Was Luke the Author of the Acts of the Apostles?

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.

FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.

GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---

NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION

--- THE GOSPELS

IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question to jonpartin@tiscali.co.uk and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer. EMailus.
Was Luke the Author of Luke Acts? (2)

by Barry L. Davis
2. EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
The external evidence for Luke the Physician being the author of Luke-Acts is sufficient enough for Blaiklock (p. 39) to claim that; as early as the middle of the 2nd century the Church appears to have believed unanimously that Acts was written by Luke, the physician, the friend and fellow traveler of Paul.
Not one source consulted would dispute this claim. While a number of modern scholars would disagree that Luke is the author, none would argue that the early church had a question regarding Luke's authorship. In fact, not until modern critical scholarship was the authorship of Luke-Acts questioned by any extant sources. Guthrie (p. 114) writes that: ‘The earliest witnesses to the authorship of the gospel belong to the latter part of the second century AD, but the subsequent testimony is so fully in agreement with this that it may be fairly surmised that this tradition had already had a considerable history before its earliest witnesses’.
Although a majority opinion does not make an opinion a fact, it does weigh in its favor. The claims of the ancient church must not be taken lightly in this regard. The external evidence can be broken down into five basic categories: 1) Patristic Evidence; 2) Canons; 3) Direct References to Luke's Authorship; 4) Translations; 5) Councils.
1) Patristic Evidence
According to the chart ‘The New Testament Canon During the First Four Centuries’ (House), the Gospel of Luke is alluded to by Psuedo-Barnabas (c. 70-130), Polycarp (c. 110- 50), the Didache (c. 120-50), Justin Martyr (c. 150-55), Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215), Tertullian (c. 150-220), and Origen (c. 185-254).
This Gospel is specifically named as authentic by Irenaeus (c. 130-202), Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315-86), Eusebius (c. 325-40), Jerome (c.340-420), and Augustine (c. 400). The witness to Acts is identical except no citation or reference is made by Pseudo-Barnabas, or the Didache. These books were never disputed in any sense and so they are considered part of the homologoumena. Luke-Acts are not cited by every Church Father but those who do cite them do so favorably. Geisler (p. 108) points out that "the absence of a citation may merely indicate the lack of occasion to make one in the extant writings of the Father." Concern would be called for if one of the Fathers disputed Luke or Acts, but this is not the case. In fact, Dayton (p. 1002) asserts that "upon those who reject Luke as author there rests the burden of explaining the universal voice of the ‘Fathers' in his favor."
2) Canons The Gospel of Luke is named as authentic in every major canon of Scripture. These would include Marcion's (c. 140), the Muratorian (c. 170), Barococcio (c. 206), Apostolic (c. 300), Cheltenham (c. 360), and Athanasius (367). Acts is listed as authentic in all of the above with the exception of Marcion where it is not listed at all. Dayton (p. 1001) points out that "the Muratorian Fragment not only refers to Luke but calls him medicus."
When the principles for discovering canonicity that were used in the early church are considered, it lends further evidence to the authorship of Luke-Acts. Geisler (p. 67) lists five basic questions that were considered before a book(s) was considered genuine and included into the New Testament canon:
(1) Is the book authoritative — does it claim to be of God?
(2) Is it prophetic — was it written by a servant of God?
(3) Is it authentic — does it tell the truth about God, man, etc.?
(4) Is the book dynamic — does it possess the life-transforming power of God?
(5) Is this book received or accepted by the people of God for whom it was originally written — is it recognized as being from God?

