What was the most likely the last New Testament book written?

Answer 1

No. Although Luke's Gospel is believed to have been written around the end of the first century, or early in the second, it can readily be shown that John's Gospel was inspired by that gospel. John's Gospel was therefore the last of the New Testament gospels to be written.

Other gospels continued to be written throughout the second century and beyond, but these are not included in the New Testament.

Answer 2

The most likely last New Testament book written is the Book of Revelation, attributed to John. It was written around AD 95-96 and contains apocalyptic visions about the end times and the victory of good over evil.

Answer 3

The gospel know known as the Gospel According to Saint Luke, or just Luke's Gospel, was originally anonymous. In the second century CE, the Church Fathers set out to assign authorship to the various books that were beginning to be accepted as canonical. Because the author of Luke's Gospel had also written Acts of the Apostles, they felt the author must have been Paul's companion, Luke.

Given the late date usually attributed by scholars to the authorship of Luke, along with the fact that this gospel was actually based on Mark's Gospel, we can safely say that the author could not have been Luke, the companion of Paul. The author remains unknown.

Luke was known universally by the early Church as the writer of the Gospel, and this knowledge was passed down to those who determined the validity of the books to be included in the Biblical canon. If they were not known to be written by an eyewitness or associate of an eyewitness, they were not included in the New Testament. Internal evidence supports authorship by Luke.

Answer:

The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the physician that accompanied Paul the Apostle from time to time.

1.2. External Evidence

The external, direct evidence from second century sources agrees unanimously that Luke wrote the gospel that bears his name. (Remember that Luke is one of the possible authors, inferred from the internal evidence.)

1.2.1. The Muratorian canon (c. 170) states, "Luke, the physician...wrote in his own name what he had been told (ex opinione), though he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh."

1.2.2. Irenaeus (130-c.200) writes, "Luke the companion of Paul set forth in a book the gospel a preached by him (Paul)" (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1; see also Adv. Haer. 3. 14.1-3).

1.2.3. Tertullian (c. 160-225) attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke (Adv. Marc. 4.2.1-5).

1.2.4. The Anti-Marcion Prologue (2nd century) says that Luke the physician from Antioch, Syria wrote the gospel known as the Gospel of Luke.

1.2.5. The Monarchian Prologue (2nd or 3rd century) affirms that Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke.

1.2.6. The oldest manuscript of Luke, the Bodmer Papyrus XIV (p75), dated about 175-225, attributes the Gospel of Luke to Luke, using the title "The Gospel according to Luke."

1.3. Taking both the internal and external evidence into account, what do you conclude about the authorship of the Gospel of Luke?

It is reasonable to conclude that the Luke was the author of the Gospel of Luke.

1.4. Information about Luke is available from internal and external sources.

Answer 4

Another answer from our community:

As neither of Luke's writings (Gospel and Acts) mention a date, scholars have deduced it to be one of two timeframes: early to late 60s; or mid 70s to late 80s. Though neither range is decisive in reasoning, one must consider God's purpose for the start of His Church and then assume that it would not take more than a decade for a major Gospel to get into circulation. Again this is opinion and not fact. What is truly important is the message each Gospel holds.

Answer 5

Jesus said in Luke chapter 24 verse 45: Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.

verse 46: He told them,"This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

verse 47: and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

verse 48: You are witnesses of these things.

verse 49: I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Answer 6

Another answer from our community:

Luke tells us in the prologue to his Gospel work:

Luke 1 1 For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

Luke's Gospel appears to written primarily for the information of his Greek fellow believers. He comments at the very beginning of the book that he is aware others have recorded some of the events, but that he also wished to write specifically to them from his own investigations to reassure them of what they had already heard. It can be shown that the author of Luke's Gospel was aware of Mark's Gospel, since he drew much of his material from it. So, the author now known as Luke must have written his Gospel in order to improve upon that of Mark, in some way.

Steve Mason ('Josephus and the New Testament') says that Luke may have been writing an apology for a wider audience than converts and potential converts. To suit the times, this would require him to demonstrate antiquity and virtue. In this context, virtue was high communal ethic, political respectability and cooperation with the Roman peace.

Luke, writing around the turn of the century, also eliminates or changes passages in Mark unfavourable to those whose subsequent career makes them worthy of respect. He avoids Markan passages that might make Jesus seem emotional, harsh, or weak. Luke was making the gospel more acceptable to his audience.

Luke tells us that as he had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first, he wanted to write an orderly account so that Theopilius would have assurance in his instruction. II Timothy 3:16 assures us that all scripture, including Luke's writing, is given by inspiration of God. "Theophilius," besides being a man's name, in Greek means "friend of God." The Gospel was the Good News to all people, not just the Jews, but to the Greeks (Gentiles) as well. The Gospel of Luke is addressed, then, to all who would be God's friends. John wrote his Gospel "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ," and this is certainly the intent, the "why" of all four Gospels: that we might believe that Jesus is the Christ, that we might have the surety of salvation, and become the friends of God.

Answer 7

Scholars say that the author of Luke copied much of his material from Mark's Gospel, following the same chronological order as that Gospel. He also added sayings from the hypothetical 'Q' document, following the same sequence as Q, but had no knowledge of whether Q was itself in chronological order. The author also added material from unknown sources, probably including the works of Josephus.

