Dating the Gospel of Luke: An Examination of the Facts

The Dating of Luke’s Gospel

An issue that surrounds Luke’s Gospel is the date in which it is written. To this day, we have no definitive date in which to place the Gospel thus there is much debate surrounding the issue. However, with ever debate comes limits. What do we know about the date of this third Gospel is that it is confined between two dates: 60AD and 180AD. It could not have been written before 60AD because the Gospel of Mark is dated as having been written after 180AD as Luke’s Gospel is referenced in a piece of writing at this time, therefore the Gospel would have had to have been written and in circulation before this time. Due to these confines, three main dates have emerged through speculation and theorized as the most likely possible time for Luke’s Gospel to have been written. They are: the early date, around 60AD, the middle date in the late first century and the late date in the second century.

There are many arguments to support each of the proposed dates but as with any argument there are opposing theories which discredit each of the three dates. Throughout this essay the task at hand is to carefully examine the issues presented, both in favor and against each suggested date and ultimately decide the most likely date for the composition of the Gospel.

To begin, we look at the early date estimated to be around 60AD. To help us with this date, we look for hints within the text as it is generally believed that both Gospels were written by the same author given their similar style in regards to language and more importantly, the fact that both the opening of Acts and the Prologue of the Gospel are both addressed to Theophilus. So, the dating of Luke is believed to be able to be deduced by dating Acts accurately, then all we must do is place the writing of the Gospel as preceding that date. Acts ends abruptly with the imprisonment of Paul which was in AD62, what further supports the date is that major events in the history of Christianity are not mentioned in Acts, all of which occurred after AD62. Some of these events include: the martyrdoms of James and Paul and the persecution of Christians by the Emperor Nero in 64AD. If Luke, a Gentile turned Christian, had still been alive and writing during this time, he most certainly would have been inclined to document the killings, thus suggesting that he must have stopped writing before these events occurred. On the other hand, in regards to the apparent omission of the martyrdoms, it is argued that since Luke wasn’t writing a biography of Paul he may have felt no need to add his death. But Luke did add the martyrdoms of James and Stephen yet they do not reappear in anymore of Luke’s work, meaning Luke’s writings were no more about them than they were about Paul. Personally, I find it hard to believe that Luke, a companion of Paul who wrote of him in high regard, would not mention his death for his belief in Christianity. To reiterate, all this supports the theory that the Gospel was written at an earlier date in the AD60s because the author does not include vital details of the time afterwards, which given his promise of ‘and orderly account’ makes little sense.

A further part of discussion that supports an early date is the fact that there is no reference made to the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. Given that Jerusalem was one of Luke’s major themes in his writing it can be surmised that the city held a particular interest to him. It is unusual that he would not write of the catastrophe which was the fall of this great city. Perhaps this again suggests that a reasonable explanation as to why there is no mention of the event is because it simply has not happened yet. Furthermore, Luke does not confirm the prophecy, he had confirmed the prophecy of the famine from Agabus in Acts (11: 27-28). As Morris states, ‘Luke notes the fulfilment of the prophecy of Agabus, if he were writing after 70AD it is logical to expect him to mention somewhere the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy that the city will be destroyed.’ So to summarize, it is argued that Luke does not confirm Jesus’ prophecy because it hasn’t happened yet.

There is an argument to support this early date that states it makes no sense that Luke wrote the Gospel earlier because the understanding of Jesus conveyed through the writing is under developed and honestly, quite primitive. For example, he refers to Jesus as a ‘servant’ and portrays him as a man who uses what is possibly a more logical explanation for the primitive features of Luke’s writing is that in order to give an accurate account of the early church, he is simply emulating their understanding and their thoughts on Jesus. Thus, it does not relate back to the date at all and Luke could be writing later and simply writing about an earlier time.

Those who argue against this early date point out that there is no mention of Paul’s letters in Acts, suggesting that Acts and the Gospel were written before these letters circulated. We know they were widely circulated by 110AD because Ignatius wrote about them, so Luke could have written Acts and also his Gospel much later than 60AD. Furthermore, it is known that Luke collected a lot of his material for writing in Caesarea at the same time when Paul was imprisoned there. It is reasonable to assume that Luke must have written his Gospel after 60AD. Despite this, Bo Reicke asserts that when Luke wrote Acts, he knew nothing of events that took place later than 67AD.

