Was Luke a Gentile?

[rlvaughn]

...Luke was not a disciple or one of the twelve...

Another interesting tradition, that would mean the opposite of those that assert Luke was a Gentile, is that Luke was one of the seventy (Luke 10:1ff). To me, Luke 1:2 seems to discount this tradition.

Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. AD 315-403) wrote that the third gospel was by Luke, and that Luke was one of the seventy(two).

ἔφασκον δὲ ὅτι ἰδοὺ τρίτον εὐαγγέλιον τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν. τοῦτο γὰρ ἐπετράπη τῷ Λουκᾷ, ὄντι καὶ αὐτῷ ἀπὸ τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα δύο τῶν διασκορπισθέντων ἐπὶ τῷ τοῦ σωτῆρος λόγῳ, διὰ δὲ Παύλου τοῦ ἁγίου πάλιν ἐπανακάμψαντι πρὸς τὸν κύριον ἐπιτραπέντι τε αὐτοῦ κηρῦξαι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον. (Panarion 51.11)

Such can also be found in Pseudo-Hippolytus (lost and found, so probably hard to date), some others said the same, including Dialogue on the True Faith of God.

I am not buying stock in this tradition, just relaying that it exists.

 

[Yeshua1]

Another interesting tradition, that would mean the opposite of those that assert Luke was a Gentile, is that Luke was one of the seventy (Luke 10:1ff). To me, Luke 1:2 seems to discount this tradition.

Epiphanius of Salamis (ca. AD 315-403) wrote that the third gospel was by Luke, and that Luke was one of the seventy(two). Such can also be found in Pseudo-Hippolytus (lost and found, so probably hard to date), some others said the same, including Dialogue on the True Faith of God.

I am not buying stock in this tradition, just relaying that it exists.

Always was taught that he was to paul as Mark was to peter!

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, but Matthew main emphasis was to the Jews, and Luke seemed to be towards Gentiles!

One common way of understanding is that Matthew writes to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, Luke to the Greeks, and John wrote to everyone, all people. Using your logic, Matthew would be a Jew, Mark a Roman, Luke a Greek, and John a Heinz 57.

 

[rlvaughn]

An interesting early tradition about Luke is that he (Luke) is “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” of 2 Corinthians 8:18. Many take this to suggest Paul is referring to Luke’s already-written gospel.

John Chrysostom says this in Homily 10 on the Second Timothy:

“Only Luke is with me.” For he adhered to him inseparably. It was he who wrote the Gospel, and the General Acts; he was devoted to labors, and to learning, and a man of fortitude; of him Paul writes, “whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches.” 2 Corinthians 8:18

Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) Chapter 7 says Luke:

wrote a Gospel, concerning which the same Paul says, “We send with him a brother whose praise in the gospel is among all the churches”

And in Letter 53, To Paulinus:

...once we realize that their author is Luke the physician whose praise is in the gospel...

The longer recension of the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (Chapter 15) credits Luke as being this brother whose praise in in the Gospel:

For he who shall both “do and teach, the same shall be great in the kingdom.” Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God, first did and then taught, as Luke testifies, “whose praise is in the Gospel through all the Churches.”

Eusebius in Church History, Book III.4.8 makes a reference that seems to say Luke’s Gospel was already written when Paul was writing (though he doesn’t mention the 2 Corinthians passage).

And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.

 

[Yeshua1]

An interesting early tradition about Luke is that he (Luke) is “the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches” of 2 Corinthians 8:18. Many take this to suggest Paul is referring to Luke’s already-written gospel.

John Chrysostom says this in Homily 10 on the Second Timothy:
Jerome in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) Chapter 7 says Luke:
And in Letter 53, To Paulinus:
The longer recension of the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians (Chapter 15) credits Luke as being this brother whose praise in in the Gospel:
Eusebius in Church History, Book III.4.8 makes a reference that seems to say Luke’s Gospel was already written when Paul was writing (though he doesn’t mention the 2 Corinthians passage).

