Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 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: Re: LOUKAS=LOUKIOS=Author of Acts?
  • Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 20:53:28 -0700


Stephen Carlson wrote:

>What about the fact that LOUKIOS in Rom. 16:21 is characterized
>as one of Paul's kinmen (hOI SUGGENEIS MOU), while in Col. 4:14
>LOUKAS appears to be a Gentile, apparently not one of those who
>are from the circumcision (v11, hOI ONTES EK PERITOMHS)? This
>would not be wholly insurmontable because v11 may be ambiguous
>and Colossians may be pseudepigraphical.

Good point. Deissmann's way round this problem is to suggest that it is
only Jason and Sosipater who are kinsmen of Paul. The 'SUGGENEIS' in Rom
16.21 may not refer back to LOUKIOS. Fitzmyer suggests another possibility.
He points out that 16.20 looks like the end of Paul's letter, and he
suggests that the 'me' in 16.21 is Tertius, the scribe.

So the apparent contradition is not as strong as it seems: We cannot be
sure that Lucius was a Jew, and nor can we be sure that Luke was a Greek.

>On the other hand, a certain LOUKIOS hO KURHNAIOS, Lucius of
>Cyrene, is listed among the prophets and teachers of Antioch
>at Acts 13:1. If the proposed equation is correct, then the
>epithet hO KURHNAIS would be necessary to disambiguate this
>person from another Lucius. Furthermore, there is a tradition
>that Luke hailed from Antioch, which, if true, makes the need
>to disambiguate this Lucius even more urgent.

Interesting idea. There does seem to be some multi-disambiguatification
going on in Acts 13:1. It is also possible that the Lucius of Cyrene is to
be equated with the other Lucius, or Luke, or both. I haven't found strong
evidence for or against such possibilities.

Richard Anderson wrote:
<<Paul's secretary penned what he dictated. Knowing this it is easy
to understand why two different names are used because more than two
different persons penned Paul's letters for him.>>

I doubt that secretaries would have bothered to modify the forms of the
names that were dictated to them, but I can't think of any real evidence.

Richard Fellows
rfellows AT intergate.ca
Vancouver







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page