Loading...I started this thread over a week ago on the authorship of the Third Gospel, and would like now simply to bring some closure to it before moving on to other things. To sum up: there is a kind of interpretive logic that can lead one to think that this Gospel was written by Luke, a Gentile physician who was a traveling companion of Paul. This is what I myself thought for years, and it was based on this logic, that:
- The author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke
- That the author of Acts, and therefore of Luke, must have been a traveling companion of Paul (since he speaks of himself in the first person on four occasions)
- That this author was probably a Gentile because he was so concerned with the spread of the Christian movement among Gentiles (the whole point of the book of Acts)
- Paul himself speaks of a Gentile among his traveling companions in Colossians 4, naming him as Luke the beloved physician.
- Therefore this person was likely the traveling companion of Paul.
After laying out the logic of that position I tried to dismantle it by showing its very weak links, as I will summarize in a second. But first I should say that I completely agree, still, that whoever wrote Acts also wrote Luke. Not only does the beginning of Acts show this (compare it to the first four verses of Luke), but so does the similarity of writing style, vocabulary, theological perspectives, major themes, parallel incidents and just about everything else about the two books. Moreover, I agree that a Gentile probably wrote these books. I do not think the fact that he was concerned about a Gentile mission shows this – Paul, for example, was *particularly* concerned about the mission, and he was a Jew! No reason that this author couldn’t be as well. But there are other reasons for thinking he was a gentile that I haven’t gone into and don’t need to at this point; it’s widely conceded he was gentile.
But there’s little reason to think he was Paul’s traveling companion and virtually no reason, in my opinion, to think that he was a physician named Luke.
FOR THE REST OF THIS POST, log in as a Member. Click here for membership options. If you don’t belong yet, ARE YOU WAITING FOR THE ESCHATON????
Can I ask your opinion with regard to chapter 1 verse1 of John’s gospel – “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Is this an accurate and reliable translation of the Greek text ? And; what – in your opinion – is the writer trying to tell us about Jesus’ relationship to God.
Yes, that’s how I’d translate it. But your second question is far too complicated for a quick reply!! I deal with it at some length in my book on How Jeuss Became God, due out in March.
In the beginning of Luke the author states he “investigated everything in order to write an orderly account”. It has been theorized that the “we” statements could have been copied from a journal. Do you think these entries could have been transcribed verbatum in first person? That the author is guilty of sloppy writing? Telling Paul’s conversion story three times and composing several rather dull sermons does not seem to suggest a skilled writer.
It’s possible, but I think the author instead is simply inserting a first person into the narrative to make his readers think that he was there to see these things happened. And he was wildly successful!
Dr. E. , this is so intriguing. I hope you do come back to this topic soon. I am dismantling my faith and figuring out how to use these two books in my faith reconstruction. Journey on!t
“On what grounds would one want to take that stand???”
For every question there is a continuum of answers from the radical liberal through the scholarly consensus to the aggressively conservative. There are in fact many conservative Christians who believe Luke wrote Luke because every time the book is mentioned it is called Luke. I wonder if there is some way around this. I guess “the author formerly know as Luke” wouldn’t work so well. What are people supposed to make of the fact that some very scholarly writers from very good schools who have studied the New Testament for their whole lives sometimes have very bizarre ideas that no one else in New Testament research agrees with?
Well, even sane people can have wacky ideas. My hunch is that hte book was anonymous for a century; a famous author like Irenaeus said it was by Luke; and everyone said, OH, it was written by Luke!
Great summary of your position on Luke/Acts. I’ve enjoyed reading them, and have learned a lot also. Don’t beat yourself up too much if you feel we’re getting “wrestless” . I for one signed up to learn more about the New Testament and the history of early Christianity, not to be “entertained” per say. Not every topic will be of interest to everyone.
I’ve been enjoying it and not getting at all restless.
I read something a while ago (can’t remember what or by whom) where the author suggested that perhaps “Luke” or whoever wrote Luke/Acts might have been a Gentile slave and this would account for his interest in justice issues (The Magnificat and some of the parable like Good Samaritan and Dives & Lazarus). But I remember you suggesting that perhaps the prologue was added later (even so it is IMHO beautiful writing). What do you think of the possibility that “Luke” was a slave?
I don’t think there’s any evidence to suggest either that he was or was not a slave.
Prof Ehrman
I’ve been reading “The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture” and am fascinated by the whole discussion of “Adoptionism”. Since you’re leaving Luke I hope it’s not inappropriate for me to try to squeeze a couple questions in. I haven’t finished the book yet so if you do address these questions let me know.
