Was Luke a Gentile?

[rlvaughn]

In another thread, Yeshua1 brought up the idea the Luke -- the beloved physician, author of the Gospel of Luke, and Acts of the Apostles -- was a Gentile rather than a Jew. Rather than discuss it there, where it moves away from the topic, I decided to create a new thread. Some might be interested in discussing it in depth.

...except for Luke, ONLY Jews wrote the NT...

Colossians 4: 1-14 note that Luke was not named among the circumcised Jewish helpers of Paul!

The theory is based on historical tradition and certain interpretations of Scripture.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote his Historia Ecclesiastica (or, Church History) circa AD 323. In it (III.4.7), he states that Luke “was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession” and in Quaestiones Evangelicae (or, Gospel Problems and Solutions) says he came from “a family from the renowned Antioch.” Jerome of Stridon agrees, writing in De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men) circa AD 392, “Luke a physician of Antioch, as his writings indicate, was not unskilled in the Greek language.”

Here are the main arguments referencing Scripture, that I have heard:

• Colossians 4:10-11 fellow workers who are “of the circumcision” (i.e., Jewish).
• Luke is mentioned later in Colossians 4:14, not in that “of the circumcision” group.
• The name “Luke” is a Greek form of a Latin name.
• Acts 1:19 mentions a field with a Semitic name and then speaks of “their” language.
• Luke has great knowledge of the LXX or Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament.

 

[Tsalagi]

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

 

[rlvaughn]

I suspect you are right. Nevertheless, much ink has been spilled on proving that Luke was a Gentile. The apparent interest is that if Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more of writing the New Testament to be written by a Gentile than to any other single person (all the rest being Jews).

 

[Tsalagi]

I suspect you are right. Nevertheless, much ink has been spilled on proving that Luke was a Gentile. The apparent interest is that if Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more of writing the New Testament to be written by a Gentile than to any other single person (all the rest being Jews).

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

 

[rlvaughn]

A BB members sent me the following link, which discusses Was Luke a Gentile?, by Thomas S. McCall. McCall cites why people think it is important:

It may not seem important whether or not Luke was a Gentile, but when you think about the magnitude of his work, the issue becomes truly significant. By counting the pages written by Luke in both his Gospel and Acts, it is clear that Luke wrote more pages of the New Testament than any other writer, including Paul and John. If Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more pages of New Testament revelation to a Gentile than to any other writer. This would be remarkable, to say the least.

Afterwards McCall lays out the arguments for Luke being a Gentile, but concludes:

My conclusion is, then, that we must infer that Luke was a Jew. The idea that he was a Gentile appears to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and tradition. The biblical evidence strongly supports the position that Luke was a Jew, and we should always believe the Scriptures over tradition, when there is a conflict between the two.

 

[Tsalagi]

A BB members sent me the following link, which discusses Was Luke a Gentile?, by Thomas S. McCall. McCall cites why people think it is important: Afterwards McCall lays out the arguments for Luke being a Gentile, but concludes:

(a) Acts 1:19 is pretty compelling, and it's the Bible.
(b) To repeat yet again, why assign significance to this when Scripture doesn't? Where's the applicational value?

 

[kathleenmariekg]

I suspect you are right. Nevertheless, much ink has been spilled on proving that Luke was a Gentile. The apparent interest is that if Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more of writing the New Testament to be written by a Gentile than to any other single person (all the rest being Jews).

Thank you for posting about this. I am told that when I write my papers, I am responsible to know of the controversies even if I don't believe them or think they are important.

If much ink has been spilled over this, I guess I am responsible to know that at least. Thanks!

 

[Baptist Believer]

Here are the main arguments referencing Scripture, that I have heard:

• Colossians 4:10-11 fellow workers who are “of the circumcision” (i.e., Jewish).
• Luke is mentioned later in Colossians 4:14, not in that “of the circumcision” group.
• The name “Luke” is a Greek form of a Latin name.
• Acts 1:19 mentions a field with a Semitic name and then speaks of “their” language.
• Luke has great knowledge of the LXX or Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament.

A few years ago I led a 17-month verse-by-verse study of the Gospel of Luke on Sunday morning.

At the very beginning of the study, as part of the introductory material, and to provide context, I researched the question of Luke potentially being a Gentile. You mentioned most of the biblical support for the question, but missed the cultural issue. In the Greco-Roman world, physicians were usually from conquered peoples, primarily Greeks, since they were more advanced than the Romans but not as powerful. The vast majority of physicians were slaves, serving the Roman community and armies throughout the Empire.

Given Luke’s remarkable knowledge of the ancient world, describing the growth of the early church through the Roman world, and his dedication of both of his surviving books to “Theophilus” (Greek for “lover of God”) — regardless if that is a specific person with that name or a general address to those who love God — strongly suggests he was not Jewish.

Ultimately, it is not essential for interpretation, but it does explain his omission of “let the reader understand” passage Jesus’ prophecy/warning to flee into the mountains when the Roman army comes to destroy Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. (Compare Luke 21:20-24 with Matthew 24:15-20 and Mark 13:14-18, noting specifically Matthew 24:15 and Mark 13:14). Luke also doesn’t include the reference to Abomination of Desolation for that might not be familiar to his readers, but gives a much more straightforward account.

 

[Guvnuh]

Understanding these “insignificant” things of scripture encourages people from All walks of every tribe of the human race.
God uses the rich and the poor, Healthy and sick, educated and uneducated, the powerful and the weak , the young and the old to fulfill His purpose.
The question is, “Are you available?”

 

[rlvaughn]

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

First, there would be the question of whether this is Peter speaking or Luke making a parenthetical explanation. If it is Peter speaking, then this cannot be used in the way that some use it to make Luke contrast himself (a Gentile) to their tongue (Jews). If this is a parentheses, then perhaps it carries some weight in the discussion. However, there are other possible explanations. For example, it could mean something like a "Jerusalem dialect" opposed to whatever dialect Luke spoke (then the antecedent would be specifically "the dwellers at Jerusalem" rather than Jews generally). We know from the Scriptures that the Galileans spoke in a way recognizably different from the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

(b) To repeat yet again, why assign significance to this when Scripture doesn't?

I do not assign any particular significance to whether or not Luke was a Gentile. That does not, however, mean that no one does, or that no one is discussing it.

 

[Van]

The tradition is that Luke was a Gentile, but the evidence is too sketchy to present as doctrine. But I am with those who do not see importance, but wrangling as to the issue, for there is no difference in Christ. The NT is all about our blood heritage meaning nothing.

 

[rlvaughn]

SGO supplied another link, to a nice article "Colossians 4:11 and the Ethnic Identity of Luke," by R. Wayne Stacy. Here are a couple of points from it.

But what difference does it make, finally, whether or not Luke was a Jew or a Gentile? If Luke was a Jew, and not a Gentile as the scholarly consensus asserts, then he was not, as so many claim, the sole Gentile writer in the New Testament. That is to say, all of the New Testament writers were Jews.

Moreover, if I am correct and Luke was a Jew rather than a Gentile, then his well-documented inclusivity becomes all the more impressive. Everyone recognizes Luke’s advocacy for Gentiles both in his Gospel and in the Acts of the Apostles. I submit that this advocacy would not have been very surprising (and perhaps even self-serving) if Luke was, in fact, a Gentile. But if Luke was a Jew, then his advocacy for his Gentile brothers and sisters in Christ becomes all the more surprising...and compelling.

 

[George Antonios]

If Colossians 4:14 means Luke was a Gentile then Genesis 35:23-26 means Benjamin was born in Padanaram; but he wasn't.

Gen 35:23 The sons of Leah; Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, and Simeon, and Levi, and Judah, and Issachar, and Zebulun:
Gen 35:24 The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin:
Gen 35:25 And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel's handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali:
Gen 35:26 And the sons of Zilpah, Leah's handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

 

[Yeshua1]

I suspect you are right. Nevertheless, much ink has been spilled on proving that Luke was a Gentile. The apparent interest is that if Luke was a Gentile, then the Lord entrusted more of writing the New Testament to be written by a Gentile than to any other single person (all the rest being Jews).

Which would be the reason why he shows to us the Jesus that is Roman, Greek, Jewish, is for all!

 

[rlvaughn]

Which would be the reason why he shows to us the Jesus that is Roman, Greek, Jewish, is for all!

Yes, Jesus is for all, whether Jew or Gentile, but I don't know what point you are making in regard to Luke possibly being a Gentile?

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, Jesus is for all, whether Jew or Gentile, but I don't know what point you are making in regard to Luke possibly being a Gentile?

Being a gentile, he would have emphasis about Jesus being Messiah for us also, not just Israel !

 

[rlvaughn]

Being a gentile, he would have emphasis about Jesus being Messiah for us also, not just Israel !

The entire New Testament, written by mostly Jews even if one accepts the Luke/Gentile theory, emphasizes that Jesus is the Messiah for us all.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Thank you for posting about this. I am told that when I write my papers, I am responsible to know of the controversies even if I don't believe them or think they are important.

If much ink has been spilled over this, I guess I am responsible to know that at least. Thanks!

Yes, this is all well and good, but to really annoy your professors and make a name for yourself, and eventually start your own cult, you need to argue persuasively some obscure position or clever twist, such as the obvious fact that Luke was an uncircumcised Jew, like Timothy had been.

 

[MB]

A lot of people are shocked that Luke was not a disciple or one of the twelve. His gospel starts out as him writing to Theoplius. I've always thought he was a Greek.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

The entire New Testament, written by mostly Jews even if one accepts the Luke/Gentile theory, emphasizes that Jesus is the Messiah for us all.

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