Another theory places the date of Luke’s Gospel in the late first century, around 80AD. Immediately, this date brings up the issue of why important events like the Fall of Jerusalem were not confirmed in his writings, especially since they would have already occurred. Those in support of this middle date suggest that Luke’s version of Jesus’ prophecy about the destruction of the city is so much more detailed and accurate than the versions written by Matthew and Mark that it acts as confirmation to the event in itself. For example, Luke actually writes about how they will see “… Jerusalem surrounded by armies,” referring to the actual city, while Matthew and Mark only predict the destruction will take place in “the holy place”, meaning the temple. Also, Luke removes the mention of winter that both Mark and Matthew has, possibly because he knows that the Fall of Jerusalem actually occurred between April and September. In fact, it is generally believed that Luke modified the words of Mark to show the fulfilment of the events in 70AD. However, there are still holes in such a statement, with how Luke left out crucial details about the cannibalism that took place as well as the fire. Nonetheless, it does appear that Luke has more knowledge on the event and even McBride states that, “Some scholars agree that Luke’s language shows details of what actually happened.”

Another argument that places the Gospel in this time zone is Luke’s dependency on Mark and Mark’s Gospel is usually dated between 60 and 70AD. By the time Mark’s Gospel circulated, it would have been around 80AD which means it would have been around this time that Luke started to write his Gospel using Mark as a source. The Gospel itself even supports a later date, specifically in the Prologue where Luke writes about the “Many” who have come before him and given previous accounts before the one he is about to give. However, these two points are based on speculation, so much so that it weakens their validity. Who’s to say that Luke didn’t learn of Mark’s Gospel and retrieve a lot sooner than 80AD? We have no real proof to state that 10 to 20 years is the amount of time that passed between Mark’s date and Luke’s date.

The portrayal of Paul in the Gospel is another indicator for this middle date. Luke portrays him in a heroic figure and this particular image of Paul would have taken many years to circulate and become shared opinion. Paul was a very controversial figure in his time, who was not an apostle and who had killed many of the Lord’s followers before becoming a follower of Jesus himself. One could argue though, that Luke could still be writing earlier and he was a more understanding man who appreciated and even admire Paul’s efforts. Perhaps he wrote Paul in such a favorable light in order to promote him and encourage others to support him. Like the last issue, that argument is a matter of speculation. There’s no telling how long it would have taken for Paul to be less controversial in the eyes of the people and for him to be accepted.

A more convincing argument that relies more on written evidence and less speculation is the evidence in Luke’s writings that show he has a more developed understanding of theology, which suggests a later date. He understands the concepts of both eschatology and ecclesiology; meaning the end-times and the concept of Church respectively. In the case of the former, the early Church believed the Parousia- Jesus’ return- would happen soon, in their lifetime. However, in Luke’s writings, he seems to understand that this is not the case and the reason this supports this middle date is because this understanding that Jesus’s Second Coming would not take place as soon as originally thought only began to emerge and develop around 80AD. The concept of the Church was started to change as well and the structure of the Church only started to develop around 80AD. There are some arguments to be made against these points as well. For example, despite what one would say about Luke understanding that Jesus would not return immediately, there are still a few references in the Gospel to an immediate return. Moreover, Luke does not write about the hierarchy that would have been established in the Church at that time, if it were written in the middle date.

Finally, the latest date that some believe Luke couldn’t have been written in is between 150 and 180AD, in the 2nd century. Some scholars have suggested that Luke’s writings and the writings of Josephus in his “Antiquities of the Jews.” Are very similar and because the latter was written around 94AD, Luke would have only been able to use it in the early second century. There is the possibility that Josephus could have used Luke’s work as a source material and not the other way around, which explains the similarities between the two and also allows the date to be earlier. In fact, there is no clear evidence to support the idea that Luke used Josephus. There are some very significant differences between the two. It’s also stated that Acts shares some similarities in terms of theology with the mid second-century writings of the church father Justin Martyr, which again suggests that Luke must have written much later. The same argument can be used from before: Perhaps Justin Martyr used Luke’s work to inspire his work.

The second-century heretic Marcion used an early edition of Luke that was later expanded and became the Gospel we know today. This could have been- and most likely was- the final draft of Luke, so the Gospel could have been written any time before 140AD.

To conclude with a quote from McBride, “No date is without difficulty.” We simply do not know exactly when Luke was written, but the answer that most scholars are satisfied with, given the strong arguments that come with it, is that Luke was written in the middle date in the AD80s.