Abstract
Medicine often has side-effects or unintended consequences that are more harmful than the original disease. Medical anthropology in general and the illness–disease distinction in particular has been introduced into historical Jesus research with the intent to protect it from medicocentrism and thus to offer ways of comprehending sickness and healing in the world of Jesus and his first followers without distorting these phenomena by imposing the biomedical framework onto the texts. In particular the illness–disease distinction is used for making sense of healing accounts whilst claiming to cross the cultural gap. Based on an analysis of the illness–disease distinction in medical anthropology and its use in historical Jesus research this article suggests that instead of protecting from ethnocentrism this distinction actually increases the risk of ethnocentrism and consequently distorts in many instances the healing accounts of the New Testament.
Highlights
It is remarkable how frequently medical anthropology in general and the illness–disease distinction in particular are nowadays invoked in New Testament scholarship to facilitate ethnocentric-free cross-cultural interpretation
In addition to the fact that there is no such fundamental distinction and that it functions within particular anthropological visions only, an analysis of the illness–disease distinction in New Testament scholarship will reveal a rather disconcerting picture. It appears that New Testament scholars seem oblivious to the fact that the terms illness and disease are used in medical anthropology with a variety of meanings, and that the distinction is not a tool for cross-cultural interpretation
This article started with the observation that in some circles Jesus research is dramatically influenced by the employment of medical anthropology in general and the illness–disease distinction in particular
Summary
Medical anthropology as an antidote for ethnocentrism in Jesus research? Putting the illness–disease distinction into perspective. Medical anthropology as an antidote for ethnocentrism in Jesus research? How to cite this article: Craffert, P.F., 2011, ‘Medical anthropology as an antidote for ethnocentrism in Jesus research? Medical anthropology in general and the illness–disease distinction in particular has been introduced into historical Jesus research with the intent to protect it from medicocentrism and to offer ways of comprehending sickness and healing in the world of Jesus and his first followers without distorting these phenomena by imposing the biomedical framework onto the texts.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
