Luke is also thought to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles, a book same miracles we saw Jesus perform in the Gospel, highlighting the connection between It is possible that Luke was at one point one of Paul's travel companions. Some scholars suppose that Luke, the writer of Acts, created a more subdued and even subordinate Paul in an attempt to mediate conflicts between early. Dr. Luke and Paul were companions, brothers serving the Lord Jesus. Christ. They traveled together, faced adversities together and labored to promote truth.
Luke is also mentioned in the subscripts that are included in some Bibles at the end of 2 Corinthians, but this adds nothing to our understanding of his relationship with Paul. Of the above references, only Philemon is undisputed as an epistle of Paul.
Here Paul refers to Luke as a fellow-labourer, which term tells us very little. If Luke was Paul's subordinate, manners may inform Paul to use a term of equality. If Luke was Paul's equal, the term also seems appropriate. If Luke was in a superior relationship to Paul, prudence might require Paul to acknowledge this, but perhaps not necessarily. He says the style is different, the vocabulary is different and the rhetoric is different from authentic Pauline letters. Writing in the Name of God, pageBart D.
Ehrman reports on the analysis of stylistic features in Colossians, conducted some decades ago by Walter Bujard: Everything points to someone with a different writing style from Paul. The scholarly consensus that Paul did not write the Epistles to Timothy is even stronger than in the case of Colossians.
Mack says in Who Wrote the New Testament, pagethat their attribution to Paul is clearly fictional, for their language, style and thought are thoroughly un-Pauline. Ehrman writes in Forged: Writing in the Name of God,page 98, about the study undertaken on the pastoral epistles 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus by A. One of his most cited statistics is that there are different words used in the pastoral letters.
Of that numberor more than one third, do not occur in any of the other Pauline letters of the New Testament. That is an inordinately high number, especially as about two thirds of these words were used by Christian authors living in the second century.
What this all means is that the only mention of Luke that we have from Paul is in Philemon, and here he merely mentions Luke as a "fellow-labourer. As a postscript, it is worth noting that Luke is not mentioned in Acts of the Apostles. Ehrman explains in Forged: Writing in the Name of God, pagethat this author is someone who is especially concerned with the Gentile mission of the early church and who is particularly interested in showing that Gentiles do not have to become Jews in order to be Christian, suggesting that he was probably himself a Gentile.
There are three persons in Colossians who were Gentile companions of Paul: Epaphras, Demas, and Luke the physician Col. Of these, it seems unlikely that Demas could be the author, since we learn elsewhere that Demas "abandoned" Paul 2 Tim.
Epaphras appears to have been known as the founder of the church in Colossae Col. That would be odd if its founder were the author. Luke in the New Testament For being such a well-known Christian writer, there are very few refer- ences to Luke within the New Testament. Other than these paltry facts the New Testament is silent regarding the person of Luke. Eerd- mans, Although Philemon is readily accepted as authentically Pauline, there is greater dispute over the authorship of Colossians and 2 Timothy.
For initial discussions see G. Eerdmans,21— Also, for questions regarding pseudepigraphy and the nature of canon, see S. Pau- line authorship and 2 Timothy will be further discussed below. Martin, New Testament Foundations. The Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse rev. Eerdmans,—3, fol- lowing F. Macmillan,ch. Wilson, who evaluates the stylistic tenden- cies and the shared exclusive vocabulary between Luke and the Pastorals.
Calling for an investigation of Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy on its own merits, Westfall argues that it should not be evaluated together with 1 Timothy and Titus, but on its own.
The Relationships of Paul and Luke: Luke, Paul’s Letters, and the “We” Passages of Acts
Sheffield Academic Press,— Wilson, Luke and the Pastoral Epistles London: SPCK,esp. Por- ter and S. Brill,—52, here Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of St. Hasan, Language, Context and Text: Deakon University,38; M. Halliday, Language as Social Semiotic: University Park Press,31—32; S. Unfortunately, it is unverifiable that Luke wrote 2 Timothy for Paul, even when some observable formal features are taken into account.