(Editor’s Note: Also considered important was whether it had apostolic connections, as Luke had through Paul. It is doubtful if it would have been accepted otherwise).
For Luke-Acts to pass the above criteria and to be included in all the major canons of Scripture is undeniable evidence of both its authority and authenticity. The early church did not take inclusion in the canon lightly. The inclusion in these canons is direct evidence that Luke was universally accepted as genuine by the church at large. To argue otherwise would appear to be a denial of the testimony given by those closest to Luke in time, geography, and culture.
3) Direct References to Luke's Authorship
The direct references to Luke's authorship of Luke-Acts are most compelling. Dayton (p. 1001) lists several of these references that help build the case for Luke the Physician as the author of both works. Irenaeus quotes from nearly every chapter of Luke's Gospel and makes frequent reference to Luke as its author. Clement of Alexandria also quotes from the Gospel of Luke and attributes it to Luke. Tertullian makes use of this Gospel when writing against Marcion and labels it as Luke's. The Muratorian Fragment is the first document to ascribe the Gospel to Luke, along with the information that it was Luke the Physician whom Paul had taken with him on his missionary journeys that was the author.
’The Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and Tertullian all specifically state that Luke was the author, not only of the gospel, but also of the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, at no time were any doubts raised regarding this attribution to Luke, and certainly no alternatives were mooted (Guthrie, p.114).
These direct references to Luke as the author of both Luke and Acts cannot be ignored. These overt citations by these early leaders and documents of the church must be taken into account if authorship is to be determined. They cannot be pushed to the side as if they did not exist. When they are considered their testimony is overwhelmingly favorable to Luke the Physician.
4) Translations
A translation of a book would not be made unless that book was first determined to be authentic. Luke's Gospel is included in the three major translations prior to A.D. 200 and named as authentic. These translations are the Tatian Diatessaron (c. 170) (a harmony of the four Gospels), the Old Latin (c. 150-170), and the Old Syriac (c. 200). Acts is included and named as authentic in both the Old Latin and Old Syriac translations.
5) Councils
Four major church councils named both Luke and Acts as authentic works of Luke the Physician. These councils were Nicea (c. 325-40), Hippo (393), Carthage (397), and Carthage (419). These councils give evidence that Luke-Acts was not only considered authentic by individuals but by the church as a whole. The members of these councils were represen- tative of the church at large, leading to the fact that Luke-Acts was accepted by the church universal as the authentic work of Luke the Physician.
CONCLUSION
When the evidence is examined the overwhelming weight of it falls on Luke the Physician as being the author of Luke-Acts. Guthrie (p. 125) states that: "There would appear to be far stronger grounds for retaining the tradition of Lucan authorship for both the gospel and Acts than for rejecting it."
While it is impossible to conclusively prove who the author of Luke-Acts is, considering the author's own indifference to signing his name, the facts are very clear. Both the internal and external evidence point to Luke as the author of both works. In fact, after examining the case both for and against Lucan authorship, the observation can be made that those who reject Luke the physician as author have to go out of their way to find reasons to do so. There are no solid reasons to reject Luke as author, but many very valid evidences to support him. The traditional view that Luke the physician is the common author of both works is still the most valid option available.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOURCES CONSULTED
Blaiklock, E.M. - "Acts of the Apostles." Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. (1975) 1:39-53.
Bruce, F.F. - The Acts of the Apostles. New International Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 12th ed. 1976.
Cadbury, Henry J. - The Making of Luke-Acts. London: SPCK, 1958.
Cadbury, Henry J. - The Style and Literary Language of Luke. N.p., 1919.
Carson, D.A.; Moo, Douglas J.: Morris, Leon. - An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.
Dayton, W.T. - "Luke, the Gospel Of." Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. (1975) 3:1000-1008.
Durant, Will. - The Story of Civilization. Vol. 3: Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944.
Gaertner, Dennis. - Acts. The College Press NIV Commentary. 2nd ed. Joplin: College Press, 1993.
Gasque, W. Ward. - A History of the Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Reprinted. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.
Geisler, Norman L. and Nix, William E. - From God to Us: How We Got Our Bible. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.
Gill, David and Conrad Gempf, ed. - The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting: Greco-Roman Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Guthrie, Donald. - New Testament Introduction. 4th ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990.
Hemer, Colin J. - The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1989.
Hengel, Martin. - Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Tr. by John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
Hobart, William K. - The Medical Language of St. Luke. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co. 1882; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954.
House, H. Wayne. - Chronological and Background Charts of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Academie Books, 1981.
Kummel, Werner Georg. - Introduction to the New Testament. Tr. by Howard Clark Kee. 17th ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.
Lenski, R.C.H. - The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles. Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1944.
Maddox, Robert. - The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Marshall, I. Howard. - Luke: Historian and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971.
Marshall, I. Howard. - The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
McGee, J. Vernon. - Luke. Pasedena: Thru the Bible Books, 4th ed. 1986.
Morris, Leon. - Luke. 2nd ed. Tyndale N.T. Commentaries, 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
Pousma, R.H. - "Physician." Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. 1975, 4:788-789
Powell, Mark Allan. - What Are They Saying About Acts? New York: Paulist Press, 1991.
Ramsay, William M. - Luke the Physician and Other Studies in the History of Religion. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1908; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
Reese, Gareth L. - New Testament History: Acts. Joplin: College Press, 2nd ed. 1976.
Robertson, A.T. - Luke the Historian in the Light of Research. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920.
Thiessen, Henry C. - Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1943; reprint, 1973.
Vine, W.E. - Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. Westwood, NJ: Fleming H.Revell, 17th ed. 1966.
Von Harnack, Adolph. - Luke the Physician. Reprint ed. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1909.
Willimon, William H. Acts. - Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988.
Winter, Bruce and Andrew Clarke, ed. - The Book of Acts in Its First-Century Setting: Ancient Literary Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.
Return to Home Page
IS THERE SOMETHING IN THE BIBLE THAT PUZZLES YOU?

If so please EMail us with your question and we will do our best to give you a satisfactory answer.EMailus.
FREE Scholarly verse by verse commentaries on the Bible.
THE PENTATEUCH
GENESIS ---EXODUS--- LEVITICUS 1.1-7.38 --- 8.1-11.47 --- 12.1-16.34--- 17.1-27.34--- NUMBERS 1-10--- 11-19--- 20-36--- DEUTERONOMY 1.1-4.44 --- 4.45-11.32 --- 12.1-29.1--- 29.2-34.12 --- THE BOOK OF JOSHUA --- THE BOOK OF JUDGES --- PSALMS 1-17--- ECCLESIASTES --- ISAIAH 1-5 --- 6-12 --- 13-23 --- 24-27 --- 28-35 --- 36-39 --- 40-48 --- 49-55--- 56-66--- EZEKIEL --- DANIEL 1-7 ---DANIEL 8-12 ---
NAHUM--- HABAKKUK---ZEPHANIAH ---ZECHARIAH --- THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ---THE GOSPEL OF MARK--- THE GOSPEL OF LUKE --- THE GOSPEL OF JOHN --- THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES --- 1 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-16 --- 2 CORINTHIANS 1-7 --- 8-13 -- -GALATIANS --- EPHESIANS --- COLOSSIANS --- 1 THESSALONIANS --- 2 THESSALONIANS --- 1 TIMOTHY --- 2 TIMOTHY --- TITUS --- HEBREWS 1-6 --- 7-10 --- 11-13 --- JAMES --- JOHN'S LETTERS --- REVELATION
--- THE GOSPELS

This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page

Luke,St,Saint,Luke, Acts,Apostles,Messiah,Christ,New,Testament,Old,Testament,
Genesis,Revelation,Bible,faith,facts,repent,Holy,Spirit,
Creation,use,numbers,old,new,testament,love,forgiveness,Jesus,teaching