Ignatius, women, greeters, and Lucius as author of Acts

Women did not travel
I argued earlier that women did not travel (except in the company of male members of their households). Here I will first support this conclusion using data from Ignatius and Clement of Rome.

Travelers
Clement (65), writing probably at the end of the first century, mentions three messengers: Claudius, Ephebus, and Valerius Vito. All three are men.

Ignatius, writing in the early second century, mentions 12 messengers/envoys by name and they are all male: Burrhus (Eph 2; Philad 11; Smyrn 12), Crocus (Eph 2; Rom 10), Onesimus (Eph 2, 6), Euplus (Eph 2), Fronto (Eph 2), Damas (Mag 2), Bassus (Mag 2), Apollonius (Mag 2), Zotion (Mag 2), Polybius (Tral), Philo (Philad 11; Smyrn 10, 13), and Rheus Agathopous (Philad 11; Smyrn 10).

Furthermore, Ignatius's letter to the church of Rome was delivered by "men of Ephesus" (Rom 10). Also, Ignatius assumes that enjoys that will be selected by the Philadelphians (Philad 10) and by Polycarp (Poly 7-8) will be male.

Non-travelers 
Ignations mentions 7 individuals who, as far as we know, have not travelled. 3 of them are women, shown in red: Polycarp (Poly); Procurator's lady (Poly 8), Attalus (Poly 8), Alce (Poly 8; Smyrn 13), Tavia (Smyrn 13); Daphnus (Smyrn 13); Eutecnus (Smyrn 13).

Conclusion
All this confirms what we deduced previously from Acts, the letters of Paul, and the disputed letters of Paul: women did not travel (except with family).

Greetings are sent between individuals who knew each other
Ignatius wrote his first four surviving letters from Smyrna where he must have spent considerable time (presumably while waiting for a ship and the right winds). Two of his three later letters were sent to Smyrna (Smyrnaeans and Polycarp) and these are the only letters sent to a place where he spent considerable time (he had not been to Rome, Ephesus, Magneia, or Tralles, and there is no evidence that he would have been allowed to tarry in Philadelphia). It is surely no coincidence, then, that all those whom Ignatius greets individually (the non-travelers listed above) are in Smyrna. His personal acquaintance with them makes him mention them individually.

The only time when an individual joins with Ignatius in sending greetings is when Philo greets the Smyrnaeans (Smyrn 13). Presumably Philo has stayed in Smyrna on his journey to catch up with Ignatius.

Conclusion
The evidence from Ignatius therefore confirms the common-sense view that greetings are sent to and from individuals who have met.

Implications for the identities of the greeters in Rom 16:21-23
Just as Philo, mentioned above, was a man, so too were all those who send greetings in Rom 16:21-23, as well as the greeters in Philemon 23-24. This is no co-incidence. Only men travelled and therefore only men would have met those addressed. Lucius (Rom 16:21) and Luke (Philemon24) were therefore travelers and this supports the view that they were the same person and the author of Acts. I have argued this point in more detail before, here, but without the supporting data from Ignatius and Clement of Rome.

New evidence that Lucius/Luke wrote Acts

In Rom 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings to the Romans from 8 individuals, including Lucius (which is the full form of the name "Luke"). I have suggested before that they are listed in descending order of their prominence in the church, but I now think we can be more precise about what kind of prominence pertains here. Paul will have sent greetings from those who were known to many of the members of the church of Rome. The greeters were therefore those who, by traveling among the churches, had met believers who subsequently moved to Rome (Tertius may be an exception since he had developed a connection with the addressees simply by writing down the letter). Many (or all?) of those greeted in Rom 16:3-15 had moved to Rome as believers from elsewhere, and the recent death of Claudius in 54 may have allowed the return to Rome of those whom he had expelled. Prisca, Aquila, Andronicus, Junia, Epaenetus, and Rufus and his mother had all moved to Rome from elsewhere. There must have been many Christians with Paul in Corinth when he wrote Romans, but only those who had travelled among the churches would have been known to more than a few of the believers in Rome. Two points confirm that Rom 16:21-23 is not a list of those who happened to pass through Paul's room when he was dictating the letter, but is rather a list of those who had traveled.