Paul, Luke and Acts One of the primary fields of inquiry regarding the relationship between Paul and Luke is the book of Acts. Occupying over half the work, Paul is shown to be the lead protagonist in the advancement of the gospel to the gentiles. Do these passages indicate in the Greek of the New Testament: Thomas Nelson,cxvii— cxxix. Although Knight is not willing to state that the Pastoral Epistles were written by Luke, he does acknowledge that a lot of the differences in vocabulary and style found in the Pastorals have parallels in Luke and Acts.
With this in mind, Knight suggests that Luke might have influenced the writings of Paul based on their close association and conversations.
Knight, Pastoral Epistles, 50— Although this is difficult, in not impossible, to prove, it is another plausible way to account for the evidence. These are impor- tant questions; however, more primary still is the question of the Lukan authorship of Acts. Luke and the Authorship of Acts In attempting to understand the relationship between Paul, Luke, and Acts, one must begin by looking at the fundamental issue of authorship.
A number of theories of authorship are based on the writings of the earliest extant ecclesiastical writers. Although ancient discussions of authorship are not always available to us, the fragments that we do possess provide a uniform picture of Lukan authorship for both Luke and Acts.
One of the first ancient witnesses is the Muratorian Canon c.
AD — ,18 which references both the writings of Luke 2—8 and Acts 34— 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 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.
Moreover, the Acts of all the Apostles were written in one book. However, a number of other studies still retain its placement in the late second century. For a recent critique of the fourth-century perspective, particularly that advanced by Hahneman, see C. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origins, Development and Sig- nificance Oxford: Clarendon,—7, for an edition of the Greek text.
One of the key ancient writers who has provided a great amount of insight into the early years of the church is Eusebius. Citing a number of previ- ous authors, Eusebius provides a rare glimpse into the writings of the early church. But Luke who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them.
One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye 21 See a similar statement by Tertullian, Marc. See also Clement, Hypot. For a recent introduction to Papias, see C.
Luke the Evangelist - Wikipedia
The other book is the Acts of the Apostles, which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself. Although not particu- larly novel, this passage provides a solid summary of the Lukan tradition up to this point. Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language. In addition to these citations, it is important to note that it was gener- ally assumed within the early church that Luke was the author of both Luke and Acts.
Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament trans. Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles trans. Fortress Press,xxvii—xxxiii. While the issue of unity is not particularly pertinent for this paper, it is often paired with the ques- tion of authorship. Based primarily on three main pillars, the dominant view of scholarship is that there is a common author-editor for both Luke and Acts.
The second major pillar is the references to Theophilus in the prefaces Luke 1: While the prefaces have received much scholarly atten- tion in their own right,31 the references to Theophilus and the statement 29 Although a number of scholars do see a strong relationship between Luke and Acts, one of the more recent works that provides a systematic challenge to this is M.
For an overview of the question of unity since Parsons and Pervo, see M. For a recent overview on the issue of Luke-Acts unity with a clear positive perspective, see J. Leuven Uni- versity Press,3— One of the challenges to understanding Luke and Acts as a unit is that there is very little textual evidence that they ever circulated together.
For example, see Bock, Acts, 15—19; D. Eerdmans,1—4. Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1. Cambridge University Press, There have been a number of responses to this work; for example: Historical or Scientific Prooimon? Essays in Honour of Alexander J.
Scholars have suggested that these aspects form a literary hinge, fastening the two books together. The third pillar consists of other forms of internal evidence such as the similarities between Luke and Acts in vocabulary, style, major themes, structure, character portrayal, and theology.
Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Com- mentary 3rd ed."Eyewiness Accounts & Luke's Relationship With Paul" (It's No Trouble At All, Part 3)
Eerdmans,2—3 cited as Greek Acts ; J. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: