The Relationships of Paul and Luke (Prof. Adams)

Article

Commencing with a discussion surrounding the unity of Luke and Acts, and the comments from the church fathers regarding Luke and Paul, the body of the paper will interact with the major theories regarding the so-called “we” passages. Ultimately this paper will conclude that, while there is a relationship between Luke and Paul, the evidence of Acts suggests that it might not be as strong as some have suggested.

Luke in the New Testament

For being such a well-known Christian writer, there are very few references to Luke within the New Testament. Although having both a Gospel and Acts attributed to him, he is not mentioned in either of these works and is only explicitly mentioned in three of Paul’s letters: Col 4:14; Phlm 24; 2 Tim 4:11 (E.E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 53). These references within the Pauline corpus form the extent of canonical knowledge of the writer Luke, suggesting that Luke knew Paul and that he accompanied him at various times in his missionary work. From Col 4:14 we are told that Luke was a physician by trade (Muratorian Canon 3; Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.6), through the reference in Phlm 24 we understand Luke to be one of Paul’s “fellow workers” (συνεργοί), and from 2 Tim 4:11 we are informed that Luke was the only one with Paul. Other than these paltry facts the New Testament is silent regarding the person of Luke. From the testimony of some of the church fathers, we understand Luke to have hailed from Antioch (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.4.6; Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 7; and the antiMarcionite prologue).

1. Luke as Paul’s Amanuensis?
2. One of the recurring suggestions for a relationship between Paul and Luke is that Luke was Paul’s amanuensis or secretary and assisted in the writing of some of his letters, most notably the Pastoral Epistles. Following this, there were a number of proposals by different scholars that attempted to draw parallels between Luke and the Pastorals, particularly in light of similarities in language, theology and vocabulary (for other examples, see A. Strobel, “Schreiben des Lukas? Zum sprachlichen Problem der Pastoralbriefe,” NTS 15 (1969): 191–210; R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations. II. The Acts, the Letters, the Apocalypse (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 301–3, following F.J. Badcock, The Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews in their Historical Setting (London: Macmillan, 1937), ch. 6, who proposes that Luke wrote them during Paul’s lifetime. See J.D. Quinn, “The Last Volume of Luke: The Relation of Luke-Acts to the Pastoral Epistles,” in C.H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (Danville, VA: Association of Baptist Professors of Religion, 1978), 62–75, for the view that Luke compiled, edited and enlarged Paul’s short communications after his death).

Most recently it has been suggested by Cynthia Westfall that Luke might have been Paul’s amanuensis in the writing of some of his letters (C.L. Westfall, “A Moral Dilemma? The Epistolary Body of 2 Timothy,” in S.E. Porter and S.A. Adams (eds.), Paul and the Ancient Letter Form). In an attempt to recast the authorship debate of 2 Timothy, Westfall combines ancient epistolary theory with modern linguistics to evaluate the letter as a whole. Calling for an investigation of Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy on its own merits, Westfall argues that it should not be evaluated together with 1 Timothy and Titus, but on its own (Westfall, “A Moral Dilemma?” 252). In support of this, Westfall cites 2 Tim 4:11, which indicates that at the time of writing Luke was Paul’s only company. Based on the scholarly view that Paul made use of scribes and other literary personnel for the publication of his letters (see E.R. Richards, The Secretary in the Letters of St. Paul), Westfall proposes the possibility that “Paul may have used Luke as his amanuensis or could have been directly influenced by him and his grasp of Greek literary forms, vocabulary and Greek registers.”

1. Luke and the Authorship of Acts(edited)
2. While some scholars do not go as far as suggesting that Luke was the Pauline travelling-companion indicated in Acts, they do suggest that he used a “we-source” (See J.A. Blaisdell, “The Authorship of the ‘We’ Sections of the Books of Acts,” HTR 13 (1920): 136–58, who proposes the “diarist” was Epaphras/ Epaphroditus). One of more dominant theories that rejects the “we” passages as evidence of authorial participation has been developed by Vernon Robbins, who claims that the use of the first-person plural is a standard literary device used to narrate sea-voyages (V. Robbins, “By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages,” in C.H. Talbert (ed.), Perspectives on Luke-Acts (PRSSS 5; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 215–42; idem, “The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages,” BR 20 (1975): 5–18. This theory is followed with some adaptations by D. Marguerat, “Voyages et voyageurs dans le Livre des Actes et la culture gréco-romaine,” RHPR 78 (1998): 33–59). According to Robbins, on those occasions in which Luke made use of the first-person plural within the narrative he was not attempting to suggest his own participation within the narrated events, but rather he was adopting a well-known literary form that utilizes the first person when dictating travels that take place over sea (see Robbins, “By Land and By Sea,” 217–23). Although Robbins does make a case that there are a number of instances that the first-person plural is utilized by many ancient authors for sea-voyages, this perspective has recently received some strong critiques and is no longer considered to adequately address the variety of issues surrounding the “we” passages (Porter, Paul in Acts, 12–24; Fitzymer, Luke the Theologian, 16–23; Colin J. Hemer, “First Person Narrative in Acts 27–28,” TynBul 36 (1985): 70–109; Witherington, Acts of the Apostles, 483–84.

Most Modern scholars doubt the claim that the author of Acts was a companion of Paul. Found in the introduction to Acts in the New Oxford Annotated Bible:

One consequence of Luke’s larger narrative goals is that his presentation of Paul is inconsistent with biographical and theological details in Paul’s own letters. For example, Luke’s denial of the formal status of “apostle” to Paul in Acts is almost unimaginable for an actual companion of Paul. In his letters Paul repeatedly claims to be one divinely called to be an apostle (e.g., Rom 1.1; 1 Cor 1.1; Gal 1.1). Luke’s reluctance to use this term for Paul is connected to his view that only the Twelve, who had been present with Jesus throughout his public activity (Acts 1.21–22), were apostles. This disqualifies Paul, even if there is an echo of this contested status within Acts itself (14.4,14). Although there is reason to doubt the identification of Luke as a companion of Paul, it cannot be denied that Luke admired Paul and viewed his missionary career as decisive for the establishment of Christianity in Asia Minor and Greece. Indeed, Luke’s portrayal suggests that Paul’s fame and influence extended from Jerusalem to Rome. Luke was probably someone from the Pauline mission area who, a generation or so after Paul, addressed issues facing Christians who found themselves in circumstances different from those addressed by Paul himself.