THE PHYSICIAN LUKE – METICULOUS HISTORIAN | INTRODUCTION 1

To introduce this series of articles, I will begin by explaining its purpose and content. The goal is to assess Luke’s credibility as an author by analysing selected passages from the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles considering non-biblical sources. Although Jesus is at the centre of Luke’s narrative, I will not discuss his life, such as the virgin birth, the miracles, or other theological aspects. Such an assessment would move into questions that are beyond the framework of this investigation. My focus will be on Luke as a historian and his depiction of events seen in light of external sources.

Luke’s work is extensive; he wrote more of the New Testament (NT) than any of the other authors. His two books, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, account for 27.5% of the words in the NT. ^[1]

Before analysing the contents of Luke’s writings, we will first consider the authorship: Were the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles written by the same person, and what factors suggest that Luke is the author? What kind of insight into the author’s education can be gained through an analysis of language and style? Finally, we will consider the basis on which Luke can be considered a historian.

The same author

That the biblical books that we now call the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles (Acts) are written by the same person is clear from the beginning of the books. In Luke 1:3 the book is addressed to Theophilus, and in Acts 1:1 he mentions In my former book, Theophilus, which shows the author to be the same person.

Luke 1:3: “With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,” ^[2][3]

Acts 1:1: “In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach”

The author also repeats the final events of his Gospel in the opening verses of the Acts of the Apostles, which links the two books together. (Luke 24:50-53 and Acts 1:9-12)

Additionally, the language indicates it being the same author, as several commentators point out. One source states: “Linguistically, stylistically, and structurally, the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles are so closely related that they must be attributed to the same author.” ^[4] and Joseph Fitzmyer states in his book The Acts of the Apostles: “The vocabulary and use of the same expressions, the style and similar mode of composition, and the themes, theology, and whole thought-world are so similar from one volume to the other that they must have come from the same author.” ^[5]

Was Luke the author?

It is generally believed that Luke’s name did not appear in the original text. So where does the name “the Gospel of Luke” come from? This attribution is based on evidence from early manuscripts and the oldest commentaries on the New Testament.

Early NT manuscripts

In the very earliest manuscripts we have of the NT, additions have been made. One example is the early manuscript Codex Bodmer (P75) which is dated to 174-225. Here the Greek words ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤᾺ ΛΟΥΚΑ͂Ν have been added (see figure 3), which translates to the Gospel according to Luke. Other early manuscripts that contain the same phrase are Codex Sinaiticus (ca. 330–360 AD), Codex Vaticanus (ca. 300–325), Codex Boreeli (9th century). In other manuscripts we find κατὰ Λουκᾶν (according to Luke): Codex Alexandrinus (early 400s), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (early 400s), Codex Bezae (c. 400-450) and Rescript Zausthius (ca. 600-700).

References in early commentaries on the NT

In addition to the NT manuscripts, there are also early texts that mention Luke as an author. Let us look at a few of the texts that are often referred to.

The Muratorian Fragment (ca. 170)

The Muratorian Fragment (see figure 4), also called the Muratorian Canon, contains a list of the books considered to be part of the NT. The fragment also contains a commentary on the books and on those who wrote them.

“The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.” (line 2-8) ^[8]

The anti-Marcionite prologues (3rd century)

Marcion was a theologian who lived in the 2nd century and, among other things, made his own list of what he believed were the books of the NT (he rejected the OT entirely). Marcion only acknowledged Paul’s letters and an abridged Gospel of Luke. The anti-Marcionite Prologues contains short introductions to the gospels of the NT. It seems to have been written to counter the critical claims of the theologian Marcion (2nd century) about which books were part of the Bible.

“although gospels had already been written —- indeed by Matthew in Judaea but by Mark in Italy —- moved by the Holy Spirit he wrote down this gospel in the parts of Achaia, signifying in the preface that the others were written before his, but also that it was of the greatest importance for him to expound  with the greatest diligence the whole series of events in his narration for the Greek believers.” ^[9]

Irenaeus – Against Heresies ^[10] (ca. 180)

In his work Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes that Luke wrote the Gospel and that he collaborated closely with Paul.

“Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.” (Book III:3,1) ^[11]

Irenaeus also refers to Luke’s close collaboration with Paul.

“But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself.” (Book III:14,1) ^[12]

Tertullian – Against Marcion ^[13] (ca. 200)

In Tertullian’s book Against Marcion (Book IV: 2 and 5 ^[14]) he defends the authenticity of the entire Gospel of Luke, that it is part of the books of the NT and that Luke is its author. He also refers to Luke being Paul’s companion.

