Can the authorship of this Gospel be linked with the Luke referred to in Paul's letters? Debate in this area is comparatively mild. Other than unanimous tradition (which ranges from Marcion's recognition and acceptance of Luke into his mini-canon, c. 140 AD, through Justin Martyr's comment that Luke composed a "memoir" of the apostles, c. 150 AD, to Ireneaus' direct attribution to Luke, c. 180 AD), the following can be used to identify Luke as the author of his Gospel:

The use of medical language. Although too much can and has been made of this [CarMoo.Int, 114-5], it should be highlighted, for it does indeed fit in with our earlier-stated authorship criterion.

The "we" passages in Acts. Without delving into the details, let's just summarize by saying that when it comes down to determining which of Paul's noted travel companions in his letters and Acts could be this "we," Luke wins by default![Gran.HNT, 134] This is all the more notable in light of the unanimous attribution of the Gospel to Luke - if there was any doubt, then there were plenty of Paul's companions to attribute the Gospel to. [Bock.L, 17]

It is fair to note that in recent years, some have appealed to the studies of Plumacher and Robbins supposedly demonstrating that the "we"-statements were simply a normal way of reporting ancient sea voyages in the first person, so that this does not necessarily indicate someone who accompanied Paul. Witherington [With.AA, 53, 481-5], however, shows that the theories of Plumacher and Robbins are highly overstated: for one thing, Luke's "we"-statements are included in land journeys, and only 3 of the 10 sea journeys recorded in Acts include "we"-statements! For another, "(t)here was no such 'convention' for the sort of literature Luke was trying to write and would likely have been perceived as trying to write." Finally, Praeder has shown that Robbins in particular has misread secular texts that he used to reach his conclusion.

Witherington summarizes what can be determined otherwise about the author of Luke-Acts: He is clearly cultured (his Greek is the best in the NT, and he known Greco-Roman rhetorical techniques); he is clearly not of Jewish origins (his knowledge of Aramaic and Hebrew is limited); that he had the leisure to write a two-volume account at least (and possibly Hebrews and the Pastorals as well) points to "a person of independent means, or more likely a retainer of a well-to-do person" (Theophilus!); and was a person of high sensitivity and empathy. All of this, especially the latter, fits quite well with our picture of Luke the physician. Critics will be hard-pressed to explain why any alternative (including anonymity) should be preferred.

Critics cite the following arguments against the identification of Luke as author [Nick.SGI, 148-9; Kumm.Int, 147-8]:

The author of Luke and Acts shows no knowledge of Paul's letters. This is an argument from silence, and presupposes that Luke would have reason to refer to Paul's letters, which is not demonstrated. And in any event, it is just as much a problem if the author was NOT Luke! However, Streeter [Stree.4G, 555] sums up the reply nicely:

As Luke was compressing thirty years of church history into a document which occupies that number of pages in a Greek Testament he had better use for his scanty space than to attempt a 'potted version' of the argument of an Epistle with which his audience was already perfectly familiar.

In fact, this lack of mention of Paul's letters can be turned into an argument for an early date for Luke's Gospel! [Wenh.RMML, 217] Paul's letters are perhaps not mentioned because Paul is still alive - and why rewrite his teaching when you can still hear it in person?

The author of Luke differs with Paul in theological matters. This objection fails, however, because it makes the unwarranted assumption that Luke was some sort of robot drone who agreed with Paul and had 100% the same perspectives as he did. There is nothing to indicate that Luke was both Paul's companion AND his disciple! [Stree.4G, 553] As Grant observes [Gran.HNT, 135]:

This claim neglects the extent to which it is possible to associate and work with others without necessarily sharing all their concerns; in other words, it fails to do justice either to the variety to be found within the unity of modern Christianity or to that within the early church.

And, I would add, it is yet another critical "cardboard cutout" argument! (For more on this, and alleged differences in theology between Acts and the "real" Paul, see this item.)

