Examine the Book of Luke

The New Testament gospels present Jesus to the world.  The four authors have been called the “evangelists” and that was certainly part of the reason for these “gospel tracts”.  Why were they written?   The book of Luke tells us:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.      Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)

This writer is writing an account for someone name “Theophilus”.   We don’t know anything about Theophilus.  Theophilus is a Greek name meaning “friend of God”.   Some speculate that this was not a real individual but a literary devise to address the book to anyone who wanted to be a friend of God.   We don’t know. 

None of the gospels tell us who wrote them in explicit terms.  That wouldn’t really matter because we know that books can be written by people other than the one who they claim to be.  In the second century many “gospels” were written that claimed to have been written by prominent early Christian characters, such as Peter, Thomas, Bartholomew, or Nicodemus etc.  We would still need to do the work to see if they really were what they claimed to be.  Here we will examine who wrote the Gospel of Luke and should we believe them.  This second part involves when the book was written, where they got their information, and what we know about their character.

 All scholars understand that Luke and the book titled the “Acts of the Apostles” were written by the same author.  They can be considered “Volumes 1 and 2”, of the same work.  Their author is widely recognized as a top-notch historian.  He presents very cohesive works that provide much of what we know about the early Christian church.

 Internal clues: 

• No claim that the writer was a witness to the events of the book of Luke or to ever have met Jesus.
• Written in Greek. Translators suggest that it is the highest form of Greek in the NT except for book of Hebrews.
• Either very familiar with 1st century Judea or informed by those who were
• Very familiar with Jewish scripture and customs
• Very familiar with ancient Asia Minor and Greece
• Subtly but clearly claimed to be a companion of Paul beginning with Paul’s 2nd missionary journey. First indication is at Troas in present day Turkey.
• Used the book of Mark extensively
• No demonstratable knowledge of the book of Matthew
• Events in Acts end ~62AD

We are looking for one of Paul’s companions who might reasonably be considered literate, who had reasonably good chance to connect with Mark’s gospel.  The early church identified this person as Luke.  Luke was in a sense a fairly obscure choice based on the Bible.  He was referred to by name a few times in Paul’s writings, but otherwise not referenced.  There certainly were more obvious choices to select if one were just picking a name to gain appeal or acceptance. Here are Paul’s references:

 “Luke the beloved physician greets you, as does Demas.”  Colossians 4:14 (ESV)

“Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.”  Philemon 1:23-24 (ESV)

 “Luke alone is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, for he is very useful to me for ministry.”   2 Timothy 4:11 (ESV)

We learn that Luke was one of Paul’s fellow workers, his traveling group who evangelized through Turkey and Greece.  We see that Luke was with Paul when he wrote the letters to the Colossians and Philemon. These were probably written from Rome, probably near end of the Book of Acts.  The suggestion has been made that Paul was imprisoned for some time in Ephesus and these letters were written then, but we don’t have any real indications of this imprisonment in the NT. The full passage in Colossians suggests that Luke was a non-Jew, a gentile.

 Paul tells us that he worked as a tent maker and probably all of his group worked to support the effort.  We have an indication of how Luke might have supported the effort.  He is referred to as the “beloved physician”.   There were no universities at this time or “schools of medicine”.  Probably Luke apprenticed under another man of medicine. 

 Comments from this site help: http://exhibits.hsl.virginia.edu/antiqua/doctors/

  “As a profession, medicine was more highly regarded in Greece than in Rome. Physicians were basically craftsmen, probably enjoying some esteem among their customers, but not being part of the socio-political elite.”

  “There were no licensing boards and no formal requirements for entrance to the profession. Anyone could call himself a doctor. If his methods were successful, he attracted more patients; if not, he found himself another profession.

“Until recently, Diaulus was a doctor; now he is an undertaker. He is still doing as an undertaker, what he used to do as a doctor.” ~Martial, Epigrams 1.47

 I love the last quote. I guess there were those who did not trust the doctors of their day, even as there are today.  It seems reasonable that a doctor in ancient Asia Minor might have been more literate than most in his day.  Many have noted that Luke and Acts contain more medical terms than the rest of the New Testament.

External Clues:

 Archaeology:

            If the books of Luke and Acts were written early and by an author who really was involved in the story such as was claimed, then we should expect that when we find archaeological discoveries, they should be consistent with these books. It is important to understand that we should not expect to find confirmation of many details. Archaeological data is still very sparse.  It is like shining a tiny spotlight for a few seconds around a vast room that is filled with a complex assortment of things that we have never seen before.  We will miss most of the connections and context.  Despite its limitations, it does provide solid evidence for some events. 

At one time, the popular academic view was that Luke/Acts were written no earlier than the late 2nd century by an author who knew little about the people and places who were included in his books.  The belief was that the books were rife with errors.  Archaeology has changed that view.  It is now widely recognized that the books had to have been written by someone who was intimately acquainted with the area.  The names fit, some specifically verified, the titles given to officials confirmed, and locations have been confirmed.  The trips that Paul made once seemed unlikely, but now they turn out to be very reasonable.   Rather than review the details, I will point you to two websites that provide documentation for the findings:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/acts_and_archaeology.html

 http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/NTeSources/NTArticles/CTR-NT/McRay-ArchaeologyActs-CTR.pdf

 There is no real case that the books were written late. However, archaeology cannot tell us the author or how early they were written.

