The third Gospel and the Acts are in fact two volumes of the same work, written by the same author at more or less the same time. But when, precisely, did Luke – who we have already argued was the author – compose these volumes? The terminus ad quo, the earliest possible date, would be around 60 ce, when Paul suffers imprisonment in Rome. The terminus ad quem would be in the 130’s, when the gnostic Marcion demonstrates knowledge of Luke’s gospel.
As one would expect, scholarly opinion differs widely. Some hold out for a very early date, others for a very late one, as late as the 110’s. Most, however, settle on a time in the 80’s or 90’s, depending on whether or not they think Luke depended upon Josphesus’ work.
Basically, two possibilities get serious attention here: the early 60’s, just before the fall of Jerusalem; and the early to mid 80’s, as the nascent Christian community struggled with its post-Jerusalem identity.
The Early Date
Ellis thinks the dual themes of divine judgment against Jerusalem (especially the Temple) and the rising crisis of the church’s relationship to Judaism fit best in the period 60-70, which apparently was a time of “apocalyptic fervor.”[1] Perhaps even more importantly, Ellis discerns that Luke understands Christianity as a movement within, rather than separate from, Judaism. Luke-Acts shows “that for Luke, no less than for Paul, Christianity was still a party within Judaism (Acts 24:14), an impossible perspective after the Neronian persecution of AD 65-68.”[2]
Bruce [3] offers the following evidences for a pre-70 c.e. date.
- Luke shows no sign of dependence on Paul’s letters.
- Luke says nothing of Paul’s death, nor indicates that he knew Paul to have died.
- Luke’s portrayal of the Roman authorities seems optimistic, which would have been impossible after the Neronian persecutions beginning in the mid-60’s.
- Luke seems to know nothing of the Jewish revolt of 66 or the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70, which surely were epochal events both for Judaism and the developing Christian sect.
- The relative “primitiveness” of Luke’s theology, both in form and content, is taken as another (possible) indication of an early date.
- The ending of Acts with Paul’s imprisonment in Rome is best explained if Luke is understood to have stopped writing his history because there was no more to relate at that time.
The Later Date
Shillington [4] is among those who argue for a later date, for which he advances the following reasons.
First, he cites the fact that Luke references “many” other accounts (Lk 1.1), and it seems highly unlikely that there were many Gospels in circulation in the early 60’s. Also, Luke obviously depends upon Mark’s Gospel, which would require some time to circulate among the Christian communities of Mediterranean basin and beyond; Shillington proposes it would have taken at least five years, which would mean Luke could not have begun writing before the early to mid 70’s, because no one would argue that Mark’s Gospel was written in the late 50’s.
Second, he discerns in the prologue (Lk 1.1-4) a reference to two generations of Christ-followers: the “eye-witnesses” and the “servants of the word.” Though this is a controversial reading, he works from this a proposed date of late 70’s to mid 80’s, for surely by that time the apostles had died or were martyred and many of the second generation of Christians were dying, too.
Third, he insists that Luke does refer to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, even if more obliquely than we would like. Witherington agrees that the way Luke references the destruction of the Temple suggests “the benefit of hindsight.”[5]
Interestingly, F. F. Bruce, whose arguments for an early date I outlined above, changed his mind, settling on a date in the late 70’s or early 80’s.[6] In response to the arguments he had formerly found convincing, he concluded that:
(1) The abrupt ending of Acts is not the problem it at first seems to be, since Luke’s purpose of narrating the expansion of Christianity has reached a fitting end. Further, the story of this expansion has no natural conclusion – indeed, it is ongoing!
(2) The seeming naively optimistic view of the Roman authorities does not prove the Neronian persecutions had not yet begun. Instead, perhaps Luke means to show that Nero’s malignancy was the exception, and that the Christian movement had not been seen as an enemy of the state by many of Rome’s other, more suitable, ruling elite.
(3) Like Shillington and Witherington, et. al., Bruce came to believe that the way Luke describes the destruction of the Temple (Lk 19.41-44; 21.20-24; 23.28=31) indicates that the events “predicted” there have already taken place, primarily because of the way Luke reworks Mark’s report (13.14) of Jesus’ prophecy.
Conclusion
While sensible people can and do disagree on this matter, it seems to me the most plausible date for the writing of Luke’s Gospel – and shortly thereafter his Acts – is sometime in the middle 80’s. the lack of a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, which is the best evidence for an early date, may say more about our modern historiographical prejudices than it does about the dating of Luke’s writing. The issues addressed in Luke-Acts, such as the relation of Christianity and Judaism, the mission to and inclusion of the Gentiles, the fulfillment of Scripture, are no less important post-70 c.e. than they were before.
_________
[1] E. Earle Ellis, The Making of the New Testament Documents (Boston: Brill Academic, 2002), 389.
[2] Ellis, 390.
[3] Bruce, “Acts,” 37-38.
[4] Shillington, 12.
[5] Witherington, 61.
[6] F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: the Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 18.
