These works have long been ascribed to Luke, assumed to be Paul’s loyal coworker (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phlm 24).1 Though Luke does not attach his name to the gospel or Acts, the author would have been known from the start since he includes a specific dedication to Theophilus (see comments on 1:3 that he is a real person). Complete anonymity would have been impossible.
Traditions external to the New Testament unanimously attribute the gospel to Luke from an early date. Hengel observes that “the strange uniformity and early attestation of the titles of the Gospels excludes the possibility that for a long time they had been circulating anonymously in the communities” or that they had received their titles “as a secondary addition.”2 A Western recension of Acts 20:13, which may date as early as AD 120, possibly includes the writer’s name in the text, “But I Luke…….”3
“According to Luke” appears as the title at the end of .75, the oldest extant copy of Luke dating from around AD 200. The gospel would have probably included the name of the author in the title or as an attached tag to be able to catalogue it.4 Other attestations appear in the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170 – 180), which attributes the gospel to Luke, a doctor, who is Paul’s companion and a native of Antioch in Syria. The so-called Anti-Marcionite Prologue (c. AD 175) also describes Luke as a native of Antioch in Syria and claims that he lived to be eighty-four, was a doctor, was unmarried, wrote in Achaia, and died in Boeotia. Irenaeus (c. AD 175 – 195) claimed that Luke was an “inseparable companion” of Paul (Haer. 3.14.1; 3.1.1), though it is more accurate to say that he was a “sometime companion.”5 Perhaps under the influence of this tradition, Tertullian (early third century) calls the gospel a digest of Paul’s gospel (Marc. 4.2.2; 4.2.5; 4.5.3).
Were he not the actual author, Luke would have been an unlikely candidate to connect with the gospel. He was neither an apostle nor a prominent figure in the New Testament, and many others from Paul’s lists of companions in his letters could have been chosen as the potential author of the we-passages in Acts. The traditions about Luke that derive from the
late second century probably began with the gospel’s ascription to Luke from an earlier time and prompted the scouring of New Testament texts to elaborate upon it. It is less likely that the texts were probed to contrive an author for the gospel.
It is possible that Luke was the unnamed brother Paul mentions as famous for proclaiming the gospel in all the churches (2 Cor 8:18). He was not an eyewitness to the events he records in the gospel, but, like a good historian, he relies on eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2 – 4), and he presents himself as a companion of Paul in the wepassages of Acts (Acts 16:10 – 17;
20:5 – 16; 21:1 – 18; 27:1 – 28:16). There are three interpretations of these passages. (1) The traditional view is that the author of Acts was physically present at the events he records and a member of Paul’s troupe. (2) A second view argues the author was using a source written by someone else who witnessed the events, and Luke merely retains its first-person narration. (3) A third view understands the “we” to be purely made-up to add verisimilitude and vividness to his account.
These sections begin at Troas on Paul’s second missionary journey and appear and disappear in such an arbitrary manner that they cannot be attributed to some literary convention for making sea voyages more vivid.6 The “we” reference does not occur in every sea journey and first appears when Paul is on land in Philippi, not at sea (Acts 16:10 – 17). Thornton’s research on first-person narratives in ancient literature shows that if the author had completely fabricated the we-passages and was not present as an eyewitness, he would have been perceived in the ancient context as a liar.7 The prima facie sense of the we-passages is that they are intended to convey to the readers the author’s participation in the events.8 They possibly derive from a “diary-like record” that the author himself kept.9
Is Luke a Gentile or a Jew? Paul lists a series of persons who extend greetings to the Colossians and says, “These are the only Jews among my co-workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me”
(Col 4:11). He then mentions Epaphras, “who is one of you” (v.12), “our dear friend Luke, the doctor” (v.14),10 and Demas (v.14). Most conclude that since Luke and Demas are not mentioned earlier, they are not Jews. I conclude, however:
If it means that they are the only Jewish converts among his coworkers, it would appear to exclude Timothy, the coauthor of the
letter. Possibly the phrase “of the circumcision” [lit. trans.] refers to the circumcision party (see Acts 10:45; 11:2; Gal. 2:12) and means:
These are the only ones from that group who bring him comfort. If it refers to these three as Jews, it may be a lament (see Rom. 9:1 – 3) — these are the only ones. In the context of Jewish opposition in Colosse, however, it is more likely that Paul wants to remind them that some Jews, whom they know or know about, have been willing to throw aside their religious entitlements for the sake of the gospel in which there is no Jew nor Greek, circumcised or uncircumcised. They also serve with him in the mission among the Gentiles.11
It may well be that Luke was a Hellenistic Jewish Christian but not a member of “the circumcision group” (see Titus 1:10). If the we-passage in Acts 16:10 – 16 extends to 16:20, then the narrator is a Jew: “These men are Jews, and are throwing our city into an uproar.” Luke may have escaped arrest, since only Paul and Silas are mentioned, but all the missionaries in Acts are Jews! When Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him on his mission, “he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (Acts 16:3). Paul’s coworker Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile (Gal 2:1 – 5), is never mentioned in Acts.
The missionaries in Acts, like Paul, represent what is truly Jewish.
If Luke were a Jew, it would easily explain his extensive knowledge of the Greek Old Testament and why Fletcher-Louis could say that he is
“thoroughly at home in Jewish culture and theology.”12 He adopts a Septuagintal style of Greek in the opening chapters and makes allusions to the Scriptures without announcing that he is doing so. In addition to his knowledge of Scripture and his techniques in interpreting it that accord with contemporary Jewish methods, Strelan argues that his authority in offering foundational interpretation of the traditions of Jesus, Paul, and Christian history for the comparatively small Christian community, not just a local congregation but the more widespread community, would be greater if he were a Jewish teacher than a Gentile one.13
Luke also is at home in the Greco-Roman culture, and the preface indicates that he was aware of literary customs and self-consciously intended to enter the world of letters. The use of such a preface does not appear in the Jewish Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha (with the exception of the Letter of Aristeas 1:1 – 8), or in the earliest Christian writings.14 Jerome
praised Luke’s Greek (Epist. ad Damasum 20.4.4), and Luke avoids Hebraic expressions that might disconcert a Greek reader. He also tends to relate narrative details to fit a Greco-Roman context (e.g., compare Luke’s tiled roof [Luke 5:19] with Mark’s earthen roof [Mark 2:4]).