What was the relationship between Luke and Paul?

Answer 1

Scholars recognize the unity of the works of Luke and Acts apart from the claims made in the prologues of both to be addressed to the same person as well as to their following each other chronologically in time:

Luke 1:1-4 (King James Version) 1Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

2Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

3It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

4That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed. Acts 1:1-4 (King James Version) 1The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,

2Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

Further to this, Acts has a number of 'we' passages which indicate that Luke was a travelling companion of Paul on a number of his missionary journeys. Paul is thought to have been martryed in AD 68 at the latest, or maybe even AD 64 and so, scholars conclude that, since Luke does not mention the death of Paul, he therefore had not yet died when Luke finished Acts. This is further substantiated by the details which Luke does include such as the deaths of both Stephen and James the apostle.

It is thus commonly considered likely that Luke wrote a good portion of Acts in AD 62 when Paul was at Caesarea prior to his being taken to Rome. There was both the time and the opportunity for this to have happened at this time.

The accuracy of Luke as a historian may also relate to his being a contemporary of the events he describes, so he was thus able to write from first-hand experience. Many of the details of Acts which were previously thought to be in error,have been confirmed by archaeological discoveries. This task obviously being made significantly more difficult if Luke were writing at a much later time.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Luke existed at a much later time. The seeming similarities between the writing of Josephus, (who did write towards the end of the first century AD) and Luke can be explained by Josephus either using Luke as a source for his information, or by him having an independent source.

Answer 2

Based on Luke being the author of Acts of the Apostles, Luke sailed with Paul from Troas to Macedonia and accompanied him as far as Philippi. He later went with him to Jerusalem and Rome, and was involved in the shipwrecking Paul suffered. It is believed Luke continued to work for him until the end of Paul's first imprisonment and was respected by the missionary as a faithful companion even when others defected.

Answer 3

The best evidence we have indicates that they did not write together. We know that Paul wrote his epistles no later than the 50s of the first century CE. On the other hand, the books attributed to Luke appear, on good evidence, to have been written no earlier than the 90s. If he was still alive, the physician Luke, said to have been a companion of St Paul, would have to have been almost 100 years old by the time Acts was written. This is improbable in the extreme.
Then there is the question as to whether Paul really knew any one called Luke. In the seven (or possibly only five) epistles considered by the majority of biblical scholars to have been written by Paul, there is no mention of a person called Luke. It is only in Colossians and 2 Timothy, widely considered to have been written late in the century by an anonymous author, that there is mention of a physician named Luke.
So, there is no evidence that Paul ever knew the physician Luke, or that Luke wrote either the Gospel or Acts, although many Christians believe that this is the case.

Answer 4

Luke is mentioned briefly in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11, where he appears to have been a physician and companion of Paul. He is also named in Philemon as working with Paul. On this basis, the second century Church Fathers attributed to Luke the Gospel that now bears his name, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, believing these books must have written by a well educated companion of Paul.

However, most modern scholars believe that Colossians and 2 Timothy were actually written long after the time of Paul, by an anonymous author. If so, the only reason to believe that Luke even existed was that reference in Philemon, but this is not attribute any relationship to Luke and Paul.

Answer 5

Luke was a companion of Paul on several of his missionary journeys and was also his personal physician. Luke accompanied Paul to Rome where he was under house arrest, and he is believed to have written the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles as a record of Paul's ministry.