On the Medical Language of St. Luke

We get early well-articulated notice of Luke's medical language from M.F. Sadler, The Gospel Acc. to St. Luke, (1890, NY): Introduction:

" MEDICAL LANGUAGE OF ST. LUKE.
'I have given in an excursus at the conclusion of my notes on the Acts of the Apostles some instances of the use of medical language by St. Luke. This subject seems exhausted in a treatise by the Rev. W. K. Hobart, of Trinity College, Dublin, "The Medical Language of St. Luke." He seems to prove  very clearly, not only that St. Luke uses medical terms in describing the miracles of healing, which the other Evangelists do not use, but that his vocabulary is that of one who had received a medical education and studied medical treatises; and when writing respecting non-medical matters he yet uses very many words which Hippocrates, Galen, Dioscorides, and other Greek physicians were in the habit of employing even when not writing on diseases and their remedies. To give Dr. Hobart's own words,

"There is a class of words running through the third Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles, and for the most part peculiar to these books of the New Testament writings, with which a medical man must have been familiar, as they formed part of the ordinary phraseology of Greek medical language. In thus using words to which he had become habituated through professional training, St. Luke would not be singular, for the Greek medical writers, also, when dealing with unprofessional subjects, show a leaning to the use of words to which they were accustomed in their professional language."

I wish I could now give instances.  ...So that a searching examination of St. Luke's phraseology yields a striking confirmation to the truth of the words of the Apostle, which describe him as a physician.'

To find detailed description of this language, however, we will have to turn to such above mentioned published works.  Hobart's book is out of copyright, but is online at Archive.Org.

Preface:  "...In order to bring the work withing reasonable bounds, It was found necessary that the number of examples of the medical use of a word should not, in any case, exceed ten; in  many instances they could be cited indefinitely. ...An asterisk has been prefixed to those words which are peculiar to the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, and also to a few words, which, though not peculiar to these writings, are used in them alone of the NT in a medical sense." 

Examples:

(1)  Luke 4:23 Ιατρε, θεραπευσον σεαυτον (cf. Galen Comm. vi. (xvii. B. 151)

(2)  Healing of Demoniac  Luke 4:35 *ριψαν, μηδεν βλαψαν αυτον (cf. Hippocrates, Epid. 1160)
...

Consulting the Table of Contents allows for a quick listing of important cases. Citations in non-Biblical medical works are found in the main text.

 mr.scrivener
 

Metzger on the Lucianic Recension

Although we don't subscribe to Metzger's text-critical theories, he does a good job of summarizing the evidence regarding Lucian, and his recension of the Old and New Testaments:

"I. ANCIENT TESTIMONIES TO LUCIAN AND HIS TEXTUAL WORK

The earliest references to Lucian are two brief and highly favorable estimates which Eusebius includes in his Church History. Here Lucian is described as a presbyter of Antioch, "whose entire life was most excellent (aristos)" (VIII.xiii.2), and as "a most excellent man in every respect, temperate in life and well-versed
in sacred learning" (IX.vi.3).

Later in the fourth century Jerome makes three references to Lucian which differ considerably in temper and appreciation of his work. The differences are no doubt to be accounted for by considering the several contexts and Jerome's immediate purpose in referring to Lucian. On the one hand, when Jerome is comparing his own work as reviser of the Old Latin text with similar work by others in Greek, he is rather severe in his judgment of Lucian. Thus in his Preface to the Four Gospels, which takes the form of an open letter addressed to Pope Damasus and which was composed perhaps about the year 383, he refers somewhat contemptuously to the "manuscripts which are associated with the names of Lucian and Hesychius, the authority of which is perversely maintained by a few disputatious persons."  

Continuing in the same vein Jerome condemns the work of Lucian and Hesychius as infelicitous:  

"It is obvious that these writers could not emend anything in the Old Testament after the labors of the Seventy; and it was useless to correct the New, for versions of Scripture already exist in the languages of many nations which show that their additions are false." (1a)

 Subsequently, in the Preface to his translation of the books of Chronicles, Jerome makes a more temperate allusion to the work of Lucian and other Biblical scholars. In referring to the diversity of the editions of the Greek Old Testament, he declares that three are current in various parts of the Empire:

"Alexandria and Egypt in their [copies of the] Septuagint praise Hesychius as author; Constantinople to Antioch approves the copies [containing the text] of Lucian the martyr; the middle provinces between these read the Palestinian codices edited by Origen, which Eusebius and Pamphilus published."(1)

In his valuable Lives of Illustrious Men, written soon after A.D.
392, Jerome is still more generous in his description of Lucian. Here, in a biographical sketch devoted to the martyr from Antioch, he characterizes him as "a man of great talent" and "so diligent in the study of the Scriptures that even now certain copies of the Scriptures bear the name of Lucian." (2) 

What is of special importance is the declaration that copies of the Scriptures (and not just of the Septuagint, as Jerome is sometimes quoted) passed under the name of Lucianea.

