An Archaeological Discovery Sheds Light on Luke

The question of whom Luke was associated with is most interesting. The thinking had been Paul, but Acts and the Epistles do not agree, so that's a no.  P wish scriptures - with Mark exposing this analysis. Matthew's Gospel is, in part, included in the Didache which likely originated with James the Just, brother of Jesus. John is advanced theology - which may or may not have been written by the son of Zebedee and Salome (the sister of Jesus). That leaves Peter. 

Mark had been associated with Peter, but that is incorrect. The association between Peter and Mark was because of the assumption that Mark was the scribe of Peter - who was the first Pope and therefore wrote the first gospel. No proof exists for this at all, just pious belief - which is the most dangerous kind. The fact that Luke starts Acts with a sermon by Peter on Pentecost is the obvious clue as to who worked with whom. Peter is so central to the early part of Acts that it could only be sourced by one of his followers. The question is, where was Luke written? That gives us the best answer.