Doctor Statement Letter Of Medical Necessity: Fill & Download for Free

One summer my 12-year-old daughter began to slowly change before my eyes. She had lost a lot of weight, so I asked how she was feeling, emotionally and physically, and I quietly observed her eating habits to rule out an eating disorder. She and I were close, and we talked about everything. For most of the summer she said she felt alright and continued to pursue friends and things she enjoyed. I chalked the weight loss up to puberty. Perhaps she was just getting thinner and taller.Toward the end of the summer, her personality began to change. She was becoming more aloof, not only with me, but with our entire family and all of her friends. She would get together with her best friend, a beautiful soul-friend whom she's known since birth, but my daughter would say little and stare out the window a lot.Repeatedly, I invited her to open up if anything was bothering her. She would hug me and insist everything was fine. She would share that she was just a little tired, but even that wasn't too bad, in her opinion.On the day I decided we needed medical care, I had just returned from a three day retreat. When I walked in the door, the renewed sight of my daughter shocked me. She looked like a corpse. She was gaunt and pale. She happened to have eaten a piece of blue candy, so the color of her lips added to the overall ghastliness of her appearance.I asked her how she was feeling and she replied, “I'm feeling… … what was the question?”That was it. It was a Sunday night, so by necessity, we were headed to the emergency room. Surely it was obvious that these symptoms were not normal, even for a preteen going through hormonal changes.So after a long check-in process, we were face to face with a doctor asking about what brought us to the ER. After I explained her symptoms and invited her to observe my daughter's gaunt appearance, the doctor paused. What came out of her mouth next was the last thing I expected. “So your prepubescent daughter has lost some weight and is aloof, and you thought the best possible option was to rush her to the ER on a Sunday night? Did you not think it could wait until tomorrow when you could see your doctor?”I was shocked and embarrassed, but I remained composed as I replied “you don't understand, this is not my daughter. This just isn't her, and I was not going to sleep tonight unless I made sure she was ok.”At this point the nurse came in and the doctor condescendingly reiterated her statement, saying, “so we have a mom here…worried about her daughter's attitude and weight loss, so she decided to come to the emergency room. But let's do some blood work…”Now I am a confident person, but I quickly felt very small. Angry? Yes. But I also felt humiliated and small, so I tried to take my daughter and go home. “Clearly you don't think my daughter has a problem, so I won't waste your time,” I said, “I'll just take her to the doctor tomorrow.”Exasperated, the doctor conceded, “no, no. Don't take her home. We'll run some tests so you can go to the doctor with a piece of paper that states all that is not wrong with her.”So blood was drawn and I waited. I shudder to think of what would have happened if I had not waited. When the doctor returned, it was not the original doctor, the one that had reduced me in size. It was a different doctor…with the first on his heels. He leaned against a table and looked into my eyes before stating, “we’ve definitely got something. Normal blood sugar is around 125. Anything over 250 is dangerous. Your daughter's blood sugar is 890. She has type 1 diabetes and needs to be rushed to Children's Hospital immediately. She can not take a sip of water or put anything in her mouth or it could be very dangerous.”I was told by the doctors at children's hospital that if my daughter had not gone to the hospital that night, she would have been in a coma or dead by morning. That same children's hospital doctor told me that, “although it's not always correct, a mom's intuition is worth more than all the medical technology in the hospital.” I can not bear to imagine the consequences of not listening to my intuition that night.Final details- my daughter was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, which is very different from type 2 diabetes, but that would be for a different post. There was nothing she could have done to prevent it, she is insulin dependant, and there is currently no cure. She is 14 now and owning it beautifully and responsibly. She is living a full and active life, but diabetes affects every moment of every day.People ask if I gave that doctor a piece of my mind. In the moment, no, because my daughter was my sole concern and I immediately thought only of her. The only thing I managed to say was, “so I'm not crazy?” to which the nurse replied, “no sweetheart, you are not crazy.” (She had been kind all along). Later, when my daughter was home and safe, I wrote a letter expressing what had happened, with the focus on the fact that the doctor had used her position in a way that made me feel diminished and almost convinced me to remove my daughter from the care that her life literally depended on. I can only hope that this experience will serve to humble that doctor and cause her to reconsider the ways in which she interacts with the people who look to her for help.

No one can say absolutely one way or the other as none of the gospels came with an “about the author” section. They do not contain the names of the authors in the text. Going by historical context, I think this anonymity suggests the gospels were written early enough the authors were still in fear of the authorities, while those who were trusted knew who the authors were and that’s how the church tradition concerning authorship began—but there is nothing definitive. There is only probable.What we have are clues: contextual clues, tradition, the early church fathers, internal indications of eye-witness testimony, and dating. We use these clues and strive for good logical reasoning with the goal of determining the best, most reasonable answer—and then we argue a lot.First, let’s examine the case against the authors having been contemporaries of Jesus.Form CriticismI know of no scholar who argues that the gospels were not originally based on eye-witness testimony, but the 20th century tradition formed by Bultman’s version of form criticism says the early Christian communities took that testimony and then altered and adjusted it to their needs—according to their “situation in life.” They were the ones to do the actual writing of the gospels after having had sufficient time to form the legendary material surrounding the itinerant preacher called Jesus. Form criticism, therefore, dates the writing of all the gospels late, after most of Jesus’ contemporaries were dead.If that’s correct, it would mean the answer to your question would be no.However, multiple contemporary studies have taken the heart out of this theory. Studies of nations with a continuous practice of oral history, going back to the time of Jesus and beyond, have shown the communities themselves are not the ones who formulate their community’s stories.Oral histories are memorized by those designated as responsible for preserving them— such as a ‘shaman.’ Then they are shared with the communities. The listeners learn the stories as they are told and retold, and they allow some flexibility in presentation—but like a child with a favorite book—skip or change something important—and they call the speaker on it. Communities act as a check on the narrator. They are not the creators.This is not what form criticism pictured.The error seems to have come about because the form critical view is largely based upon their understanding of how “Icelandic Folklore” formed. As it turns out, the practices of nations that still do oral history pretty thoroughly rebut folklore as a legitimate model for the formation of the gospels. It’s an entirely different category.Biblical scholar Richard Burridge explains that this has contributed to a bit of a crisis in form criticism:The general critique of form criticism came from various sources, putting several areas in particular under scrutiny. The analogy between the development of the gospel pericopae [small sections] and folklore needed reconsideration because of developments in folklore studies; it was less easy to assume the steady growth of an oral tradition in stages... the length of time needed for the "laws" of oral transmission to operate was greater than taken by the gospels; even the existence of such laws was questioned.[1] [2]The form critical view leaves many open—even unanswerable—questions: in particular, what is form criticism to do with the disciples and the many other eyewitnesses referenced in the Gospels? In the form critical models, they all simply vanished leaving the anonymous communities to themselves.How likely is that?The twentieth century view of ‘community creation’ is crumbling at its foundation, but biblical criticism has now moved away from historical pursuits. It could be awhile before these issues are definitively addressed.That leaves us searching for those clues.Who wrote the Gospel of Matthew?The church ascribed the book to Matthew.For nearly two millennium, tradition has attributed the gospel of Matthew to the tax collector turned disciple. However, Matthew is hardly mentioned in the entire New Testament. He was not one of the three Jesus took to the mountaintop with him. He was not one of those clamoring for position in chapter 20. He is not really described anywhere.Matthew’s lack of prominence in the New Testament suggests to some that the early church must have had good reason to attribute the gospel to him. If the early church wasn’t sure who wrote this gospel, why would they choose an author that was obscure—that people might not readily recognize as authoritative?The use of the name Matthew in 9:9.All three synoptic gospels and the book of Acts list Matthew among the twelve disciples, but only the book of Matthew explicitly says he’s a tax collector.All three synoptic gospels record an account of Jesus calling a tax collector to discipleship, but interestingly, while the book of Matthew calls him Matthew, Mark and Luke both identify this man as Levi. It’s worth noting that all four lists of apostles include Matthew, and none of them include someone named Levi.Some scholars argue that these are two separate men, but most believe Matthew was known by two names, either as a case of renaming as with Simon/Peter or because he belonged to the tribe of Levi.Some scholars argue this deviation in names could be an indicator of Matthew’s authorship since it’s reasonable to assume he would be comfortable changing his own name in his own account.Papias mentioned MatthewThe earliest external evidence that Matthew wrote the gospel comes from a fourth-century historian Eusebius quoting Papias, a second-century church father.“Matthew compiled (or ‘arranged,’ or ‘composed’) the logia (‘oracles,’ ‘sayings’ or perhaps ‘gospel’) in the Hebrew (or, ‘Aramaic’) language (or, ‘style’?), and everyone interpreted (or, ‘translated’) them as best they could.”Obviously, Papias leaves us with a lot of questions. Nevertheless, Papias does refer to Matthew recording something — it could be an early gospel or one of its sources.The Gospel of Matthew is highly organized.Being a tax collector required constant upkeep of records and the accurate relaying of information. Book-keeping requires organizational skills, and the author of the book of Matthew appears to be highly organized.The major sections of the gospel are neatly divided into parts. Jesus has five prominent sermons in Matthew, and each ends with some variation of the same transition: “When Jesus had finished saying these things . . .” (Matthew 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). In Matthew 13, the author gives us seven parables in a row. And in Matthew 23 we read seven woes to the pharisees.Many scholars see this neat, organized style as evidence of Matthew’s ‘tax collector’ personality and his likely authorship.The Gospel of Matthew talks about money more than the other Synoptics.The parable of the talents is only found in Matthew. Gold and silver are mentioned 28 times in the Gospel of Matthew, but they’re only mentioned once in Mark and four times in Luke.The author also uses specific money-related terms the other gospels don’t mention, such as the two-drachma temple tax in 17:24 and the Greek word stater in 17:25.In the Lord’s Prayer, the author of Matthew says “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matthew 6:12), whereas the author of Luke says, “Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us” (Luke 11:4).This substitution—plus the prominence of money and tax-collecting themes—seems to suggest that the author understands the gospel through the world of finances—as we might expect of a tax collector-turned-disciple.Arguments against Matthew as the authorThe problem scholars have with Papias’ statement is that the work we call The Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original, not a translation.That being said, it is possible that Matthew wrote or compiled another work—possibly a collection of Jesus’ sayings or a complete gospel—in Hebrew or Aramaic, and then wrote a separate, original Greek edition later using the original as one of his sources.Greek was the ‘lingua franca’ of the day—most business was conducted in Greek—and a Jewish man working as a tax collector for the Roman government would likely have been proficient in both languages. So he had the language skills.However, most scholars believe the authors of Matthew and Luke wrote using Mark and some combination of other sources, and some believe Papias may be indicating that Matthew wrote one of these undiscovered source texts. This is not far-fetched. The majority of scholars agree there was an undiscovered source text