The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (63 page)

It was not until the mid-nineteenth century that anyone doubted the tradition that Luke wrote this Gospel, which coincided with the rejection of the Lukan authorship of Acts. The identification of the author of Luke-Acts with the beloved physician of Col 4:10 was considered to be nothing but faulty guesswork.
³³
Most scholars today who reject Lukan authorship do so contending that Luke's theology and historical detail differ substantially from Paul's. Many are willing to see a “Luke” as the author of the Gospel but one who was not a disciple of Paul and who wrote after the year 70.
³⁴

Yet as the above survey of the external and internal evidence has shown, there is ample reason to hold to the Lukan authorship of Luke-Acts. In particular, the external evidence provides strong support for Lukan authorship, with virtually no dissenting voice. Indeed, especially since the author makes plain that he was no eyewitness of the events narrated in the Gospel (Luke 1:1–4), it is unclear why anyone would have attributed the Gospel to him unless he was in fact the author. Also, Luke-Acts was evidently written by a well-educated author, which fits what is known of Luke, Paul's travel companion (“we passages”) and “beloved physician” (Col 4:14).

Date

Since Luke and Acts are related volumes, it is necessary to discuss both in order to assess accurately the date of Luke. While some have argued that Acts precedes Luke, this is highly unlikely.
³⁵
The “first narrative” mentioned in Acts 1:1 doubtless refers to the Gospel of Luke. Thus, Luke's Gospel predates the book of Acts, and hence the date of writing for Acts is to some extent predicated upon the date of composition for Luke.

Many date Luke's Gospel in keeping with their solution to the Synoptic Problem. More conservative scholars frequently date Mark in the 50s on the assumption that Luke used Mark. On the other end of the spectrum, critical scholars often assign to Luke-Acts a date subsequent to the year 70 based on their dating of Mark at about 65.
³⁶

Perhaps more importantly, the historical evidence in Luke's Gospel and especially in the book of Acts provides an independent point of reference for the dating of these two books.
³⁷
This requires some distance between the events of Christ's life and the writing of Luke's Gospel, but it does not demand a half century or more, as some surmise.
³⁸

Dates proposed for the book of Acts fall into three broad eras: (1) prior to 70; (2) around 80; and (3) near the end of the first century or in the early second century.
³⁹
Predominantly, those who adhere to the first or second position suggest that the historical Luke of church tradition accurately represented history in his writing of Acts. These proponents divide generally over the issue of the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. Those who understand Jesus' description in Luke 21:20 is a “prophecy after the fact” conclude that Luke wrote around 80 or later.

But the evidence for an early date for Luke-Acts (prior to 70) is compelling for the following six reasons. First, Luke does not mention any significant event subsequent to the early 60s in the book of Acts,
⁴⁰
such as the persecution of the church by Nero, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James the Just.
⁴¹

Second, the stance toward the Roman Empire in the book of Acts is decidedly neutral if not friendly. This would seem to favor a time prior to Nero's persecution of Christians that culminated in Paul's and Peter's martyrdoms (64–66).

Third, the failure to mention Jerusalem's destruction in Luke's Gospel also favors a pre-70 date. Since Luke consistently noted the fulfillment of prophecy, both written and oral,
⁴²
why would he not mention that Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple had been fulfilled?
⁴³
Moreover, the temple plays a prominent role in both Luke and Acts; in fact, Luke's Gospel begins and ends in the temple (1:9; 24:53). This prominence seems unlikely if the Gospel were written after the destruction of the temple. Also, the relevance and impact of the Stephen episode in Acts 7 are predicated upon the temple still
being in existence. At the very least the author missed a great opportunity to underscore Stephen's point (the corruption of the temple system) by failing to mention the destruction of the temple.

A fourth indication of an early date is that Paul's letters are not mentioned in Acts. As L. T. Johnson stated, “It is far more likely for Paul's letters to be ignored before the time of their collection and canonization than after.”
⁴⁴

A fifth piece of evidence that is important for dating the book of Acts is its conclusion (Acts 28:30–31). For many the ending is uncomfortably brusque. Paul finally reaches Rome under the protection of the Emperor, but the reader is left without knowing the outcome of the trial. The book ends with Paul preaching the gospel in Rome without hindrance. The logical question is, Why didn't Luke write a paragraph or two describing the outcome of the trial? The response that Luke had accomplished his purpose by showing the progress of the gospel from Jerusalem all the way to Rome, implying that any mention of the outcome of Paul's trial would have been superfluous, is unsatisfactory.
⁴⁵
The natural conclusion is that Luke caught up with Paul in time and that when Luke concluded Acts, Paul was still under house arrest in Rome and awaiting trial before the emperor Nero.