Historians say that the reference to the census under Quirinius took place in 6 CE, whereas King Herod died in 4 BCE, and that the birth narrative in Luke is not chronologically correct. Otherwise, the author of Luke's Gospel appears to have attempted to present his material in chronological order.

Answer 8

We do not know who wrote the Gospel that was to become attributed to Luke.
The author relied on Mark's Gospel for most of his information about the life of Jesus. Whenever the Gospel agrees with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, something that could not happen unless Mark was being copied. We also have the "missing block", a short section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. Luke is hardly likely to have omitted such an important miracle as walking on water, had he known of it, but this was part of the Missing Block. This Missing Block results in the curious conjunction found in Luke 9:18 "And it came to pass as he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them ..." These clauses are found in Mark at the start and end of the Missing Block. So Luke was not a witness to any of the gospel story, and knew of no one who was. He could not have been the Luke mentioned in the epistles.

The date when the gospel was written could be helpful in identifying possible authors. Both Luke's Gospel and Acts show evidence of borrowing material from the works of Josephus, a Jewish military leader and historian. Evidence that they contain material from Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 CE, show that they were written after this date and Acts was possibly written early in the second century. This points to an author who was born sometime in the second half of the first century CE.

We may not know the identity of the author of the Gospel According to Luke, but we do know that he was a well educated Greek-speaking Christian who was probably familiar with the geography of Palestine and the customs of the Jews.

Answer 9

First of all, it is clear that the author of Luke copied from Mark's Gospel, because when Luke contains material found in Mark, the wording in Greek is almost identical as that in Mark's Gospel. This could not have happened if they were relying on oral sources, Aramaic sources, or even a common Greek source. The "Missing Block" convincingly confirms that 'Luke' was relying on Mark's Gospel. This Missing Block results in the curious conjunction found in Luke 9:18 "And it came to passas he was alone praying, his disciples were with him: and he asked them ..." These clauses are found in Mark at the start and end of the Missing Block, separated by several pages of text unexpectedly omitted from Luke's Gospel. So, the first clue as to when Luke was written is to define when Mark was written.

One of the internal clues to the date of Mark's Gospel is at Mark 13:2, where Jesus was said to prophesy the destruction of the Temple, an event that occurred in 70 CE. According to Mark, Jesus went on to predict the end of the world within the lifetime of his followers. If Jesus had really prophesied the destruction of the Temple, he would have been correct, but he would have been in error about the imminent end of times. Since it can not be accepted that Jesus made predictions that were capable of being in error, these prophecies must have originated with Mark, writing at a time when he would have known of the destruction or imminent destruction of the temple. Other references in this Gospel indicate that it could not have been written much after 70 CE. So, we can say that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or very early in the 70s CE. Luke could not have been written until some time after the 70s of the first century.

There is good evidence that Luke also relied on the writings of the Jewish military leader and historian, Josephus. This reliance probably includes extracts from Antiquities of the Jews, published in 93 CE, making a date much before 100 CE fairly improbable for Luke's Gospel. More certainly, Acts of the Apostles certainly contains material based on Antiquities, and this is accepted to have been written by the same author and not longer after Luke's Gospel. Many consider Luke to have been written in the 90s CE, but early in the second century is also possible.

Answer 10

The author of Luke's Gospel left us no explanation as to why the Gospel was written, but we can arrive at some conclusions by understanding the context of Luke's Gospel. The four New Testament gospels were all written anonymously and only in the second century were they attributed to the apostles whose names they now bear. Modern New Testament scholars say that there is no good reason to accept these second-century attributions.

Scholars have demonstrated that Luke's Gospel was based on Mark's Gospel, even identifying a block of text, now known as the 'Missing Block', that the author inadvertently omitted from the new gospel. The author of Luke knew of Mark's Gospel and therefore had no reason to write a new gospel simply to tell people about Jesus; In fact, he would seem to have known nothing about the life and mission of Jesus other than what he had found in Mark. He must have believed that more needed to be added to the existing gospel in order to attract new converts and satisfy existing converts.

Mark's Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8, with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. The 'Long Ending' (verses 16:9-20) was added much later, long after Luke's Gospel was written. So, when 'Luke' looked at Mark's Gospel, he realised that there was nothing to prove that Jesus had really risen from the dead. So, he replaced the young man in the sepulchre by two angels and added an ending in which Jesus actually appeared to the two on the road to Emmaeus, then to the disciples at a meal in Jerusalem.

Another need was to tell of the miraculous birth of Jesus. Jewish tradition said that he had to be born in Bethlehem, and in ancient times it was appropriate that he be born of a virgin. When the family took Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem, he was to be recognised as the Messiah by Simeon and Anna, a prophetess. Even Luke's genealogy had to show that Jesus was destined for greatness, not only because he was descended from both David and Zorobabel, but because great men appeared at intervals of seven generations in his genealogy.

Finally, Luke sought to place Jesus in a historical perspective, to add credibility to the Gospel story. Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that, although Luke likes to set his Christian drama in the context of well-known events from antiquity, sometimes he does so inaccurately.