Talk:Rod of Asclepius

Biblical Reference Date

This passage

Biblical scholars look to the Book of Numbers, in which the Nehushtan (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a brass serpent on a pole that God told Moses to erect, saying that anyone bitten [by a snake] would live if they looked at it. This Biblical account is the earliest known record, circa the 13th century BCE  of the pole/serpent combination (though the exact configuration is not known).

Was edited in December to include the text "circa the 13th century BCE", but the change is not supported by the cited source, which dates the actual record to a mix of sources written down over a period between 950 and 500 BCE, several hundred years later than the 13th century even at the earliest date. I previously deleted the 13th century claim with a note explaining that it wasn't supported by the source, but it was reverted by the same user who originally added it. The source claims that the events described in the Biblical book of Exodus are supposed to have occurred in the 13th century, but weren't recorded until much later.

What's more, while double checking the sources prior to writing this talk page section, I noticed the source is about the book of Exodus, not Numbers as claimed in the quoted passage, and does not directly back this being the oldest known record of the symbol, or even mention the specific anecdote at all, on top of using the wrong date and linking to an article about the wrong book. It's possible the user who added the citation cited the wrong link by mistake, but if that's the case it needs to be replaced with the correct citation. I checked the equivalent article about Numbers from the same source as the one provided about Exodus, but it doesn't mention dates at all, merely stating that it continues the narrative from the book of Exodus. There's an additional citation of this pubmed article at the end of the sentence which seems to at least be the source of the "oldest known reference" claim, but it also doesn't back a 13th century date, claiming instead that the biblical story occurred (with no mention of when it was written down, and no citation for the claim beyond the relevant bible passage itself, which also doesn't mention a date) in the 14th century BCE. My inclination at this point would be to reword the entire section to something more neutral and less sweeping in its claims, such as

In the Biblical Book of Numbers, the Nehushtan (Hebrew: נחושתן or נחש הנחושת) was a brass serpent on a pole that God told Moses to erect, saying that anyone bitten [by a snake] would live if they looked at it. This Biblical account is another early record of the pole/serpent combination appearing in a medical context (though the exact configuration is not known).

Owyn Merrilin (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That text looks quite a bit better to my eye. Great claims need great evidence and the current text reads like a single editor's WP: synthesis of multiple sources. Unless it can be defended with better evidence pdq, I will support OM's proposed text. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This can actually be correlated right back to the origin of the Djed Pillar (and flower of life) in Egypt, which itself can be correlated with its appearance at Gobekli Tepi, more than 10,000 years ago, and/or with the Trilithons at Stonehenge, and especially with the notion of the 7 chakra of the Kundalini. This is a set of mnemonics that directly relates human anatomy of the spine/serpent to metrology, and especially the use of 6/5th alternate fibonacci numbers as approximations of PI. Also giving rise to the biggest bigger big standard small smaller smallest notion of the whole being a duality defined by 7 adjective nodes.

It is part of 'two' anatomical metrological diagrams, that were confounded into one with the 3rd eye at some date, that gives rise to the biblical passages...

John 3:14.. Numbers 21:8... 2 Kings 18:4... John 8:28...

The anatomy of the Crucifix of the Christ King, the Orphic Egg & d'Vinci Vitruvian Man: a 6ft high person with 6ft armspan, with a maximum reach of 8ft high, with the arms sweeping out an arc that is 3ft radius, centered upon the clavicles that is 5ft high. The Orphic egg geometry he sits within, that is based upon 3:4:5ft as per the work of Alexander Thom and demonstrated at Carnac. The crossing of the clavicle via the 3rd eye and ashen cross, being the center of a circle with a radius of 5ft romano-egyptian, that is 57.6" Greek with a circumference of 360" as a Sothic year circle using 25/8th as Anthropomorphic Pi, where the circle is squared using 5x5 common greek cubit and 5x5 romano egypian remem (palmipes) diagonal cubits, and the rotated area square sat within an 8x8 grid. aka Checkers and Alquirque as 12 new moons vs 12 full moons.

Geometry 1: The 'Image of God'. These are 10:1 fractals that relate the Hekatompedon diameter Temple with 1 minutes march 3600" circumference (Stonehenge Sarsen Circle ID), to the Orphic Egg based crucifix and its 360" Sothic circle, to the Skull with 36" crossed solar burst around the skull, to the ashen cross marked upon the brow on Ash wednesday with Palm leave ash. This can be extended up to the city squaring the circle of 36000" Greek @ 1:43,200 Earth scale polar elliptical (see John Neal). Which matches the Great pyramid casing extended through the paving to the socket floor, as noted by Flinders Petrie.

Geometry 2: The 'Djed Pillar', 'Rod of Asclepius' & 'Staff of Moses'. Where the Max reach is 8ft high, this is treated as the circle diameter with successive concentric circles scaled by equilateral triangles to half size. 8ft > 4ft > 2ft > 1ft. Here, the spine starting at the coccyx or phallus that divides the 6ft height into two, is matched to the point where the spine enters the brain cavity at 5/6th of the 3ft distance between coccyx and crown of the skull. This 3ft distance is divided by 3x 1ft diameter circle, that are interlocked by two more, to create 6 divisions and 7 nodes/chakras of the spinal colum (Flower of Life). The lowest interlocking ring being that of the 8ft > 1ft concentrics. The 4/6th point being the clavicles that centers the 360" sothic circle noted above.