Firstly, it is significant that no women are listed among the greeters. This is in contrast to Rom 15:1-15, which mentions 27 people, of which 10 are women. The absence of women in Rom 16:21-23 is explicable if only travelers are listed, since women did not travel (see here).

Secondly, many of those listed are known to have travelled. Timothy had travelled extensively with Paul. I have argued that Jason was from Thessalonika and was Aristarchus, who was Paul's travel companion (Acts 19:29; 20:4). Sosipater was Sopater, another traveller (Acts 20:4). Gaius was, I have argued, Stephanas, who had been to Ephesus on church business. Erastus was the Erastus who had travelled around the Aegean with Timothy (Acts 19:22).

This analysis shows that Lucius too must have travelled among the churches. Indeed, he is mentioned second only to Timothy, and his prominence in the list suggests that he had been a more prolific traveller than the others (Jason, Sosipater, Gaius, Erastus and Quartus). But how widely had he travelled? I suggest that a clue can be found in 2 Cor 8:18-19 where we read of a "brother" who

"is famous among all the churches for his proclaiming the good news; and not only that, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us while we are administering this generous undertaking for the glory of the Lord himself and to show our goodwill"

This brother had been appointed to accompany Paul to Judea so he was almost certainly with Paul when Paul wrote Romans just before leaving for Judea. He was well known  in "all the churches" so he was presumably known to many who had moved to Rome. It is very likely, therefore, that he is one of those who sent greetings in Rom 16:21-23. He cannot have been Timothy, not least because Timothy was Titus. Therefore he was either Lucius or he was one of those mentioned after Lucius (Jason, Sosipater, etc.). Therefore Lucius was either the man who was famous among the churches, or he was even more prominent than him.

He must surely have been the author of Acts because:

1. It is unlikely that Acts would have failed to mention one who travelled among the churches so extensively.
2. The author of Acts would almost certainly have sent greetings to the church of Rome since he would have known many of them through his extensive travel, and he was with Paul in Corinth at the time that Romans was written since he planned to travel with Paul to Judea (Acts 20:2-5). Ro 16:21-23 contains a complete list of the prominent believers who were in Corinth at the time. See also my discussion here.
3. The name "Lucius" is the full form of the name "Luke", which the church fathers unanimously attach to Luke-Acts.

In Philemon 23-24 Paul sends greetings from Epaphras, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and Luke. Again there are no women among the greeters, which suggests that Paul is here sending greetings from those who knew Philemon from visiting his town. This is supported by the fact that Aristarchus frequently travelled on church business (Acts 19:29; 20:4; 27:2). Epaphras was also a church envoy if I am right to equate him with Ephaphroditus (see here). For what it is worth, the disputed letters also assume that Epaphras (Col 4:12), Mark (Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11), and Demas (2 Tim 4:10) were traveling co-workers of Paul.

I think we can be confident, therefore, that Luke was a traveling co-worker of Paul. This point tightens the argument for equating him with the Lucius of Rom 16:21 and the author of Acts.

For more on why the author of Acts = Luke = Lucius, see my earlier posts here, here and here.

"we passages", Thucydides, Polybius, Josephus, & W.S. Campbell

Here I discuss a paper by William Campbell, "The Narrator as "He", "ME," and "We": Grammatical Person in Ancient Histories and in the Acts of the Apostles", JBL 129, no. 2 (2010): 385-407. I will use Campbell's observations to show that the author of Acts was present during the events of the "we passages" and at other times too.