 The next set of external evidence comes from what others have said about the books.  In ancient history, the belief apparently was always that Luke wrote the book.

This illustrates the number of ancient sources that either named someone else as the author of Luke or Acts or expressed any doubt that Luke was the author.  Notice there are none.   This is not just because ancient sources always trusted the authorship.  They disputed authors even back then.

In 180 AD, Irenaeus of Lyons wrote about the authors of the four gospels.  This shows how he described Luke.  The book of Luke shows a deep appreciation for 1st century Judaism.

Arguments for Luke as the author: 

• All early reports take Luke to have been the author
• Luke was a known companion of Paul
• It is reasonable that Luke would have been educated and articulate in Greek
• His time with Paul would have put him in contact with many early Christians, including Peter and other apostles.
• If the author of Mark is to be identified with John Mark from other NT writings, then Luke would have naturally had opportunity to be familiar with his gospel.
• His profession as a doctor is consistent with the medical terms in the gospels.
• It is reported that he used many Greek terms that otherwise only Paul used.
• No other candidate proposed by anyone 

Arguments against Luke as the author:

• Some consider references to events such as birth of Jesus to be traditions that developed later (a circular argument if used to identify Luke as the author)
• Proposed differences to Paul’s account in Galatians
  • Paul’s salvation
  • Acts 15- Jerusalem council
  • Theological differences

Each of these arguments against seem to have fair answers.  Wikipedia includes this interesting quote: “During modern times, Luke’s competence as a historian is questioned, depending upon one’s a priori view of the supernatural.”  This seems to also be the case with the first objection here.  For instance, if we knew that Luke’s account of Jesus’ birth were just a legend, then we could then work on when such a legend developed, and this would point us to a later date and possibly a different author.  If that is yet to be determined, then we can’t use that to establish either date or authorship.   Most conservative scholars would say that any differences between Paul’s account of his salvation or the Jerusalem council in ~49AD can be explained by differences in two people telling the story and the differences in purposes they have for telling them.  I think that any differences in theology between Luke and Paul are minor and no different than those between any two theologians.  Nowhere are we told that Luke was Paul’s disciple.  His explanations for his faith probably were slightly different than Paul’s.   Paul never proposed to give us a history of Jesus life.  If he had, then we could rightly examine his account for differences from the book of Luke, but he didn’t and we can’t.  

Date of writing. 

Now we come to the date for these books. Those who do not accept Luke as the author tend to date the books to the first century, mid-90s.  Others date the books to a range such as 65-85. This range includes many who doubt Luke as the author. The reasons for dating in this range include how they see the impact of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Some would say that references to these in the Gospels had to have taken place after the fall. However, if Jesus really foresaw the fall and prepared his disciples, then this seems void.  One reason given is that the gospels began to be written as early leaders such as Paul and Peter had died and they recognized the need to document the history in books.  We don’t know if this was a reason, though it might well have been. 

Here I have added a range of dates that I would consider reasonable for when the Book of Luke was written.  The large box shows the range accepted by Dr Timothy Paul Jones.  Dr Jones is an expert in New Testament documents.  He regards Luke to have been the author although he says that academic experts such as skeptic Bart Ehrman would also accept this range.  The posited dates with the green dots show the dates that I suggest are more likely based on the logic presented here.   They are consistent with all hard data and explain some data better than alternatives in my opinion.

Luke ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome in 62AD.  He had appealed to Caesar and any Roman citizen had the right to personally present their case to the Caesar.  We can think of only a few reasons why Luke would have chosen to end the book there.  One suggestion recognizes that Acts is a very long book in first century standards.  The reason is basically because the papyrus were basically limited in length and Luke essentially was out of space.  In this scenario, Luke also ties his choice to end the book back to Acts 1:8: 
^“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

The story told in Acts begins in Jerusalem, includes Samaria and extends to Rome, which represented “the end of the earth” as a literary allusion.  This connection does make sense.  Luke understood how long his book could be.  I do not doubt that he saw the connection and significance of Rome.

The dates from 65-85 are all well after Paul’s death.  It is really difficult for me to believe that Luke would in no way have alluded to the future events, even if he did not write about them in detail.  If Luke wrote Acts in 62-63 while in Rome with Paul, that tightly explains all of the observations.  It has also been observed that Acts speaks of the Roman government in overall favorable terms.  In general, they were the security that Paul turned to for support and appealed to.  If Acts were written after or during Nero’s persecution, it seems that the author would have alluded to it.  This is an argument from silence, but arguments for later dates all do the same. 

 It is my position that the most likely scenario is that the book of Acts was written in 62-63 AD by Luke, the companion of Paul. The Gospel of Luke was written earlier.  We can’t say how much, but it seems reasonable that it was written after Luke talked again to Christians in Judea while Paul was in prison in Caesarea.  In Luke 1, Luke told us that he had other sources and Mark was clearly one of these.  That will help us in dating Mark.  He also references eyewitnesses telling us that he talked to them and researched his work.  This is an account based on eyewitnesses written ~30 years later.  Luke is recognized as an accurate historian. Not many ancient events have such support.