1. If we can infer that there was at least in some sense an “Adoptionist” point of view in Luke, and that the “orthodox” were willing to modify the text to react against it, and since you’ve raised the possibility that the Nativity story may not have been in the original version of the gospel, is it possible that the Nativity story itself was added to the original gospel to counter “Adoptionist” ideas in the early church?
2. Jesus’ adoption at his resurrection would be the older tradition, right? Adoption at the moment of Baptism would could only come later? If so, since the resurrection is such a central idea to Christianity why do you think the tradition that Jesus was adopted at his Baptism arose? (You’re going to cover this in your new book, maybe?)
Absorbing stuff, thanks!
1. Yes, I think that’s possible. Or that it was added to counter marcion’s reading of the Gospel, which I take to be even more likely.
2. The later tradition probably arose among people who thought that Jesus must have been the Son of God not only after his death but during his entire ministry.
If the awkwardness of the we-passages makes them less likely to be authentic, does the same property make them less likely to be an intentional mis-direction? Wouldn’t a forger make the effort to make these passages belivable by using “I” and not changing voice at odd places?
Well, some forgers are better than others, and this particular one was unbelievably successful even with his awkwardness!
I’m one “fellow traveler” who’s really enjoyed this. And I’m eager to learn what topic you’ll discuss next! But I’ll also be interested in your verdict on the “we” passages.
One thing I have always wondered about the gentiles: what religion, if any, would they have followed? Prior to becoming a Christian, I mean. So, if the writer of Luke and Acts was the same person and that person was a gentile, what was the likely religious background of that person?
Gentiles were polytheists, and had lots and lots of different religious options; often they are called “pagans,” not in a derogatory way but to indicate that they were not monotheists.
Dr Ehrman: You may find this article of some interest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-eisenman/pauls-comradeinarms-epaph_b_3862879.html?fb_action_ids=589778694412765&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=timeline_og&action_object_map={%22589778694412765%22%3A173236189527745}&action_type_map={%22589778694412765%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[]&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=116559b=facebook
Thank you.
I know I’m getting off-topic, and I apologize.
Could you please point me to a thorough discussion of the dating of Luke/Acts? If they were written only 15 years after the death of Paul, it’s a pretty brazen forgery, since surely there would be eyewitnesses around. Also, doesn’t Acts 11:26 point to Pliny CE 112?
Thanks
I’d suggest looking at good critical commentaries: J. Fitzmyer for a traditional view (late first century); Richard Pervo for the view that it is much later (second century)
Dr. Ehrman, have you read Marcus Borg’s “Evolution of the Word”? I just checked it out of the library, but for starters, he seems to put Luke/Acts close to AD 100-105, AFTER the Fourth Gospel, which he places in 90. I heard somewhere that this late dating – or even later, to mid-2nd Century – is very popular right now. Sorry if you’ve addressed this, but would you put Luke/Acts that late? And was Luke a revision of Marcion’s Gospel, with a Birth Narrative tacked on?
And if Luke was THAT late, why add the entire narrative of John the Baptist’s birth story? Wasn’t his ministry a huge embarrassment to early Christians? If so, why mention a miraculous birth story nearly 70 years later? At least the John the Baptist inclusion argues for an earlier dating, doesn’t it?
I haven’t read it. The logic usually is that Luke/Acts shows dependence on Josephus. I don’t know if that’s Marcus’s argument or not. I’ve never bought it myself. I do think that Luke originally circulated without a birth narrative and only at a second stage did the birth narrative get added — possibly in response to Marcion. The reason to include the John the Baptist birth account is because it shows so clearly that JB was subordinate to Jesus from the get-go.
Dr Ehman you say that Paul in FACT did not write Colossians. However the arguments you presented in “not for the faint of heart” to prove your view are not convincing and I think are out of context with the message the author is relating there. It’s clear to me that the author of Colossians is not speaking about literal death nor literal resurrection as I tried to point out in my comment there on your blog.
I wonder why this is never considered (and the reason may very well be because there is nothing interesting to it): Is the name “Luke” as given to us in Paul’s authentic letters at least, a name known elsewhere at the time as either a Jewish or Gentile name? In other words, do other folks in either community have the same name from other records, perhaps completely unassociated with early Chrisitianity? Wouldn’t this (if any evidence is avaialble) be an indicator on the gentile/Jewish thing (since I believe you said Colassions is the only inidcation that the person named as Luke was a Gentile).
Great question! I don’t have an answer off the top of my head.