A writer can refer to himself/herself in the first person singular ("I", "me"), the first person plural ("we", "us"), or using the third person, as Richard does now. Campbell explores the styles of self-reference by the ancient historians, Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus, and compares them with Acts. He distinguishes two types of self-designation: narrator level and event level.

Narrator level
Narrative-level self-reference is when the author refers to himself in his capacity as author/narrator. Campbell gives examples from Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War: "Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war..."; "the earliest sea battle of those we know". Campbell tells us that Polybius referred to himself frequently (using first person singular) at the narrator level. E.g. "I was persuaded to write"; "I do not think it seemly...". Examples from Josephus include, "as we said previously"; "I would not hesitate to say"; "we Jews".

Concerning Acts, Campbell writes,

Another difference between Acts and the four texts analyzed is how infrequently first person (singular or plural) appears at the narrator level. The narrator rarely intrudes in the story to offer commentary, which compels the narrative to stand on its own merits. Only two instances each of first person singular and plural narrator-level comments occur in Luke and Acts, and these are located in the prefaces (Luke 1:1-3 and Acts 1:1).

My interpretation:
Luke's reluctance to intrude with narrator level self-reference should come as no surprise since his works, like the other gospels, are anonymous. Baum (Nov. Test. 50 (2008)) argues that the purpose of this anonymity was to give priority to the subject matter. Excessive self-reference would distract attention from the narrated events.

Event level
Event level self-reference is when the author refers to his own participation in the historical events. Campbell shows that the third person is generally preferred:

Large sections of War are devoted to Josephus's involvement in the conflict, and once again, as was the case in Thucydides and Polybius, event-level passages with Josephus as a character - indeed the main character and protagonist - are narrated in the third person. One brief example is the account of his appointment as commander of Galilee: "John, son of Ananias, was appointed commander of Gophna and Acrabetta, and Josephus, son of Matthias, of each of the two Galilees" (J.W. 2.568).

Here is an example from Thucydides:

4.104.4 The opponents of the betrayers .... sent to the other commander of the areas in Thrace, Thucydides, son of Olorus .... 

Campbell gives the following passage from Polybius, which has striking parallels with Acts.

36.11.1 When instructions arrived in the Peloponnese from Manilius for the Achaeans that they would do well to send Polybius the Megalopolitan with Haste to Lilybaeum, as there was need of him for affairs of state, the Achaeans resolved to send him in accordance with the petition of the consul. 36.11.2 We, thinking it our duty for many reasons to obey the Romans, putting aside all other matters, set sail when summer began. 36.11.3 Arriving in Corcyra and finding there a letter from the consuls that had been sent to the Corcyraeans in which they made quite clear that the Carthaginians had already handed over the hostages to them and were prepared in every way to obey them, 36.11.4 thinking that the war had been brought to end and there was no further any need of us, we sailed back again to the Peloponnese.

My interpretation:

Since Luke refers to himself very sparingly at the narrator level we should expect him to do the same at the event level. Therefore he may well have been present for more of the events than he indicates. If Luke was present only for the 'we passages', as is commonly assumed, he mentioned his presence at every available opportunity, and this would not be consistent with his tendency to minimize self-reference. Indeed, I have argued before, here, that the author of Acts was present with Paul on his journey to Troas (Acts 16:1-9) before the "we passage" of Acts 16:10ff, and was again present in Achaia (Acts 20:3-4) before the "we passage" of Acts 20:6ff). 

Since these historians referred to themselves by name at the event level, we should be open to the possibility that Luke did too (albeit more sparingly than the other historians). The convention of anonymity followed by Luke and the other gospel writers required that the author not be identified (obviously). However, it did not require that no reference should be made to the author by name, because otherwise no-one would have accepted the view that the fourth gospel was written by John, or that the first was written by Matthew. I have argued that Luke did indeed refer to himself by name once (Lucius of Acts 13:1).

Of the three forms of self-reference available to Luke (first person singular, first person plural, and third person), first person plural was the least obtrusive. It was the form that drew least attention to the author as an individual and so we should not be surprised that Luke preferred it.