This 6:5 ratio later became known as the Doric Column. It is exhibited by the trilithons of stonehenge at 12:10 cubits of 144"/7 in Greek 1,555,200,000" and romano-egyptian 1,620,000,000" polar elliptical. The Great Trilithon being a curiosity that uses an 11:10 ratio at 288" Eratosthene-english 1,575,000,000". When it is corrected to the 6:5 ratio via a split lintel suggested by many that surveyed Stonehenge, the heights become 261.818" > 288" > 314.181". This is demonstrating Fibonacci Phi as 144/55 and pi as 6/5 x 144/55 using the 144"/7 cane cubit that are comfirmed by the Virtuvian 'Wheel of the Ancients' using 25/8th Anthropomorphic Pi..

150" @ 1,620,000,000 romano-egyptian = 145.833" @ 1,575,000,000 Eratosthenes English = 144" @ 1,555,200,000 Greek = 140" @ 1,512,000,000" (thus Barley Cane using Barley Cubits of 20" or 30 fingers)

250,000,000" x 2 x 864/275 x 99/100 = 1,555,200,000" & 250,000,000" x 2 x 63/20 = 1,575,000,000". Where the 28 finger cubit, 20 x root 2 cubit and greek cane cubits are scaled by square root 0.98 through the diagonal of squares using 20:20:28 or 21:21:30 fingers.

Notes: Further discussion would entail the relation between the 63/64th wadjet eye, the 12x13 days months and 13 phases (Eucharist round table and last supper), the 5 epgaomenal days, the 40 days of lent, the Fibonacci Pi ratios 3.6, 3.2, 3.15, 22/7, 864/275 and the Great flood in...

Genesis 8:1, 8:2, 8:3, 8:5, 8:8 & 8:13 that relates the 3rd day of the Equinox to Easter Sunday and Noahs day of the Dove. How far down the Rabbit hole do you wish to go ? Michael Saunders (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” Then the Jews replied, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and You will raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple which was His body.

John 2:19... Michael Saunders (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Note [a] misquoted

Note [a] should read "you marvel at the serpent..." but I cannot fix it because it is a construct I do not understand. 220.240.200.42 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Israeli Army Medical Corps

Do they use a rod of asclepius or the nehushtan as the symbol? 71.191.145.218 (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

This from the Imperial War Museum says it's the "rod and serpent of Aesculapius". That does seem reasonable, given the rod's international use and the nehushtan's destruction by Hezekiah. NebY (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

"Especially In The United States..."

“It is relatively common, especially in the United States, to find the caduceus, with its two snakes and wings, (mis)used as a symbol of medicine instead of the Rod of Asclepius, with only a single snake.” I did read this controversy, and it is baseless. From Enclyopdia Brititanica; “caduceus, staff carried by Hermes, the messenger of the gods, as a symbol of peace. Among the ancient Greeks and Romans it became the badge of heralds and ambassadors, signifying their inviolability… Its similarity to the staff of Asclepius the healer (a staff branched at the top and entwined by a single serpent) resulted in modern times in the adoption of the caduceus as a symbol of the physician and as the emblem of the U.S. Army Medical Corps.” https://www.britannica.com/topic/caduceus

I leave you to decide for yourself the gravitas to give the issue of the similarity to the Rod Of Asclepius, but mythologically Hermes began studying medicine later in life (because bored gods are dangerous).

Second, the only purpose of this line is a lot of America bashing. It is utterly shameful (not that wikipedians HAVE any shame) to use this as a political weapon. 69.10.163.44 (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

If you actually bother to read the article, your belief that it is "America bashing" is unfounded. The Wikipedia article and the Britannica article both say that the US military usage came about because of the similarity of the symbols. The Wikipedia article goes on to tell you when and how the misunderstanding happened, citing the sources that provide the basis for the text. So if you don't like what is written here, you need to go back to those sources and complain there. It is not the fault of Wikipedia or the sources that it is only in the US that the error became endemic. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2025 (UTC) Revised --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

In section "Modern use", sort geographically, not alphabetically

@DocWatson42: alphabetized the lists under the "Modern use" sections. I think it would be more helpful to place services from the same country together.

Geographical ordering surfaces more data-points: whether two organizations chose the same or different symbols says something about their relationship. Also, people seeking out the lists are likely to be interested in the symbols of organizations in particular countries (possibly the reader's country). Geographic ordering facilitates finding organizations from the same country, especially when the reader doesn't know all their names.

Some items were ordered geographically prior to this change. Some were not. I suspect the latter were errors accreted over time. Note that items already are groupped by continent. Anyone else have an opinion on this?
— Black Walnut ^talk 07:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Standing back a little, I suggest that this list has become grossly disproportionate, is now undue, and it is time to remove it (or at least hive it off to a separate list article). I suspect that when it was first introduced, it was to distinguish between organisations in the US that used this symbol v those that use the Caduceus but so what?

