To take but one example, “not only is Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem parallel to that of Paul, but also the events that take place when the two men reach the city, and after, are similar.” unity of authorship) is that “the conclusion seems irresistible.This architectonic pattern which has Gospel and Acts correspond in content and in sequence at many points is due to deliberate editorial activity by the author of Luke-Acts.” The point is that the architectonic structure of Luke-Acts is so beautifully executed that to deny common authorship is to attribute as much genius to a second, anonymous writer (of Acts) as one should of the first writer (who wrote the gospel).: Troas]; (2) reappears on Paul’s return visit to Philippi; (3) accompanies the apostle on the journey towards Jerusalem and stays with Philip at Caesarea, and (4) after Paul’s two years’ imprisonment at Caesarea, during which time there are no definite data regarding the author’s whereabouts, accompanies Paul to Rome and experiences shipwreck with him.Further, when one compares Mark with Luke , it is interesting that whereas Mark mentions that the woman had spent her life’s savings on doctors and only grew worse under their care, Luke omits the jab.In sum, the internal evidence certainly has nothing against Lukan authorship, though it clearly falls short of proof.Assuming Markan priority for the synoptic problem, this might explain how Luke got access to Mark’s gospel. Cadbury three decades later (1920), who pointed out that Luke’s language was no different than that of any educated person.
Nor can we attribute this to Luke himself, for the Western text is decidedly inferior and secondary to the Alexandrian, in spite of its antiquity.
Once again, as with the others, this is short of proof of Lukan authorship, but the unbroken stream suggests recognition of Lukan authorship as early as the first quarter of the second century.
Attestation of Lukan authorship is found in the Muratorian Canon, the anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and Jerome.
This is all the more reason to accept Lukan authorship, for this is the unanimous testimony from the fathers: “Granted that an ancient scholar might have deduced from the prologue to the Gospel that the author was not an apostle and from the ‘we’ sections of Acts that he was a companion of Paul, he still would have had no means of putting a name to the author if there had not been a valid tradition connecting the books with the name of Luke.” Assuming that Luke penned the gospel which bears his name, what do we know about him (apart from his occupation)?
First, he was probably a Gentile since he is mentioned separately from the “men of the circumcision” in Colossians 4.