What do you think?
Rate this book
Luke the physician: and other studies in the history of religion
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
474 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2006
About the author
William M. Ramsay
70 books16 followersSir William Mitchell Ramsay, FBA was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament. From the post of Professor of Classical Art and Architecture at Oxford, he was appointed Regius Professor of Humanity (the Latin Professorship) at Aberdeen. Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honourary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honourary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities and became an honourary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research. He was one of the original members of the British Academy, was awarded the Gold Medal of Pope Leo XIII in 1893 and the Victorian Medal of the Royal Geographical Society in 1906.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
March 20, 2025
THE TITLE ESSAY, AND OTHER STUDIES
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar, as well as Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford University. He is now probably most remembered for his studies (in what is now Turkey and Asia Minor) of St. Paul's missionary journeys and of Christianity in the early Roman Empire, and for his endorsement of the historical accuracy of Luke and the Book of Acts.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1908 book, “The papers republished in this volume have appeared in various magazines… Most of them have been profoundly modified and much enlarged; but only in the last, which is made up of six older articles, is there any essential change in the original opinions. Elsewhere, the alterations which have been introduced are intended to render more precise and emphatic the views formerly stated. Even the first article [‘Luke the Physician’], which has been little changed in expression, has been greatly enlarged… The last article stands in much need of help and criticism from more experienced scholars. In writing it I felt the depths of my ignorance; but the first steps had to be taken in the subject.”
He states in the opening article ‘Luke the Physician,’ “It has for some time been evident to all New Testament scholars who were not hidebound in old prejudice that there must be a new departure in Luken criticism. The method of dissection had failed. When a real piece of living literature has to be examined, it is false method to treat it as a corpse, and cut it in pieces: only a mess can result… Nothing in the whole history of literary criticism has been so [much a] waste and dreary as a great part of the modern critical study of Luke… The question, ‘Shall we hear evidence or not?’ presents itself at the threshold of every investigation into the New Testament. Modern criticism for a time entered on its task with a decided negative. Its mind was made up, and it would not listen to evidence on a matter that was already decided. But the results of recent exploration made this attitude untenable…
“All minds… that are able to learn, have become aware of this. The result is visible in the book which we now have before us. Professor [Adolf von] Harnack is willing to hear evidence. The class of evidence that chiefly appeals to him is …. Literary and linguistic, and this he finds clear enough to make him alter his former views, and come to the decided conclusion that the Third Gospel and Acts are a historical work … written, as the tradition says, by Luke, a physician, Paul’s companion in travel and associate in evangelistic work. This conclusion… does not, however, lead him to consider that Luke’s history is true.” (Pg. 3-4)
He asserts, “The importance of this book [by a ‘Mr. Hobart’] lies in its convincing demonstration of the perfect unity of authorship throughout the whole of the Third Gospel and Acts … difference between parts like Luke 1:5-2:52 on the one hand, and the ‘We’ sections of Acts on the other… is a mere trifle in comparison with the complete identity in language, vocabulary, intentions, interests and method of narration. The writer is the same throughout. He was, of course, dependent on information gained from others… But Luke has treated his written authorities with considerable freedom as regards style and even choice of details, and impressed his own personality distinctly even on those parts in which he most closely follows a written source.” (Pg. 6-7)
He asserts, “I think that the story in Luke 1-2 is dependent on an oral not a written report; but … I think that this report comes from Mary herself… Here we have a narrative which comes from a Hebrew source, from a woman saturated with Hebraic imagery… But also, I venture to believe, it has been re-thought out of the Hebraic into the Greek fashion. The messenger of God… becomes to Luke the winged personal being who, like Iris or Hermes, communicates the will and purpose of God. Exactly what is the difference between the original narrative and the Greek translation, I am not able to say or to speculate; but that there was a more anthropomorphic picture of the messenger in Luke’s mind than there was in Mary’s I feel no doubt… He expresses and thinks as a Greek that which was thought and expressed by a Hebrew.” (Pg. 13)
He admits, “the enigmatic silence of Acts about Titus, a person of such importance and so closely alike in influence to Luke. He who solves that enigma will throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity in the Aegean lands.” (Pg. 17)
He notes a critic who “speaks of my theory that Luke was employed by Paul as a physician during his severe illness in Galatia. If I have so spoken it would be a clear example of inexactitude and inconsistency on my part. I entirely agree with Professor Harnack that Paul first met Luke in Troas, and that Luke never travelled with Paul in Galatia… I have doubtless spoken of Luke as being useful as a medical adviser to Paul in traveling… Moreover, a traveler may be guided by his physician’s advice, even though the physician does not accompany him.” (Pg. 27-28)
He notes, “Luke was not merely a witness, he took part in the action… here [Acts 16:10,13] the narrator makes himself one of the missionaries to Macedonia. He was not a mere companion, he was an enthusiastic missionary to that country.” (Pg. 34)
He says, “While everyone admits … that Luke had access to written narratives about many events of which he had not been an eye-witness… there is not much agreement as to the extent wo which… he was indebted to these Sources. But there is … one Source… which is indubitable… Luke employed the Second Gospel: he took a copy of Mark… and he wrote out three-fourths of it in his own Gospel in much the same order as Mark wrote it. He improved the Greek, he touched it up with explanatory additions… and he added greatly to it from other sources of information… but the style, syntax and vocabulary of Mark are clearly discernible in the borrowed passages.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “the writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts was a physician… [There are] six classes of proofs: 1. The presentation of the subject… as determined to a certain degree by point of view, aims and ideals of a medical character. 2. Acts of healing are recorded… with especial interest. 3. The language … is colored by the speech of physicians (...medical terms, etc.)… 4. The description of the several cases of sickness mentioned shows the observation and knowledge that mark a physician. 5. The language of Luke … has a medical color. 6. Where Luke is speaking as an eye-witness, the medical element is specially clearly visible.” (Pg. 56-57)
Most of Ramsay’s writings will be of keen interest to those studying Biblical Archaeology and Apologetics.
Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar, as well as Professor of Classical Archaeology at Oxford University. He is now probably most remembered for his studies (in what is now Turkey and Asia Minor) of St. Paul's missionary journeys and of Christianity in the early Roman Empire, and for his endorsement of the historical accuracy of Luke and the Book of Acts.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1908 book, “The papers republished in this volume have appeared in various magazines… Most of them have been profoundly modified and much enlarged; but only in the last, which is made up of six older articles, is there any essential change in the original opinions. Elsewhere, the alterations which have been introduced are intended to render more precise and emphatic the views formerly stated. Even the first article [‘Luke the Physician’], which has been little changed in expression, has been greatly enlarged… The last article stands in much need of help and criticism from more experienced scholars. In writing it I felt the depths of my ignorance; but the first steps had to be taken in the subject.”
He states in the opening article ‘Luke the Physician,’ “It has for some time been evident to all New Testament scholars who were not hidebound in old prejudice that there must be a new departure in Luken criticism. The method of dissection had failed. When a real piece of living literature has to be examined, it is false method to treat it as a corpse, and cut it in pieces: only a mess can result… Nothing in the whole history of literary criticism has been so [much a] waste and dreary as a great part of the modern critical study of Luke… The question, ‘Shall we hear evidence or not?’ presents itself at the threshold of every investigation into the New Testament. Modern criticism for a time entered on its task with a decided negative. Its mind was made up, and it would not listen to evidence on a matter that was already decided. But the results of recent exploration made this attitude untenable…
“All minds… that are able to learn, have become aware of this. The result is visible in the book which we now have before us. Professor [Adolf von] Harnack is willing to hear evidence. The class of evidence that chiefly appeals to him is …. Literary and linguistic, and this he finds clear enough to make him alter his former views, and come to the decided conclusion that the Third Gospel and Acts are a historical work … written, as the tradition says, by Luke, a physician, Paul’s companion in travel and associate in evangelistic work. This conclusion… does not, however, lead him to consider that Luke’s history is true.” (Pg. 3-4)
He asserts, “The importance of this book [by a ‘Mr. Hobart’] lies in its convincing demonstration of the perfect unity of authorship throughout the whole of the Third Gospel and Acts … difference between parts like Luke 1:5-2:52 on the one hand, and the ‘We’ sections of Acts on the other… is a mere trifle in comparison with the complete identity in language, vocabulary, intentions, interests and method of narration. The writer is the same throughout. He was, of course, dependent on information gained from others… But Luke has treated his written authorities with considerable freedom as regards style and even choice of details, and impressed his own personality distinctly even on those parts in which he most closely follows a written source.” (Pg. 6-7)
He asserts, “I think that the story in Luke 1-2 is dependent on an oral not a written report; but … I think that this report comes from Mary herself… Here we have a narrative which comes from a Hebrew source, from a woman saturated with Hebraic imagery… But also, I venture to believe, it has been re-thought out of the Hebraic into the Greek fashion. The messenger of God… becomes to Luke the winged personal being who, like Iris or Hermes, communicates the will and purpose of God. Exactly what is the difference between the original narrative and the Greek translation, I am not able to say or to speculate; but that there was a more anthropomorphic picture of the messenger in Luke’s mind than there was in Mary’s I feel no doubt… He expresses and thinks as a Greek that which was thought and expressed by a Hebrew.” (Pg. 13)
He admits, “the enigmatic silence of Acts about Titus, a person of such importance and so closely alike in influence to Luke. He who solves that enigma will throw a flood of light on the early history of Christianity in the Aegean lands.” (Pg. 17)
He notes a critic who “speaks of my theory that Luke was employed by Paul as a physician during his severe illness in Galatia. If I have so spoken it would be a clear example of inexactitude and inconsistency on my part. I entirely agree with Professor Harnack that Paul first met Luke in Troas, and that Luke never travelled with Paul in Galatia… I have doubtless spoken of Luke as being useful as a medical adviser to Paul in traveling… Moreover, a traveler may be guided by his physician’s advice, even though the physician does not accompany him.” (Pg. 27-28)
He notes, “Luke was not merely a witness, he took part in the action… here [Acts 16:10,13] the narrator makes himself one of the missionaries to Macedonia. He was not a mere companion, he was an enthusiastic missionary to that country.” (Pg. 34)
He says, “While everyone admits … that Luke had access to written narratives about many events of which he had not been an eye-witness… there is not much agreement as to the extent wo which… he was indebted to these Sources. But there is … one Source… which is indubitable… Luke employed the Second Gospel: he took a copy of Mark… and he wrote out three-fourths of it in his own Gospel in much the same order as Mark wrote it. He improved the Greek, he touched it up with explanatory additions… and he added greatly to it from other sources of information… but the style, syntax and vocabulary of Mark are clearly discernible in the borrowed passages.” (Pg. 39)
He states, “the writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts was a physician… [There are] six classes of proofs: 1. The presentation of the subject… as determined to a certain degree by point of view, aims and ideals of a medical character. 2. Acts of healing are recorded… with especial interest. 3. The language … is colored by the speech of physicians (...medical terms, etc.)… 4. The description of the several cases of sickness mentioned shows the observation and knowledge that mark a physician. 5. The language of Luke … has a medical color. 6. Where Luke is speaking as an eye-witness, the medical element is specially clearly visible.” (Pg. 56-57)
Most of Ramsay’s writings will be of keen interest to those studying Biblical Archaeology and Apologetics.
Displaying 1 of 1 review