Sixth, in Acts 20:25 Paul told the Ephesian elders that he would never see them again. However, the Pastoral Epistles suggest that Paul continued to sustain close ties with the Ephesian church after his release from the first Roman imprisonment (1 Tim 1:3). The inclusion of this statement in Acts 20 is difficult to explain if it was written after the Pastorals.
⁴⁶

A late date for Acts is therefore far more problematic than an early one. Therefore, the most likely date for Luke is sometime before the composition of the book of Acts, which was probably written in the early 60s.

By how many years does Luke's Gospel precede the book of Acts? It is impossible to be certain. If Luke conceived of Luke-Acts as a two-volume work, which seems likely (see Acts 1:1–3), it would seem reasonable to conclude that Luke wrote his Gospel and the book of Acts within a few years of each other—though this falls, of course, short of proof. If one assumes that Luke used Mark, as well as other written and oral sources, in writing his Gospel (see Luke 1:1–4), this would require Mark and other accounts of Jesus' life to have been written prior to Luke's writing of his Gospel. If Mark is dated in the mid-50s and time is allowed for Luke to access Mark's Gospel, this would narrow the most likely window for the composition of Luke's Gospel to the mid to late 50s. If Luke was traveling
with Paul during this time, he would have had ample opportunity to do the necessary research and to compose his Gospel during Paul's two-year stay at Caesarea Maritima (55–57). Thus a date in the mid- to late 50s seems most plausible, with a likely date of the early 60s for the book of Acts, though certainty remains elusive.
⁴⁷

Provenance

Internally, the Gospel gives no indication of its place of origin. Externally, both the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Luke (allegedly written against Marcion; c. 160–180) and the Monarchian Prologue (short introductions prefixed in many Vulgate MSS to the four Gospels, probably written in the fourth or fifth century) claim that the Gospel was written from Achaia (Greece).
⁴⁸
But both of these documents connect Matthew to Judea (uncertain) and Mark to Italy (more likely), so the linkage of Luke to Achaia may or may not be accurate. Achaia as a place of composition is not ruled out by a date in the early 60s since Luke may have temporarily left Paul when the latter was in Rome. Ancient tradition also places Lukan provenance in Boeotia and Rome. Ultimately, we have little evidence in the apostolic fathers beyond the regions of Greece, and this data may be quite late. Fitzmyer was on target when he stated that the provenance of Luke's Gospel is “anyone's guess.”
⁴⁹
But if it is correct that Luke compiled his sources while Paul was in prison in Caesarea and was with Paul during the first Roman imprisonment (as is indicated by Col 4:14), the Gospel of Luke could have been written anywhere between Caesarea and Rome.

Destination

The recipient of Luke's Gospel is clearly Theophilus (Luke 1:3). Luke's preface tells us at least three things about Theophilus. First, he was a man of high rank, for Luke addressed him as “most honorable” (
kratistos
; Luke 1:3), a term that is used elsewhere in the NT only by the same author in Acts with reference to the Roman government officials Felix and Festus (see Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25).
⁵⁰
Second, Theophilus had received previous instruction regarding the Christian faith (“you have been instructed”; Luke 1:4). Third, Luke offered his Gospel to give Theophilus further assurance regarding this instruction (“so that you may know the certainty”; Luke 1:4).