Disagreements between the chronology in Acts and the Pauline letters. See also the link just above.

Luke is not mentioned by Papias, as Matthew and Mark are. This is a strange reason to doubt Lucan authorship, since skeptics do not usually take Papias' word on Matthew and Mark anyway! However, Reicke points out [Reic.Root, 167] that Papias was pointing to Matthew and Mark because of particular problems regarding Mark's authority - and that this more likely means that Luke was not brought up because there was no problem with his authority!

As with Matthew, a date of 85-90 is preferred by critics - and many of the same reasons are used as with Matthew [Kumm.Int, 149]:

Dependence on Mark. Again, though, the link is tenuous; and if Mark is NOT late, then Luke is not late of necessity - moreover, what keeps Luke from writing his Gospel on the heels of Mark? According to Acts, they ran in the same circle with Paul, and Colossians 4:10-14 has them apparently with Paul at the same time.

The apologetic tone towards Romans suggests a time when Christians were trying to appease Rome, as in the reign of Domitian, 81-96. [Nick.SGI, 148-9; Pritch.Lit, 99] However, this also suggests equally well a time when Christians were on good terms with Rome, before the Neronian persecution - or it could just as easily be Nero himself that Luke was trying to appease! (On the other hand, observing how the Gospels treat the Pharisees, Moreland notes that it was "not the nature of the early church to appease anyone" - [More.ScCy, 153]. Hence, this appeal is groundless.)

Reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is said that verses 13:34-5 (parallel Mat. 23:37), 19:43-4, and 21: 20, 24 are a perfect description of Titus' siege of Jerusalem. [Fitz.Lk, 50-7; Stree.4G, 540; Pric.INP, 222-4; Spiv.ANT, 127] Reicke [Reic.Root, 174-7], however, points out that the predictions of destruction have parallels in the Old Testament (Amos 9:14, Ezekiel 4:2-3, Isaiah 3:25, 5:13), as did Dodd [Wenh.RMML, 224]. But let's look at these verses closely:

Luke 13:34-5 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

Luke 19:41-5 As he approached Jerusalem and saw the city, he wept over it and said, "If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace--but now it is hidden from your eyes. The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and encircle you and hem you in on every side. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God's coming to you.

Luke 21:20-4 When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

As with the similar verses in other Gospels, this is simply a matter of denying predictive prophecy, or failing to recognize the commonality of such predictions. But one other thing that catches my attention here - something that has truly made me wonder if certain critics are really thinking straight! Much is made of how Luke (and Matthew) allegedly changed the emphasis of Mark 13 from the destruction of the Temple and the Anti-Christ figure to the destruction of Jerusalem - supposedly because Luke and Matt were looking back on the destruction of Jerusalem after 70 AD [Stree.4G, 540].

Now then - the Temple was INSIDE the walls of Jerusalem. If Jesus was predicting the destruction of the Temple, then is it not sensible that He must ALSO have predicted the destruction, (or at the very least the invasion!) of Jerusalem, since logically, an army is not going to peacefully hop over or pass through the walls of Jerusalem and just attack the Temple?

We would add, finally, that there are places in Acts where an allusion to the destruction of the Temple would fit quite well (Acts 6-7, 21-23), yet we see no mention of it. Either the Temple was still around, or else Luke was quite the conspirator! (We know what the critics will say!)

Reference to many other gospels being in circulation.[Fitz.Lk, 50-7] Luke 1:1 refers to the attempt by "many" to draw up an account of the ministry of Jesus, which assumes a later date. However, this could just as easily apply to a date in the 60s. In both time frames, we know of only three other Gospels. There is no evidence of more of them in either time frame. However, note that Luke refers not to gospels per se, but to others who have tried to draw up "an account" of what has happened; and further, Fuller [Full.CNT, 118] identifies this verse as merely a rhetorical device - one he says "should not be over-pressed."

