Re: [textualcriticism] Earliest Mention of Luke
In the hope that it might help, I have simply cut and pasted a small section of my bib. intro. lecture notes (which, interestingly enough, I just discussed in class today). They are intro notes, but may help a bit...
The primary external witness to Lukan authorship of these volumes comes from Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD) who writes that:
“As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-laborer of the apostles, but especially of Paul… [Haer. 3.14.1. Cf. 3.1.1; 3.10.1; and 3.12.1-5 where Irenaeus also sights passages from Acts in his attack upon Marcion].
If a second century date can be sustained for the Muratorian Canon (and this seems more untenable in light of recent research), it too asserts that Luke authored these works. In addition, Justin Martyr (ca. 160 AD) may cite from the book of Acts (cf. Acts 1:8 compared with 1 Apol. 50.12, and Acts 17:23 with 2 Apol. 10.6); Clement of Alexandria (ca. 170-80 AD) often cites Acts from Acts and regards it as an authoritative document (e.g. Misc. 3.6.49; 7.9.53); Origen uses several texts from Acts (Or. 12.2; 13.6); like Irenaeus, Tertullian (ca. 200-220) appeals to Acts to refute Marcion (Ag. Marc. 5.1-2) and clearly accords to it the status of “scripture” (Prescr. 22); and the anti-Marcionite prologue to Luke (ca. 160-200 AD) mentions Acts and states that Luke was a Syrian from Antioch, a disciple of the apostles who later followed Paul and who served the Lord as a single man until his death in Boeotia (Bithynia?) at the age of eighty-four.