Thread:ElectricRaichu/@comment-5175866-20170925195459/@comment-26239285-20171002110816

Yes I tried to very slightly weaken the position on certainty of authorship. While we are confident and there is some internal supporting evidence, ultimately it's a tradition (albeit we believe it's a sound one) and not part of the inspired text of the Bible itself, so stating categorically that it's Luke's work is misleading.

I think commentaries list the evidence for Luke as the author so we could add some more support for it if you think it would be helpful. Although personally I think the effort would be better spent on adding more detail to the description of Luke's message.

By all means review anything I've done. Please keep me informed if there are any issues.

BTW to what level of detail do we want to go in articles? For example, Romans has quite a detailed outline, but there's no content in what each section is about. Is it OK to expand on that? Or should we be going breadthfirst, i.e., filling in intros & outlines for all the books before going deeper?