The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-volume work which scholars call Luke–Acts. The author is not named in either volume. According to a Church tradition, he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in the Pauline letters, but critical views at the end of the 20th century were evenly divided about whether Luke the physician wrote it, with a consensus noting the differences with the Pauline epistles. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD.
Many scholars believe Luke the Evangelist to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew. The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy, whose authenticity is debated in scholarship.Foster, Paul 2012, Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 150-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X12462654 Much discussion concerns the "we" passages, though there currently exists no scholarly consensus.
Common authorship of Luke and Acts
The Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles make up a two-part work, Luke–Acts, by the same author. The author is not named in either volume, as was common for ancient histories, such as Tacitus's Germania and Diogenes Laertius. According to a Church tradition, first attested by Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD), he was the Luke named as a companion of Paul in the Pauline letters, but critical views at the end of the 20th century were evenly divided about whether Luke the physician wrote it, with a consensus noting the differences with the Pauline epistles. Most scholars date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, The earliest surviving manuscripts for the Gospel of Luke fall into two "families" with considerable differences between them, the Western and the Alexandrian text-type, and the dominant view is that the Western text represents a process of deliberate revision in the second century, as the variations seem to form specific patterns.
The Gospel of Luke, tells how God fulfilled his plan for the world's salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, the promised messiah. Acts continues the story of Christianity, beginning with the ascension of Jesus to Heaven. The early chapters, set in Jerusalem, describe the Day of Pentecost and the growth of the church in Jerusalem. Initially, the Jews are receptive to the Christian message, but later they turn against the followers of Jesus. Rejected by the Jews, the message is taken to the Gentiles under the guidance of Paul the Apostle. The later chapters tell of Paul's conversion, his mission in Asia Minor and the Aegean, and his imprisonment in Rome, where, as the book ends, he awaits trial.
Both books are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron—and perhaps a label for a Christian community as a whole as the name means "Beloved of God", and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus—almost certainly the work we know as the Gospel of Luke.
Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. As one scholar writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author."Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259. Because of their common authorship, the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles are often jointly referred to simply as Luke–Acts. Similarly, the author of Luke–Acts is often known as "Luke", even among scholars who doubt that the author was actually named Luke.
Views on authorship Traditional view: Luke the physician as author The traditional view is that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the physician Luke, a companion of Paul. Many scholars believe him to be a Gentile Christian, though some scholars think Luke was a Hellenic Jew.Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. "The Gospels" pp. 266–268Strelan, Rick. Luke the Priest - the Authority of the Author of the Third Gospel - Was Luke a Jew or Gentile? Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., May 1, 2013, pp. 102–110. This Luke is mentioned in Paul's Epistle to Philemon (v.24), and in two other epistles which are traditionally ascribed to Paul (Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11).
The view that Luke–Acts was written by the physician Luke was virtually unanimous in the early Christian church. The Papyrus Bodmer XIV, which is the oldest known manuscript containing the ending of the gospel (dating to around 200 AD), uses the subscription "The Gospel According to Luke". Nearly all ancient sources also shared this theory of authorship—Irenaeus,(Haer. 3.1.1, 3.14.1) Tertullian,(Marc. 4.2.2) Clement of Alexandria,(Paedagogus 2.1.15 and Stromata 5.12.82) Origen, and the Muratorian Canon all regarded Luke as the author of Luke–Acts. Neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor any other ancient writer mentions another tradition about authorship.
In addition to the evidence provided by the ancient sources, some feel the text of Luke–Acts supports the conclusion that its author was a companion of Paul. First among such internal evidence are portions of the book which have come to be called the "we" passages (Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–15; 21:1–18; 27:1–37; 28:1-16). Although the bulk of Acts is written in the third person, several brief sections of the book are written from a first-person perspective.Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–15, 21:1–18, and 27:1–28:16 These "we" sections are written from the point of view of a traveling companion of Paul: e.g. "After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia", "We put out to sea and sailed straight for Samothrace".Acts 16:10 Such passages would appear to have been written by someone who traveled with Paul during some portions of his ministry. Accordingly, some have used this evidence to support the conclusion that these passages, and therefore the entire text of Luke–Acts, were written by a traveling companion of Paul's. The physician Luke would be one such person.