Information of the widespread use of Lucian's recension of the Psalter is contained in Jerome's letter to Sunnias and Fretela (about A.D. 403). These two Gothic churchmen had inquired of Jerome why his own Latin Psalter (the so-called Roman Psalter) differed so frequently from the Septuagint. In his reply Jerome points out that they have been misled by their edition of the Septuagint, which varied widely from the critical text of Origen given in the Hexapla
and used by himself. Jerome writes:

"You must know that there is  one edition which Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea and all the Greek commentators call 'Koine'[common], that is common and widespread, and is by most people now called Lucianic; and there is another, that of the Septuagint, which is found in the manuscripts of the Hexapla, and has been faithfully translated by us into Latin." (3)

 Here Jerome distinguishes the Lucianic text from that of the Hexapla, and indicates that the former met with such universal acceptance that it received the name of the Vulgate or common text. 

Later testimonies refer to Lucian's competence in Hebrew. For example, Suidas and Simeon Metaphrastes (in the Passio S. Luciani martyris) assert that "he translated [literally, renewed] them all [i.e. the books of the Old Testament] again from the Hebrew language, of which he had a very accurate knowledge, spending much labor on the work." (4)

Though Lucian may have consulted Hebrew in connection with his revision of the Septuagint, this statement is obviously exaggerated in the manner of hagiographers. 
 
More sober, and doubtless nearer to the truth of what Lucian
attempted to do, is the description of pseudo-Athanasius in his
Synopsis sacrae scripturae:

"Using the earlier editions [i.e. of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus] and the Hebrew, and having accurately surveyed the expressions which fell short of or went beyond the truth, and having corrected them in their proper places, he published them for the Christian brethren." (5)

Among testimonia of uncertain origin there is an unequivocal statement that Lucian concerned himself with the New Testament as well as the Old.  Under the date of October 15, the Menaeon of the Greek Church (this is a liturgical volume which includes short accounts of saints and martyrs to be read on their festivals) states that Lucian made a copy with his own hand of both the Old and New Testaments, written in three columns, which afterwards belonged to the Church in Nicomedia.(6)  Substantially the same information in a more extended hagiographical context is contained in the Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae for October 15. (7)

 This list of testimonies may be brought to a close with a reference to the condemnation of Lucian in the so-called Decretum Gelasianum, where mention is made of "Evangelia quae falsavit Lucianus, apocrypha, Evangelia quae falsavit Hesychius, apocrypha" (v, iii, 8-9).  It is generally agreed that this statement rests upon a misunderstanding of the critical remarks of Jerome. (8).

By way of summarizing ancient testimonies concerning Lucian's textual work, we find that his contemporaries generally regarded him as an able scholar, entirely competent to undertake such a recension. As a native Syrian he could, of course, have consulted the Syriac version; he also appears to have had some acquaintance with Hebrew. As would have been expected, he made use of previous Greek translations of the Old Testament, and sought to adjust the Greek to the underlying Hebrew text. But we are told nothing as to the amount of revision which he undertook in either Old or New Testament text, the nature of the manuscripts which he consulted, the relation of his work to the Hexapla, and other similar matters. For information bearing on such problems, we must turn to the manuscripts which have been thought to contain the Lucian recension."