they call “Q” of sayings of Jesus—the logia—used by the synoptic authors. That’s exactly what Papias says Matthew wrote—logia.A tax collector wouldn’t emphasize Jewish ritual or the Law.If the Gospel of Matthew was written by a tax collector, the gospel writer would not likely have such intimate knowledge of the Law as the author of Matthew had as tax collectors were religious outsiders. However, if Matthew was from a family of Levites, he would have been trained in Jewish Law and ritual from childhood.Most scholars believe Matthew borrowed material from Mark.Most scholars believe the author of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as one of its sources. Since John Mark wasn’t an apostle, would Matthew the apostle, the eyewitness to Jesus’ ministry, use the written account of someone who wasn’t? It sounds pretty unlikely on the face of it, but it’s possible since there’s good reason to believe John Mark wrote Peter’s version of the events, which Matthew would certainly be willing to reference.Unfortunately, there isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove Matthew’s authorship.Still, since the long-standing tradition says Matthew is the author of the gospel of Matthew, and since there is nothing to disprove that claim, it remains generally accepted.Who wrote the Gospel of Mark?Several early church fathers claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by a man named John-Mark—hereafter Mark—a companion of both Paul and Peter.According to Eusebius, Papias also claims that John “the Elder” (believed to be the apostle John) told him (Papias) that John Mark had written the gospel which bears his name.Let’s recap that:Eusebius (fourth century) tells us thatPapias (first–second century) said thatJohn the Elder (first century) told Papias thatMark wrote this gospel based onThe Apostle Peter’s memoriesIf that convoluted trail of information doesn’t convince you though, numerous other early church writers also claimed Mark wrote it, including Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome. These writers add that Mark wrote the gospel using the eyewitness accounts of Peter.Some examples:“Having become the interpreter of Peter, Mark wrote down accurately whatever he remembered. However, he did not relate the sayings of deeds of Christ in exact order. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter. Now, Peter accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s saying. Accordingly, Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For one thing, he took special care not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.” – Papias (c. 120, E), 1.155, as quoted by Eusebius.“After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” – Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.414.“Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, begins his Gospel narrative in this manner.” – Irenaeus (c.180, E/W), 1.425.“Mark was the follower of Peter. Peter publically preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s equestrian knights, and adduced many testimonies to Christ. In order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken by Peter, Mark wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark.” – Clement of Alexandria (c.195, E), 2.573.“Such a ray of Godliness shown forth on the minds of Peter’s hearers, that they were not satisfied with a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine proclamation. So, with all manner of entreaties, they pleaded with Mark, to whom the Gospel is ascribed (he being the companion of Peter) to leave in writing a record of the teaching that had been delivered to them verbally. And they did not let the man alone until they had prevailed upon him. And so to them, we owe the Scripture called the ‘Gospel of Mark.’ On learning what had been done, through the revelation of the Spirit, it is said that the Apostle was delighted with the enthusiasm of the men and approved the composition for reading in the churches. Clement gives the narrative in the sixth book of the Sketches.” – Eusebius, citing Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.579.The early church appears to have unanimously believed Mark was the writer of the Gospel of Mark, and no alternatives were ever proposed.While Scripture shows a strong association with Mark and Paul, there’s only one verse connecting Peter to someone named Mark, and that’s in 1 Peter 5:13 where Peter sends greetings from “my son Mark.” Some have argued that this is a different Mark (the name was very common), but given the early church’s explanation of Mark’s relationship to Peter, it’s probably safe to assume this Mark, and the Mark we see throughout Acts and Paul’s letters, are one and the same.He wasn’t an apostle, and probably wasn’t an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, but he was close to one who was and received his memoirs.So we have good reason to believe Mark was in fact the author of the gospel that bears his name.What about the late dating of Mark?If Mark was written in AD 70, and the other Gospels were written later, doesn’t that mean that these other Gospels were too late to be written by eyewitnesses who actually knew Jesus? It would, probably, yes.For this we need to examine the reason why scholars think that the first Gospel was written in AD 70 because it isn’t based on evidence. It’s based on assumptions, and assumptions should always be held lightly.Historians are absolutely sure that in AD 70 the Jewish Temple was destroyed during the fall of Jerusalem. This event is predicted in Mark 13:2, Matthew 24:2, and Luke 21:6. That would mean Jesus made a prediction that was historically proven to come true.That would smack of the super-natural.So, in order to explain this phenomenon, skeptical scholars have been forced to assume that Jesus never made this prediction. I’m not guessing that they did this. Bultman stated it openly. It was a foundational assumption that nothing supernatural could be taken as factual.But isn’t that the very thing that skeptical scholars need to prove?Instead they moved the dating of Mark, Matthew, and Luke to a late time period just before the destruction of the temple, and say these men were then able—without supernatural aid—to see war coming. Then the authors put this prediction on the lips of Jesus to make him seem supernatural. (As though healings and miracles weren’t enough).The logic is as follows:Premise 1: The Gospels cannot be trusted because they were written several decades after Jesus’ death and are therefore legendary.Premise 2: This is because three of the four Gospels mention Jesus predicting an event (the temple’s destruction) that is known to have occurred 40 years after the supposed prediction.Premise 3: Jesus could not have made this prediction because that would be supernatural. Therefore the Gospels, which contain this prediction, were written just before or after the event occurred.Conclusion: Therefore, the Gospels cannot be trusted because they were