician and savior.43 The emphasis on “savior” may recall some characterizations of Christian opponents as “savior,” including but not limited to Asclepius. Whether explicit or implicit, in the Greek and Latin patristic texts Christ was depicted as a physician within a context of uneasy competition with Christian rivals.
In some examples, Jesus was depicted as the great physician without peer; in others the competition with Asclepius and other threats to his superiority as a healer are apparent.44 From the early second century, the bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote in his letter to the Ephesians to stay away from the poisonous words of heretics: “You need to be on your guard against their bites, because they are by no means easy to heal. There is only one Physician.”45 For Ignatius, “their bites” referred to outside threats that possibly included the Asclepius cult. In the Letter to Diognetus, the author called Jesus “Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer…” among other titles.46 In a fragment of Pseudo-Justin the author states,
“But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with his own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that he guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they hope to save to
43 Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,” 116: “La guérison est invoquée comme la prevue d’un pouvoir souverain sur les âmes.”
44 See Fichtner, “Christus als Arzt,” 8. Fichtner believes the church fathers are addressing the competition with Asclepius. He cites Ignatius, Eph. 7.2; 20.2; Clement, Exhortation to the Greeks 2.30.1; Justin, 1 Apol. 22.6; Tatian, Address to the Greeks 8.7; 21.3; Tertullian, The Crown 8.2; Apology, 23.6; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 1.15.3; 1.15.23;
Arnobius, Against the Pagans 1.48-49 as evidence, see the following pages for more. “Ganz allgemein findet nur selten im Schrifttum der Kirchenväter eine direkte Konfrontation Asklepios – Christus statt.” He also notes the influence of Philo as well on 12, “(Philo’s) Einfluß auf die Theologie insbesondere der greichischen Kirchenväter ist nicht leicht zu überschätzen.”
45 Ignatius, Eph. 7. See Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,” 118-119, where he notes the vigorous employment of the invective by Ignatius, as well as introduce Aristides’ understanding of Asclepius as a healer of body and soul, exhibiting the competitive context Le Christ Médecin was born.
46 Letter to Diognetus, 9.6. “ , , , , …” (PG
2, 1181A; trans. Author).
indulge in what pleasures they please.”47 Occasionally, it is God rather than Jesus who is referred to as the physician, as in the mid second-century homily attributed to Clement,
“While we have time to be healed, let us place ourselves in the hands of God the physician, giving him recompense.”48 In the majority of cases it is Jesus who is the agent of healing.
This designation becomes standard following the second century; it is Jesus who performs the divine action of healing.
Writing in the mid second century, Justin Martyr provided some detailed evidence relating Christ to a physician as well as directly noting a competition with the cult of
Asclepius. In his First Apology, Justin intentionally cast Jesus in the mold of Asclepius: “And when we say that He (Christ) healed the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, and raised the dead, we appear to say things similar to those said to have been done by Asclepius.”49 Justin was arguing that the myths about Asclepius should allow the pagans to accept the veracity of Christianity. Just as Asclepius healed, so did Christ, and Justin further elaborated on their similarity by pointing out: “we propound nothing new beyond what you believe concerning those whom you call sons of Zeus…Asclepius, who though he was a great healer, after being struck by a thunderbolt ascended to heaven.”50 Justin alluded to the similarities between the two healing gods to show that Christianity was not completely dissimilar from the beliefs of their rivals. One might think that Justin was characterizing
47 Pseudo-Justin, On the Resurrection, 10 (ANF 2.299; PG 6, 1591A: ). It is debatable whether the original author is Athenagoras or Hippolytus, although Dods in the ANF believes this section is genuinely Justin. Most recently, Wheatley argues for Hippolytus in “Pseudo-Justin's De Resurrectione:
Athenagoras or Hippolytus?” VChr, Volume 60, Number 4, (2006), 420-430.
48 Second Clement, 9.7-10 (Lightfoot; also see ANF 9.253).
49 Justin, 1 Apol. 22 (PG 6, 361B; Barnard).
50 Justin, 1 Apol. 21 (PG 6, 360A; Barnard).
Christ as an imitator of Asclepius with these comments.51 However, Justin was portraying Christ as a physician like Asclepius, and these comments in his Apology are balanced with his later argument that the healing cults were the imitators, not Christ.
The crux of Justin’s polemic against the pagans (and the Jews) was that Christ predated the gods of pagan myths and was predicted by the Old Testament prophets. Thus, Christ could not be a follower of Asclepius since he was preexistent to Asclepius. The Divine Logos existed before creation and was therefore “older” and superior to any divinity the pagans touted. Justin asserted that “the Father of the Universe has a Son; who being the Logos and first-begotten is also God. And formerly he appeared in the form of fire and in the image of a bodiless being to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your rule, as we said before, he became man of a virgin according to the will of the Father for the salvation of those who believe in him.”52 For Justin, the Jews were guilty of not interpreting the prophets correctly in acknowledging the incarnation of Christ, and the pagans have used the prophets to offer alternatives to Christ.
Accordingly, Hercules, Dionysius, Hermes, and others were imitators of Christ.
Therefore, Justin can argue that “when they [the pagans] knew what was said, as has been cited before, in the ancient prophecies, ‘Strong as a giant to run his course,’ they said that Heracles was strong and traveled over all the earth. And, again, when they learned that it had been predicted that He would heal every disease and raise the dead, they brought forward Asclepius.”53 Justin claimed that the pagans offered Hercules in response to this prophecy. Justin asserted that the Old Testament prophecies predicted Jesus, explaining the
51 See Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,” 120, “Ainsi, l’argument tire des prophéties intègre à la théologie chrétienne l’indéniable activité de guérisseur du dieu médecin.”