(Metzger, Chapters in the History of NT TC,
"The Lucianic Recension" (1963) p. 3 - 8)

mr. scrivener

Key Tools Greek: Hesychius' Lexicon

There were several men named Hesychius () who crop up in the literature, and are often confused with one another.    The one we're interested in came a bit later, and wrote a Greek Dictionary.  Here's the Wikipedia blurb:
"

Hesychius of Alexandria (῾Ησύχιος ὁ Ἀλεξανδρεύς), a grammarian who flourished probably in the 5th century CE, compiled the richest lexicon of unusual and obscure Greek words that has survived (in a single 15th century manuscript). The work, titled "Alphabetical Collection of All Words" (Συναγωγή Πασών Λέξεων κατά Στοιχείον), includes approximately 51,000 entries, a copious list of peculiar words, forms and phrases, with an explanation of their meaning, and often with a reference to the author who used them or to the district of Greece where they were current. Hence, the book is of great value to the student of the Greek dialects, while in the restoration of the text of the classical authors generally, and particularly of such writers as Aeschylus and Theocritus, who used many unusual words, its value can hardly be exaggerated. Hesychius is important, not only for Greek philology but also for studying lost languages and obscure dialects (such as Thracian and the ancient Macedonian language) and in reconstructing Proto-Indo-European.
Hesychius' explanations of many epithets and phrases also reveal many important facts about the religion and social life of the ancients.
In a prefatory letter Hesychius mentions that his lexicon is based on that of Diogenianus (itself extracted from an earlier work by Pamphilus), but that he has also used similar works by the grammarian Aristarchus of Samothrace, Apion, Heliodorus, Amerias and others.
Hesychius was probably not a convert to Christianity. Explanations of words from Gregory Nazianzus and other Christian writers (glossae sacrae) are later interpolations.
The lexicon survives in one deeply corrupt 15th century manuscript, which is preserved in the library of San Marco at Venice, (Marc. Gr. 622, 15th century). The best edition is by Moriz Wilhelm Constantin Schmidt (1858–1868), but no complete comparative edition of the ms has been published since it was first printed by Marcus Musurus (at the press of Aldus Manutius) in Venice, 1514 (reprinted in 1520 and 1521 with modest revisions).
A modern edition has been published under the auspices of the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts in Copenhagen, begun by Kurt Latte (vol. 1 published in 1953, vol. 2 posthumously in 1966) and completed by Peter Allan Hansen and Ian C. Cunningham (vol. 3, 2005, vol. 4, 2009).

It so happens that two volumes of Schmidt have been scanned and posted on Internet Archives, here:


Internet Archives: Schmidt - Hesychius' Lexicon

Download this baby in pdf. format and use it on your computer instantly!
Here's a snap from the opening letter:

Click to Enlarge

To give an idea of the exhaustiveness and usefulness of this nice book, here's an entry page:

Click to Enlarge

You can have hours of fun looking up entries in this massive tome...

mr.scrivener

Very Early History of the English (Saxon) Bible

I'm posting this from a Russian blogsite, translated into English for readers:

 

Catalogue of Old English revision of the Bible

Posted on July 7, 2010

Click to Enlarge

by Dr. Teol. Dony K. Donev 

The formation of the English version of the Bible is inevitably linked to the presence of the Latin Vulgata in northern England. Old English biblical texts developed in two literary center: Uearmaut and Dzharou.Leading scientists have Kelfrid, Bidi [Bede] and Alkuin. Kelfrid manuscripts brought from Italy, which were used in the manufacture of Codex Amiatinus. Bidi (674-735) was the first English historian and Alkuin (735-805 years) in the history inextricably linked to the Latin Vulgata in the Middle Ages.The above two literary schools are the main motivators of the development of the English Bible, a process which involved the following writers and manuscripts:

 Aldhelm (639-709) was the first author staroanglisyki translation of the Psalms.
 Kedmon mentioned by Bidi is the author of Old English songs with biblical themes.
 Reverend Bidi translated the Gospel according to John in the English shortly before his death in 735, the
 Vespasiyanskia interlinearen gloss is Psalm of Psalms, written around 850, of mersianski dialect.
 Edvinskiyat Psalter Kanabara and 10 other gloss on the Psalms, dating from the ninth century, have reached today.
 Around 900, King Alfred ordered translation and transcription of many biblical texts such as the Ten Commandments, parts of the Pentateuch and Psalms. It is assumed that the translation us in Psalms Paris Psalter was made by order of King Alfred.
 Between 950-970, the, Alfdred added gloss written in nortambskiya staroanglisyki dialect.
 At the same time, a monk named Pharma gloss wrote the Gospel according to Matthew, which is still preserved in a manuscript known as Rashuartskoto gospel.
 Around 990, theAppears Tetraevangelia full translation of the West Saxon dialect, known today as Veseksko gospel.
 At the same time dorsetshirskiyat monk Alfrik end independent translation of the Pentateuch books accompanied by Joshua and Judges.
 Kedmonskite manuscripts are written in the period 700-1000, theand contain biblical texts speak English language.

