Luke is identified in Col. 4:14 as the beloved ἰατρός, “physician” or “one who heals, a mediciner,” cognate with the verbal ἰάομαι, to “heal” or “cure.”1 These terms occur in Luke’s Gospel more than in any other NT document,2 as well as the most healing stories and compassionate portrayals of the sick. The so-called Anti-Marcionite prologue to the Third Gospel describes the author as “Luke … a physician by profession.”
Medical Care in Luke’s Day
In ancient Rome the head of the household (paterfamilias) was the primary healthcare provider until the widespread influence of Greek medicine. Throughout the Empire were sanctuaries dedicated to healing gods, serving as an alternative or supplementary means of health care. In the absence of official regulations and restrictions, just about anyone could practice medicine. If one had successful results he could gain more patients; otherwise a different profession would be needed.3 Because of widespread fraud and quackery, many people were skeptical of the medical profession.4
Learned physicians typically relied on natural remedies rather than charms, chants, or other superstitious rituals.5 During the NT era there was an acknowledged need for physicians (Matt. 9:12; Mark 2:17; Luke 5:31), regarded as healers and generally valued (Luke 4:23), although their limitations were also recognized (Mark 5:26; Luke 8:43).
There were basically two types of medical doctors. The Greek physician was highly trained in medical theory and typically served the aristocrats and military officers. The Roman physician (medicus) was more practical in his approach, learning from experience, and serving the general public and lower-ranking soldiers. Few freeborn Romans became doctors, while the bulk of Greek doctors in the Roman world were slaves or freedmen. The profession was often disparaged by Rome’s societal elites.6
An Educated Greek Physician
The preface of Luke’s Gospel fits into the mold of “the scientific tradition,” involving works on subjects that include science and medicine,7 the influence of which on someone educated as a physician would be expected. As “the most literary of the New Testament writers,”8 the quality of Luke’s literary style and range of vocabulary betrays a level of education that sets him apart from the medical quacks and literary aspirants of his day.
Luke’s training would have been based on the well-established medical tradition of Hippocrates II of Kos (ca. 460-370 BC), considered the father of western medicine. Pedanius Dioscorides (ca. AD 40-90), a contemporary of Luke, was a highly respected physician, botanist, and pharmacologist from the province of Cilicia, probably educated in Paul’s hometown of Tarsus. Dioscorides wrote a five-volume herbal-medicine encyclopedia entitled Περὶ ὕλης ἰατρικῆς in Greek, or De Materia Medica in Latin (“On Medical Material”), used by medical practitioners for over fifteen centuries. It is the primary source of historical information on treatments employed by the ancients, almost certainly including Luke himself.
Luke’s Medical Language
W. K. Hobart argued that the writings of Luke are heavily saturated with medical terminology and thus indicative of having been composed by a physician,9 corroborated further by A. von Harnack, T. Zahn, and J. Moffatt. However, H. J. Cadbury has shown that a number of these terms were fairly common in antiquity and not necessarily limited to medical literature.10 Nonetheless, the high concentration in Luke-Acts is noteworthy and consistent with what a physician could have and perhaps would have drafted. Although the language and terminology do not “prove” the author was a physician, they do “corroborate in a striking manner the tradition that the author was Luke the physician.”11
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…”12 It is most apparent that the “author of Luke-Acts had a particular interest in images of illness and healing, which were plausible within the ancient medical context, and far exceed word analogies.”13
A Medical Missionary
Luke was an evangelist, theologian, author, historian, biographer, and missionary. Yet Paul still recognized him as “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14). Considering the constant threat of illness and the extreme sufferings Paul endured throughout his ministry (2 Cor. 6:4-5; 11:23-30; 12:5-10; Gal. 4:13-14), having Dr. Luke as a ministerial companion would have been a tremendous blessing, both for treatments and medical advice (cf. 1 Tim. 5:23; 2 Tim. 4:11).
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Also cognate with Ἰασώ, the goddess of healing (H. G. Lidell, R. Scott, H. S. Jones, and R. McKenzie, Greek and English Lexicon 302, 303).
2 The noun form occurs three times in Luke’s Gospel (4:23; 5:31; 8:43), once each in the other Synoptics (Matt. 9:12; Mark 2:17), and once in Paul as descriptive of Luke (Col. 4:14). The verbal form appears in Luke’s writings sixteen times (Luke 4:18; 5:17; 6:18, 19; 7:7; 8:47; 9:2, 11, 42; 14:4; 17:15; 22:51; Acts 9:34; 10:38; 28:8, 27), compared to only four times in Matthew (8:8, 13; 13:15; 15:28), once in Mark (5:29), three times in John’s Gospel (4:47; 5:13; 12:40), and only once more in the NT (Heb. 12:13). On Luke’s potential contribution to Hebrews, see K. L. Moore, “The Plural Authorship of Hebrews (Part 1),” Moore Perspective(20 July 2016), and Part 2 (27 July 2016), <Web>.
3 Marcus Valerius Martialis, Epigrams 1.47; 5.9; 8.74.
4 Pliny the Elder, Natural History 29.6-8.
5 Susan Francia and Anne Stobart, eds. Critical Approaches to the History of Western Herbal Medicine: From Classical Antiquity to the Early Modern Period (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014): 193. Also John Scarborough, “On the Understanding of Medicine Among the Romans,” in The Historian 39:2 (Feb. 1977): 213-27.
6 John Scarborough, “Romans and Physicians,” in The Classical Journal 65:7 (April 1970): 296-306.
7 Loveday Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing,” NovTest28:1 (1986): 48-74.
8 E. Earle Ellis, “St. Luke: Biblical Author,” Encyclopedia Britannica (17 May 2019), <Web>; “The literary style of his writings and the range of his vocabulary mark him as an educated man.”
9 The Medical Language of St. Luke (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1882).
10 The Book of Acts in History (London: Adam & Charles Black, 1955).
11 Norval Geldenhuys, Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993): 20.
12 Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to S. Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902): lxiv; cf. lxiii-lxv.
13 Annette Weissenrieder, Images of Illness in the Gospel of Luke: Insights of Ancient Medical Texts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003): 365.
Related Posts: What Do We Know About Luke Part 1
Image credit: Frans Hals’ St. Luke <https://www.ncregister.com/blog/st-luke-10-things-to-know-and-share>.
No comments:
Post a Comment