09 — Historical Questions
The honest state of the historical record on St. Luke: the authorship question treated at length, and the reception and legacy of his two-volume work. The Gospel and Acts are formally anonymous — neither names its author — and the name “Luke” comes from the unanimous second-century tradition together with the internal “we” passages and the three Pauline notices; this section sets out what can actually be known of the man against what is inferred, and traces how his Gospel, his Acts, and his name were received across the centuries.
Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle and Evangelist)
Luke wrote roughly a quarter of the New Testament, yet he never names himself, and almost nothing of his biography is secure. The collection has already stated the authorship question where it touches the foundations (Section 01) and the synoptic and dating debates (Section 07); here that question is treated in full, with the second-century witnesses, the modern defense of Lukan authorship, and the critical doubts laid side by side as named [Disputed: ...] positions — and with the honest verdict that the tradition is early and unanimous on the name while the companion-of-Paul claim is genuinely contested. The Orthodox Church receives the two books as Luke’s and as inspired Scripture regardless of the academic verdict (see Holy Scripture). The companion file then follows the reception of Luke–Acts from the four-Gospel canon and Marcion’s truncated Gospel through the patristic commentators, the liturgy, the iconographic and artistic legacy, and modern Lukan scholarship.
Files in This Section
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| Authorship and History | The full authorship question: the anonymity of both books; the second-century tradition (the title kata Loukan, the Muratorian Canon, the Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus AH 3.1.1 / 3.14.1); the internal “we” passages and the three Pauline notices (Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24); the traditional view defended in modern scholarship (Fitzmyer, Hemer) and the critical doubts (Vielhauer, Haenchen, Conzelmann) as named [Disputed: ...] positions; and an inventory of what can be known of the man versus what is inferred. |
| Reception and Legacy | The reception of Luke–Acts: the four-Gospel canon (Irenaeus AH 3.11.8) and the ox/calf symbol; the Muratorian Canon; Marcion’s truncated Luke and the orthodox response (Tertullian); the patristic commentators (Origen, Ambrose, Cyril of Alexandria, Bede, Theophylact); the liturgical legacy (Acts in Paschaltide, the Magnificat); the artistic and cultural legacy (Luke as patron of painters and physicians, the Guild of St Luke); and modern Lukan scholarship. |
See Also
- The Physician of Antioch — the traditional portrait of the man whose securely-knowable life is inventoried here
- Companion of Paul — the “we” passages and the Pauline notices on which the companion claim rests
- The Synoptic Problem — the literary question that bears on authorship and composition
- The Dating of Luke–Acts — the contested date, on which the authorship debate partly turns
- Holy Scripture — the inspired books received by the Church independently of the critical verdict
- The Church Fathers — the patristic witnesses and commentators on Luke
- St. Irenaeus of Lyons — the fullest second-century testimony to Luke and to the fourfold Gospel
References
- Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies. Trans. in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Buffalo: Christian Literature Company, 1885.
- Eusebius of Caesarea. The Ecclesiastical History. Trans. Arthur C. McGiffert, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1. 1890.
- Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke I–IX. Anchor Bible 28. New York: Doubleday, 1981.
- Haenchen, Ernst. The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary. Trans. Bernard Noble et al. Oxford: Blackwell, 1971.
- Conzelmann, Hans. The Theology of St. Luke. Trans. Geoffrey Buswell. London: Faber & Faber, 1960.
- Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989.