written several decades after Jesus’ death and are therefore legendary.Aside from being circular and built on assumptions, I have always wondered about this theory—how well can the average person see war coming? We can know there are tensions and conflicts, but those don’t always lead to war, and even when we believe war is on the horizon, how could anyone foresee the total destruction Jesus describes? It seems very specific historically, so how could anyone have known such a thing would happen prior to it actually happening?How could they have been confident enough they were right to be wiling to put such a claim into the mouth of their revered leader? What if they turned out to be wrong? They could only have been genuinely sure after the fact, and if the gospels were written after such cataclysmic events—why don’t they mention it?In Luke’s Gospel he portrays Jesus as predicting the destruction of the temple, but Luke does not make that prediction come true in his sequel, the book of Acts. If Luke wrote Acts after the destruction of the temple it seems rather strange that he didn’t continue the story beyond Paul’s imprisonment in Rome and conclude his story with a fulfillment of the prophecy they were attributing to Jesus. That would certainly have made Jesus seem even more supernatural. Instead, Acts ends with Paul’s house arrest in Rome in AD 60-62.Continuing the story past Paul’s imprisonment would cause the story to also include Paul’s untimely death in AD 65—which is also not there. Since Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and friend, it would be expected that Luke would pay some kind of tribute to his fallen comrade— if he were writing the book of Acts 5 years after his death.As it is, Luke spends the last five chapters of Acts anticipating Paul’s trial before Caesar. He ends the book with no mention of what happened thereafter. That omission makes it seem much more likely that Luke finished the book before Paul had his trial and before he was beheaded in AD 65.Since Acts is the sequel to the Gospel of Luke, the gospel had to have been written before Acts—before 65 AD. That puts the writing of Luke before 62 and since Luke probably used Mark as a source, Mark had to be written before that. (This would mean Mark was written while Peter was still alive which is reconcilable with the other evidence if ‘exodus’ isn’t translated ‘death’.)This is less than thirty years after Jesus’ death.This would mean that both Mark and Luke were writing at the same time as the eyewitnesses—the contemporaries of Jesus—whom they interviewed for their Gospels were still living and speaking of what they had seen.Matthew and John were eyewitnesses themselves and therefore they based their Gospels on their own memories.Who wrote the Gospel of Luke?The early church credits the Gospel of Luke to Paul’s companion Luke. Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and others all list him as the author. Luke is mentioned throughout Paul’s letters (Colossians 4:7–17, Philemon 24, and 2 Timothy 4:11), where we learn that he was a doctor.At the beginning of Luke, the author appears to claim not to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, but rather, someone who has spoken to eyewitnesses and investigated their claims.Is there evidence of eyewitness testimony in the gospel writings?They say so.“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty” (2 Peter 1:16).Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by the initial eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account.. (Luke 1:1–3)“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” (1 John 1:1)“That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, … (1 John 1:3).“And he that saw it bears record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe” (John 19:35).“Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know” (Acts 2:22).This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we are all witnesses.” (Acts 2:32)These claims are significant for two reasons: in Jewish culture, testimony by witnesses was required in a court of law, and in historical writing of this time, all ‘good history’ was based on eyewitness testimony. Ancient historians denigrated those who depended upon written sources only. These claims are meant to ensure veracity and historicity.Arguments againstHowever, some accuse these authors of knowingly lying—though no contemporary scholar that I know of does so because the remainder of the texts, especially Acts, and the record of their lives makes that an absurdity.Others have theorized they’re being “delusional.” The problem is that the resurrection appearances happened in different places, at different times, in different ways, so it would have to be a kind of bouncing-disappearing-reappearing kind of delusion—which doesn’t actually exist anywhere but on Star Trek.Then there are those who assert the Apostles were simply mistaken. They offer no explanation.Arguments forThe Gospels evidence a ‘literary device’ called an inclusio which refers to the bracketing of a passage in the Bible by similar phrases. Three of the four Gospels work quite deliberately with it. These sections are like quotes—and are meant to be taken together and not separated. It appears the author is putting his material together in a particular way in order to indicate the source of the story he is recording. Matthew does this with the Sermon on the Mount in chapter 5. This is an indication of eyewitness testimony.[3]Internal evidence shows details indicating an eyewitness account. For example, in the account of the storm at sea, (Mark 8:23-27) Mark gives details such as : ‘The waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full” and “he {Jesus} was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow”. This description is one of those unnecessary details often included by eyewitnesses.Another example is the account of the demon-possessed man in Mark 5:2-5. He describes how the man pulled apart his chains and broke them in pieces, and how he would cry out and cut himself with stones. The details do not seem contrived, but rather mentioned matter-of-factly, in passing, as someone who was giving on-the-scene recollections would.John mentions many historical and geographical details that would only be known by a personal witness living at the time and would probably be irrelevant to a later audience.There are a number of geographic locations referenced in John, including a dozen not mentioned in the other gospels, and he uses phrases such as “we went up to…” that indicate an accurate knowledge of local terrain. He mentions, among others, the Siloam Pool, and Jacob’s Well, and describes the Pool of Bethesda as having five porticoes (John 5:2). It was buried and lost for centuries and thought not to exist at all until the actual pool was unearthed, and sure enough, there were five porticoes.The details of the lives of the various people he mentions suggest first–hand knowledge.There are many more