Origen’s «Homilies on Luke» (early 3rd century)

Although Origen’s Homilies ^[15] on Luke has been lost, a translation by Hieronymus into Latin does exist.

“The Gospels we have were chosen from among these gospels and passed on to the churches. We can know this from Luke’s own prologue, which begins this way: “Because many have tried to compose an account.” The words “have tried” imply an accusation against those who rushed into writing gospels without the grace of the Holy Spirit. Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke did not “try” to write; they wrote their Gospels when they were filled with the Holy Spirit.” ^[16]

The language

Luke wrote in advanced Greek and was obviously well schooled, which is evident from, among other things, his extensive vocabulary. His language differs markedly from that of the other evangelists, indicating that he was more educated. This is in agreement with Paul’s reference to him as a physician (Col 4:14).

Fitzmyer says the following regarding Luke’s language:

“The composition of the Lucan Gospel cannot fully be described without some attention to the language and style in which it was written. Centuries ago Jerome recognized that ‘among all the evangelists’ Luke ‘was the most skilled writer of Greek’.” ^[17]

When did Luke write his books?

There is no consensus among scholars as to when Luke wrote his books. However, there are three common estimates. ^[18]

• Early dating: c. 60–before 70 AD
• Intermediate dating: in the 80s AD
• Late dating: c. 100-130 AD

Early dating (60 – before 70 AD)

Traditionally, the books have been dated to an early date. Colin J. Hemer, in his book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, has made a thorough review, presented in 45 pages (365-410), of the different datings up to the present day and has come to the following conclusion:

“The composition of Luke and Acts in their final form may naturally be placed in the captivity period 60-62, and Acts would thus have been completed and presumably issued in the immediate aftermath of Paul’s release, specifically in 62.” ^[19]

Some of the most central arguments for an early dating are presented below ^[20]:

1. The absence of mention of Paul’s death (60 AD)

The Acts of the Apostles ends abruptly with Paul imprisoned in Rome (Acts 28:30–31), with no further information about his fate. It is generally believed among scholars that Paul was executed during Nero’s persecution around 64–67 AD. If Luke had written later than 67 AD, it would have been natural for him to have mentioned the death of Paul.

2. The absence of mention of the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD)

Luke recorded Jesus’ prophecy about the Roman siege of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43, 44) and the destruction of the city (Luke 21:20–24) and does not describe it as a historical event. Had the Gospel been written after 70 AD, it would be natural to expect an explicit reference to the fall of the city, especially as Luke was a historically oriented writer.

3. The absence of Nero’s persecution (64 AD)

The Acts of the Apostles does not describe any Roman persecution of Christians by an emperor. The vast majority of the conflicts that Luke writes about are caused by Jewish opponents (e.g. Acts 8) and local riots (e.g. Acts 19). The first known Roman persecution of the Christians was under Emperor Nero, after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD. We find no reference to these events in the Acts of the Apostles, which would have been natural to include.

4. The context of the Acts of the Apostles

The book gives the impression that the temple is still operational and that Jewish society is functioning. This might indicate that the book was completed before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Intermediate dating (in the 80s AD): ^[21]

This is how the majority of commentators date the books. Fitzmyer writes:

“Many NT interpreters use the date A.D. 80-85 for the composition of Luke-Acts, and there is no good reason to oppose that date, even if there is no real proof for it. Such an intermediate dating remains the most plausible and has been espoused by [numerous scholars].” ^[22]

Why do many scholars today consider the middle dating to be the most plausible? This assessment is not based on new textual discoveries, since the available source material is the same, but rather on a change in the view of the biblical text. The main argument is that Luke describes events that Jesus said would happen in Jerusalem with remarkable detail, including the enemy’s siege (Luke 19:43–44) and the final destruction of the city (Luke 21:5, 6, 20, 24). These events took place when the Romans besieged and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD.

In other words, it is claimed that Luke was “guilty” of Vaticinium ex eventu, which, according to the Oxford Reference, means: “The term applied to a passage in the prophets or the gospels which has the form of a prediction but is in fact written in the knowledge of the event having occurred (e.g. probably Luke 21: 20)^[23] It is thus believed that Luke must have written his description after 70 AD.