52 Justin, 1 Apol. 63 (PG 6, 424C; Barnard).
53 Justin, 1 Apol 54 (PG 6, 410A; Barnard). Justin believed that power of Christ was prophesied, see Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr, 245.
similarities between Christ and the gods, and proving the superiority of Christ.54 The prediction Justin was connecting to Asclepius, a reference from Psalm 19:5, was ambiguous although it likely followed his previous line of argumentation that pagan gods were instances of invented puppetry in response to prophecies that specifically referred to Christ. Justin continued this thrust throughout his First Apology: “From what has been said you can
understand how the demons, in imitation of what was said through Moses, contrived also to raise up the image of the so-called Kore.”55 The contrivances of the pagans included the ascendancy of the divine Asclepius. Justin repeatedly claimed Jewish prophecy compelled the pagans to offer an alternative deity. Imitation was not the sincerest form of flattery; it was a clever tactic in a war for religious supremacy.
Justin argued that Asclepius was an imitator of Christ more explicitly in his Dialogue with Trypho. In chapter 69, Justin recalled the same line of evidence citing the passage from Psalms, “And when it is asserted that Herakles, the son of Zeus and Alcmene, was strong and traversed the whole earth, and that, after death, he, too, ascended into heaven, ought I not conclude that the scriptural prophecy about Christ, ‘strong as a giant to run his course,’
was similarly imitated?”56 Justin moved on to Asclepius, arguing, “And when the devil presents Asclepius as raising the dead to life and curing all diseases, has he not, in this regard, also emulated the prophecies about Christ?”57 In the First Apology and the Dialogue, Justin made it clear that Asclepius worship was derivative of the first physician, Christ.
Ultimately, no healing cult can claim superiority to Christ the Physician since Christ was the
54 See Grant, Greek Apologists, 62.
55 Justin, 1 Apol 64 (PG 6, 425C).
56 Justin, Dial. 69.3 (PG 6, 636C-637B; Thomas B. Falls’ trans., Washington, DC: Catholic University Press, 2003, 108).
57 Ibid.
oldest, and therefore the supreme physician. Justin did not mention Asclepius by name in his Second Apology, although he did recall this supercessionist argument: “For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also he became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, he might also bring us healing.”58 Jesus, existing before time, became the great Physician in our time to ease the maladies of our existence. The apologists were merely offering Jesus as a viable alternative to the healing cult of Asclepius. They were attempting to raise Christ as a superior healer in the minds of their audience to ultimately dissuade them from associating with any pagan healing cult.
Later Greek writers followed Justin in asserting Christ as a physician without
explicitly referring to Asclepius.59 Clement of Alexandria, writing later in the second century, paralleled Justin’s argument for the preexistence of the Logos along with his insistence on Christ as a physician. In his The Instructor, he called Jesus “Our Instructor, the Word, (who) therefore cures the unnatural passions of the soul by means of exhortations. For with the highest propriety the help of bodily diseases is called the healing art, an art acquired by human skill. The Logos of the Father is the only Paeonian physician for human
infirmities.”60 And further, “the Logos of the Father, the creator of man, cares for all our nature, healing it in body and soul alike.”61 Clement was emphasizing that the Physician
58 Justin, Second apology, 13 (PG 6, 468A; Barnard).
59 Athenagoras of Athens mentioned the resurrection myth of Asclepius without providing much detail of the competition with Christ in his Embassy, 29 (PG 6, 957B). But he characterized Christ as “the physician” who introduced salvific medicine for his people in his treatise on The Resurrection of the Dead 1 (PG 6, 976C). Also see Theophilius of Antioch, Letters to Autolycus, 1.7 (PG 6, 1036A; ANF 2.91): “Entrust yourself to the Physician, and He will couch the eyes of your soul and of your heart. Who is the Physician? God, who heals and makes alive through His word and wisdom.”
60 Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.2.6 (PG 8, 256B; ANF 2.210); see Dumeige, “Le Christ Médecin,”
125-129.
61 Ibid.
Christ was a healer of the body and of the soul as well. Although Asclepius was not explicitly mentioned in these examples, Clement may be referring to a competition with Asclepius or with other healers. Clement was possibly insisting that Christ is the superior physician since he heals the soul, not just the body, and justly is called “savior”:
Thus, therefore, the Word has been called also the Savior, seeing He has found out for men those rational medicines which produce vigor of the senses and salvation;
and devotes Himself to watching for the favorable moment, reproving evil, exposing the causes of evil affections, and striking at the roots of irrational lusts, pointing out what we ought to abstain from, and supplying all the antidotes of salvation to those who are diseased. For the greatest and most regal work of God is the salvation of humanity.62
The actions of Christ that Clement described resemble the actions that take place at the Asclepieion or that take place under the care of a Late Antique physician. Priests at the temple would prescribe changes in diet as would a physician. The difference was that Christ cleansed the wounds and the soul, justly earning the moniker “savior” since Asclepius has been called “savior” before Clement. Clement most likely knew of the characterization of Asclepius as “savior,” just as Aristides knew of it decades before this text. Clement would not have mentioned the traits of the physician to juxtapose Christ to local physicians, since local physicians were not exactly a dire threat for the Christians.
The juxtaposition between Asclepius and Christ is perhaps more clear in Clement’s Exhortation to the Greeks where Clement did mention Asclepius by name, calling him an
“invented savior…Asclepius the doctor.”63 Clement argued that Asclepius was no savior.
He was merely a man, not a god.64 Given the direct citation in Justin’s Apology, Asclepius likely posed a severe problem to Christians, allowing Clement to further emphasize Christ’s
62 Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor 1.12.100 (PG 8, 369C; ANF 2.235).
63 Clement, Ex. 2.23 (PG 8, 97A; ANF 2.178).
64 Clement, Ex. 2.24.