Are there any verifiable proof on the historicity of Luke?

Answer 1

Many. Luke has repeatedly demonstrated himself to be a reliable historian of the first rank. His work has also been shown by scholars to fit into the precise time-frame in which it was set.

According to Wikipedia..The traditional view of Lukan authorship is "widely held as the view which most satisfactorily explains all the data."[27] The list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion.[28] But there is no consensus, and the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship has been described as 'about evenly divided'.[29] on who the author was.

The 'verifiable proofs' consist to a large degree on historical details and names of places which Luke demonstrates 100% accuracy on, even where he was previously thought to be in error. This 'accuracy test' indicates that the author of these works was personally acquainted with the places mentioned and the relevant geography and location. This alone cannot prove Luke was the author, but it adds to the case, since Luke, if he was the author would be expected to be accurate in these details.

Answer 2

A:One of the four New Testament gospels is attributed to Luke. Acts of the Apostles, by the same author, is a cornerstone of early Christian history. So to accept that Luke was other than an excellent historian would actually place the entire historicity of the gospels and Acts in doubt. Thus, many conservative Christians consider it unarguable that Luke be regarded as an excellent historian.

The contrary view that Luke was not a good historian has been put forward by many scholars, such as:

• Raymond E. Brown, who says of Luke that, although he likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately. coming from a leading Catholic theologian and New Testament scholar, that is damning criticism of the evangelist.
• Hans Joachim Schoeps, a Protestant theologian, who writes that Acts has been "believed much too readily." He says that Actsfollows a clear didactic line and for this reason energetically cultivates the creation of legends and reshapes persons and events according to its own standards.
• Uta Ranke-Heinemann, who says Acts of the Apostles is a work of Propaganda aimed at Gentile Christians and Gentiles who have not yet become Christians.
• John Dominic Crossan, who says that each of Luke and Acts of the Apostles, and one no more or less than the other, is theology rather than history.

Answer 3

Yes, there are historical and archaeological evidences that support the reliability of the Gospel of Luke. These include references to people, places, and events that have been confirmed by other historical sources and archaeological findings. While not all details in Luke can be independently verified, the general consensus among scholars is that Luke is a credible historical source.