such examples.There is evidence of eyewitnesses in addition to the authors. All three Synoptic Gospels show “the women” as eye-witnesses. The gospels repeatedly make the women the subjects of verbs of seeing: they saw Jesus die, they saw his body laid in the tomb, they went on the first day to ‘see’ the tomb, they saw the stone rolled away, they saw the ‘young man’ sitting and the empty place where the body had been.However, the women named are not the same in each gospel. Each gospel names two or three women—but different women. It seems the evangelists writing the gospels were careful to name precisely and only the women who were known to them as witnesses and no others.Additional eye-witness evidence is connected to Simon of Cyrene. Mark names not only Simon but his two sons, Alexander and Rufus (15:21). Matthew and Luke omit the sons, showing that referencing his native place, Cyrene, was sufficient to identify him to their readers in Palestine. And while critics agree Mark’s naming of the sons presupposes that Mark expected his readers to know who they were, it still doesn’t explain why he named them.There does not seem to be a good reason other than that they were the ones there in Rome passing on their father’s testimony and the people Mark was writing to would have known that.So, yes, there is evidence of eyewitness testimony in all of the gospels.Who was Luke?Church tradition tells us that Luke was a converted Gentile, which scholars suggest is the reason Paul introduces him separately in Colossians 4:11–14, introducing his Jewish companions first.Being a Gentile would also explain why the author takes such an interest in how Gentiles respond to the gospel. Given his familiarity with the Hebrew Scriptures, however, some scholars speculate that Luke may have been a “God-fearer”—a Gentile who worshiped the God of Israel.For three main reasons, almost all scholars believe the Gospel of Luke was written by the same person who wrote Acts:Luke and Acts were written in the same style and express the same theologyBoth books are addressed to the same person—a man named TheophilusActs 1:1–2 appears to tie the two books to the same authorIf we can safely claim that the author wrote both books—which the vast majority of Bible scholars believe we can—then we can use Acts to learn more about the author of Luke.Acts strongly reinforces the author’s close connection to Paul, suggesting that he went with Paul on his second and third missionary journeys, and eventually accompanied him to Rome (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–21; 21:1–18; 27:1–28:16). This close relationship and his involvement in Paul’s ministry could give the author of Luke grounds to say he has “carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3).Luke and Acts both use specific medical terminology, which would appear to support the claim that Luke the physician is the author of both. In Luke 13:11-13, the Greek words Luke uses both to describe her condition (sugkuptousa) and the exact manner of Jesus’ healing (apolelusai, anorthothe) are medical terms.In Luke 14:1–4, Luke uses a word to describe the man in this passage that’s found nowhere else in the Bible: hudropikos. While this passage is the only place this word appears in the Bible, it’s a precise medical term frequently used in other texts—namely, the works of the renowned Greek physician, Hippocrates.The use of medically-accurate phrases and descriptions continues in Acts, such as Acts 28:8–9, where the writer uses puretois kai dusenterio sunechomenon to describe a man’s exact medical condition (“suffering from fever and dysentery”).Arguments against Luke as the authorThe main arguments against Luke as the author are the books’ portrayal of Paul and the theology presented therein. Some scholars claim that the theologies are different, and that the Paul we see in Acts is different from the Paul we see in his letters. The most apparent difference in the portrayal of Paul is his treatment of Judaizers. In Acts 21, a group of them tell Paul to participate in purification rituals to prove he still follows Jewish customs and will teach Gentiles to follow them as well—including Jewish food laws—and he complies.Paul is far less sympathetic with the Judaizers in his letters, and even calls out Peter for his hypocrisy. This could be a matter of timing—things could have gotten worse as time went by. And the Paul of the Epistles makes it clear that sometimes advancing the gospel requires conciliation and concessions (1 Corinthians 9:20).As for the differences in theology, most scholars would argue that the difference is not in the theology itself, so much as it is in theological emphasis, which can be attributed to each book’s different purpose.Other evidences against Luke are found in his supposed ‘errors.’However, evidence indicates Luke did the kind of careful methodical historical research that would be expected of a trained physician, and his historicity is well supported.Luke spoke of Philippi as a “district” of Macedonia. It was believed for a time that he erred because it was thought the Greek word meris did not mean “district.” Then the archaeological evidence showed “district” was correct.Luke referred to Lysanias the Tetrarch of Abilene in his Gospel. Because the only known Lysanias to historians was killed in 36 B.C., Luke was thought to be in error here too. Then an inscription was found bearing the name of Lysanias the Tetrarch dated between 14 and 29 A.D.Luke was thought to be wrong about the census taken at the time of Christ, because critics said there was no evidence of a census and that the governor called Quirinius was in power too late, 6 A.D., to be in his position at the time of Christ. They also stated that it was not required for the people to return to their birth homes.But there is evidence a census—not for taxation purposes—was taken around 3–2 BC for the purpose of the exaltation of Augustus to the “Pater Patriae.” This was a citizen registration for an oath of allegiance to the emperor. As descendants of the royal line of Judah, Joseph and Mary would both have been required to give that oath. At this time Quirinius would have possibly been a procurator and put in charge of this census. Luke does not actually give Quirinius’s title; the Greek word translated “governor” really means a “ruler” or “administrator” at any level; and Luke also does not state that paying taxes was the reason for the census. The Greek word there simply means “registered,” not “taxed.” [4]Luke referred to the Philippian officials as praetors, when some scholars thought the titles should be duumvirs, but archaeological finds showed that in fact praetors was the right title for the Roman magistrates of the colony.Luke used the title politarchs for the Thessalonian officials, but since this title was not found in the classical literature Luke was again assumed to be wrong. Then several inscriptions were found that used the title politarchs, and five of them referred to Thessalonica.So, did Paul's companion Luke write the Gospel of Luke?The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars say “yes.” Between the undisputed claims of early Christians, and the textual evidence pointing to someone like Luke, there’s little reason to believe this gospel was written by anyone else.Who wrote the Gospel of John?Of all the gospels, John comes closest to revealing the identity of its author. At the very end of the gospel, the author begins referring to one disciple as “the one whom Jesus loved,” and eventually suggests this disciple wrote the gospel:“Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is going to betray you?’) