2. Date
2. Date
Three dates for this Gospel have been suggested with some seriousness, namely around AD 63, about AD 75–85 and early in the second century. The date is bound up with that of Acts, for Luke must be earlier than its sequel.31
For the early date the following considerations are relevant.
1. Acts ends with Paul in prison. If Luke knew of Paul’s release or martyrdom he would probably have mentioned it.
2. The Pastoral Letters seem to show that Paul visited Ephesus again. If Luke wrote after that visit he would surely not have left Paul’s prophecy that the Ephesians would not see him again (Acts 20:25, 38) stand without comment.
3. Luke notes the fulfilment of the prophecy of Agabus (Acts 11:28). If he were writing after AD 70 it is logical to expect him to mention somewhere the fulfilment of Jesus’ prophecy that the city would be destroyed (Luke 21:20).
4. Acts shows no knowledge of the Pauline Epistles and so must be early. The fact that they were preserved shows that these letters were treasured and it is a fair inference that they would have become known not very long after they were written. Any Christian interested enough in Paul to write about him would have made use of them.
5. In Acts no event after AD 62 is mentioned. There are no references, for example, to the deaths of James (AD 62) or of Paul, or to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Not all evaluate this evidence in the same way. It can be argued that these points mostly depend on our view of what Luke is or is not likely to have included and we may be wrong. Some accordingly hold that these considerations do not stand in the way of a latish date (thus W. G. Kümmel favours a date between AD 80 and 90,32 and A. F. J. Klijn c. 8033). But to others the considerations adduced are weighty and E. M. Blaiklock, for example, thinks of a date c. AD 62,34 F. F. Bruce not very long after c. AD 61 (which he sees as the date of Luke),35 and Pierson Parker AD 62 or 63.36 Bo Reicke holds that when Luke wrote Acts he knew nothing of events later than AD 62, so that Luke must be earlier than this.37
Those who favour a date c. AD 75–85 argue as follows.
1. Some sayings of Jesus, particularly in the eschatological discourse, seem to show that Luke was writing after the fall of Jerusalem (19:43; 21:20, 24). Thus, whereas Mark reads ‘when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be’ (Mark 13:14), the Lucan equivalent is, ‘when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies’ (21:20). This is seen as a ‘prophecy’ manufactured after the fall of Jerusalem. Thus Kümmel takes it as certain that ‘Luke looks back upon the fall of Jerusalem’ and he regards this as ‘decisive’ against an early date.38 But he does not take 21:27 into account.
2. Luke used Mark and therefore must be later than c. AD 68, the earliest date most critics will allow for Mark (personally I think Mark should be dated somewhat earlier).
3. There is no good reason for dating Luke far from Matthew and as the First Gospel is usually put into the 80s a similar date is required for Luke.
4. Luke tells us that many had written before him (1:1). But this could scarcely have taken place earlier than AD 70.
The argument usually relied on is that from prediction. Critics feel that a prophecy such as that about the fall of Jerusalem is likely to have been given its precise shape after the events, not before them. But this is very dubious. If Luke was shaping the prophecy after the event and making it fit the facts, why did he leave it all so general? After all, to speak of a city as surrounded by armies shows no great knowledge. Even if we throw in the reference to casting up a bank (19:43) we get no farther, for this was normal siege technique.39 The further question arises: If Luke is reshaping the narrative in the light of events, why does not Matthew do the same?
A much more likely explanation is that Jesus spoke both of ‘the desolating sacrilege’ and of the armies surrounding the city.40 Matthew and Mark retain one expression and Luke the other. The interests of the authors probably explain their choice. Matthew speaks of the fulfilment of prophecy which would carry conviction to his readers, while Luke, writing for Gentiles, chooses rather the words which speak of armies.41
Those who take the references to the destruction of Jerusalem as ‘prophecies’ after the event should surely consider passages which were not fulfilled at that time such as ‘then they will see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory’ (21:27). If the one passage ‘proves’ that this Gospel was written after the event, the other equally ‘proves’ that it was not. There is also the wellknown fact that, in response to revelation, the Christian community fled from Jerusalem to Pella as the Romans approached.42 This seems to show that, before the siege began, Christ’s words were known and the command ‘flee to the mountains’ (21:21) was taken literally.
The other points are no more convincing. It is possible, as a few scholars hold, that Luke did not use Mark. It seems much more probable that he did, but the date of Mark is not known and not all scholars put it as late as AD 68. Again, there is no reason for tying Luke’s date to Matthew’s and even if we do, it is far from certain that Matthew was written in the 80s. Those who hold that ‘many’ could not have written before Luke unless we date him after about AD 70 imply that Christians took about forty years to start writing. But Paul was writing in the early 50s, probably indeed in the late 40s, and there is no reason for thinking that he was the only one. Thus none of these arguments proves much. They turn out to be subjective estimates of the possibilities.
Recently some scholars have argued for a second-century date (e.g. J. Knox, J. C. O’Neill). Such views put this Gospel dangerously close to the time of Marcion who based his canon on an expurgated version of Luke. Knox holds that Marcion used not Luke but an earlier writing, which as it happens was also used by Luke.43 But the orthodox based their attack on Marcion on the view that his Gospel was based on the canonical Luke. They must have known the truth of the matter. Those who hold to a late date but yet see Marcion as using Luke are faced with the difficult problem of explaining how Luke’s Gospel could, within ten to twenty years, have gained enough authority for Marcion to be able to gain a following by relying on it alone of the four.
The view that Luke is late is sometimes bolstered by an appeal to statements in Acts which are thought to have been taken from the Jewish historian Josephus. His Antiquities was published c. AD 93, so that if Luke depended on it he wrote late. The first of such passages is that in which Josephus says that Theudas rebelled during the governorship of Fadus, 44–46. He was overthrown and the next governor, Alexander (46–48), executed some of the sons of Judas the Galilean. Luke reports Gamaliel as speaking of Theudas followed by Judas (not the sons of Judas), and Gamaliel is speaking some twelve years before Theudas rebelled. Clearly Luke does not depend on Josephus for what he writes.
The other statement concerns Lysanias (Luke 3:1). A man of this name was tetrarch of Abilene, and Josephus says that he was executed by Mark Antony in 36 (or 34) BC. There is, however, evidence that there was another Lysanias44 and it will be this man to whom Luke refers. He is not misquoting Josephus.
Clearly neither of these examples shows that Luke had read Josephus. Hans Conzelmann rejects the idea that Luke is dependent on Josephus (though he is not averse to a late date for Acts).45 Indeed, the presumption is all the other way, for Luke is normally accurate in the places where he can be tested. It is unlikely that he will have taken these two statements from Josephus and made an error both times.46 I cannot see that the evidence for a second-century date has much to be said for it.
On the whole, then, there seems most to be said for a date in the early 60s. The evidence comes short of complete proof, but there seems more to be said for this view than for either of the others.