Introduction

• Originally anonymous
• The Gospel of Luke has a second part, the book of Acts, by the same author. 

What is the external evidence for Lukan authorship?

• Early Witnesses
  • P75 (175–225 CE), oldest extant copy of Luke
    • Ends with “gospel according to Luke”
  • Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
  • Muratorian Canon (170–180 CE) – Earliest known list of NT books
    • Identifies author as Luke the physician, traveling companion of Paul
• Church Fathers
  • Irenaeus
    • Based on the “we” passages in Acts, he attributes the gospel to Luke, the traveling companion of Paul, and says that Luke was recording Paul’s gospel. 
  • Tertullian, Eusebius, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Justin Martyr. 
  • Marcion
    • Early Christian heretic
    • Believed that the God of the OT was a different God than the one revealed in Jesus. Jesus was God but not human. Therefore, he rejected the OT and Judaism. This is why he liked Paul, because he read him to reject the same things. 
    • Only accepted one gospel, an edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he attributed to the traveling companion of Paul. 
  • Anti-Marcionite Prologues
    • Attributes to Luke, of Syrian Antioch, a physician who was a traveling companion of Paul.

What is the internal evidence for authorship?

• Educated
  • Not necessarily a physician
• Familiar with the OT
• Not an eyewitness. He investigates what has been handed down by eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2, 3). 
• The author is present in the text, writing to a specific person, Theophilus, and about his writing and research process. This adds some probability that the historical attribution is correct because it is more likely that audiences knew who the author was. 
• “We” passages in Acts
  • Eyewitness testimony was important for ancient historians. So, if the author was an eyewitness to some of the events, we would expect him to reveal so.
    • This is why I doubt Matthean authorship
  • If it were merely a rhetorical device, we would expect it to be used throughout the narrative. 

What do we know about Luke from elsewhere in the New Testament?

• Not a prominent character in the New Testament. 
• Only mentioned conclusively as Paul’s companion in three passages (Col 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Tim 4:11).
  • He is identified as the “beloved physician” (Col 4:14) and a “fellow worker” (Philemon 24). 

Is there a connection between Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul?

• The key point of discussion regarding Lukan authorship is if a connection can be made between Luke-Acts and the writings of Paul. If Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, then we would expect there to be some overlap in history and theology. 
• There are significant differences, which have caused many scholars to doubt Lukan authorship.
  • Different descriptions of the early church
    • Paul presents himself much more as an independent leader and missionary, even distancing himself from other apostles at times (e.g., Galatians; one of, if not the, earliest letter of Paul). 
    • Luke presents a much more harmonious and unified early church that was led less by Paul and more by the apostles (e.g., the Jerusalem Council). 
  • Different descriptions of Paul’s ministry
    • The Jerusalem Council
      • Paul recounts a confrontation with Peter. 
      • Luke’s version reads Peter, James, and Paul were all in agreement. 
  • Lack of significant tenets of Pauline theology
    • Paul: justification by faith apart from works of the law
• However, there are also notable overlaps between Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters.
  • Biographical information about Paul
    • Basic timeline and events of his life. 
    • Traveling companions, such as Barnabas. 
    • His calling to be an apostle to the Gentiles. 
  • Theological
    • Gentile mission
    • Holy Spirit
  • Textual Dependence
    • Luke’s version of the Lord Supper seems to be partially dependent on the Pauline tradition preserved in 1 Corinthians 11.
      • The phrase “for you,” reference to the covenant as “new,” and the phrase “in remembrance of me” are unique only to Luke and Paul. 
• There are ways to explain both the disagreements and agreements.
  • Disagreements
    • The “we” passages in Acts suggest that Luke was only a sometimes companion of Paul. He was not with Paul all the time nor a lifelong disciple. 
    • Luke is capable of, and should be seen as, developing his own theology and way of understanding the life and death of Jesus. 
    • Luke is intentionally trying to present the life of the early church as harmonious. Paul does not have this intention. 
  • Agreements
    • The agreements do not necessitate that Luke was a companion of Paul, but perhaps merely that he had second-hand knowledge of Paul’s life and travels and perhaps even knowledge of Paul’s letters. 
    • If the author was present during the “we” sections of Acts, Luke is not the only person to fit this qualification. 

Who do you think wrote the Gospel of Luke?

• I actually think that Luke, the traveling companion of Paul, wrote the Gospel of Luke. 
• Like Mark, I think it is notable that Luke is the only name ever attached to the Gospel and it is a name that no one would make up. 
• I think it is the best explanation for the “we” passages. 
• I think there is enough significant overlap between Luke-Acts and Paul’s letters.

---

Check Out the Entire Series

---