The Dating of Luke-Acts

The Dating of Luke-Acts: 

Either 75 A.D.,

- We’d expect Luke-Acts to mention the martyrdom of Paul if he had known about it (approximately 65 A.D.)  His failing to mention Paul’s death is best explained by it not happening yet.  However, we can resist this reasoning if we see that the literary purpose of Luke-Acts is completed with the preaching of the gospel in Rome, so there’s no literary requirement to mention the death of Paul.

- Paul’s death is long enough ago that it isn’t news (probably about a decade earlier), so it doesn’t need to be mentioned.

- Luke’s redaction of his Markan source in describing the “abomination that causes desolation” as “armies surrounding Jerusalem. . . they will be taken as prisoners to all nations” occurs in the text right when we'd expect Luke to follow Mark's description of a vague prediction of the defilement of the temple. Luke instead enriches the account with concrete historical detail that must be based on historical knowledge of Jerusalem’s fall, so post 70 A.D. Further, Luke references the building of ramparts and encirclement of the city in ch. 19.

- But given Luke’s lack of awareness of Paul’s letters, the work must not be long after 70 A.D as Paul’s letters were collected quite early.  He would have used them if he had them, but he didn’t.  

- So, approximately 75 A.D. is the best date for the composition of Luke-Acts.

- Some scholars think that Paul’s farewell address to the Ephesians is a funeral oration indicating Paul’s death in Rome.

- If church tradition concerning the writing of Mark occurring near the death of Peter circa 64 A.D. is taken at face value, then we have another argument to rebuff the problem of Luke-Acts omitting Paul's death.

Or 62 A.D., 

- Paul’s letters not mentioned.

- Paul’s martyrdom and Peter’s martyrdom not mentioned, despite Stephen’s being mentioned

- James martyrdom (62 A.D.) not mentioned

- Harnack eventually changed his mind, accepting this earlier date given the above considerations.

- Very strong knowledge of 50s Roman Syrian administration

- The redaction of the “abomination that causes desolation” as “armies surrounding Jerusalem,” is language that is nevertheless still too generic a description to be based on concrete historical knowledge. The language also has parallels in the Septuagint.  Some scholars think Luke may be drawing on another source in introducing this prophecy and thus not redacting his Markan source.

- Furthermore, Luke tends to mention when prophecies are fulfilled if they have been fulfilled (Acts 11:28).  He doesn’t do this in the case of Jesus’ prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem.  The best explanation is that the fulfillment hasn’t occurred yet, so Jerusalem hasn’t fallen yet. So it must be prior to 70 A.D.

- These considerations together argue for a date of 62 A.D.

- Luke seems unaware of a Pauline return trip to the East, as the Pastoral epistles (post 62 A.D.) indicate (Paul went to Crete at some point, per the epistle to Titus). It’d appear that Luke would want to amend or comment on Paul’s strong language of never seeing the Ephesians again (cite) if he had known that Paul would return to the East.  It also appears that Paul indicated that he wanted to return to the East in the Prison epistles (dated 60-62 A.D.), as he asked Philemon to prepare a room for him.  The Prison Epistles were most plausibly written in Rome during the first imprisonment (60-62 A.D.) (Bruce believes this due to a development in Paul’s theology that must be dated later than his earlier epistles.)

- Primitive vocabulary: Other evidence that is less often talked about includes the sparing use of the noun Χριστιανόι; the use of μάρτυς in the literal sense of “winess” rather than in the modern sense of “martyr”; the use of “Simon” (Σίμων) for Peter; and the comparatively primitive use of the term ἐκκλησία. Though these arguments are not completely conclusive, they do cumulatively point to an earlier rather than a later date.