Cannon 11 of the Council in Trullo says:
As part of a larger discussion this was offered up as some kind of gotcha. In that discussion I explained that canons (standards) don't function in identical ways, and literal following them isn't the right way to understand it. Much like the sentences of stoning were obviously not always carried out in the Torah ("Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death" would result in a lot of teenager executions if held woodenly literally) these are standards to be applied by bishops.
However, this doesn't mean they lapse or don't have force. So... is it wrong for an Orthodox Christian to go to a Jewish MD today? The answer is no, but not because we don't think this canon applies to us.
An "ancient epitome" is an early summary or condensed digest of a council's canons, produced for practical reference . It transmits the substance of the original canon in abbreviated form but does not carry independent authority apart from the underlying text. The ancient epitome of this canon is "Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed." This canon is like an expansion of canon 37 and 38 of Laodicea, which prevents feasting or receiving unleavened bread from Jews.
Unleavened bread is not merely bread, and accepting it in this context could signal participation in a Jewish Passover (widely condemned by the fathers) or a blurring of Eucharistic lines. This council focused a lot on Christian liturgical norms - including the debate over leavened or unleavened bread between east and west - so this is a clear reiteration of earlier regional canons aimed toward boundaries with ritual practice.
For receiving medicine or summoning in illness - you can't read this as going to a doctor in the modern sense; modern medicine didn't exist. In late antiquity medicine was not clearly distinguished from cosmology, ritual practice, or even sorcery. Jewish healers (much like Christian and pagan ones) operated within a worldview that illness often had spiritual causes. Healing could include amulets, scriptural recitation, personal ritual preparation, and so on. The canon here is about avoiding religious entanglement by participation, because medicine was not seen as religiously neutral.
Bathing is similar - the ancient epitome is "Christians are not to associate with Jews in their rites or public customs". Bathing was social, and Jewish baths could and did overlap with ritual purity practices, so this is avoiding ritualized social participation that blurs religious boundaries.
Finally, the one that seems the oddest to our modern eyes is "familiar intercourse". In the parlance of the time, intercourse means the interaction of life - sharing a meal, friendship, routine social interactions. "Familiar" intensifies this into something less casual and more relational. A modern translation would be something like "intimate social association." There were medieval Byzantine canonists named Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras. They both suggest that this is relating to eating in religious contexts, joining festivals, and patterns of companionship that imply solidarity for Balsamon and avoiding doctrinal influence, imitation, and shared meals by Zonaras (habitual closeness that fosters shared ways of life). Neither view this is as ethnic isolation or some kind of impurity. The council of Antioch has similar canons on restricting clerics from social associations that could compromise the clarity of their ecclesial identity. In other words - do not live in such a way that your shared life suggests shared worship.
So all in all, this canon is aimed at protecting people from religious syncretism in a religiously porous society. The intent here is to guard against performing actions which could bleed into a gray area in worship. And, of course, this is still in effect for us today. We should not worship with others or live our lives in such a way that we may be seen as compromising our faith, or may incidentally engage in ritual acts with those who do not share our faith.
You don't need to check for a star of David with your doctor.
Quote:
Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off.
As part of a larger discussion this was offered up as some kind of gotcha. In that discussion I explained that canons (standards) don't function in identical ways, and literal following them isn't the right way to understand it. Much like the sentences of stoning were obviously not always carried out in the Torah ("Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death" would result in a lot of teenager executions if held woodenly literally) these are standards to be applied by bishops.
However, this doesn't mean they lapse or don't have force. So... is it wrong for an Orthodox Christian to go to a Jewish MD today? The answer is no, but not because we don't think this canon applies to us.
An "ancient epitome" is an early summary or condensed digest of a council's canons, produced for practical reference . It transmits the substance of the original canon in abbreviated form but does not carry independent authority apart from the underlying text. The ancient epitome of this canon is "Jewish unleavened bread is to be refused. Whoever even calls in Jews as physicians or bathes with them is to be deposed." This canon is like an expansion of canon 37 and 38 of Laodicea, which prevents feasting or receiving unleavened bread from Jews.
Unleavened bread is not merely bread, and accepting it in this context could signal participation in a Jewish Passover (widely condemned by the fathers) or a blurring of Eucharistic lines. This council focused a lot on Christian liturgical norms - including the debate over leavened or unleavened bread between east and west - so this is a clear reiteration of earlier regional canons aimed toward boundaries with ritual practice.
For receiving medicine or summoning in illness - you can't read this as going to a doctor in the modern sense; modern medicine didn't exist. In late antiquity medicine was not clearly distinguished from cosmology, ritual practice, or even sorcery. Jewish healers (much like Christian and pagan ones) operated within a worldview that illness often had spiritual causes. Healing could include amulets, scriptural recitation, personal ritual preparation, and so on. The canon here is about avoiding religious entanglement by participation, because medicine was not seen as religiously neutral.
Bathing is similar - the ancient epitome is "Christians are not to associate with Jews in their rites or public customs". Bathing was social, and Jewish baths could and did overlap with ritual purity practices, so this is avoiding ritualized social participation that blurs religious boundaries.
Finally, the one that seems the oddest to our modern eyes is "familiar intercourse". In the parlance of the time, intercourse means the interaction of life - sharing a meal, friendship, routine social interactions. "Familiar" intensifies this into something less casual and more relational. A modern translation would be something like "intimate social association." There were medieval Byzantine canonists named Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras. They both suggest that this is relating to eating in religious contexts, joining festivals, and patterns of companionship that imply solidarity for Balsamon and avoiding doctrinal influence, imitation, and shared meals by Zonaras (habitual closeness that fosters shared ways of life). Neither view this is as ethnic isolation or some kind of impurity. The council of Antioch has similar canons on restricting clerics from social associations that could compromise the clarity of their ecclesial identity. In other words - do not live in such a way that your shared life suggests shared worship.
So all in all, this canon is aimed at protecting people from religious syncretism in a religiously porous society. The intent here is to guard against performing actions which could bleed into a gray area in worship. And, of course, this is still in effect for us today. We should not worship with others or live our lives in such a way that we may be seen as compromising our faith, or may incidentally engage in ritual acts with those who do not share our faith.
You don't need to check for a star of David with your doctor.
