IntroductionThe Gospel of Luke is unique among the other gospels because it has a sequel. The church commonly knows this sequel as the Acts of the Apostles. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, Theophilus.
[1] In addition, the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts have a clear connection, tying them to the same author. Although neither book specifically identifies Luke as the author, he was overwhelmingly accepted by the second century A.D.
[2]This paper aims to identify and discuss some of the issues surrounding the authorship of the Gospel of Luke. This writer assumes Lukan authorship, and he will argue accordingly. However, the position of those who do not accept Lukan authorship will be presented and analyzed.
Luke’s IdentityOne of the first questions that must be answered is: Who is Luke? What does the church know about him? According to Scripture, Luke was a Gentile, a doctor, and a loyal friend of Paul.
First, how does one know that Luke was a Gentile? Well, honestly, no one can say with absolute certainty that he was a Gentile, but there are certain evidences that point in that direction. There is one, however, that argues “that Luke was a Hellenistic-Jewish Christian.”
[3] In Colossians 4:7-11, Paul lists several people
[4] in his closing remarks who he says are “the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision” (Col. 4:11 NASB). What Paul means by this is that they are Jews. Following those verses, Paul continues in verses 12-14 to list several who (assumedly) are not Jews, making them Gentiles.
[5] Paul said that Luke sends his greetings to the Colossians as well. Luke is mentioned with the Gentiles, and not with those Paul listed as Jews.
Referencing the anti-Marcionite prologue, some (such as Eusebius) say that he was a native of Antioch, and that he wrote “in the regions of Achaea.”
[6] In addition to this, many believe that Luke was the “man of Macedonia” in Acts 16:9, but this is perhaps nothing more than speculation.
[7] George Eldon Ladd writes, “It is generally agreed that Luke was a Gentile, though one whose knowledge of Judaism, and especially of the Old Testament in the Septuagint version, was remarkable.”
[8] Luke wrote in outstanding Greek, and his prologue is one of the best examples of the classical writing style. His introduction to his gospel is a clear example of the style the ancient Hellenistic writers used when forming a prologue.
[9]Second, Luke was a doctor. Paul gives us this information in his letter to the Colossians as well. He writes, “Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings” (Col. 4:14 NASB). Not only is Luke a doctor, he is Paul’s “beloved” doctor. There are some passages in which Luke seems to have a medical interest.
[10] One example of this can be seen in a comparison with his synoptic contemporaries. In Luke 4:38, he writes about a “high fever.” Matthew and Mark, however, both only say “fever” without the descriptive modifier (Matt.8:14; Mark 1:30).
[11] The Muratorian Canon (c. 170-180) says, “The third book of the Gospel: According to Luke. This Luke was a physician.”
[12]Third, Luke was Paul’s close friend and associate. Paul calls Luke his “fellow worker” (Philem. 24 NASB). Not only was Luke an associate of Paul, he was also Paul’s loyal friend. In writing his second letter to Timothy, which is believed by many to be Paul’s final letter before his execution, Paul tells Timothy that everyone deserted him except for Luke (2 Tim. 4:11).
After reading the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that the author was not an eyewitness of most of what he wrote about, especially the things concerning Jesus Christ. While he himself was not an eyewitness, he got his information from the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word,” and he “investigated everything carefully from the beginning” (Luke 1:2-3 NASB). This fact gives strength to the conclusion that Luke was indeed the writer.
[13] Some choose, however, to call Luke a “narrator.”
[14]The “We” PassagesMost biblical critics are in agreement over the fact that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are written by the same author. There is no doubt that Acts is the second volume of a two-part work, due to the Theophilus connection. Luke uses the first-person in both the prologue of the Gospel of Luke and the in the introduction of Acts. In addition to this, the style and vocabulary of the two books are so similar that no one can seriously dispute it.
[15]Since Luke and Acts are tied together, the book of Acts must be considered for any evidence of Luke’s authorship. In Acts 16:10-17, 20:5-16, 21:1-18, 27:1, and 28:16, the writer of Acts includes himself in the narrative. Given the evidence above concerning who Luke was, it makes sense that Luke was the one writing in the first person. On top of this, the “we” passages show that whoever wrote those passages was Paul’s companion at “significant points in his mission to the Gentiles.”
