ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικίᾳ καὶ τῶν ἐν Ἱεραπόλει. ^{14}ἀσπάζεται ὑμᾶς Λουκᾶς
ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ ἀγαπητός, καὶ Δημᾶς.
Λαοδικίᾳ] This form has not the same overwhelming preponderance of
authority in its favour here and in vv. 15, 16, as in ii. 1, but is
probably correct in all these places. It is quite possible however, that
the same person would write Λαοδικια and Λαοδικεια indifferently. Even
the form Λαοδικηα is found in Mionnet, Suppl. VII. p. 581. Another
variation is the contraction of Λαοδ- into Λαδ-; e.g. Λαδικηνός, which
occurs frequently in the edict of Diocletian.
14. Λουκᾶς] St Luke had travelled with St Paul on his last journey to
Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 1 sq.). He had also accompanied him two years later
from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts xxvii. 2 sq.). And now again, probably
after another interval of two years (see _Philippians_ p. 31 sq.), we
find him in the Apostle’s company. It is not probable that he remained
with St Paul in the meanwhile (_Philippians_ p. 35), and this will
account for his name not occurring in the Epistle to the Philippians. He
was at the Apostle’s side again in his second captivity (2 Tim. iv. 11).
Lucas is doubtless a contraction of Lucanus. Several Old Latin MSS write
out the name _Lucanus_ in the superscription and subscription to the
Gospel, just as elsewhere Apollos is written in full Apollonius. On the
frequent occurrence of this name Lucanus in inscriptions see _Ephem.
Epigr._ II. p. 28 (1874). The shortened form Lucas however seems to be
rare. He is here distinguished from οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς (ver. 11).
This alone is fatal to his identification (mentioned as a tradition by
Origen _ad loc._) with the Lucius, St Paul’s ‘kinsman’ (i.e. a Jew; see
_Philippians_ pp. 17, 171, 173), who sends a salutation from Corinth to
Rome (Rom. xvi. 21). It is equally fatal to the somewhat later tradition
that he was one of the seventy (_Dial. c. Marc._ § 1 in Orig. _Op._ I.
p. 806, ed. De la Rue; Epiphan. _Hær._ li. 11). The identification with
Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 13) is possible but not probable. Though
the example of Patrobius for Patrobas (Rom. xvi. 14) shows that such a
contraction is not out of the question, yet probability and testimony
alike point to Lucanus, as the longer form of the Evangelist’s name.
ὁ ἰατρὸς] Indications of medical knowledge have been traced both in the
third Gospel and in the Acts; see on this point Smith’s _Voyage and
Shipwreck of St Paul_ p. 6 sq. (ed. 2). It has been observed also, that
St Luke’s first appearance in company with St Paul (Acts xvi. 10) nearly
synchronizes with an attack of the Apostle’s constitutional malady (Gal.
iv. 13, 14); so that he may have joined him partly in a professional
capacity. This conjecture is perhaps borne out by the personal feeling
which breathes in the following ὁ ἀγαπητός. But whatever may be thought
of these points, there is no ground for questioning the ancient belief
(Iren. iii. 14. 1 sq.) that the physician is also the Evangelist. St
Paul’s motive in specifying him as the physician may not have been to
distinguish him from any other bearing the same name, but to emphasize
his own obligations to his medical knowledge. The name in this form does
not appear to have been common. The tradition that St Luke was a painter
is quite late (Niceph. Call. ii. 43). It is worthy of notice that the
two Evangelists are mentioned together in this context, as also in
Philem. 24, 2 Tim. iv. 11.
ὁ ἀγαπητός] ‘_the beloved one_’, not to be closely connected with ὁ
ἰατρός, for ὁ ἀγαπητός is complete in itself; comp. Philem. 1, Rom. xvi.
12 (comp. vv. 5, 8, 9), 3 Joh. 1. For the form compare the expression in
the Gospels, Matt. iii. 17, etc. ὁ ὑίος μου, ὁ ἀγαπητός κ.τ.λ.; where a
comparison of Is. xlii. 1, as quoted in Matt. xii. 18, seems to show
that ὁ ἀγαπητός κ.τ.λ. forms a distinct clause from ὁ ὑίος μου.
Δημᾶς] On the probability that this person was a Thessalonian (2 Tim.
iv. 10) and that his name was Demetrius, see the introduction to the
Epistles to the Thessalonians. He appears in close connexion with St
Luke in Philem. 24, as here. In 2 Tim. iv. 10 their conduct is placed in
direct contrast, Δημᾶς με ἐγκατέλιπεν ... Λοῦκας ἐστὶν μόνος μετ’ ἐμοῦ.
There is perhaps a foreshadowing of this contrast in the language here.
While Luke is described with special tenderness as ὁ ἰατρός, ὁ ἀγαπητός,
Demas alone is dismissed with a bare mention and without any epithet of
commendation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------