Was Luke a Jew or Gentile?

[Mark]

There is some speculation as to whether Luke was ethnic Hebrew, poscelyte or a gentile representative of his master Theophilis.

Common understanding is that Luke was the servant (slave) of Theophilis and was given leave or command to follow Paul and catalog for his master an account of the news of Yeshua and proceeded to report the life and ministry of the early Church. Understood to be a physician, during that time period, he would likely have been a servant or slave, probably of Theophilis.

If he was gentile, as some have suggested, whatever he recorded concerning would be extremely significant, not having the common pre-text of understanding and generalized assumptions the other writers would have in that regard (for the Jew, would be a given) .

If he was a Jew, his record of the life of Paul would be significant- carefully noting whether or not this apostle to the gentiles was observant or not.

I'm interested to know your speculation on this matter.

[Chizuk Emunah]

I think I finally have an answer for you Mark. Considering that Luke's book was directed towards the Tzeddukim, he was most likely Jewish. And not only Jewish, but it is also likely that he was a Levite, as they would most certainly not listen to anyone who was an outsider. Remember, it was the Tzeddukim who condemned Yeshua to death, and not the P'rushim.

Now for the other side of the story:
Although I can readily argue that Luke was Jewish, we run into a problem with his name. It is not a hebrew name. It's origins are actually Latin. Perhaps when his book was translated the Latin name was passed down instead of his hebrew name. I will definitely look into the matter...

[Bernie]

Luke of course was Jewish.

This argument has always persuaded me that Luke was Jewish. If you count the pages of Lukes gospel and acts. That would make Luke the biggest writer of the NT.

Which would contradict the bible, since the writings were given to the Jewish people.

Besides which, no one can imagine that Miriam got that friendly with a gentile.

Also the name is quite explainable and not even unusual to find "assimulationist" type names among the people.

Early in the bible, you see neighoring name types begin to show up among the chosen people. So it turns out that the chosen people tend to be like all people and take some of the local style of other groups and incorporate it into thier community.

So the name Luke doesn't bother me at all.

What bothers me more is the cultural arrogance of some, who think that Luke is gentile because they consider his writings to be the most beautiful and best "greek" of the bible.

In otherwords, he must be one of us because look how beautiful his writing is and we know no Jewish person could write that beautiful.

This and this reason alone has caused others for years to say that Luke was a gentile. (They are well aware that the name is meaningless --even though church people are not --because you can find many a Jew with a gentile name in numerous documents.)

It's really the superiority thinking that has taught the world that Luke was a Jew.

[R' Y'hoshua Moshe]

Shalom Bernie,

Amein and thank you for sharing this. I also believe that Luke was most likely Jewish as all the other writers of the Scriptures were. At the very least he was a Jewish proselyte.

You stated:

It's really the superiority thinking that has taught the world that Luke was a Jew.

Did you mean, "It's really the superiority thinking that has taught the world that Luke was not a Jew"?

Shalom achi,

Reuel

[Nachshon]

If you read the beginning of Luqa's gospel, it becomes pretty clear that he was either Jewish, or a proselyte well-versed in , by his explanation of what happened in the Temple and the way his mind seems to work in Jewish thought patterns. How good the Greek is doesn't really matter, because, "In regards to Lk. it remains to be said, that of all the Four Gospels it is the one which gives by far the plainest and most constant evidence of being a translation." Our Translated Gospels by C.C. Torrey.

Shalom,
David

[alon]

Rav S did a d'rash on this a few weeks ago. Here are some of the highlights:

Almost every Christian commentator thinks Luke was a Gentile. However if they are correct, it nullifies much of their "New Testament."

Romans 3:1-2 (NASB)  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?  Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Scriptures must be written by Jews! Gentiles are not entrusted with the "Oracles of G-d."

The only two books possibly written by "non-Jews" are Ruth (a Moabitess, though she was a convert to Judaism) who probably was the subject, not the author; and Job (who lived before thre were any Jews) who again probably did not author the book.

Acts 7:38 (NASB) This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Luke was not even a proselyte- he was born Jewish. Luke's writings showed a familiarity with the Temple and Temple procedures which could only have been known by a Jew. In all probability he wasn't just a Jew, he was a Levite! He just knew too much of the inner workings of the Temple.

Was he a physician? Physicians were from the priests. Many Christians think the Jews needed a physician from amongst the Gentiles to act as physician for the Talmidim. This is simply not true. Jewish physicians then as now were regarded as some of the best in the world! So if Luke was a physician, it is almost certain that again, he was a Levite.

Dan C

[Elizabeth]

Just curious what do Christisns base their assumption that he was a Gentile on? Anything beyond his name and writing style? This just seems like another example of rediculous unnecessary complication to me. Seems to me it may be one more place they have the explaining to do, and one more place we would have heard a lot more concrete and specific information about if they were right. I hate feeling like we have all the explaining to do when they're the ones trying to change everything to suit them so just curious their rationale.