(apologies: autotranslated from Russian online)

mr.scrivener

Reviews of Houghton and 4th century MS production

H. A. G. Houghton. Augustine’s Text of John. Patristic Citations and Latin Gospel Manuscripts. Oxford: OUP, 2008. (13.8×21.6), 424 p. ISBN 978-0-19-954592-6. Hardback.


The first review we quote below gives us some enlightening gems of information rarely discussed in TC circles, as to practices and options regarding book production and Scripture care and stewardship;


J. Cornelia Linde  

"The following chapter, ‘The Use of the Bible and the Production of Books in the Time of Augustine’, is an insightful and, again, well documented discussion of the production and diffusion of biblical texts in Augustine’s time, based for the most part on examples from Augustine’s writings.

Houghton points out several noteworthy facts. So, for instance, that manuscripts of Scripture were on sale on the open market, and that churches had their own copyists and secretaries, who would usually produce books to order (p. 24) by sending a scribe in situ to transcribe a text. A side aspect, yet all the same fascinating, was the description of how minutes at council proceedings were produced by stenographers, then copied and signed by the participants (p. 28). In addition, Hugh provides some insight into questions of liturgy in churches around the year 400, especially with regard to the role of the lectores, who were responsible for both their church’s scriptural books, which they usually kept at home (p. 22), and reading the lecture at mass. A point that was not addressed by Houghton is that the lectores (p. 22, n. 2) were often children and the consequences resulting from this fact for their role. Houghton does not mention their age and whether we can assume that children were entrusted with manuscripts and their safekeeping."

 

First Review quoted above  <- - Click here.

---

The second review discusses Augustine's use of Old Latin texts and his later adoption of Jerome's Vulgate, as well as quotations from memory.  The discussion is rather complex but persistence pays off in understanding some of the difficult features of any analysis of patristic sources.

Discussion of Patristic Citation  <- - Click here.

---

The author himself responds to these reviews with a wonderful discussion about how ancient writers like Augustine determined their texts:

"The nature of the Old Latin Bible

Cornelia asked several times about the versions of the Bible Augustine used and which texts had official sanction. Part of this is to do with the nature of the earliest Latin translations: Augustine claims in De doctrina christiana that, as I translate, anyone “who believed himself to have a modicum of ability in both [Latin and Greek] … hazarded his own translation”. In reality, surviving Old Latin versions are a lot more consistent than is often claimed, and, what we seem to have are successive revisions of a limited number of early translations.

Yet the concept of versions is bound up in the wider issue of using early manuscripts for the text of the Bible. Every manuscript is different, and therefore every Bible is different. For example, a Christian community might have been using scriptural codices which did not include the story of the woman taken in adultery, or claimed that Barnabas, not Barabbas, was set free instead of Jesus, or even had that famous alternative reading in the Ten Commandments “Thou shalt commit adultery”. This would not have made any difference to the way the manuscript was used in the liturgy, or revered as sacred scripture. Clearly, more obvious copying errors would usually have been corrected pretty quickly, but plenty have been left to stand! Augustine’s comparison of manuscripts was a standard preliminary stage in working with a text [see page 18 on reading practices in antiquity], just like modern scholars should ascertain whether they are using a current edition of a work, or whether there is a corrected second edition or important subsequent material which needs to be taken into consideration.

In fact, I suspect that modern attitudes to “the Bible” even after the invention of printing are not so different to those in the time of Augustine. ...Even if you take a printed Latin Vulgate or an edition of the Greek text as your archetypical “Bible”, you still have to specify which edition. None are entirely identical, and among modern translations – as with the Old Latin tradition – it can be very difficult to specify when a text is sufficiently different that it constitutes a new version rather than a variant form or light revision of an earlier version.

In the light of this, I would like to suggest that authority is co-located in an overall concept of Scripture and the individual exemplars which one uses for one’s text. When Augustine says “it is written in the Bible”, how would he prove it? In the same way as he challenges his opponents in the dialogues, by inviting them to bring him a manuscript with that reading [e.g. Contra Faustum (p.18-19)]. And if they could, he then goes on to outline his text-critical criteria for evaluating that witness: how old is the manuscript? Is it accurate elsewhere? How does it correspond to Greek manuscripts?"

Author's Response  <- - - Click Here.

 
mr.scrivener