If this is true, makes the Gospel much earlier dated then normally ascribed to being!

 

[kyredneck]

May I suggest that if this were important Scripture would give us a clear answer.

Again, if Scripture does not assign weight to this possibility I'm not convinced that we should.

(b) To repeat yet again, why assign significance to this when Scripture doesn't? Where's the applicational value?

What on earth could be wrong with anything that motivates us to search the scriptures?

(a) Acts 1:19 is pretty compelling, and it's the Bible.

Lol, careful, you might start searching the scriptures!

 

[rlvaughn]

If this is true, makes the Gospel much earlier dated then normally ascribed to being!

Yes, it would be. Acts was written after Paul went to Rome the first time, but before he was executed, somewhere between AD 62 and AD 66. Luke wrote his gospel before he wrote the book of Acts (Acts 1:1-3), so prior to AD 62. But, according to when II Corinthians was written, that would make the Gospel earlier than most conservative scholars tend to ascribe to it.

[Note: edited to add that I notice some put the date of II Corinthians at AD 55, which is already not that far distant from an AD 58-59 date for Luke.]

 

[Tsalagi]

What on earth could be wrong with anything that motivates us to search the scriptures? ... Lol, careful, you might start searching the scriptures!

If settling the question of Luke's ethnicity spurs you to love and good works, drive on.

 

[kyredneck]

If settling the question of Luke's ethnicity spurs you to love and good works, drive on.

If straining out such gnats as this spurs you to be a better Christian, have at it!

 

[rlvaughn]

Worth considering on the Jew and Gentile question:
Luke travels with Paul into Macedonia and to Philippi. The masters of the damsel considered the troublemaking party to be Jews.

Acts 16:10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia...16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel...20 And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city..

Luke is with Paul in Jerusalem. The locals get stirred up because they think Paul brought a Greek into the temple. The person is not Luke, but one named Trophimus, from Ephesus.

Acts 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present...28 Crying out...This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place. 29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.

Worth considering on the early dating of Luke-Acts:
Writing to Timothy possibly circa AD 60-61, Paul quotes scripture.

1 Timothy 5:18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. (αξιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου)

The first is in the Old Testament -- Deuteronomy -- but the second is not. Where might it be found? In Luke, it seems.

Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. (αξιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου)

A few suggested dates for the gospel of Luke:

• Leon Morris - in the early 60s (Luke Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 28)
• Darrell Bock - sometime in the 60s (Luke The NIV Application Commentary, p. 21)
• Merrill C. Tenney - circa AD 60 (New Testament Survey, p. 175); in another writing I have by Tenney he says possibly as early as AD 58

 

[Yeshua1]

Worth considering on the Jew and Gentile question:
Luke travels with Paul into Macedonia and to Philippi. The masters of the damsel considered the troublemaking party to be Jews.

Luke is with Paul in Jerusalem. The locals get stirred up because they think Paul brought a Greek into the temple. The person is not Luke, but one named Trophimus, from Ephesus.


Worth considering on the early dating of Luke-Acts:
Writing to Timothy possibly circa AD 60-61, Paul quotes scripture.
The first is in the Old Testament -- Deuteronomy -- but the second is not. Where might it be found? In Luke, it seems.

A few suggested dates for the gospel of Luke:

• Leon Morris - in the early 60s (Luke Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p. 28)
• Darrell Bock - sometime in the 60s (Luke The NIV Application Commentary, p. 21)
• Merrill C. Tenney - circa AD 60 (New Testament Survey, p. 175); in another writing I have by Tenney he says possibly as early as AD 58

yes, the Apostle Paul called Luke inspired scriptures, on par with Prophet Isaiah there!

 

[Aaron]

Don't overlook Luke's genealogy of Christ. Luke takes it back to Adam to show that all nations have an interest in Christ.