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?’Jesus answered, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.’ Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, ‘If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?’This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.” —John 21:20–24The author claims to be an eyewitnessThe writer of John claims to be an eyewitness to the ministry of Jesus, and there’s good reason to believe that’s true. The gospel contains numerous details that appear incidental, some not even bearing any possible symbolic significance, yet evidence the presence of an eyewitness:The number of water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6)How long the man at the Pool of Bethesda had been crippled (John 5:5)The name of the servant whose ear was chopped off by Peter (John 18:10)The number of fish the disciples caught at Galilee (John 21:11)These details are unimportant in themselves, and are not the kind of thing someone not familiar with the setting would tend to include.The author appears to be JewishThe writer of the Gospel of John also records numerous details about Jewish ceremonies and frequently uses Jewish festivals to show when events occurred. This could suggest he wasn’t a Gentile, but at the very least, he was intimately familiar with Jewish culture:He identifies the purpose of the water jars at the wedding in Cana (John 2:6)He notes that Jesus was in Jerusalem during the Passover (John 2:23)He mentions that Jesus fed the 5,000 near the Passover (John 6:4)He talks about the Festival of Tabernacles (John 7:2, 37)He specifies that it was the Festival of Dedication, where another writer might simply say “it was winter” (John 10:22)He records that Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14, 31)The writer also introduces Aramaic words like Rabbi, Rabboni, Messias, and Kēphas. The Gospel of John was once believed to be the “most Greek” of the gospels, but more recently some scholars have called it the “most Jewish,” for the reasons above.The Dead Sea Scrolls support the themes and imagery John uses, such as light vs. darkness, and the children of God vs. the children of Satan, which seems to support that the gospel emerged from a Jewish, rather than a Greek context.Arguments against John’s authorshipSome scholars propose that the textual evidence doesn’t necessarily point to John as “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”They say John would have had important information that isn’t recorded in the gospel. The gospel written by the disciple Jesus loved doesn’t include the main events where only Peter, James, and John were present—the raising of Jairus’ daughter, the transfiguration, or the prayer in Gethsemane. Plus, John followed Jesus from the beginning of his ministry (Mark 1:19), but the ‘disciple whom Jesus loved’ isn’t mentioned until the Last Supper (John 13:23).A fourth-century church historian says there were two Johns. We’re back to Eusebius and Papias. According to Eusebius, Papias claims that there were two men named John ministering in Ephesus (where the gospel is believed to have been written).Some have suggested that this “other John” wrote the gospel, but Papias’ actual words leave room for interpretation, and Eusebius may have been wrong about what Papias meant. Papias mentions John the apostle and John the Elder, both of which could refer to John the apostle. According to Papias’ words, all of the apostles were elders, so John the Elder can easily be John the apostle.So, did the apostle John write the book of John?Despite alternative theories about the “disciple whom Jesus loved”, most evidence still points to the apostle John.The early church father Irenaeus wrote, “afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.” Irenaeus lived in the second century, and claimed to receive this information from John’s disciple, Polycarp.The text seems to point to John, too. The disciple whom Jesus loved was clearly close to Peter:Peter asks him to ask Jesus a question (John 13:24)Peter and this disciple race to the tomb together (John 20:2-10)Peter is fishing with this disciple when Jesus appears to them on the shore (John 21:2)Peter swims to Jesus after this disciple identifies him (John 21:7)After Jesus hints at Peter’s death, Peter asks about this disciple (John 21:20-24)This close relationship supports the likelihood that this disciple was part of Jesus’ “inner circle” (Peter, James, or John). Since James is martyred early (Acts 12:1-5), and Peter died in the 60s, and since John is never mentioned by name in the whole book (which for anyone else would be a mistake), John is believed to be the most likely author.Were any of the authors of the gospels contemporaries of Jesus? If they were, did any of them know him personally?Matthew and John were contemporaries of Jesus who knew him and they are likely the authors of the gospels that bear their names.Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses themselves, but they obtained their information from those who were.Footnotes[1] http://Burridge, Richard A. (2004). What Are the Gospels?: A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (Second ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans.[2] http://Knierim, Rolf (2000). "Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered". In Kim, Wonil; Ellens, Deborah L.; Floyd, Michael; Sweeney, Marvin A. (eds.). Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. 2. Harrisburg, PA.: Trinity Press.[3] The Gospel of Matthew’s Use of Inclusio or Bracketing[4] The Census of Quintilius Varus

