The Gospel according to Lucius of Cyrene

The Gospel according to Lucius of Cyrene June 18, 2015

Scot McKnight blogged about Justo Gonzales’ commentary, The Story Luke Tells: Luke’s Unique Witness to the Gospel. It argues that “Luke” is in fact the “Lucius of Cyrene” mentioned in Acts, and also the Lucius mentioned in Romans (in this last point following Origen). If anyone here has read the volume, or looked into other attempts to argue that case, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about it.

"Oh, pardon me, I thought you were trying to make a serious point about the ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"I made the initial point that climate science, serious climate science, was still a young ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"What an odd comparison.It's probably fair to say that medicine was not a mature science ..."

Not Liberal, Just Literate
"I despise this kind of game-mastering, which sacrifices verisimilitude and enjoyment to pedantry and book-keeping.Reminds ..."

Sci-Fi, Superhero, Game, and Cinematic #CFP ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • histrogeek

    I’ve read that the “we” passages in Acts are a grammatical issue, but even if we today take them as a first person account, why would the author of Acts mention himself in first person?

    • Jonathan Bernier

      For Gonzalez’s thesis to work then one must explain how in 13:1 the author refers to himself in the third person yet in large swathes of the book utilizes a first-person narrative. It’s probably not an impossible situation, but I do think it passing strange.

  • Jeff Cate

    On, you can see the preview pages to much of Gonzales’s discussion of Lucius of Cyrene.

    See also, “Lucius of Cyrene” by H. J. Cadbury in _The Beginnings of Christianity_, vol 5 (1932), pp. 489-95.