Loading...I made an off the cuff comment in a previous post that there was a certain logic that has led readers over the years to identify “Luke” as the author of the Third Gospel. Let me stress again that the book itself is written anonymously; the author never identifies himself in any way. Moreover, we do not have the identification of the author as Luke until some 100 years after he wrote, in a statement by Irenaeus in his book Against Heresies, where he names the four Gospels as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
So why Luke? Irenaeus doesn’t tell us, but there appears to be a kind of “exegetical logic” that led to this decision. The way it works is a bit complicated, but it goes like this:
I mentioned in the previous post that the author of this Gospel also wrote the book of Acts. It too is anonymous. But in four passages in the book of Acts, when the author is describing some of the journeys and activities of the apostle Paul, he moves from third person narrative (what “they” were doing) to first-person narrative (what “we” were doing). These are called the “we passages” of Acts, and it appears on first reading that the author is including himself as Paul’s companion at these points. The passages – you can look them up – are Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; and 27:1-28:16.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE!!!
Dr Ehrman: Is there any possibility that these gospels could have been written by women?
It’s *possible*, but it’s pretty unlikely. We have VERY few women authors from antiquity. The first Christian author we know of (assuming the book is authentic, which is now widely disputed) is Perpetua, who allegedly wrote a diary that has been incorporated into the Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas.
I would love to know just how well educated physicians were in the First Century CE. Obviously, the didn’t learn the same things our physicians learn today. One assume a physician knew how to read and write in those times, but is that assumption correct? Furthermore, was reading and writing necessary for the performance of a physician’s tasks back then? Could the trade of the physician have been more of an artisan trade where one learned the ropes by seeing, imitating and doing? What I picture is Luke under the direct tutelage of a mentor until he was confident enough to strike out on his own. I cannot imagine any standardized tests in those times. Moreover, I suspect practices varied widely. Finally, one has to ask what did it mean to be a physician in that cultural context.
Good questions! I don’t really know. The only physicians I know about are literate ones — Hippocrates, his followers, Soranus, Galen, and others. Whether physicians were *typically* literate, I don’t know! Maybe someone else on the blog does?
On the question of the level of education of physicians in 1st century CE, one place to start might be Hector Avalos. His research has included what health care was like during this time. A quick Google search turned up a book he wrote called “Health Care and the Rise of Christianity”. Or you could try dropping him an email…
http://www.philrs.iastate.edu/hector-avalos/
The “we” passages are quite intriguing. Thanks for educating me about them.
I was enjoying the “logic” until you mention that it is flawed. I’n now thinking on the CONTRADICTIONS between what’s contained in Acts and Paul’s letters (on Paul’s life). I hope this is where you are heading.
Will we ever find THE TRUTH about The Bible? It’s been going for 1500 years now! It seems like The Bible is becoming a mythical book of falsity by the day!
I wouldn’t call it a completely “false” book. There are still some amazing parts to it, worth a lifetime of attention!
There is a lot of sailing occurring in the “we passages”. Do you think this means anything, in terms of who might have written these passages?
Very intuitive of you! This has been raised by scholars, in a way I’ll mention in a later post.
You wrote “So why Luke? Irenaeus doesn’t tell us…”
What is Irenaeus referring to in Against Heresies 3.1.1 where he writes:
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.”
I’m not sure what you’re asking. Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying? I was saying that Irenaeus does not tell us why he thinks Luke was the one who wrote the Gospel.