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have an official position about vaccination.In 1988, an article about benefits of vaccination was published in our Awake! magazine, and some indignant letters were received. The answer to these letters may illustrate our position:Many things people do in seeking improved health are less than desirable. Some take medicines that have undesirable side effects, believing that the benefits outweigh the risks. Many view vaccines similarly. We consider vaccination to be a personal matter, though one must accept any legal consequence of his or her decision.​—ED.[1]In my case, I only know of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses who mistrusts vaccination (and believe me when I tell you that I know a lot of JWs).Since we are here, we can mention some interesting things from a historical perspective. There was a time, when the use of vaccination was very controversial not among marginal pseudo-scientific groups, but within mainstream science.For example, professor Charles Creighton, wrote an article against vaccinations in the 1888 Encyclopedia Britannica.[2]Image: A cartoon from a December 1894 anti-vaccination publicationBack then (19th century and early 20th century) the main method used to inoculate people was to infect a person with a variant of one "mild" strain of the virus; the infected person had to return seven days later when the pustules appeared on them; the pustule was scraped off and used to directly infect another person, who would then return in seven days.In 1889, Professor Alfred Wallace said that in England and Wales vaccination was the probable cause every year for 10,000 deaths—deaths by five diseases of the most terrible and disgusting character, introduced by the vaccine virus (Alfred Russell Wallace. LL.D., Forty-Five Years Of Registration Statistics, Proving Vaccination To Be Both Useless And Dangerous, second edition, London, 1889, p. 38).Actually, the Registar-General reported 1,108 deaths from vaccination in England and Wales from 1881 to 1907, the deaths averaging one every week during the first sixteen years (The Register Report of Births. Deaths and Marriages in England and Wales, vols. XLIV-LXX).Image: “Death the Vaccinator,” an engraving published by the London Society for the Abolition of Compulsory Vaccination, late nineteenth centuryIn the autumn of 1901, in Philadelphia, 36 cases of tetanus were reported, which were admitted to have resulted from vaccination, and nearly all were fatal. After a study of these and 59 similar cases, the prominent Philadelphian physician Prof. Joseph McFarland, an ardent defender of vaccinations, concluded that the danger lay in the presence of the virus in the vaccine in spite of all precautions. (John Pitcairn, The Fallacy Of Vaccination, 1911, citing of Joseph McFarland, Tetanus And Vaccination – An Analytical Study Of Ninety-five Cases Of This Rare Complication, 1902).In 1913, the British National Anti-Vaccination League (of which the famous scientist Alfred Russel Wallace was a member) published a booklet entitled Is vaccination a Disastrous Delusion? The booklet condemned the practice as "a monstrous and indefensible outrage upon the common sense and sacred personal rights of every human being, and especially every Englishman."Image: G.B. Shaw, WikipediaThe writer George Bernard Shaw, a former member of the Health Committee of London Borough Council, published strong statements against vaccinations, such as these: "The obligatory vaccination is a crime and should be punished as such. ...The vaccine kills more people than smallpox." (From the article Vaccination is a crime, from the magazine Naturalism). "At present, intelligent people do not have their children vaccinated, nor does the law now compel them to. The result is not, as the Jennerians prophesied, the extermination of the human race by smallpox; on the contrary more people are now killed by vaccination than by smallpox." (Published in the Irish Times of August 9, 1944).In these years, Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t have a religious position about vaccination, either, and it wasn’t mentioned in our main religious magazine, The Watchtower, whose editor was J.F. Rutherford.But JWs had another periodical called The Golden Age (whose editor was called Clayton Woodworth) devoted to general topics -social issues, health, science, commerce, agriculture, etc.- which did reflect the controversy for and against.For example, in the April 27, 1921 issue, a long and detailed article by certain Mr. G del Pino was published, explaining how vaccines work and praising their results.When germs are introduced into the system, the living tissues have the power or farculty of manufacturing colloid substances which clissolve and destroy the bacteria injected. These anti-substances, as they are called, are manufactured in excess and are carried by the circulating blood to all parts of the system. When produced in sufficient amount, these anti-bodies destroy the live germs which are attacking the patient. . . . It may be assumed that the success which has so far been achieved from the use of these detoxicated vaccines represents only the beginning of the ultimate possibilities of the immunizing agents in the prevention and cure of disease.In the September 21, 1921 issue, an article contrary to vaccinations was published. Here is a short extract:Vaccination is supposed to make the vaccinated immune to some certain disease, or at least to allow it to appear only in a mild form. The big question is, Does it really do this? This question is a vital one to us and to the future welfare of the human family; and judging from its past the answser is an emphatic NO.Germany and Japan gave the practice of vaccination the most thorough trial possible by compulsory inoculation, after which both countries were visited by the worst and the most fatal epidemic in their histories. England gave this practice a fair trial, especially in her armies; and finding that an appalling increase in tuberculosis followed in its wake, she revoked the compulsory vaccination laws.More passionate was the article by A.M. Wilton, M.D. published in Twin Falls, Idaho Times and reprinted in The Golden Age 1921 Oct 12, titled: “The Vaccination Infamy”. The article criticises the compulsory vaccination of school children in his county and says things like these:But first, Doctor, we want you doctors to agree among yourselves as to the efficacy of vaccination. Now, as it stands, the best half of the medical profession denounce vaccination, not only as being useless as a specific for the prevention of smallpox, but because it propagates various other diseases.Then the article quotes a good number of doctors from different parts of the world expressing against vaccination.Next, several letters pro and against are published. First, an article contributed by a doctor is published firmly in favour of vaccination:As to the efficacy of vaccination for smallpox and of its harmlessness there can be absolutely no doubt. It is one of the few proved facts with which the medical profession is acquainted. Unlike the treatment for nearly all other diseases, vaccination for smallpox has remained practically unchanged throughout all the years since it was discovered.Then he quotes favourable reports from the "Analytic Cyclopedia of Practical Medicine" regarded as the last word on this. A.M. Wilton, M.D. responded to this article attacking vaccination as dangerous. After that, a long article very positive about vaccination by L.W. Putman, M.D. A few interesting excerpts:THE GOLDEN AGE is kind enough to open its columns to the people; and it would seem that the people would be