[alon]

May 26, 2016 10:15:51 GMT -8 Elizabeth said:

Just curious what do Christisns base their assumption that he was a Gentile on? Anything beyond his name and writing style? This just seems like another example of rediculous unnecessary complication to me. Seems to me it may be one more place they have the explaining to do, and one more place we would have heard a lot more concrete and specific information about if they were right. I hate feeling like we have all the explaining to do when they're the ones trying to change everything to suit them so just curious their rationale.

Well, there's more of them, and we want to reach them all with the truth, so ...

Rav S posits the idea that Christians are just so in need of someone to be "their guy" in the New Testament, they grab at straws and cherry-pick verses to put forth that "Luke was a Gentile" and, (of course) "Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles." 'You Jews just have everyone, so we need someone too- give us Luke and Paul or ...' ... Ohhhh, the rest of that statement was just too unkind.  Ever write something really poignant as well as humorous, and you can't use it!? Auuuugh! But you get the idea.

Dan (I may go to hell for that one) C

[Elizabeth]

Makes sense. I saw a quote on Facebook that went something like if Yeshua (they used the name Jesus) isn't enough no one and nothing will be. I liked it, but pretty ironic statement given that just His name at some point wasn't enough. What a convoluted mess. Anti-semitism for sure. Can't wait till they have to see Him for who He is and deal with it. Every knee will bow at the sound of His name; thankful I will also recognize it.

[garrett]

May 25, 2016 12:45:35 GMT -8 alon said:

Rav S did a d'rash on this a few weeks ago. Here are some of the highlights:

Almost every Christian commentator thinks Luke was a Gentile. However if they are correct, it nullifies much of their "New Testament."

Romans 3:1-2 (NASB)  Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?  Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.

Scriptures must be written by Jews! Gentiles are not entrusted with the "Oracles of G-d."

The only two books possibly written by "non-Jews" are Ruth (a Moabitess, though she was a convert to Judaism) who probably was the subject, not the author; and Job (who lived before thre were any Jews) who again probably did not author the book.

Acts 7:38 (NASB) This is the one who was in the congregation in the wilderness together with the angel who was speaking to him on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living oracles to pass on to you.

Luke was not even a proselyte- he was born Jewish. Luke's writings showed a familiarity with the Temple and Temple procedures which could only have been known by a Jew. In all probability he wasn't just a Jew, he was a Levite! He just knew too much of the inner workings of the Temple.

Was he a physician? Physicians were from the priests. Many Christians think the Jews needed a physician from amongst the Gentiles to act as physician for the Talmidim. This is simply not true. Jewish physicians then as now were regarded as some of the best in the world! So if Luke was a physician, it is almost certain that again, he was a Levite.

Dan C

This is a good topic. And I don't think I've ever really bothered to consider it until now. The point of Ruth and Job make good sense within their own context and wouldn't even be relevant in comparison as to whether Luke was a Jew or not. But the fact that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of G-d brings everything back into perspective - and things start to make sense again. How incredibly un-studied are the writings and figures of the Brit Chadashah!!!

In the past I just passively assumed that Luke lived his life in Israel, was familiar with all Hebrew culture and was a G-d fearing man who likely took his place in the court of the Gentiles when he went to the Temple. And I also (rightly, I think) assumed so much of his Temple knowledge simply came from his reading of the itself, which puts it all out there for everyone to see.

However, credibility lends itself to the fact that G-d would (apparently) be breaking His own rules if his message (especially concerning the Moshiach) would be delivered by someone other than a Jewish man.

And as far as "names" go - first century Jewish men had multiple names and some of them were not "Jewish" at all, so that's not really much of a debate. Example: Shimon (Hebrew), Kepha (probably Aramaic), and obviously Peter (Greek). And, ironically, Philip and Andrew had Greek names but were from none other than the land of Israel. So, the argument over names starts to break down. Interesting....

[alon]

garrett, you are correct about their having multiple names. Many Jews of the early first century had both a Jewish and a Hebrew name; especially if they had dealings with the Romans or others of the nations. And of course there were those like Sha'ul/Paul who were born with dual citizenship and so were given their dual names at birth. However as observant Jews they (as a rule) did not like their Greek names and only used them when dealing with non-Jews. My Orthodox Jewish Bible lists Luke's name as Lukas, and my ISRV calls him Luqos. Neither of these sound really Hebrew to me (I really don't know though). Sometimes I think we may stretch things a bit trying to recreate what has been lost to us in history. But we do what we can, and even these names are preferable to me because they throw these names back in the faces of centuries of mistranslation and false doctrine. I go with the name Lukas simply because the ISRV Bible is the translation preferred by the Sacred Names bunch, and there are other errors in it; in particular they spell the name of Yeshua incorrectly.

Dan C

 

[jimmie]

Luke is the Latinized from of the Greek Lucas. You can usally pick out male names in Greek form as they end in "s". Jesus, Judas, Barsabas, Barnabas, Barabbas, Esaias, James etc. Luke means Bringer of Light (morning star). So his Hebrew name would likely have been Helel (morning star) which is rendered as Lucifer in Isaiah.