Dr. Bart Ehrman: …whether he never deviated from the Jewish Law (Paul straightforwardly claims he did; Acts emphatically insists that he did not)…
As a result, I think it’s relatively clear that Luke, the gentile physician who was a traveling companion of Paul, did not write the book of Acts (and so, the book of Luke).
Steefen: My “as a result” is: Acts of the Apostle is trying to put the Jerusalem camp in good light for posterity. As you have a Jewish Gospel of Mathew, Acts is Jerusalem camp strong. The Jerusalem camp did not want the Temple destroyed, so any mention of the Son of Man at the right hand of God gets the death penalty. The Jerusalem camp did not want Christianity-Lite for Gentiles. The Jerusalem camp was not going to have a Jewish sect water down Judaism to Paul’s idolatry of Jesus’ crucifixion. So, yes, any Acts of the Apostles coming out of the Jerusalem camp, the pro-Jewish Christian camp would need recorded that Paul, claiming to be a Jew was an exemplary Jew, no compromise.
Why would Acts and Matthew not be pro-Jewish? I really do not see how this isn’t part of the issue given the pro-Jewish camp stoning Stephen and the pro-Jewish camp making efforts to get the Church at Antioch in line with the Jewish church. That is why Acts and Paul do not align because the Jerusalem camp and Paul did not align.
The Jewish camp was not having Jesus or Christ at the right hand of a Jewish God and they certainly were not having Salvation via a Roman crucifixion of Jesus, Christ, or the Son of Man whom they wanted dead. That they stoned Stephen for the SAME words that got Jesus handed over for crucifixion proves this.
I don’t remember what you wrote in Jesus Interrupted about Luke. Clearly, Matthew was written for a pro-Jewish message. John does not seem to be pro-Jewish because it puts Jesus to high to God. If Luke is pro-Jewish as I mention Acts is pro-Jewish, then that is a reason for them to be written by the same author.
It’s true that Acts is not intended to be an historical book (despite of its title, the book of “Acts” is not very similar to hellenistic “praxeis”), historicity is rather presupposed for the purpose of a theological argument.
However, can we think that the author could actually be a traveling companion of Paul *but* he gave his picture of him, to make it fit with his overall theological and apologetic perspective (e.g. where Paul and Peter say basically similar things in similar ways)?.
Some historical data could actually be correct, so I’m not sure if:
a) we should fully dismiss Acts as a possible historical source
b) if we can still get some useful historical information by comparing its content with Paul’s letters, archaeology findings, greek/roman sources, etc.
In short, do you think it’s possible to peel the theological and apologetic strata and get some historical juice?
Many thanks!
Yes indeed, I do think one can find historical information in Acts. By no means do I write it off in toto!
Prof. Ehrman, I’m a big admirer of your writings, which have taught me a lot, but I can’t agree that the author of Luke/Acts wasn’t a traveling companion of Paul. Sure, we don’t know that the author was named Luke. But his name isn’t the important point. The important point is that he must have traveled with Paul, regardless of his name. The author of Acts probably wouldn’t have known so much about Paul’s travels unless the author had traveled with Paul.
The author didn’t seem to be bragging when he wrote”we” and “us.” If he wanted to brag, he could have bragged in a more ostentatious way. Why brag in such an insignificant way with just a few passages here and there, especially since he never even used his name? It doesn’t make sense to brag in that way. When he wrote “we,” I think we was simply revealing his own personal involvement. How else would he have been so informed about Paul’s activities?
I don’t think the author of Acts *does* know so much about Paul’s travels. Whenever what he says about them can be compared with what Paul says about them, there are discrepancies. Sometimes very significant discrepancies. That’s precisely the problem.
I see no good reason to be so skeptical of the “we” passages in Acts. These passages are modest assertions buried in the text, not overt boasting or ostentatious attempts to increase the author’s credibility. True, we cannot determine the name of the author of Luke/Acts, but he was probably a companion of Paul, just as he indicated. How else would the author have known so much about Paul’s travels?
The author must have been with Paul at some point in order to get the stories recounted in Acts. Yes, there are some inconsistencies between Acts and Paul’s letters, but these inconsistencies could be due to infallible human memory. Is there a better explanation? I take the “we” passages at face value since there is no need to take them any other way.
I meant: *fallible* human memory…
No, he certainly wasn’t boasting. He was claiming to be a participant in Paul’s journeys to make the account more credible. And he succeeded *unbelievably* well!! I’m not sure if you’ve read what I have to say about all this, but my fullest discussion is in Forgery and Counterforgery.
