Luke may be Paul's healer, Ananias of Damascus

Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. Michael M. Canaris writes this of the poorly known "Ananias of Damascus, a saintly, unsung hero" (2019): https://catholicstarherald.org/ananias-of-damascus-a-saintly-unsung-hero ".... On the day the church celebrates the Conversion of Saint Paul (Jan. 25) — this year the 60th anniversary of the calling of Vatican II — in contemplating the daily readings in such a way, it struck me for the first time that Ananias is at least as much a profile in courage in that narrative as is Saul, “who is also called Paul” (Acts 13:9). But this latter poor servant of the church has received infinitely less praise than his more famous counterpart. Let’s begin with the narrative in Acts of the Apostles 9, where Saul is on his way to Damascus to continue wreaking havoc upon the Christian community he loathes, and is knocked to the ground by a blinding light (the biblical narrative doesn’t tell us whether he was on foot or on a horse, though we often see him flung from the latter in artworks, like those by Caravaggio and Veronese). Saul encounters Christ, is struck blind, and needs to be led to the city by hand. All this is quite familiar to the majority of us. But most of us pay little attention to the parallel scene. Separately, Jesus also appears to Ananias in a vision. He is already in Damascus and already a “disciple.” The Lord calls him and he responds immediately, “Yes, Lord.” Jesus directs him to go to the Street called Straight (in Latin, the Via Recta), which still exists amidst the bombs raining down on modern-day Syria, and to restore sight to Saul. Ananias’ response is understandably hesitant: “Lord, I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” (“…um, of which I am one, Your Divine Majesty,” we could creatively add!). But Christ emphatically says “Go!” — making clear that it is through this unworthy instrument that he plans to offer the message of redemption to the nations outside of Israel. And so Ananias confidently approaches his sworn enemy, to whom incredible power has been given to decimate those with whom he disagrees, and the first words out of his mouth are ones not too often repeated today in our discourse with those who hate or vilify us: “Brother Saul.” He goes on to say “the Lord — Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here — has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” It is he who likely baptizes the greatest missionary in the history of the church, and causes the scales to fall from his eyes. It’s not necessarily Paul’s faith, but Ananias’ that brings about the transformation. And while Ananias is mostly lost to the sands of history after this encounter, his co-believers with all the litanies praising them and basilicas named for them initially do not help or welcome Paul, “for they were all afraid of him, not believing that he was really a disciple.” It’s only Ananias, and eventually Barnabas, who are moved with compassion at the Pharisaical former tentmaker, and offer an olive branch of trust, at great personal peril. Beyond this snippet, we know very little about Ananias. His name, which was not a terribly uncommon one in the ancient world, literally means “Favored by God”." [End of quotes] I would like to make the suggestion here that Ananias of Damascus may be a possible candidate for the famous St. Luke himself. If so, then Ananias will no longer have to suffer being, as in the words (above) of Michael Canaris, "lost to the sands of history". In various articles now I have tried to fill out other NT characters using 'alter egos', in most cases allowing for a character to have two names - both a Hebrew and a Greek name - which, however, can also be a cause of duplication. For instance: John the Baptist as Gamaliel's Theudas: "Gamaliel's 'Theudas' as Johnthe Batist" https://www.academia.edu/36424851/Gamaliels_Theudas_as_John_the_Baptist Nathanael of Cana as Stephen Protomartyr: "St. Stephen a true Israelite" https://www.academia.edu/30843387/St_Stephen_a_true_Israelite {also Gamaliel, again, his "Judas the Galilean" as Judas Maccabeus - same name, Judas, in this case} And then there is the un-named: "Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' "rich young man"?" https://www.academia.edu/36824565/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man_ extended even further to: "Was Apostle Barnabas the Gospels' "rich young man"? Part Three: Further extension – was Barnabas also Joseph of Arimathea?" https://www.academia.edu/36824947/Was_Apostle_Barnabas_the_Gospels_rich_young_man_Part_Three_Further_extension_was_Barnabas_also_Joseph_of_Arimathea Paul (Greco-Roman name) is otherwise called Saul (Hebrew name) in the Book of Acts (cf. 9:1 and 23:1). My main point of connection between Ananias and Luke would be the healing of Paul's blindness, due to the intervention of Ananias, with the fact that the converted Paul will refer to his friend Luke as a "healer" (various "physician"). Thus Colossians 4:14: "Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas". The Greek word used here to describe Luke is ἰατρὸς, which can mean - apart from "physician" or "doctor" - "healer". "[Greek] ἰατρός (iatros), [Latin] medicus: physician, healer, one who provides healing services; Mt.9:12, Mk.2:17, Mk.5:26, Lk.4:23, Lk.5:31, Lk.8:43, Col.4:14": https://resoundingthefaith.com/2018/04/%E2%80%8Egreek-%E1%BC%B0%CE%B1%CF%84%CF%81%CF%8C%CF%82-iatros-latin-medicus/ As Ananias (if that is who Luke was), the Evangelist was also a healer, thaumaturgist, even a mystic-visionary (Acts 9:12). Note, too, the close bond between Paul and Luke, as we would expect if Luke were Paul's healer, Ananias. Paul calls Luke "beloved", ἀγαπητὸς. In 2 Timothy 4:11, Luke is found to have remained steadfastly loyal to Paul (not always easy): "Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry". That is reinfroced in Philemon 1:24: "... Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers". I quoted Fr. Jean Carmignac, who has argued for an early dating of the NT books, in my article: "Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early" https://www.academia.edu/30807628/Fr_Jean_Carmignac_dates_Gospels_early as stating that: "... It is sufficiently probable that our second Gospel [that is, Mark], was composed in a Semitic language by St. Peter the Apostle" (with Mark being his secretary perhaps). Fr. Carmignac will also suggest that the Book of Acts is the Gospel of Paul. This would further attest the close bond between Paul and the one who I think may have been his healer. Ananias is referred to as a "disciple" (Acts 9:10), a word that is used by commentators to describe Luke as well. Finally, Luke is considered possibly to have been a native of Syrian Antioch. Though that is not definite. Ananias himself resided in Syrian Damascus. Ananias and Luke share these commonalities: healing; holiness; disciple; follower of the risen Jesus Christ; friend of Paul; (likely) from Syria. Feast of St Luke (18th October 2020)