kind enough in return, to investigate a subject carefully and exhaustively before presenting it, that tlie public may feel, of all publications there is at least one unbiased and perfectly reliable, that being THE GOLDEN AGE. . . . True scholars of the practice of medicine would never think of condemning a valuable proven form of treatment upon the testimony of one case or even on a dozen cases. Many of the so-called new schools of healing condemn vaccines and antitoxins, not through experience but, as the use of these does not agree with their theory of practice, they must of necessity condemn them through prejudice.Next, a reader tells his negative experience with a vaccine that deformed the muscles of his feet. After that, a negative article contributed, claiming vaccination is a fallacy. A letter by Mrs. Mary E. Burnet telling her positive experience with serums followed by a positive letter by A. Murray, M.D. For example:Vaccine therapy, fortunately, has demonstrated its value. Typhoid fever in the army is practically a thing of the past, as a result anti-typhoid inoculations. The value of vaccination against smallpox was clearly shown in stamping out epidemics in the Philippines after the United States took control there and vaccinated everybody.And last, a letter by Mrs. R. Walter Maygrove, clearly disturbed after reading about animal torture to create vaccines. Some excerpts from this letter:Vaccination never prevented anything and never will, and is the most barbarous practice. . . The conditions as one has put it are: "The torturing of calves until in some well-known cases the eyes of the animals have dropped from their sockets from the agony they have endured. Then the corpse virus is about ready to be injected into the blood of some baby or some elder with, let us say, softening of the brain." . . . It I cannot picture the heavenly Father torturing a poor helpless calf, taking the pus from a vile, stinking sore on its belly and giving it to a child, saying, "Here is life". We are in the last days; and the devil is slowly losing his hold, making a strenuous effort meanwhile to do all the damage he can, and to his credit can such evils be placed. ... Use your rights as American citizens to forever abolish the devilish practice of vaccinations.For the following years, the controversy was mentioned in about a couple of issues each year, again with positive and negative (or neutral) letters and contributed or reprinted articles and news stories. But no religious objection was mentioned. At least until The Golden Age February 4, 1931 in which a letter from a certain Chat A. Pattillo of Virginia (EE.UU.) was published with scriptural reasons to reject vaccines. He said that vaccines could represent a violation of divine law on blood, since the serum of some vaccines was produced in animal blood. The article was not an editorial article, the publisher of the magazine did not specify if he agreed or not with the opinion of Mr. Patillo. The matter was not presented like a prohibition, but as an opinion that could help make a personal decision. Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t ban vaccination nor took any kind of disciplinary action if any of them accepted a vaccine. The Watchtower magazine didn’t even mention the topic.As a matter of fact, the 1959 Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading "Vaccine Therapy," stated:"At mid-20th century, adequate statistical data concerning the effectiveness in humans of some of the virus vaccines was still lacking."Nevertheless, safer forms of vaccination were just being developed in the early 20th century. In 1931 Woodruff and Goodpasture began to use the chicken egg as a culture medium for many viruses (Woodruff, A. and E. Goodpasture, The susceptibility of the chorio-allantoic membrane of chick embryos to infection with the fowl-pox virus, 1931. A.m. J. Path. 7:209-222). Later, in the early 1950s Jonas Salk developed a safer and more effective vaccine (Jane Smith, Patenting The Sun) and in 1954, large scale tests were done on Salk's vaccines, proving their effectiveness and contributing to end the controversy among doctors.Image: Britannica.As for Jehovah’s Witnesses, in 1944, all official representatives of the headquarters were required to be vaccinated.Also, of the approximately 4,300 Witnesses imprisoned in different U.S. prisons during World War II (Cushman R.AND., Civil Liberties in the OR.S. p. 96-97, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, N.AND. 1956; Zygmunt J.F. Jehovah' s Witnesses in the USES 1942-1976. Social Compass 24, 47, 1977), there was only one group that refused to accept the obligatory vaccinations. So, in 1944-45, a prominent representative, Alexander H. Macmillan, had to encourage these Jehovah's Witnesses to be vaccinated. He wrote:"One of the more serious problems I had to deal with was vaccinations. Some of our boys in one prison . . . refused to submit . . . I told them, We're wasting time talking about the evils of vaccination because much could be said both ways . . . Furthermore, all of us who visit our foreign branches are vaccinated or we stay at home." (Alexander H. Macmillan, Faith on the March, pp. 188, 189).Since a number of individual Witnesses continued rejecting vaccines (apparently because they considered it to be unscriptural), The Watchtower of December 15, 1952 in its "Questions From Readers" section, addressed this topic for the first time. It stated in part:"The matter of vaccination is one for the individual that has to face it to decide for himself."Then after considering some relevant scriptures, Genesis 6:1-4, 9:4 and Leviticus 17:10-14, 18:23, 24, it stated:"Hence all objection to vaccination on Scriptural grounds seems to be lacking."Some of our “friends” like to quote only the negative opinions leading people to believe that there was an official prohibition and that vaccinations back then were as safe an as accepted by medicine as they are today. And then, they usually finish with a melodramatic allusion to Jehovah's Witnesses who supposedly died for refusing a vaccine. But no, no official position existed nor were disciplinary measures taken. However, can anyone give the name of one single Jehovah's Witness who died for rejecting vaccination? Even if someone could offer a name or a statistic, even approximate (and that’s a big “if”), it would have to be contrasted with those who actually died from accepting vaccinations in those early times.It is sad that, as with the organ transplant issue, the vaccination issue is used to promote intolerance and a lack of understanding.(BTW, at the time vaccinations were not banned but controversial, before WW2, blood transfusions were neither banned nor controversial, since their use wasn’t as generalized yet.)Footnotes[1] From Our Readers - Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY[2] Dr. Charles Creighton's article on �Vaccination� in the ninth edition of the Engclopedia Britannica, published in 1888