Who is Luke?

[John2]

To do list. Re-examine Colossians; think about Aristarchus (who I'd never even noticed before) and Demas (ditto); re-examine Acts for the medical language Harnack discusses.

It would be negligent to stop there, though. Make sure to follow up with H. J. Cadbury, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the topic and argued that the terminology in question, while medical, was also literary and thus available and used by educated Greeks and Romans who were not doctors (think of the term COVID-19, definitely a medical term, but not restricted in any way to medical professionals), an argument which prompted one of my favorite quips of all time, to wit, that Cadbury had earned his own doctorate by depriving Saint Luke of his.

Excellent, thank you. I was thinking along similar lines myself given my suspicion that Acts was written by Epaphroditus, who I think could be the imperial secretary of the same name given that Paul mentions him in the same breath as "those from the household of Caesar" in Php. 4:18-22.

[John2]

And here is something I stumbled upon while looking up Cadbury.

W. K. Hobart, in his book The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882), argues that the Lukan writings are heavily saturated with medical terminology and thus indicative of having been composed by a doctor. However, H. J. Cadbury has shown that a number of these terms were fairly common in antiquity and not necessarily limited to medical writings (The Book of Acts in History [1955]), although Luke-Acts is still consistent with what a physician may have drafted. In fact, as Alfred Plummer observes: "there still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due to the fact of his being a physician. The argument is a cumulative one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large number of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for all of them . . ." (The Gospel According to S. Luke lxiv; cf. lxiii-lxv). Furthermore, Loveday Alexander maintains that the preface of the Third Gospel fits into the mould of "the scientific tradition," involving works on subjects like mathematics, engineering, and medicine ("Luke’s Preface," NovT 28 [1986]: 48-74). The influence of this type of literature on someone educated as a medical doctor would be expected.


http://kmooreperspective.blogspot.com/2 ... -acts.html

[John2]

And here is Cadbury's The Book of Acts in History for me to check out.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover


I can't see the relevant parts on Google books though, but I found a pdf of an article called Lexical Notes on Luke-Acts: Recent Arguments for Medical Language.


https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1926_190.pdf

[Bernard Muller]

to John2,

But even if the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts was a woman, the "historical Luke" mentioned in Philemon 1:24 (and echoed in Colossians, 2 Timothy and tradition) is clearly a man.

But at that time, the third gospel was not assigned to Luke. It will be later, to make gLuke written by, at least, a companion of Paul. But it is obvious gLuke was written later, at least after 70 CE. So goes the "Luke the physician" of the Pauline epistles.

About the author of gLuke/Acts being a physician:

From this website: https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient ... ome-002012

It is important to know that there are texts, although not numerous, informing us of the existence of women dedicated to the practice of medicine in ancient Rome. These written records are usually found in medical treatises and legal texts, but also in literary works, and funerary inscriptions.
...
In the second category we find the medicae, whose function is very difficult to distinguish from that of midwives. It is generally considered that they played the same role as the former, but nevertheless had a much higher level. A second difference, more importantly, is that they not only dealt with gynaecological and obstetric work, but also dabbled in other medical disciplines. Furthermore, medicae used to be free women, who enjoyed a certain social standing, and could even earn good money by practicing medicine.
...
After the arrival in Rome of Greek medicine, the professions of midwives, medicae and iatromeae developed. All women who took up these professions received some professional training, although not scientific, since it is not possible to speak about strictly medical science before the nineteenth century,

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

to rgprice,

But even if the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts was a woman, the "historical Luke" mentioned in Philemon 1:24 (and echoed in Colossians, 2 Timothy and tradition) is clearly a man.

But at that time, the third gospel was not assigned to Luke. It will be later, to make gLuke written by, at least, a companion of Paul. But it is obvious gLuke was written later, at least after 70 CE. So goes the "Luke the physician" of the Pauline epistles.

About the author of gLuke/Acts being a physician:

From this website: https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient ... ome-002012

It is important to know that there are texts, although not numerous, informing us of the existence of women dedicated to the practice of medicine in ancient Rome. These written records are usually found in medical treatises and legal texts, but also in literary works, and funerary inscriptions.
...
In the second category we find the medicae, whose function is very difficult to distinguish from that of midwives. It is generally considered that they played the same role as the former, but nevertheless had a much higher level. A second difference, more importantly, is that they not only dealt with gynaecological and obstetric work, but also dabbled in other medical disciplines. Furthermore, medicae used to be free women, who enjoyed a certain social standing, and could even earn good money by practicing medicine.
...
After the arrival in Rome of Greek medicine, the professions of midwives, medicae and iatromeae developed. All women who took up these professions received some professional training, although not scientific, since it is not possible to speak about strictly medical science before the nineteenth century,

Cordially, Bernard

Your response is to something I wrote and not rgprice (not that it bothers me, I just wanted to point it out).

