Who Wrote the Book of . . . Luke?
posted by Clark Bates on June 6, 2016
As it regards the Gospel according to
Luke, there is very little debate, still existing surrounding its
authorship. Just as with the other gospels, formal titles were not
believed to have been applied to this gospel prior to AD
130. Debate over the reliability of this belief was discussed in a
previous article (here), making it sufficient to merely comment here
that the belief that the fourfold Gospel was transmitted for more
than a century without any form of identification or distinguishing
titles, seems implausible and unlikely, especially given the
testimonies of the early church. Just as the other three gospels,
Luke is formally anonymous. The author of tradition is the “faithful
companion” of the apostle Paul, referred to as the “beloved
physician” (Col. 4:14 ESV). Most of what can be known about the
presumed author comes from external evidence, but a considerable
amount of internal support can be found from the book of Acts.
Internal Evidence
The
opening of the gospel clearly suggests that the author was not an
eyewitness of the Lord Jesus and, therefore, not an apostle (Lk.
1:1-4). Some debate exists regarding the meaning of the phrase,
“having followed things closely” (ESV translation, of the Greek
pareklouthekoti)
v.3. Cadbury argues that this phrase is best translated as, “one
who kept a close personal watch over the events that transpired”,
implying that the author provides a form of personal account, but he
stands apart from the larger body of tradition which translates the
phrase to be, “one who investigated” without any direct personal
observation.1
The third gospel betrays a heavier interest in Gentiles than the
other synoptics and may point to a Gentile author. The Greek of
Luke is formal and in keeping with educated classical style,
suggesting an educated man, very aware of the Roman literature of the
first century.
The
opening to the book of Acts connects it to the Gospel according to
Luke by way of a common recipient, the unknown “Theophilus” (Acts
1:1). Whether the critic ascribes the authorship to the traditional
Luke or some other source does not dispute that it is unanimously
accepted that Luke and Acts were written by the same author as a
collection. It is in this book that the most light is shed on the
identity of the author of the third gospel. There are multiple
passages within the book of Acts known as the “we” passages.2
In these sections of Scripture the author identifies himself as a
companion with the apostle Paul. The argument against the
authenticity of these passages rests largely on the theory that they
are used as a literary device rather than an attribution to personal
experience.3
This perspective has rightly diminished over the years, particularly
in light of how arbitrarily the “we” sections are applied. Were
these sections meant to b a literary device it would only serve an
effective purpose if they were used to introduce more portions of
text or various theological points. As Bock notes, “The 'we'
sections are more than mere inserts of notes from someone else, and
their haphazard use reflects authenticity.”4
If the author of Acts is a fellow-laborer with the apostle Paul (which seems to be the case) and the author of the third gospel as well, then we are left with a narrow group from which to choose. This companion was with the apostle on his first missionary journey to Philippi (16:10-17), third missionary journey (20:5-15; 21:1-18), and on his voyage to Rome (27:1-28:16). The perspective of the account reveals that he author could not have been any of the fellow travelers named in these accounts, and given his travels to Roman, would suggest that he would be a companion listed in one of the letters written by the apostle from that period of time.5 The companions named in these letters are: Mark, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Demas, Luke, Tychicus, Timothy, Aristarchus, and Epaphroditus. While internal evidence cannot take us much farther than this list, it has also been noted that the Gospel according to Luke appears to contain an assortment of “medical language” absent from any other biblical writing, which could further bolster the traditional authorship to the “beloved physician” of Colossians 4:14.6 This leads us to the external evidence of the early church.
External Evidence
While there still remains an element of skepticism to this external evidence, it must again be stated that the likelihood of first century writings being transmitted without some form of authorial attribution is highly unlikely. While both Luke and Acts remain formally anonymous, not having an author explicitly stated within the text, the earliest copies would have been shipped with an attached tag bearing the author's name.9 It should also be acknowledged that no recorded opposition to Lukan authorship exists within the early church. Given the more common requirement of apostolic authorship for canonicity it seems even more reasonable that Luke's name would even be attached to the third gospel from the beginning. To quote Carson, “The universal identification of a non-apostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition.”10
Lastly, returning to the ascription to Luke in the letter tot he Colossians, we read that in verses 10-11 of chapter 4 that Paul transmits greetings from three men followed by, “These are the only men of the circumcision among my fellow workers. . .” (ESV), indicating that the previously mentioned three were Jews, whereas those that follow are not (i.e. Gentiles). It is at this point the apostle extends greetings from Epaphras and Luke, leading to the early tradition that Luke was a Gentile believer and subsequently supporting the earlier stated facts regarding the Greek writing of the gospel and its Gentile emphasis.
“The universal identification of a non-apostle as the author of almost one-quarter of the New Testament speaks strongly for the authenticity of the tradition.”
Conclusion
Given the weight of the evidence, both internal and external, it is highly likely that the Gospel according to Luke was written by the physician/follower of the apostle Paul. Its quick and early acceptance into the canon by the early church is a substantial support for the book's authority and historicity. The author's careful attention to detail has long since garnered him respect within the historical community and serves as a commanding force toward confidence in the Christian text. As with the discussion regarding the previous gospels, authorship does not determine truth, but continues to serve as a bedrock behind the cumulative case for the reliability of the New Testament.
1For
Cadbury see: F.J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, The
Beginnings of Christianity Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles,
“The Tradition” (London: Macmillan, 1920-33), 2.501-3. For the
more traditional response, see: Darrel L. Bock, The NIV
Application Commentary:Luke,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).
2Acts
16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1-28:16.
3E.
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary,
(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1971), 85.
4Darrell
L. Bock, The NIV Application Commentary: Luke,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 20.
5During
his Roman imprisonment it is traditionally accepted that Paul wrote
Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, and possibly Philippians. Although
there is dispute about Pauline authorship of Colossians and
Ephesians.
6D.A.
Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction tot he New Testament:
Luke, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1992), 204.
7Irenaeus,
Against Heresies, 3.1.1,
3.14.1.
8Tertullian,
Against Marcion, 4.2.2,
4.5.3.
9Martin
Debelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles,
(ET: London: SCM, 1956), 148.
10Carson
and Moo, Introduction, 206.
No comments:
Post a Comment