The passage from Polybius above is particularly interesting because the author switches to the first person plural at precisely the point where he sets sail, just as Luke does (Acts 16:10; 20:6; 27:1). This supports the view of Vernon Robbins that first person narrative was preferred for sea voyages (but not his view that the author need not have been present on the voyage).

It seems to me, therefore, that Acts combines the conventions of the historians about styles of self-reference with the convention of the gospels about limiting self-reference. He limits narrator level self-reference to his prefaces, and gives his name (Lucius/Luke) only once (Acts 13:1). He chose to make explicit reference to his participation only for sea voyages and their aftermath, where convention allowed him to use the relatively unobtrusive first person plural. For land events he omitted reference to himself completely, not because he was absent, but because convention required the use of the third person, "Lucius", which he did not want to overdo.


Campbell's evidence shows that when historians used the first person they were indeed claiming to have been participants of the events described. Therefore, Luke was (claiming to be) present. This is, in any case, common sense.

Campbell's deductions about Acts
It is therefore baffling that Campbell uses the same data to conclude that:

The analysis of grammatical practice by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus raises questions about the traditional argument that the first person plural undeniably documents historical eyewitnessing.

 His reasoning seems to be this:

If the author of Acts wished to lift up his historical presence at and involvement in events, the grammatical guidance offered by Thucydides, Polybius, and Josephus would seem to be that he identify himself by name, associate himself unmistakably with the narrator character, and report events in which he claims participation primarily in the third person.

 He assumes that "the author of Acts never appears as a third person actor in the narrative".

Campbell has failed to make allowance for Luke's desire to avoid excessive self-reference that would detract from the centrality of his subject matter. I have shown above that Luke follows the grammatical guidance of the other historians as much as was possible without obtrusive self-reference.

Moreover, Campbell does not explain how the "we passages" could have been understood by the original readers as implying anything other than the actual presence of the author.

Campbell's paper is valuable because he has made some important observations about the styles of self-designation employed by ancient historians. It is a real pity that his analysis of Acts misses the point completely.

Luke was from Antioch

Here I conclude the series of posts on the identity of he author of Acts. I will argue that he was a resident of Antioch and was probably Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1).

It is often thought that Luke was from Troas because the first person plural begins there (Acts 16:10-11). However, the start of the 'we passages' does not correspond to the start of Luke's presence with Paul. We have seen here that Luke (=Lucius) was with Paul in Corinth, yet the first person plural starts only at Acts 20:5-6. The switch to first person narrative occurs, not when Luke joins the party, but when the party (including Luke) sets sail. It is no coincidence that every "we passage" begins with a sailing (Acts 16:9-10, Acts 20:5-6, Acts 21:1, Acts 27:1). Vernon Robbins is right that Ancient writers preferred to use the first person for sea voyages (see here), (though his suggestion that the person behind the "I" need not have been present has been rightly rejected). Therefore Luke can have joined the missionary group at any time before the departure from Troas (Acts 16:9-10). The view that Luke was from Troas is problematic because:

a) Acts 16:6 tells us that the holy spirit had forbidden Paul from preaching in Asia. Luke could not have written this if he had been converted through Paul's preaching in Troas, which is in Asia. The two further pieces of divine direction in Acts 16:7-10 similarly have the purpose of getting Paul and his companions to Europe without delay. The implication is that the missionaries did not linger to preach until they got to Europe.

b) When Paul later preached in Troas he did not know whether a door would open for him (2 Cor 2:12-13) and this further suggests that he had not attempted to preach there before. See my blog post here.

