Doubting for the sake of doubting isn’t healthy…
The argument for Luke’s authorship follows a similar pattern to that of the other two[1, 2]. Early manuscripts of the gospel are titled ‘According to Luke’. This heading serves as a signpost of apostolic tradition, since the earliest Christians unanimously ascribed the work to Luke, a Gentile physician and companion of the Apostle Paul (2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 24). Again, multiple Church Fathers assert Luke’s authorship, such as Irenaeus (A.D. 180), Tertullian (A.D. 200) and Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200). There remains no real reason to doubt Luke’s authorship other than scepticism for the sake of scepticism.
Luke is also quite unique among the writers of the New Testament. He is the only Gentile author to compose a New Testament book, with all the others being of Israelite descent. Paul also hits at his gentile identity when he numbers “Luke the beloved physician” among his uncircumcised companions (Colossians 4:14).
He wrote somewhere in the middle of the other guys
Scholars are divided over when the Gospel of Luke was written. Some advocate an early date in the 60s, while others prefer a late date in the 80s. Assuming Lucan authorship, the weight of the evidence tilts in favour of the earlier date. This is due, in part, to the close connection between Luke’s gospel and its sequel, the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 1:1).
- The Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul under house arrest in Rome around A.D. 61, without any hint as to the outcome o his trial or his subsequent activities.
- Although Luke often draws our attention in Acts to Christianity’s relationship with imperial Rome, he says nothing about the Roman persecution of Christians in the mid 60s, nor does he mention that Peter and Paul – the leading characters in Acts – were both martyred at this time.
- Neither the Gospel, nor the book of Acts informs us of the complete destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in A.D. 70.
Taken together, Luke’s silence on these important matters is a strong indication that both his Gospel and the book of Acts were written in the early 60s, before any of these events had taken place.
Lap 1 is almost over!
Sources are linked throughout. It should be made clear that the arguments in this post are not at all my own and are, as I have said, taken from the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (New Testament) by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch.
RookieApologises 