"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel"

"Ancient Testimony to Luke's Gospel" Wenham, pp. 183-197

p. 183 "Testimony is virtually universal that the author of the third gospel was Luke, the beloved physician and companion of Paul."

p. 183 "clement of Alexandria says that 'those gospels were first written which include the genealogies'. This would seem to mean that Luke (and Matthew) were written before Mark (and John). This is the strongest argument in the Griesbach case, for Clement is early (c. 150-215) and well informed."

Wenham sets out to answer who the author of Luke might be and where it comes in the sequence of the gospels.

p. 184 "The unanimous testimony of the early Christian writers attributes the gospel to Luke. This is found in irenaeus, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and in those who came after, and is never disputed. They usually make clear that he was the companion of Paul."

The issue of the anonymity seems to clash with the early identification of the author, though. People have tried to identify Luke as the author based on the knowledge that there was a Luke with Paul sometimes, though he is not identified as Paul's chronicler anywhere. Some have attempted to identify Luke by the process of elimination. Streeter observes that the preface would not make sense to readers without knowledge of the author.

p. 185 "It is probable that Theophilus' own copy would have been tagged with the author's name. Private libraries were common among the rich, and before placing a book-roll in the library, it was customary to tag it. Unlike oriental practice, Greco-Roman libraries were indexed by the author's name. Thus the authorship of a catalogued book which had no author's name in the text would nonetheless be known beyond doubt to its readers, and this was presumably true of Luke."

Wenham discusses several other, but possibly less persuasive, theories which can point to Luke as the author. p. 186 "The three other traditions of Luke's identity to which we referred are of little value as historical evidence." He then goes on to discuss a tradition that Luke was one of the seventy and therefore would have had information about that mission and would have had access to Jesus and the apostles. There is another tradition, which is supported by the identity of Luke as one of the seventy, that he was the disciple on the Emmaus road who is not named. We also see some suggestions that Lucius of Cyrene, Paul's kinsman (Romans 16:21) was the Antiochan church leader. None of those traditions help us identify the author, but they do all point to someone who was present early in the Christian period. p. 187 "The earlier we envisage Luke participating in the Christian mission the stronger will be the case for taking his narrative as a sound historical source."

The question of the sequence of the gospels is open to debate as well. Some point out that Clement, quoted by Eusebius, may suggest that the gospels including genealogies were first. This would suggest that Matthew and Luke came before Mark and John. However, Origen knew the order to be Matthew, Mark, then Luke. p. 189 (quoting Origen) "...as having learnt by tradition concerning the four Gospels, which alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven, that first was written that according to Matthew, who was once a tax-collector but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language. Secondly, that according to Mark, who wrote it in accordance with Peter's instructions, whom also Peter acknowledged as his son in the catholic epistle, speaking in these terms: 'She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Mark my son.' And thirdly, that according to Luke, who wrote, for those who from the Gentiles [came to believe], the Gospel that was praised by Paul. After them all, that according to John. (HE 6.25.3-6)"

Wenham quotes Zahn on p. 190. "What Origen gives as a tradition, without any thought of a divergent view, is expressed also by Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian fragment without the least indication of uncertaintiy. It continued to be the prevalent view of antiquity, and it was this more than anything else which brought it about, that the arrangement of the Gospels familiar to us displaced more and more the other arrangements..."

The difficulty is a parallel tradition involving Clement and Origen, two church fathers who were near each other in time (Clement was Origen's teacher). He traces Zahn's argument in some detail.

Augustine listed the gospels in order as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. However, Augustine tends to make some other statements which could suggest that Mark appears dependent on Matthew and Luke. Yet the statements of Augustine do not appear to be entirely clear. Augustine may suggest affinity without suggesting dependence.

Wenham concludes the chapter without necessarily resolving the difficulty. He has stated strengths and weaknesses of a variety of arguments. The chapter actually closes with questions about whether or not we are wise looking for literary relationships and particularly literary dependence. This is the big question of Wenham's book.