But even if the author of the gospel of Luke and Acts was a woman, the "historical Luke" mentioned in Philemon 1:24 (and echoed in Colossians, 2 Timothy and tradition) is clearly a man.
Harnack notes on page 12 of
Luke the Physician.
St. Luke is never mentioned in the Acts, which is just what we would expect if he was the author of the book. On the other hand,
Aristarchus is mentioned three times - the man who is named with St. Luke in the epistles of St. Paul!
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Lu ... frontcover
I don't know about the first part, since offhand I know that Josephus mentions himself in his writings (if that is applicable), but the part about Aristarchus gets my attention, and he is mentioned in Philemon 1:24 and Col. 4:10 (along with Epaphras, who I take to be Epaphroditus, and Mark and someone named Demas) and Acts 19:29, 20:4 and 27:2.
Phil. 1:23-24:
Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends you greetings, as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.
Col. 4:10-14:
My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you greetings, as does Mark the cousin of Barnabas. You have already received instructions about him: If he comes to you, welcome him ... Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends you greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in the full will of God. For I testify about him that he goes to great pains for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis. Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas send you greetings.
Acts 19:29, 20:4 and 27:2:
Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul's traveling companions from Macedonia, and all of them rushed into the theater together.
He was accompanied by Sopater son of Pyrrhus from Berea, Aristarchus and Secundus from Thessalonica, Gaius from Derbe, Timothy also, and Tychicus and Trophimus from the province of Asia.
We boarded a ship from Adramyttium about to sail for ports along the coast of the province of Asia, and we put out to sea. Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica, was with us.
Epaphroditus (the one I suspect wrote or at least contributed to Acts) is also not mentioned in Acts though, so I wonder if Harnack's first part above could be applicable to him as well.
Harnack buys what Colossians says abut Luke being a physician though, but he makes an interesting argument based on that.
St. Luke was a physician and thus belonged to the middle or higher plane of contemporary culture ... The man who could compose speeches like those of St. Paul in the Acts ... and could so well arrange his material in accordance with the purpose of his work, this man possessed the higher culture in rich measure ... The question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic colouring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who was either a physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science.
This subject is becoming more interesting than I thought it would be, and I'm curious to read more of Harnack's book and also see what others have to say.
To do list. Re-examine Colossians; think about Aristarchus (who I'd never even noticed before) and Demas (ditto); re-examine Acts for the medical language Harnack discusses.