As this article agrees that Acts was written (or sent to Theophilus) in 62 C.E., it has piqued my interest. The book ends with Paul living in Rome, awaiting trial, and preaching Christ to all who would listen (Acts 28. 30-31). Therefore, if Acts was sent to Theophilus in 62 C.E., then, his former book, Luke (Acts 1.1), would have had to be sent prior to this.

My own studies of Acts sees this as an important date. Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea for two years leaving his physician and traveling worker a rare opportunity to interview eyewitnesses of the early Christian Movement. His travels with Paul gave Luke credibility and admiration of the early disciples and Mary, the mother of Jesus. In my belief, the birth narratives were not written down but Mary treasured them in her heart (Lk. 2.19). She must have told Luke about them personally. I have no evidence but its lack. Wouldn’t those type of stories be circulated if written down and copied? We have no allusion to any of these histories except in Luke, and thus, in my mind, Mary would have been Luke’s source for those particular accounts.

Luke produced his gospel from the eyewitnesses still living between 58-60 C.E.: Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us (Lk. 1.1-2 ESV).

https://shanerose.substack.com/p/can-we-trust-lukes-history-of-the