Late dating (c. 100-130 AD)

The late dating is primarily based on Luke supposedly having used Flavius Josephus as his source. The connection between Josephus and Luke is considered speculative. Fitzmayer refers to scholars, and states: “That Luke would have read or used Josephus’ writings is highly speculative and improbable; none of the evidence for it is convincing”.^[24]

Having said this about datings, we can agree with Fitzmyer:

“In the long run, it is a matter of little concern when or where Luke-Acts was composed, since the interpretation of it, especially Acts, depends little on its date or place of composition.” ^[25]

In the next part of the introduction, we will assess Luke as a historian. Read The Physician Luke – The Meticulous Historian | Introduction 2

References

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Stellar Books, 2013.

Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor University Press, 2010.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998.

—. The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1981.

Freedman, David Noel, editor. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5, Doubleday, 1992.

Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 4:406. New York: Doubleday. 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. Acts: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Zondervan, 2007.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. International Critical Commentary, T&T Clark International, 1896.

Wilson, R. McL. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Edited by G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, International Critical Commentary, T&T Clark International, 2005.

Images

Figure 1 File:Brooklyn Museum – Saint Luke (Saint Luc) – James Tissot.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

Figure 2 Luke the Evangelist – Wikipedia

Figure 3  P75 – Bodmer-Papyrus jetzt im Vatikan

Figure 4  Muratorian fragment – Wikipedia

Figure 5 Greek anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke – Anti-Marcionite prologues – Wikipedia

Figure 6 Saint Irenaeus – Ireneus av Lyon – Wikipedia

Figure 7 Tertullian2 – Tertullian – Wikipedia

Figure 8 Origenes – Wikipedia

Figure 9 File:Luke 13.29-35 and 14.10 (CBL BP I, f.15r).jpg – Wikimedia Commons

Figure 10 File:Paul in prison by Rembrandt.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

Figure 11 First Jewish–Roman War – Wikipedia

Figure 12 Nero – Wikipedia

Sources

[1] Numbers based on the Greek Nestle-Aland edition: the entirety of NT 138 000 words, Luke + Acts c. 38 000 words

[2] Unless otherwise stated, Nettbibelen is used in this series of articles. (Translator’s note: for the English translation of these articles, BibleGateway was used.)

[3] The identity of Theophilus is unknown, but it is interesting that Luke uses the phrase “most excellent Theophilus”. Luke writes “most excellent” (gr. Kratistos) four times, and then in connection to high-ranking officials such as Felix and Festus, governors of Judea (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25).

[4] Longenecker, Richard N.  Acts: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Tremper Longman III and David Garland (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2007), 70

[5] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998. 49

[6] The Greek word translated “dear” implies “a warm affection, a close relationship, and a firm and lasting friendship.” Wilson, R. McL. 2005. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Edited by G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton. International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark International.

[7] Apg 16:10–17; 20:5–8, 13–15; 21:1–18; 27:1 – 28:16

[8] https://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html#note1

[9] https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/anti_marcionite_prologues.htm

[10] Adversus Haereses: It was written in Greek, but was quickly translated into Latin, and it is this version of the text that has been preserved in its entirety, only fragments exist in Greek. (https/www.katolsk.no/biografier/historisk/ireneus) (Read 22 jan 2025)

[11] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm (Read 22 jan 2025)

[12] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103314.htm (Read 22 jan 2025)

[13] Adversus Marcionem is the Latin title.

[14] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03124.htm (Read 22 jan 2025)

[15] The term homilies refers to sermons or explanatory speeches, often focusing on the interpretation of biblical texts.

[16] Origen. Homilies on Luke; and Fragments on Luke.  Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, The Catholic University of America Press 1996, s 5

[17] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1981. 107

[18] Estimates retrieved from Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998. 51-55

[19] Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. 403-4

[20] The arguments are retrieved from the following sources, where comprehensive lists can be found: Kellum, L. Scott. 2020. Acts. Edited by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic and Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989. 376-382

[21] For arguments in favour of intermediate dating see Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998, page 54

[22] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998. side 54. In the quote, he refers to the following scholars: «Dupont (about 80), Hengel (Acts, 66: between 80 and 90), Kümmel (between 80 and 90 or 80 and 100), Marxsen (last decade of first century), Michaelis (about 70), Perrot (between 80 and 95), Pesch (80–90), Plümacher (about 90), Polhill (between 70 and 80), Roloff (about 90), Schneider (80–90), Vielhauer (Gospel: about 80; Acts: about 90), Weiser (80–90), Wikenhauser-Schmid (in the 80s), C. S. C. Williams.»

[23] https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115305972 (read 22 january 2025)

[24] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998. 53

[25] Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998. 55