Thanks for your reply. I enjoy your blog and your books. Yes, I read what you wrote in “Forged.” I tend to agree with you on almost everything, but….
Yes, there are inconsistencies between Acts and Paul’s letters. But Acts was probably written 20 to 30 years after Paul’s letters. So, the author of Acts was writing from memory about events that happened decades earlier. It’s very reasonable to expect that the author’s memory might be faulty after so much time had passed. Just because two people have somewhat different recollections of long past events doesn’t mean that the two people weren’t both there. Discrepancies are bound to happen.
If the author of Luke/Acts wasn’t with Paul, how did the author get detailed information about Paul’s imprisonment, his appearance before Felix, his voyage to Rome, etc.? The author wouldn’t have known so much about these events unless he was there. This is an important point because if the author of Luke/Acts was with Paul during the 50s AD, then the author’s information about Jesus goes back much earlier than the date when the Gospel of Luke was written around 80 AD.
Therefore, “Luke” (or whatever his name was) must be a fairly early source who was much closer to Jesus’ time than the late date of his gospel would lead us to think. His gospel may have been written around 80+, but his familiarity with Christian beliefs and stories about Jesus goes back much earlier — to the 50s (or maybe even before). This gives us an enhanced view of Luke as a source.
My view is that the author of Acts did *not* know about Paul’s imprisonment, appearance before Felix, and voyage to Rome. And we don’t either. Our only source for these things is Acts, and if can be shown to be unreliable wherever it can be checked (as it can be) then I don’t think we can trust it in the places that cannot be checked.
Yes, our only source for Paul’s imprisonment and voyage to Rome is Acts. But wait — are you saying that the author of Acts made up those stories? Sorry but that doesn’t compute because if the author added the “we” passages in order to increase his credibility, why would he make up false stories that would undermine his credibility? After all, many Christians at that time knew Paul and would have known what happened to him. So, if the author of Acts invented blatantly false stories, other Christians would have known them to be untrue.
The author’s vivid account in Acts, chapter 27 & 28, of the difficult voyage and the shipwreck on the way to Rome reads like a genuine first-hand recollection of what happened. It rings true. Why would he have made up that long story? If it were untrue, other Christians who were familiar with Paul would have known that the story was a fabrication, which would have destroyed the author’s credibility — which you say he was eager to establish. Why would the author have made up false stories that would have discredited him?
I don’t think that the author of Acts was a wholesale liar . He may have had a faulty memory of some events from 30 years earlier. (Or maybe Paul wasn’t totally correct.) In any case, Acts runs roughly parallel to Paul’s letters, although there are inconsistencies. How do we account for the many things that the author got right (“right” being defined as what Paul wrote!)? The author must have had personal knowledge. He may have been wrong in some particulars, but generally, he wasn’t wildly off the mark.
I think it’s obvious that the author of Acts knew Paul and that they traveled together. Some of the inconsistencies aren’t terribly troubling. For instance, yes, the author of Acts left out the three-year gap between Paul’s conversion and his visit to Peter in Jerusalem. But maybe the author simply forgot about that gap when he wrote Acts some 30 years later. An understandable oversight. Or maybe Paul wasn’t quite right. In any case, this discrepancy doesn’t prove that the author didn’t know Paul. Many discrepancies may just be a matter of misremembering, conflating events and leaving out parts of the story due to faulty memory. No big deal.
This issue of the author’s identity is important because if the author knew Paul, then Luke was an early source who (like Paul) met Peter, James and others in Jerusalem. The author was a witness — and a fairly good source of information about Peter, James and other matters from the standpoint of a gentile Christian. The author of Luke/Acts is a better source than he’s given credit for. He was who he said he was.
I don’t think the author of Acts invented the stories — but someone living before him did. People simply had no idea what Paul had done thirty years earlier. Imagine if we had no written records of the Nixon administration, and someone claimed that he made an important trip to France. Why would we doubt him? We’d have no way of knowing otherwise. It’s very hard to get our minds around what it’s like to live in an oral culture where there are no written records (and where the records that do exist cannot be read much — since most people can’t read — and are not widely known)
Prof. Ehrman, I’m sorry you don’t think that the author of Luke/Acts traveled with Paul. I think you’re dwelling too much on the discrepancies. They aren’t as significant as the parallels. He seems like a genuine witness to me. I don’t see much need for another explanation of who he was. I think you’re missing a big part of the story by discounting the author as being who he said he was. I hope you”ll reconsider over time and change your mind eventually. Thanks for your time —
I used to have your view — for many years — and actively argued for it. I simply no longer consider it tenable. But smart people can disagree.