DATE
DATE
The date of Acts must be considered along with that of Luke, for the gospel cannot be later than its second volume. Some considerations favor a date for the gospel in the early 60s.
1. In Acts there is no mention of the Neronian persecution or events such as the destruction of Jerusalem or the deaths of Paul or James (A.D. 62). No event later than 62 is mentioned.
2. Luke would probably have mentioned Paul’s release or execution if it had happened. But he leaves the apostle in prison in Rome at the end of Acts.
3. It is recorded that Agabus’s prophecy was fulfilled (Acts 11:28), but not Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20). The inference is that it had not yet taken place.
4. 2 Timothy 1:18 records a visit of Paul to Ephesus, but Acts 20:25, 38 records Paul’s words that he would not see the Ephesians again. It is argued that if this later visit had taken place, Luke would have made a suitable comment.
5. The Pauline Epistles were evidently treasured in the early church, but they are ignored in Acts. The later we put Acts, the more difficult it is to account for this.
6. It is unlikely that a Christian writer would give as friendly a picture of Rome as we find in Luke-Acts after the Neronic persecution.
To some scholars such evidence is compelling, and they date the gospel in the early 60s. Others point out that the arguments depend to some extent on what we think Luke would or would not have written, and they prefer a later date. They may argue for A.D. 75-85 on grounds such as the following:
1. That the fall of Jerusalem must precede the writing of this gospel is held to be self-evident (see Luke 19:43; 21:20, 24). But are we really in a position to deny that Jesus had prophetic gifts? In any case, the passages to which attention is drawn contain very little in the way of detail and certainly nothing that demands it be written after the event. 15 Such things as "Jerusalem being surrounded by armies” (21:20) or building "an embankment” (19:43) are no more than references to normal seige technique and cannot be held to be prophecies after the event. 16 Those who argue that they are such prophecies should take notice of the words about "the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory” (21:27). To be consistent, they should argue that this too must be after the event. We should also bear in mind the flight of the Christian community to Pella on account of a revelation, 17 which looks like a knowledge of Jesus’ words in 21:21 before the seige.
2. Since Luke used Mark, he must be later, which puts him into the 70s at least. But if Mark is earlier than these critics allow, Luke may also be earlier than they say. Both Mark and Luke were in the group associated with Paul, so it is probable that Luke obtained a copy of Mark’s gospel quite early.
3. It is urged that Luke must be dated somewhere near Matthew. Because Matthew is commonly dated in the 80s, Luke should be put there too. But it is not clear why Luke should be dated near Matthew, and in any case Matthew’s date is disputed.
4. Many had written before Luke (1:1), and this would take time. A good number, however, could try their hand in thirty years, and thirty years brings us only to the early 60s (Paul was writing in the 50s, perhaps as early as the 40s).
It thus seems that the arguments adduced are mostly subjective. There is no really convincing reason for a date in the 80s. Even less probable is the view that Luke was written in the second century. Somewhere about 140 Marcion took an expurgated Luke into his canon of Scripture as his only gospel, which suggests already by Marcion’s time this book was regarded as authoritative. A date in the second century does not leave much time for this to take place. Some claim support for a late date for Luke by claiming that this evangelist made use of Josephus (whose Antiquities was published c. A.D. 93). If so, Luke must have written in the second century. But there is little in Josephus that would have been of any use to Luke, and in both the passages alleged to come from that author, there are significant differences. In particular, if he depended on Josephus, Luke used him twice and got him wrong both times. The argument is of little weight. 18
The evidence for an early date seems more convincing than that for a later time, and while it comes short of complete proof, it should be accepted.