Puzzling why the most significant Essenes are not mentioned in the Bible

Damien F. Mackey Why are not the Essenes, a most prominent religious group in Palestine, ever referred to in the Bible, at least under the name of Essenes? This is a question repeatedly asked by Marvin Vining,an Anabaptist-Methodist, in his book, Jesus the Wicked Priest: How Christianity Was Born of an Essene Schism (Rochester, Vermont: Bear and Company, 2008). Who were the Essenes? And what were their origins? Some have argued that the Essenes were the strict warrior-group, the Hasideans, in the Maccabean times. W.F. Albright, for his part, had stated emphatically that they were the early Christians. Somewhat similarly, Ahmed Osman attempts to connect Jesus and his followers to the Essenes (Out of Egypt). Whilst Vining will cearly show that a lot of Jesus's teaching, and anger, were directed against the extreme doctrines of the Essenes - who could not therefore have been Jesus's early followers - a Hasidean origin does not seem to me to be too far-fetched, especially given my view that the Maccabean times overlap with the life of Jesus Christ. That Judas the Galilean, at the time of the census, was none other than Judas Maccabeus. Vining, however, not only asks the most relevant question, but also seeks to answer it. I must admit that I did not have great confidence that Vining would arrive at the correct answer, given some of his other identifications. He, for instance, thinks that the angel Gabriel, who announces the birth of John the Baptist to his father, Zechariah, was the Jewish High Priest. However, Vining has, to my satisfaction at least, worked out what so may others before him have been unable to do. To identify precisely who were the Essenes, a group un-mentioned in the Bible under that name. We read for instance in this post about Vining's conclusion: Book Write-Up: Jesus the Wicked Priest Posted on November 4, 2013by jamesbradfordpate https://jamesbradfordpate.wordpress.com/2013/11/04/book-write-up-jesus-the-wicked-priest/ "Vining argues that the Essenes had the power to contribute to Jesus’ death because they had clout with Herod, according to Josephus, plus they had influence on Jewish halakah, for Vining contends that the Essenes were the scribes in the Gospels, the ones whom Jesus said sat in Moses’ seat in Matthew 23. (After all, Vining argues, did not the Essenes engage in a lot of scribal activity, since they produced the Dead Sea Scrolls?) Vining also notes that, while the Mishnah does not prescribe crucifixion, the Dead Sea Scrolls did, and so Jesus’ crucifixion was probably due to Essene influence". {End of quote] "... the Essenes were the scribes in the Gospels ...", a hugely significant group. I do not think that I would ever have been able to reach this conclusion, which seems so obvious once it has been properly explained, as Vining manages to do. This does not mean that I can agree with various other of the book's major conclusions - though finding it all highly informative. Unfortunately, there are some wild conclusions (so I think) also reached in the book. For example, that Gabriel who announced the birth of John the Baptist to his father, Zechariah, was the High Priest. I also very much date one of his main lines of arguments, that Jesus was originally an Essene, but split and caused a schism. I was happily surprised to find the author so convincingly identify the group that has been such a conundrum to scholars for so long: the Essenes.