Several views regarding Theophilus's identity surface in the scholarly literature.
⁵¹
Perhaps most common is the view that Theophilus was the monetary backer and literary
patron who sponsored the publication of Luke's work.
⁵²
Some have suggested that he was an influential unbeliever with an interest in Christianity.
⁵³
Others proposed that Theophilus was a new Christian in need of further instruction
⁵⁴
or even the Roman official overseeing Paul's trial.
⁵⁵
Finally, some see the name “Theophilus” as a euphemism for all who love God (
theos
= “God”;
philos
= “friend”;
Theophilus
= “friend or lover of God”)
⁵⁶
or as a designation used to protect the real identity of the patron or recipient of the letter. However, the reference to him as “most excellent” almost certainly points to a real person, especially in light of the above-mentioned parallels in Acts (23:26; 24:3; 26:25).
⁵⁷

Most likely, then, Theophilus was Luke's literary patron who supported the production of the books and made them available for viewing and copying. It was customary in ancient historiography for the patron's name to appear in the preface of a work.
⁵⁸
The stated purpose (“so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed,” Luke 1:4) implies that Theophilus was more than merely interested but had received some previous Christian instruction,
⁵⁹
although it is impossible to determine his precise spiritual status.

Although Luke specifically addressed his Gospel to Theophilus, it is unlikely that he limited his audience to just one person. If Theophilus was indeed Luke's literary patron, his identity would be less important since his name would appear more because of custom than because of direct address.
⁶⁰

Luke's Gospel reveals several characteristics about this broader audience. Virtually all scholars suggest that Luke wrote for a Gentile audience since he tended to substitute
Greek names and titles for overtly Jewish ones
⁶¹
and since he traced Jesus' genealogy back to Adam (Luke 3:38), the first human being, not just to Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, as Matthew did (see Matt 1:1—2,17). Also, Luke situated the Gospel historically by referring to the dates of the Roman emperors Augustus and Tiberius (see Luke 2:1; 3:1), and this would be of particular interest to Gentiles in the Greco-Roman world. Moreover, compared to Matthew and Mark, Luke featured few original quotations of the OT, with the notable exception of Luke 4:18—19.
⁶²
Finally, Luke's use of the term “Judea” in a generic sense for all of Palestine seems to indicate an audience removed from the Holy Land.
⁶³
Thus the internal evidence from Luke's Gospel points to a Gentile writing for Gentiles.

This is not to suggest that Luke's Gospel bore little or no interest for his Jewish readers.
⁶⁴
Luke's vivid emphasis on the temple at both the beginning and the end of the Gospel (Luke 2:27,37,46; 24:53) and the Jewish expression of Christianity described in Acts (see Acts 21:20) would certainly resonate with a Jewish audience. Moreover, Luke took pains to show that the religion of God does not change (Luke 16:16—17). Luke may have had a specific target audience in mind but most likely wrote his Gospel for all who would read it. As Blomberg concluded, “Luke…is often considered the most universal of all the Gospels. Perhaps that is the reason his purposes and circumstances are so hard to pin down; he may have been deliberately trying to reach a wide audience.”
⁶⁵

Purpose

The purpose of Luke's Gospel has been the subject of considerable disagreement. A multitude of suggestions have been offered from evangelism to a defense of the memory of Paul.
⁶⁶
It seems most natural to allow Luke's stated purpose in his preface in correlation with the Gospel's structure to dictate the book's purpose. Indeed, Luke's Gospel does contain a purpose clause. In his preface Luke stated that he wrote his treatise to Theophilus “so that you may know the certainty of the things about which you have been instructed” (Luke 1:4). The word “instructed” indicates that Theophilus, and perhaps Luke's target
audience, had been instructed but not necessarily converted.
⁶⁷
The word
asphaleia
(“certainty”) indicates absolute certainty but also carries the nuance of stability.
⁶⁸
Thus Luke wanted Theophilus to know that the message about Jesus was reliable. This would imply that both Theophilus and Luke's larger audience were about to read a treatise defending the truthfulness of Christianity.

This apologetic character of the Gospel is clearly expressed in Luke's concern for accuracy. Luke first claimed to have had access to eyewitness traditions: “just as the original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed them down to us” (Luke 1:2).
⁶⁹
This is corroborated by Jesus' statement in Luke 24:48, “You are witnesses of these things” (cf. Luke 12:12). Luke also claimed to have engaged in a thorough investigation of the story of Jesus: “since I have carefully investigated everything from the very first” (Luke 1:3). Moreover, Luke described his first narrative in Acts as a description of “all [the things] that Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1). Together, these references suggest that Luke wants to impart basic, reliable information about the life and the teachings of Jesus. This included not only an accurate historical account of Jesus' ministry but also the interpretation of its theological significance and relevance.