[16] The best option available for this companion is Luke.
[17] I. Howard Marshall comments, “The tradition in question may date back to the first half of the second century, and it is unequivocal in singling out Luke from among the ‘we’ sections in Acts.”
[18]Historical AttestationThere are quite a few testimonies from church history that claim Luke as the author of the Gospel of Luke. Marcion, the heretic from the second century, stated that Luke was indeed the author. However, one may not accept the testimony of a heretic. Two orthodox writers, Ireneus and Tertullian, had no doubt that Luke wrote his gospel. Perhaps the best evidence available is the oldest manuscript of Luke, which goes by the name Bodmer Papyrus XIV or simply p75. Transcribed sometime between A.D. 175 and A.D. 225, this ancient text attributes the book to Luke. It should be noted that no other individual is even considered in the ancient church tradition.
[19]There is a possibility of one text that has Luke naming himself:
Rendel Harris developed an argument that the original Western text of Acts 20:13 read, “But I Luke, and those who were with me, went on board,” and F. F. Bruce reasons that, if this can be accepted, we have testimony to the Lukan authorship c. A.D. 120, for this is “the probable date of the ‘Western’ recension.” He further points out that the Mechitarist Fathers published an Armenian translation of Ephrem’s commentary on Acts and that it contains these very words in Acts 20:13. If this can be accepted, it is very early evidence indeed of Lukan authorship.
[20]History gives no good reason why Luke should not be credited with writing the gospel bearing his name. The prominent New Testaments scholars D. A. Carson, Doug Moo, and Leon Morris all agree on this, and they state additional information regarding Luke’s name being attached to his gospel:
We should bear in mind the point made by M. Dibelius that a book bearing the name of the person to whom it was dedicated is unlikely to have lacked the author’s name (it would have been on an attached tag). It is not easy to see how some other name would have been completely suppressed, or why the name Luke should have been attached to the writings if he had not produced them. In patristic discussions apostolicity receives a good deal of emphasis as a criterion for acceptance of books, so if the author was not known, it would have been much more likely that an apostle or someone like Mark would have been credited with them. As far as we know, Luke was not such an eminent member of the early church as to have writings like these attributed to him without reason.
[21]Other references to Lukan authorship can be found in writings such as Justin’s Dialogues (c. 160) and the Muratorian Canon (c. 170-180).
[22]TheophilusLuke addressed both his gospel and the Acts of the Apostles to someone who is known as Theophilus. Nothing is really known about this individual except his name, but certain conclusions can be drawn concerning his relationship with Luke.
In all likelihood, Theophilus was Luke’s patron, meaning that he paid for Luke’s production of Luke-Acts. According to Halvor Moxnes, “A patron has social, economic, and political resources that are needed by a client. In return, a client can give expressions of loyalty and honor that are useful for the patron.”
[23] Some say that Theophilus was a person of rank because of the adjective preceding his name in Luke 1:3, where he is called “most excellent Theophilus.” However, Luke may only use this title to pay respect to Theophilus.
[24]Without a doubt, Theophilus was a real person in history who was Luke’s financial provider. However, there are those who seem to think that Theophilus, which means “lover of God,” is a token name representing believers everywhere. Given the evidence available, this is highly unlikely. It makes more sense that Theophilus was a real human being.
[25]OppositionOf course, there are those who will argue that Luke did not in fact author the Gospel of Luke or the Acts of the Apostles. Those who choose to reject Lukan authorship do so because a debate has arisen on how well the author of the “we” sections in Acts knew Paul. The problem for these critics supposedly shows up when they compare Paul’s writings with Luke’s portrayal of Paul in Acts. Their argument is made up of two basic presuppositions in that the historical detail and the theological emphasis do not square with one another neatly. They further point out that Luke does not use the letters of Paul as a basis. Those who do hold to Lukan authorship argue that Luke has his own theological goals that he is trying to accomplish. This would account for why Luke and Paul do not always say the exact same things in the exact same ways.
