2. DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING.—(a) Date.— Various dates have been assigned to the Gospel,
**Conuriaht, 190, by οὐ νυ Scribner's Sons
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
ranging from A.D. 56-60 (Blass, Philol. of Gospels, pp. 53, 54) to some date after A.D. 130. The main argument in favour of the latest date, which was that accepted by Baur, Zeller, and others, was
the supposed dependence of the Gospel on that |
of Marcion; but this argument has been proved to be valueless by the almost universal agreement of critics that Marcion is really dependent on St. Luke. A comparatively late date for the Gospel has also been urged on the ground of a similar dependence on Josephus. This, if proved, would make the date about A.D. 100; but here, again, the hypothesis must be regarded as unproven. Nor can any definite and certain conclusion be reached by comparing St. Luke’s Gospel with those of St. Matthew and St. Mark, for the dates of these two books are uncertain. It is true we have a tradition which Clement of Alexandria received from οἱ ἀνέκαθεν πρεσβύτεροι (Kus. HE vi. 14) that the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke —ra περιέχοντα τὰς γενεαλογίας --- 86 the first written. The statement of Irenzus (iii. 1. 1) need not be taken as giving the chronological order of the Gospels (as Zahn, Hint. ii. 181), for the ἔπειτα, on which Zahn lays stress to prove this, only implies that St. John’s Gospel was written later than the other three, and though dates are by him assigned to St. Matthew and St. Mark, none is given for St. Luke. External evidence of any yalue as to the relative dates of the three Synoptic Gospels is therefore not forthcoming; nor does a comparison of them show very clear results, as will be seen below.
The first definite piece of evidence to be con- sidered is that afforded by Ac 11, where reference is made to a πρῶτος λόγος, which, on the assumption that the Acts and the Gospel were both St. Luke’s writings, is the Gospel, the date of which we are discussing. The Gospel is therefore prior to the Acts, but the date of the latter book cannot be regarded as fixed; and the question is further complicated, if we attach any weight to Blass’s view that there were two separate editions of the Gospel and the Acts. In any case the date of the Gospel must depend on that of the Acts, and from a careful comparison of the style of these two books Sir John Hawkins (Hore Synoptic, pp. 143-146) draws the conclusion that ‘a considerable time must have elapsed between the writing of the two books,’ and that there is ‘some internal evidence in favour of placing the Gospel at a con- siderably earlier date than Acts.’
Another class of arguments is concerned with data afforded by the Gospel itself. (1) Ramsay (δὲ. Paul the Traveller, p. 387) argues that St. Luke’s dating of ‘Tiberius’ reign in 3! requires us to reckon it from the time when he was associated by Augustus in the empire. Such a method of reckoning, he implies, is so unusual, that ‘there can be hardly any other reason’ for it ‘than that the calculation was made under an emperor whose years were reckoned from his association as col- league.’ This was the case with Titus, who began to reign in association with his father in A.D. ΤΊ, and therefore Ramsay dates the writing of St. Luke’s Gospel about that time, the ‘finishing touches’ being given while Titus was reigning as sole emperor, A.D. 79-81. This argument, as the writer allows, ‘taken by itself would be insuffi- cient.’
(2) The preface to the Gospel (114) states that there had been ‘many’ previous attempts to draw up a narrative of our Lord’s life, and this requires us to assume the lapse of some time after our Lord’s death. The length of the interval will depend on whether St. Luke’s words are taken to imply written narratives. ‘The process de- scribed in the preface implies a longer period than
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
would fall within the year A.D. 63: it is probable that the common basis of our three Synoptic Gospels was not committed to writing so early’ (Sanday, Inspiration, p. 278).
(3) It is argued that we find in St. Luke’s Gospel language so definite and precise in regard to the circumstances of the destruction of Jerusalem, as to suggest to us to date the writing of the Gospel after that event. The three chief passages ad- duced are 19-44 21% 919. The first of these passages occurs in the account of our Lord’s triumphal entry, on His first coming in sight of the city of Jerusalem. The words are ἥξουσιν ἡμέραι ἐπὶ σέ, kal παρεμβαλοῦσιν ol ἐχθροί cov χάρακά σοι καὶ περικυκλώσουσίν σε, καὶ συνέξουσίν σε πάντοθεν καὶ ἐδαφιοῦσίν σε καὶ τὰ τέκνα σου ἐν σοί. ἀνθ᾽ ὧν οὐκ ἔγνως τὸν καιρὸν τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς gov. Here the con- eluding words imply that the whole passage is a comment on the verse which precedes, and which contains a statement of our Lord’s grief over Jerusalem for her failure to forecast the conse- quences of her conduct. The whole incident is recorded by St. Luke only, which is a sufficient explanation as to why the words in question should not be found in Mt or Mk, and they form an integral part of the incident. Nor is there anything suspiciously definite in the words, for if our Lord could foretell (Mt 242, Mk 13%, Lk 915) such a destruction of Jerusalem that ‘not one stone should be left on another,’ there is nothing so precise in the words quoted above—which refer to the process by which that destruction was to be effected—as to require that St. Luke has in- serted these words—and not only these words, but the whole incident of which they form a part— after the event. In the next passage, 21°°, the reference made by St. Matthew and St. Mark to Dn 9” has been dropped, and, instead of the words ὅταν οὖν ἴδητε τὸ βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, K.T.r., WE find the phrase ὅταν ἴδητε κυκλουμένην ὑπὸ στρατο- πέδων ᾿ἸἹερουσαλήμ, κιτιλ. The fact of our having here a substitution for words found in St. Matthew and St. Mark, and not, as in the last case, an addition, is at first sight more suspicious. But one very reasonable view is that St. Luke is giving here an explanation of the words quoted from Daniel, the exact meaning of which is uncertain even now, while they would probably have been quite unintelligible to St. Luke’s Gentile readers. Some support is to be found for this view in St. Luke’s use of the word ἐρήμωσις at the end of the verse, which may be an allusion to the words 7d βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως. Another equally possible explanation of St. Luke’s divergence from St. Matthew and St. Mark here is that he is drawing from a different source from that used by the other two Gospels, and this is borne out by numerous other passages in this chapter, where St. Luke’s independence is clear. The suggestion, therefore, that the words were inserted after the destruction of Jerusalem is only one of three pos- sible explanations of the facts, and is not required by the words themselves, which, like those in 1944, are not, after all, particularly definite. The last passage mentioned above, viz. 21%, is also peculiar to St. Luke—ecotvrat στόματι μαχαίρης καὶ αἰχμαλωτισθήσονται els Ta ἔθνη πάντα, καὶ ᾿Ιερουσαλὴμ ἔσται πατουμένη ὑπὸ ἐθνῶν, ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν. But these words only state the destruction of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, and the further thought of a terminus ad quem for the punishment of the Jews is found in Ro 11%, an Epistle earlier than the earliest date assigned to the Gospel.