What encyclopedic value does it have? How does it not violate WP:NOTDB? Delete. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 08:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't tell that the items were (in part) grouped geographically. I'm fine with grouping them by continent/region (alphabetically; "South Pacific" should be changed to "Oceania") and then alphabetically in the lists, unless they are explicitly labeled by country/territory, then alphabetically by that, and then by name. —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Keep:

I came to this article in search of knowledge, which I needed for work.

I needed to know the symbol's meaning and history, and also the degree to which the symbol holds mindshare in specific countries -- its brand recognition. The lists handily answered the latter question.

Specifically, I needed to know:

(1) how widespread the symbol is, in certain countries.

(2) how prestigious it is, in those countries.

It was also useful to me, because I'm in the business of knowing many facts about many things, to discover:

(3) the degree to which this symbol, of quintessential European origin and allusions, has spread to non-European cultures.

The number of items in the list answered the first question. The names of the organizations answered the second. The categories (by continent) answered the third.

I got all these answers, in a matter of *seconds*, by just eyeballing the lists! All in all, I sought out basic encyclopedic information, and the article delivered. I was a very satisfied user.

One could replace the lists with prose. Perhaps like this:

The Rod of Asclepius is widely used across the globe. It has been adopted by many large and prestigious organizations, including government agencies and institutions sanctioned by governments, such as medical associations and the medical branches of national militaries. It is especially widespread in Europe and in North America.

Note the citation problem: to publish the above paragraph, we must wait for some person, who probably also has a life and bills to pay, to become engrosed in this particular topic and to publish a book or article about it. And not on a blog, heaven forbid! Lists avoid this problem. Being mere facts, easily verified, they need no citation. Nor are they original research -- no opinion is being expressed. They can be crowd-sourced and built over time. They add value even early in their development. Contrarily, an article on the symbol's mindshare would not get published until the author had completed a thorough survey.

Even with a citation, the prose is nowhere near as convincing, the facts nowhere near as immediate, as showing me the raw data which, in this case, can be shown easily and compactly. Had the article provided merely the above paragraph, without a publicly accessible list to back it up, I would not have been able to end my day here. I would have had to spend hours researching, before I could authoritatively recommend that the symbol be used and before I was in a position to back up my recommendation with examples, if challenged.

A picture is worth a thousand words. A list is a kind of picture.

I don't disagree that the list now forms a disproportionate part of the article. I could be ok with moving the list to a new article but such an article would be even more vulnerable to WP:NOTDB attacks. I would be ok with a category, if categories could be organized non-alphabetically.

I diagree with much of WP:NOTDB.

That policy makes sense for print encyclopedias. My bookshelves and my pocketbook cannot manage a printed encyclopedia that would include the world. This is why print encyclopedias restrict themselves. Not because lists lack value, nor because most readers wouldn't consult lists, but because lists are unwieldy in print. This is why lists - the few that pre-digital society could manage - were published in directories, and you consulted those by visiting your central library, if you were lucky enough to live in a metropole. Today, Wikipedia's servers as well as my Internet connection can handle lists.

WP:NOTDB made sense for Wikipedia in the beginning, when resources - money and volunteer time - had to carefully managed. Today, Wikipedia is a household name and donations flow in freely. And here's the thing: I know of no other place on the web that could hold this specific information (list of organizations that have the Rod of Asclepius in their logo) and that is widely recognized, attracts many participants, is well-funded, gratis, and has a non-profit mandate, to guarantee that the information won't get compromised or paywalled or monetized with ads or by mining personal information. Wikipedia is it. It captured all the mindshare. In my opinion, this makes it Wikipedia's duty to fill the niches which its own success, possibly, prevents other projects from arising to fulfil.

So: encylopedic tone, sure. General knowledge, not specialist, sure. Don't duplicate existing projects (eg fandoms), sure. But omit helpful information just because printers in the 1800s would have omitted it? No! Err on the side of inclusion, not omission.

Finally, a meta-consideration:

Organizations need ways to recruit participants. Without new blood, the encyclopedia will stagnate and, over time, rot. A crowd-sourced volunteer project like Wikipedia, needs easy tasks, to draw people in. Lists provide easy tasks: one can add an entry by copying syntax from an adjacent entry.

Participation in English Wikipedia is declining, I hear. I think that this is partly because most articles are mature. Precious little easy work remains. For most work, the entry barrier is enormous: a mountain of policies, jargon, markup syntax, ways to ask for help, and other crap must be read, before a newcomer can make a change that won't get reverted.

Without lists, we have one less way for potential recruits to dip their toe, get some dopamine, and come back, to maybe tackle some of that wall of instructional text built by well-meaning Wikipedians.
— Black Walnut ^talk 08:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

"a mountain of ... ways to ask for help"

And difficulty, even for an experienced editor, in finding some of the right places to ask for help on specific subjects —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2026 (UTC)