[26] Leon Morris writes, “Sometimes [Lukan] tradition is dismissed as no more than guesswork, but this is too cavalier.”
[27]ConclusionWithout a doubt, Luke indeed wrote the Gospel that bears his name today. Without this investigative Gentile Christian, the Church would definitely lack major details regarding the birth, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ, as well as the history of the early Church.
This brief summary dealing with the issues of authorship has only scratched the surface in Lukan studies. For further study, this writer suggests the reader study the books listed in the bibliography carefully for a fuller discussion.
BIBLIOGRAPHYBock, Darrell L. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Moises Silva. Luke 1:1-9:50. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.
Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Dean, Robert J. Layman's Bible Book Commentary. Edited by Broadman Press. Luke. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1983.
George Eldon Ladd. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.
Green, Joel B. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Gordon D. Fee. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.
-----------------. The Theology of the Gospel of Luke. New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
-----------------, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992.
Marshall, I. Howard. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. Edited by I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978.
Morris, Leon. The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Leon Morris. Luke. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988.
Nolland, John. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by Bruce M. Metzger. Luke 1-9:20. Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989.
Packer, James I., Merrill C. Tenney, and William White, Jr. Everyday Life in the Bible: The Old and New Testaments. New York: Bonanza Books, 1989.
Stein, Robert H. The New American Commentary. Edited by David S. Dockery. Luke. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992.
END NOTES
[1] See Luke 1:4 and Acts 1:1.
[2] Robert J. Dean, Layman's Bible Book Commentary, ed. Broadman Press, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1983), 11.
[3] Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight, and I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 496.
[4] They are Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Barnabas’ cousin Mark, and Jesus who is called Justus.
[5] Among these are Epaphras, Luke, and Demas.
[6] D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 115.
[7] James I. Packer, Merrill C. Tenney, and William White, Jr, Everyday Life in the Bible: The Old and New Testaments (New York: Bonanza Books, 1989), 191.
[8] George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 239.
[9] John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Luke 1-9:20 (Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1989), xxxi.
[10] “Alfred Wikenhauser agrees that the language does not prove a medical author, but then adds, ‘Nevertheless the tradition need not be abandoned, and it may still be sustained, for the author displays familiarity with medical terminology (cf. e.g. Lk. 4:38; 5:12; 8:44; Acts 5:5,10; 9:40), and he indisputably describes maladies and cures from the point of view of a medical man,’” as cited in Carson, Moo, and Morris, 114-115.
[11] Carson, Moo, and Morris, 114.
[12] Robert H. Stein, The New American Commentary, ed. David S. Dockery, Luke (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 21.
[13] Green, McKnight, and Marshall, 497.
[14] Joel B. Green, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997), 21.
[15] Carson, Moo, and Morris, 113-114.
[16] Dean, 11.
[17] “The last ‘we’ passage locates the writer in Rome at the time of Paul’s imprisonment there, so the author is one of those mentioned as being with Paul at that time and is not mentioned in Acts. This leaves us with Titus, Demas, Crescens, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Epaphroditus, and Luke. No good reason seems ever to have been adduced for ascribing the authorship of Luke-Acts to any of the others, so we come back to Luke,” as written in Carson, Moo, and Morris, 114.
[18] I. Howard Marshall, The New International Greek Testament Commentary, ed. I. Howard Marshall and W. Ward Gasque, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 33.
[19] Carson, Moo, and Morris, 113.
[20] Ibid., 114.
[21] Ibid., 113.
[22] Green, McKnight, and Marshall, 496.
[23] As cited in Joel B. Green, The Theology of the Gospel of Luke, New Testament Theology, ed. James D. G. Dunn (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 15.
[24] Carson, Moo, and Morris, 117.
[25] Ibid. It should also be noted that, although the Gospel of Luke is addressed to Theophilus, it is definitely intended to be read by many people.
[26] Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Moises Silva, Luke 1:1-9:50 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 4-5.
[27] Leon Morris, The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, ed. Leon Morris, Luke (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1988), 17.