In favor of an earlier date for Luke, we may note the following details related to the book of Acts - Acts, of course, is the sequel to Luke, so Luke must be dated earlier than Acts! [Boyd.CSSG, 253-62]

The abrupt ending of Acts. Acts ends abruptly with Paul waiting to go to trial at Rome. If Acts was written past that date (c. 62 AD), we would expect to have heard more; but we do not. It is difficult to believe, in light of Luke's careful accounting of the martyrdom of Stephen (7:57-9) and James the brother of John (12:2), that Luke would have stopped Acts right there, had he known at that writing of Paul's execution under Nero a few years later. The same may be said of the execeution of Peter and Jesus' brother James. (Appeals to a lost ending or a missing third volume are rather weak, although an idea of the Pastorals as a lost third volume are interesting; and an appeal to a desire to appease the Romans by not mentioning what they did fails, since the execution of Jesus' brother was performed by the Sanhedrin, against the Roman authorities, and that would have suited such an apologetic purpose nicely.)

To be fair, however, there is an objection to this that uses our same logic of authorial intent against the conservative position! It is said that Luke's literary intent is simply to show how the commission to preach the gospel in "Jerusalem, Judea, and to the uttermost ends of the earth" was fulfilled by the Lord (what Jesus BEGAN to do and teach, continued in Acts), and as such, there is no requirement for him to record the "defeat" of the great apostles at all: He only has to do is show that the gospel made it through those circles of geography, and the arrival and preaching of Paul at Rome is more than a fitting ending for his literary purpose, thus making the silence irrelevant to the dating. However, two counters may be offered for this: First, there is the idea that a sub-theme of Acts is the "equality" of Peter and Paul -- the vindication of Paul's apostleship; so, how better to demonstrate this than to end with both martyrdoms in Rome? Second, from a literary perpspective, if Luke's readers KNEW that Paul had been martyred, then he has ended Acts in the worst possible way for inspiring confidence and commitment in his readers! Ending the work on an "upbeat" note, when it is known that Paul went on to be executed, is like writing a biography of a solider who went heroically to war, in order to exemplify and encourage patriotism, and ommitting the fact that he was killed in action! If you knew this, would you appreciate the patriotic sentiments? Hardly! An author would be practically required to report the death and do so in a patriotic light; otherwise his readers would think, "But the guy died, for crying out loud -- I don't want to go to war for my country if that's what happens! This is pure propaganda!"

The primitive theological vocabulary in Acts. In using terms like "breaking of bread," "the first day of the week," and calling the Jews "the people," as well as in his Semitic and archaic expressions of christology, Luke demonstrates either that he was writing early - or else was being very cleverly anachronistic! After 70 AD, and especially after the 85-90 date the critics prefer, several of these terms used by Luke would need to be explained to a Gentile readership, not left for the reader to figure out. [More.ScCy, 153] Perhaps Luke was a member of the Commmittee to Confuse Later Historians?

The nature of the issues addressed in Acts. The following elements suggest a pre-70 composition: no hint of the destruction of the Temple or of the Jewish war in 66; references to Temple controversies; the prominenece of the Saducees; the portrayal of the Holy Spirit falling on different groups; the clear division between Palestinian and Hellenistic Jews; the positive portrayal of the temple and of the Pharisees; the portrayal of the terms of Gentile acceptance into the church; concern for Jewish-Gentile co-existence; the importance of Roman citizenship; the administrative details of Paul's trials, and Luke's significant historical, political and geographical accuracy.

Possible early references to a Gospel of Luke in the letters of Paul. Paul cites a verse of Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy. 2 Corinthians 8:18 also has this compelling verse:

2 Cor. 8:18 And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.

This was taken by early writers as referring to Luke and his Gospel.

Our conclusion: Inadequate reasons have been given for trying to ascribe this work to one other than Luke, and at such a late date. Working within the criteria used by secular scholars, there is no reason to make contrary claims.

For a few more very weird arguments, click here.