c) Chronology does not allow time for extensive preaching in Asia (or indeed during a hypothetical trip to north Galatia). Paul's visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15) cannot have been earlier than 48. The Gallio incident can be dated to 51 (for all the usual reasons and because the probable food shortage in that year is likely the cause of the urban unrest that resulted in the beating of Crispus-Sosthenes). Paul's arrival in Corinth can therefore be dated to early 50 at the latest. Therefore we have two years or less for the events of Acts 15:1-18:1, which included a trip to Jerusalem, "some days" in Antioch (Acts 15:36), a visit to the south Galatian churches, the evangelization of Macedonia and Athens, and lots of walking. Little time can be allowed for preaching in Asia.

d) Paul's travel companions were always experienced believers whom he had known for some time. Consider Barnabas, John-Mark, Silas/Silvanus, and Titus-Timothy. If Luke was from Troas he would have become a travel companion of Paul within days of first meeting him, and there is no precedent for this.

The evidence that the author of Acts was from Antioch is as follows:

1. He was a part of the mission team that evangelized Europe (Acts 16:11). Antioch was the point of departure for this mission, (Acts 15:40). Paul was a resident of Antioch, and there are good reasons to suppose that Timothy was also from Antioch (whether or not he was Titus). Silas was also known in Antioch.

2. I have argued that the author of Acts was Lucius/Luke. Lucius of Cyrene was one of the "prophets and teachers" in Antioch (Acts 13:1). He has the right name and sufficient prominence to have been the Lucius of Rom 16:21. He was evidently one of the "men of Cyprus and Cyrene who, on coming to Antioch, spoke to the Hellenists also, proclaiming the Lord Jesus" (Acts 11:20). He was therefore probably a preacher to non-Judeans and this would make him a likely companion of Paul on the second missionary journey.

Dunn and Jewett have suggested that the Lucius of Rom 16:21 is not given a very full description and therefore cannot have been Lucius of Cyrene, an important figure in Antioch. However, they fail to account for the importance of name order in the ancient world. Paul indicates Lucius's prominence by placing him second of the eight who send greetings in Rom 16:21-23. Also, Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater were about to deliver the collection, and this was illegal (see here), so a full description might have identified them too precisely and thus endangered them.

Others assume that the author of Acts would not have mentioned himself by name. But why not? The writers of Luke-Acts and the other gospels deliberately did not identify themselves, but that does not mean that the genre required that they not name themselves. Indeed, the gospels of Matthew and John were soon attributed (rightly or otherwise) to characters named in their texts. Furthermore, Josephus generally refers to himself in the third person as "Josephus". The writers of Matthew, Mark, John, and Luke-Acts leave themselves unidentified in conformity to a style of Jewish literature that goes back to the old testament history books (so Baum Nov Test 50 (2008)). By leaving themselves unidentified they kept their readers' focus on the narrated events. It seems to me that this style does not require that the author not write about himself: it requires only that he not identify himself.

3. At Acts 11:28 Codex Bezae inserts the words, "And there was much rejoicing; and when we were gathered together". The first person verb suggests that the author was present in Antioch at that time.

4. The Anti-Marcionite Prologue (2nd-4th century) says that Luke was "an Antiochian of Syria".

In conclusion, the author of Acts was a resident of Antioch and was probably Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1). Paul mentions him in Rom 16:21 and uses the diminutive form of his name in Philemon 24. He was a witness of some of the events that he narrates beyond those covered by the 'we passages'. I believe that the identity Lucius (and that of Titus) would be more widely recognized if it were not for the misinformation found in the pseudonymous letters.

Luke=Lucius=author of Acts

Here I make the case that Luke (Philemon 24), Lucius (Rom 16:21) and the author of Acts were one and the same person. The argument has a triangular structure, with each element strengthening the other two. A three-fold cord is not quickly broken (Ecclesiastes 4:12).

Luke was Lucius

I have shown in recent posts (here, here, here, and here) that Paul uses informal name forms for those from whom he sends greetings in Philemon 23-24, so it is probable that "Luke" (Λουκᾶς) was not his full name, but was an abbreviation. This is confirmed by the rarity of the name "Luke". The 6 volumes of the Lexicon of Greek Personal Names (LGPN) has just 11 Lukes. The name "Luke" (Λουκᾶς) was a short form of the name "Lucius" (Λούκιος) (see A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East), so it is almost certain that the Luke of Philemon 24 was known formally as "Lucius".

