Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - LOUKAS=LOUKIOS=Author of Acts?

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Richard Fellows <rfellows AT intergate.ca>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: LOUKAS=LOUKIOS=Author of Acts?
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 23:15:49 -0700



Is the LOUKIOS of Rom 16.21 the author of Acts? This has been suggested at
least since Origen's day.

Adolf Deissmann made a strong case (Light from the Ancient East pp
435-438). He pointed out that the name LOUKAS (i.e. Luke: Philemon 24 etc.)
is almost certainly a contracted form of the name LOUKIOS. This is
demonstrated by incriptions at the sanctuary of Men at Psidian Antioch.
Deissmann also points out that the author of the 'we' passages might well
have been with Paul when he wrote Romans, just before the voyage to Judaea
(Acts 20.2-5). This seems to fit well.

And I think there is some significance to the order of the names in Rom
16.21-23. We have Timothy, LOUKIOS, Jason, Sosipater, and various
Corinthians. LOUKIOS ranks second only to Timothy, and we would not be
surprised to find the author of the 'we' passages in such a position.
Looking closer at the list, it appears that the names are given in the
order of their seniority in the faith, or acquantance with Paul, or place
of origin, for this list seems to trace the route of Paul's first journey
to Corinth. Timothy was an early convert. Jason probably converted in
Thessalonica (Acts 17:5-8). Sosipater was probably from the next town,
Berea (Acts 20.4). Then the remaining persons were Corinthians, one
assumes. If LOUKIOS fits into this sequence he must have come into contact
with Paul between Timothy and Jason. That is to say, we would expect to
find him entering the story shortly before 17.5. So the fact that the first
'we' passage begins at 16.10 suggests that LOUKIOS may well have been the
author of Acts. This too seems to fit well.

Why, then, have some commentators confidently rejected this hypothesis?
Fitzmyer writes, "the real problem is to explain why Paul would refer to
Luke there as Loukios, when he elsewhere uses Loukas of him". But should we
really be so surprised that Paul should use two different names for the
same person? He seems to have often engaged in this practice, which is not
uncommon in the ancient world. Take, for example, his use of Cephas and
Peter, or his use of 'Titus' and 'Timothy' for the same person (see my 'Was
Titus Timothy?' JSNT March 2001). A case can also be made for Epaphras and
Epaphroditus. I think it is clear that Paul was not obliged to restrict
himself to one name for each individual.

We do not understand the nuances of ancient naming conventions, and it may
be impossible to decide in each case exactly why NT writers chose one name
over another. But I'll do a little speculating, and see if anyone shoots me
down.

In Philemon and Colossians 'Luke' is mentioned with 'Demas' and 'Epaphras',
which are probably short forms of 'Demetrius' and 'Epaphroditus' (whether
or not he was the same Epaphroditus as the one in Phil). Romans, on the
other hand, is a more formal letter, and here Paul selects longer names. He
uses 'Sosipater' instead of the abbreviated 'Sopater' (Acts 20.4), and he
uses 'Timothy' instead of the shorter 'Titus'. We should not be surprised,
then, to read the longer 'LOUKIOS' in Romans, but to find 'LOUKAS' in
Philemon and Colossians where contracted forms are preferred.

So, the 'LOUKIOS' of Rom 16.21 provides independent evidence in support of
the view that Luke wrote Acts. I used to think that Acts was probably not
written by Luke, but now I think that it probably was.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver.





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page