That is an interesting citation and I will bear it in mind. But as for the historical Luke (the one mentioned in Philemon 1:24), I see no problem with the idea that he wrote after 70 CE. I already suspect Epaphroditus wrote or contributed to Acts, and if he is the imperial secretary of the same name then he would have been born c. 20 CE and died c. 95 CE, so surely the same could apply to Luke as well.

[hakeem]

And here is something I stumbled upon while looking up Cadbury.

W. K. Hobart, in his book The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882), argues that the Lukan writings are heavily saturated with medical terminology and thus indicative of having been composed by a doctor. However, H. J. Cadbury has shown that a number of these terms were fairly common in antiquity and not necessarily limited to medical writings (The Book of Acts in History [1955]), although Luke-Acts is still consistent with what a physician may have drafted. In fact, as Alfred Plummer observes: "there still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due to the fact of his being a physician. The argument is a cumulative one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large number of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for all of them . . ." (The Gospel According to S. Luke lxiv; cf. lxiii-lxv). Furthermore, Loveday Alexander maintains that the preface of the Third Gospel fits into the mould of "the scientific tradition," involving works on subjects like mathematics, engineering, and medicine ("Luke’s Preface," NovT 28 [1986]: 48-74). The influence of this type of literature on someone educated as a medical doctor would be expected.


http://kmooreperspective.blogspot.com/2 ... -acts.html

Please, I beg of you pardon my humor.

I do see some "medical" terms in gLuke.

Luke 1:35

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Gluke must have been an ancient Christian doctor.

[John2]

Okay, but that's not me. I'm just learning as I go here, and Ben directed me to Cadbury and I just finished reading an article by him about this and I think he makes a good case. For example:

I attempted before to indicate how frequently Luke's 'medical terms' occur in ordinary writings like the LXX, Josephus, Plutarch and Lucian. Ail new evidence on Hellenistic Greek tends not to isolate Luke's diction but to connect it with contemporary writers. The forthcoming concordances to Josephus and Philo may be counted on to show that many of the so-called medical terms are used and used with frequency by these contemporary Jewish writers in Greek.


https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1926_190.pdf

[John2]

Colossians seems to be the key now. I've always dismissed it but now I want to take a fresh look at it. For example, the Wikipedia page notes that:

Colossians has some close parallels with the letter to Philemon: names of some of the same people (e.g., Timothy, Aristarchus, Archippus, Mark, Epaphras, Luke, Onesimus, and Demas) appear in both epistles, and both are claimed to be written by Paul.

I noticed this too as I was re-reading it. And I've never had any issue with Philemon being genuine (though I suppose I should take a closer look at counter arguments).

But there's also the fact that Marcion is said to have used it (along with Philemon). Here is how Epiphanius puts it:

This is Marcion’s corrupt compilation, containing a version and form of the Gospel according to Luke, and an incomplete one of the apostle Paul — not of all his epistles but simply of Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, Laodiceans, Galatians, First and Second Corinthians, First and Second Thessalonians, Philemon and Philippians. (There is no version) of First and Second Timothy, Titus, and Hebrews <in his scripture at all, and> even the epistles that are there <have been mutilated>, since they are not all there but are counterfeits. And <I found> that this compilation had been tampered with throughout, and had supplemental material added in certain passages — not for any use, but for inferior, harmful strange sayings against the sound faith, <fictitious> creatures of Marcion’s cracked brain.


https://sites.google.com/site/inglisonm ... postolicon

So it was early enough for Marcion and others to accept it as Pauline, and given that the same people are mentioned in it and Philemon, I'm starting to lean towards the idea that if it wasn't written by Paul it could have been written by someone who knew him. And an obvious candidate would be Timothy, given that the letter begins, "Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, to the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae."

And if this is the case, perhaps there could be something to the detail in 4:14 that Luke was a physician. However, somewhere along the line I picked up that Marcon's Colossians didn't have this detail, and that complicates things.

But if that is the case then the question would be, why was it added? It makes sense that it would be deleted by Marcion given his disdain for the body (as per Docetism according to whoever I picked up this detail from), but why would an orthodox writer add it? Does that tiny detail really derail Docetism? It seems simpler to me to suppose that someone who knew Luke (Timothy?) knew this detail about him.

[Bernard Muller]

About "Luke" medical terms:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archiv ... gy-in-luke

Cordially, Bernard

[John2]

About "Luke" medical terms:
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archiv ... gy-in-luke

Cordially, Bernard

That is very interesting, Bernard. While 'medical' terms may be also used by others (as per Cadbury), there certainly is a lot of sickness and healing going on in Luke/Acts (which I'd never paid much attention to before).