Was he the Lucius of Rom 16:21? The LGPN lists 286 Lucii out of 300,584 people, which is just 0.1%. Admittedly, Latin names of this kind are rather over-represented among Paul's companions, for whatever reasons. We have a Mark (Acts 12:25), two Gaii (Acts 19:29; 20:4), and a Titus (Gal 2:3), though all but one of these were from the east. However, those who sent greetings in Paul's letters were part of a rather small group of close companions of Paul, since their names frequently recur elsewhere (consider Timothy, Jason, Sopater/Sosipater, Gaius, Erastus, Epaphras/Epaphroditus, Aristarchus, Prisca and Aquila). It therefore seems likely that the Luke of Philemon 24 was the Lucius of Rom 16:21.

A counter-argument is often put forward. It is said that the Lucius of Rom 16:21 was a Jew and that Luke was a Gentile. This argument rests on the assumption that συγγενεῖς in Rom 16:21 means "relative", and that it applies to Lucius as well as to Jason and Sosipater. It also rests on the assumption that we can infer from Col 4:11,14 that Luke was a Gentile. However, I have argued that the author of Colossians did not have accurate information on Paul's companions. He merely copied the names of the greeters in Philemon and naively left them in their hypocoristic forms. He probably misread "Jesus" in Philemon 23, and misidentified Mark. He was not a careful historian with good information, so we cannot assume that Luke was a Gentile.

Luke was the author of Acts

Luke's authorship of Acts is very well attested (see The Anti-Marcionite Prologue, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, The Muratorian Fragment, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome). This unanimity is impressive. However, there is an apparent difficulty with the identifications. The author of Acts was an important member of Paul's team, who accompanied him on the second missionary journey and travelled with him to Jerusalem and to Rome. "Luke", on the other hand appears to be unimportant since he is the last named of the greeters in Philemon 23-24, and is penultimate in Colossians. John Chrysostom on Philemon 24 rightly asks:

Why then does he put Luke last?

The problem, however, is only apparent. Chrysostom, himself, correctly explains why Paul includes greeters in Philemon:

And from these [the greeters] indeed he [Paul] salutes him [Philemon], urging him [Philemon] the more to obedience, and calls them [the greeters] his fellow-laborers, and in this way shames him [Philemon] into granting the request.

The greeters, therefore, are probably listed in descending order of their importance as examples for Philemon to follow. Epaphras is named first, because he was at that time sharing Paul's captivity and therefore provided an example of self-sacrifice. I have argued that Aristarchus, and perhaps Mark were benefactors of the church and this may explain why they were mentioned next, since Paul was encouraging Philemon to be a benefactor. Now, if Luke was a fellow-evangelist of Paul rather than a benefactor, it would be no surprise that he would be mentioned last. The fact that Luke is mentioned last does not preclude him being the author of Acts or Lucius. The author of Colossians, however, seems to have misunderstood Philemon 23-24, and promotes Luke by only one place.

Now, the church fathers unanimously ascribe the authorship of Luke-Acts to Luke in spite of the difficulty of his apparently lowly position in the list of greeters in both Philemon and Colossians. They must have had good reason to do so. The witness of the fathers therefore carries weight: it is not a mere inference from the texts, but actually goes against a (surface) reading of the texts (especially with the assumption that Paul wrote Colossians).