It has also been argued that the level of detail used in the narrative describing Paul's travels suggests an eyewitness source. In 1882 Hobart claimed that the vocabulary used in Luke–Acts suggests its author may have had medical training, but this assertion was challenged by an influential study by Cadbury in 1926 that argued Luke's medical terminology was no different than terminology used by other non physician authors such as Plutarch."Efforts to argue that the Third Gospel demonstrates that its author was a doctor have been abandoned today. Hobart argued that the sheer number of healing stories and the vocabulary demonstrated that Luke was a physician. However, Cadbury later refuted these claims by proving that Luke showed no more "medical" language than other educated writers of his day. Of course, the healing stories and "medical" vocabulary are consistent with authorship by a physician. They simply do not prove it.", Black, M. C. (1996). Luke. College Press NIV commentary. Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub."Colossians 4:14 refers to Luke as a doctor. In 1882, Hobart tried to bolster this connection by indicating all the technical verbal evidence for Luke's vocation. Despite the wealth of references Hobart gathered, the case was rendered ambiguous by the work of Cadbury (1926), who showed that almost all of the alleged technical medical vocabulary appeared in everyday Greek documents such as the LXX, Josephus, Lucian, and Plutarch. This meant that the language could have come from a literate person within any vocation. Cadbury's work does not, however, deny that Luke could have been a doctor, but only that the vocabulary of these books does not guarantee that he was one.", Bock, D. L. (1994). Luke Volume 1: 1:1–9:50. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (7). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books"Attempts have been made to strengthen the argument for authorship by a physician by finding examples of medical phraseology in Luke–Acts; these are too few to be made the basis of an argument, but there is perhaps just sufficient evidence to corroborate a view more firmly based on other considerations.", Marshall, I. H. (1978). The Gospel of Luke : A commentary on the Greek text. The New international Greek testament commentary (33–34). Exeter [Eng.: Paternoster Press.]
The traditional view recognizes that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, nor of the events prior to Paul's arrival in Troas in Acts 16:8, and the first "we" passage is Acts 16:10.The First Christian Historian: Writing the "Acts of the Apostles" - Page 24 Daniel Marguerat - 2002. It is necessary to investigate more fully Luke's orchestration of the convergence of Greek culture and ancient Jewish tradition, Rome and Jerusalem.76 The 'we-passages' The 'we-passages' (16. 10–17; 20. 5–15; 21. 1–18; 27. 1– 28. In the preface to Luke, the author refers to having eyewitness testimony of events in the Gospel "handed down to us" and to having undertaken a "careful investigation", but the author does not mention his own name or explicitly claim to be an eyewitness to any of the events, except for the we passages.
Critical view: Authentic letters of Paul do not refer to Luke as a physician The Epistle to Philemon, almost universally accepted as an authentic letter of Paul, includes the name "Luke" among other "co-workers" of Paul who are sending greetings to the letter's recipients (Philemon, verse 24). The identification of Luke as a physician comes from Colossians 4:14. The historical Paul never mentions any "Luke the doctor", according to Bart Ehrman (since Colossians is not authentic). A 2011 survey of 109 scholars at the British New Testament Conference found 56 in favor of authenticity, while 17 rejected Pauline authorship and 36 were uncertain.Foster, Paul 2012, Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians: A Fresh Look at an Old Problem, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 150-175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X12462654"The cumulative weight of the many differences from the undisputed Pauline epistles has persuaded most modern [also some XVI century] scholars that Paul did not write Colossians ... Those who defend the authenticity of the letter include Martin, Caird, Houlden, Cannon and Moule. Some... describe the letter as Pauline but say that it was heavily interpolated or edited. Schweizer suggests that Col was jointly written by Paul and Timothy. The position taken here is that Col is Deutero-Pauline; it was composed after Paul's lifetime, between AD 70 (Gnilka) and AD 80 (Lohse) by someone who knew the Pauline tradition. Lohse regards Col as the product of a Pauline school tradition, probably located in Ephesus." [TNJBC 1990 p. 877] 2 Timothy 4:11 also mentions a "Luke" and refers to him being "with me" but most modern scholars do not accept 2 Timothy as an authentic letter of Paul. Scholars use the word "Luke" wantonly.
Critical view: "We" passages as fragments of an earlier source
In the "we" passages, the narrative is written in the first person plural but the author never refers to himself as "I" or "me". Critical opinion on the attribution to Luke the Physician was assessed to be roughly evenly divided near the end of the 20th century. Instead, they believe Luke–Acts was written by an anonymous Christian author who may not have been an eyewitness to any of the events recorded within the text. The author of Acts "wanted his readers to understand that he was for a time a traveling companion of Paul, even though he was not."Ehrman B. Forgery and Counterforgery pp264–265