Incidentally, there are other cases in the NT where the context is one of benefaction, and in each case the name order is chosen according to importance in benefaction. Aquila is mentioned before Prisca/Priscilla in Acts 18:2-3 where we are told that Paul stayed in their house, and in 1 Cor 16:19 where the use of their house for the church is also in view. Elsewhere Prisca/Priscilla is mentioned first. In Acts 20:4 Luke lists the three Macedonians before the other 4 men, which even included Timothy. They may be mentioned first because they (or at least their region) contributed to the collection (see Rom 15:26). It seems that people were always listed in descending order of importance, but the criteria for importance depend on the context.

The author of Acts was Lucius

Paul left Philippi after the days of Unleavened bread (Acts 20:6). From this we can date his departure from Philippi to probably 15th April 57 or 26th April 56. He therefore did not depart from Corinth before early April. It is unlikely that Phoebe (Rom 16:1) departed for Rome before Paul left Corinth, because sea travel, while possible from March 10, was considered dangerous until May 27th, and she had to travel west against the prevailing winds. In all probability Phoebe left Achaia after Paul, who will have handed the letter to her just before his departure. Those named in Acts 20:4 had clearly assembled in Greece with the aim to traveling with Paul to Jerusalem via Syria. The author of Acts must surely have been among them, for otherwise he would have risked missing the boat (the change of plan occurred as Paul was about to set sail). It is therefore probable that the author of Acts was with Paul when he handed Romans to Phoebe just before leaving Greece.

In Rom 16:21-3 Paul sends greetings from Timothy, Lucius, Jason, Sosipater, Tertius, Gaius, Erastus, and Quartus. Luke belongs to a distinct group of four, with Timothy, Jason-Aristarchus, and Sosipater/Sopater, all of whom accompanied Paul with the collection (Acts 20:4). It is therefore highly likely that Lucius too was one of those who were assembled in Corinth, from which the group was scheduled to depart for Syria (Acts 20:2-4). Lucius is mentioned second, indicating his prominence. He proceeds even Jason-Aristarchus and Sosipater/Sopater, who were very prominent in the collection project, for they are mentioned first and second in the list of 7 names in Acts 20:4. Lucius was therefore a very prominent believer. Now, Acts mentions all of Paul's prominent associates (Titus-Timothy is no exception), so Lucius almost certainly has a role in Acts. He should be identified as the author of Acts, for there are no other good candidates.

In Rom 16:21-23 Paul sends greetings from all of his prominent companions who were with him at the time, so it would be surprising if he did not include the author of Acts, who had been his fellow-evangelist on the second "missionary journey" and would travel with him to Jerusalem and later to Rome. Sopater and Jason-Aristarchus are mentioned because they were men of highest repute who were entrusted by the Macedonians to deliver the collection. Gaius of Derbe, Tychicus and Trophimus were likely with Paul in Corinth at the time, but they were relatively minor characters and were not delegates of donor churches. It is true that Secundus was from Thessalonica, but he is mentioned after Aristarchus in Acts 20:4 and appears no-where else. Crispus is no exception, for he was Sosthenes, who had moved to Ephesus (1 Cor 1:1). Stephanas and Titius Justus were no exceptions because Gaius-Titius-Justus-Stephanas was one man and is mentioned.

In short, if Lucius was not the author of Acts, then Lucius is strangely absent from Acts, and the author of Acts is strangely absent from Romans.

Conclusion

Origen (translated by Rufinus and Scheck) wrote on Rom 16:21,

Moreover, some maintain that this very Lucius is Luke, who wrote the Gospel

It seems that Origen accepted this identification for he later says that Rom 16:21 describes the

"relationship that is held in common between himself [Paul], Timothy, and Luke and with a few others like them"

Origen was surely right. The Lucius of Rom 16:21 can be none other than the author of Luke/Acts, who was Luke, as the church fathers strongly attest. It is only the (unhistorical) information in Colossians that has prevented most ancient and modern commentators from making this three-way identification. When Philemon is read on its own terms, without regard to the pseudonymous Colossians, Luke/Lucius comes into sharper focus as the author of Acts.

Comments?

I hope to discuss Lucius of Cyrene in a later post.