II.

LUKE, DATE AND READERS

That some of the details have to be explained as allegorical or legendary has to be

admitted (e.g. Luke's marital status, his age (see Luke 2:37], the place of his
death, and probably even the place of composition of his writings). They are of
little concern. But to dismiss the substance of the tradition—that Luke wrote the
Third Gospel and Acts—seems gratuitous. As in all cases, the tradition has to be
scrutinized; what cannot be explained as “inferences from the text” of the NT or as
obvious legendary accretions should be accepted, unless one encounters serious,
insoluble, or contradictory problems. Cadbury (Beginnings 2. 250-264) bas
maintained that “inferences from the text” of the NT would have made it possible to
conclude that Luke was the author of the Third Gospel, because a canonical Gospel
had to have an “apostle” or “man of apostolic times” as its author, as Tertullian
argued. Given this attitude, which itself has not been inferred from the text of
the NT, one could have compared the WeSections in Acts with the data about Paul and
his companions during his house-arrest and concluded that Luke was the author. More
recently Haenchen (Acts, 1-14) has argued similarly. He discussed anew the evidence
from tradition in great detail and showed many of its weaknesses from a critical
standpoint. But the argument that the second-century church inferred from the NT
itself that Luke was the author, while in se possible, is all too pat. That an
individual in the second century—or even several individuals—might have so reasoned
is certainly possible; but that such inferences from the NT text are the sole basis
of an otherwise uncontested or unambiguous tradition (unlike that of the First
Gospel) is difficult to accept. Too much has indeed been made of such early church
tradition in the past, even as late as the beginning of this century, in the
attempt to defend the historicity of the Gospels. But I find myself in agreement
with J. M. Creed who thus argued for the presumption that the tradition is true:
“Luke ... is not personally a prominent figure in the apostolic age. . . . If the
Gospel and Acts did not already pass under ... his name there is no obvious reason
why tradition should have associated them with him” (The Gospel, xiii-xiv).

There are some problems that one has to face in accepting the substance of the
tradition that Luke, the companion of Paul, was the author of the Third Gospel and
Acts, and to these we now tum.

A. LUKE'S ETHNIC BACKGROUND. Scholarly opinion has been divided on the question of
Luke's ethnic background. In general, two views are proposed: (1) Luke was a
Gentile Christian: This view is based mainly on the internal evidence of the Gospel
and Acts: the superior quality of the Greek language, the avoidance of Semitic
words (except Amen), the omission of gospel traditions about Jesus' controversies
with the Pharisaic understanding of the Law and about what is clean or unclean, the

41

LUKE I-IX

transformation of Palestinian local color and details into Hellenistic

counterparts. These and similar factors have been cited to identify the anthor as a
Gentile Christian, i.e. one converted to Christianity from paganism.

The argument is sometimes pushed still further to maintain that the author was
actually a Gentile Christian of Greek origin or an Antiochene Greek. This is based
on Paul's statement in Col 4:11-14, where three persons are listed as his Jewish-
Christian co-workers, but Luke seems to be listed among other, presumably, Gentile-
Christian collaborators. For instance, K. Lake years ago claimed that the early
tradition identified Luke as “an Antiochene Greek” (“Luke,” in Dictionary of the
Apostolic Church (New York: Scribner, 1922] 1. 719); and more recently, K. H.
Rengstorf (Evangelium nach Lukas, 11) has called him a Gentile Christian, indeed of
Greek origin. Many others have followed this view (e.g. W. K. Hobart, A. von
Harnack, P. Vielhauer, G. B. Caird, W. G. Kümmel, A. Plummer, W. Manson, J.
Schmid).

(2) Luke was a Jewish Christian. The view that the author was a Jewish Christian,
i.e. a convert from Judaism, is based mainly on the interest displayed in Luke-Acts
in the OT and its phraseology, the author's alleged Palestinian language, and the
Epiphanian tradition (Panarion 51.11) that he was one of the seventy-two disciples;
sometimes the mention of Lucius as among Paul's "kinsmen” (Rom 16:21) is also
invoked. Among supporters of this view, one may cite A. Schlatter, B. S. Easton, E.
E. Ellis, W. F. Albright, N. Q. King, B. Reicke.

For reasons that I shall try to set forth below, I regard Luke as a Gentile
Christian, not, however, as a Greek, but as a non-Jewish Semite, a native of
Antioch, where he was well educated in a Hellenistic atmosphere and culture. But
various factors, which support this view of the author of the Third Gospel and
which are involved in the contrasting views, have to be discussed. They involve the
form of Luke's name, the NT passages in which he is mentioned, and the ancient
tradition about his Antiochene origin. I shall comment on these in turn.

Luke's name is written in NT Greek as Loukas, i.e. in a shortened or hypocoristic

Greek form of a Latin name (or names): Loukanos (=Latin Lucanus), Loukianos
(=Lucianus), Loukios or Leukios (=Lucius), Loukillios (=Lucilius). See W. M.
Calder, CRev 38 (1924) 30. It has, moreover, been compared with other shortened
Greek names in the NT: Paul's companion is called Silas (Acts 15:40), but otherwise
Silouanos (1 Thess 1:1 = Latin Silvanus). Similarly, Epaphras (Col 4:12), a
shortened form of Greek Epaphroditos (Phil 2:25); or Antipas (Rev 2:13) for Greek
Antipatros (Josephus Ant. 14.1,3 § 10). See BDF § 125. The shortening of the name
has been explained as a Greek phe

42

II. LUKE, DATB AND READERS

nomenon (see W. Schulze, Graeca latina (Göttingen: Dietorich, 1901) 12). That
Loukas is a shortened name seems certain.

of the various Latin names for which Loukas might stand, the only certainly
attested equivalent is Loukios (=Latin Lucius). This equation is based on two
inscriptions referring to a family which set up ex voto plaques in honor of the god
Men Ascaënus at Pisidian Antioch in the Imperial period. In one the son's name is
given as Loukios, in the other as Loukas (see A. Deissmann, LAE, 435-438). This
evidence makes many interpreters insist on this explanation of Luke's name, even
though the other possibilities cannot be absolutely ruled out.

From the use of such a name one cannot tell whether the person who bore it was a
Gentile or a Jew. Greek and Roman names were borne by many Jews in Palestine and
Syria of this period. They were often indicative of their status either as liberti,
"freedmen,” descendants of Jews once sold into slavery during the Roman conquest of
an area, or as incolae, "inhabitants,” of the area, who in time had been granted
the right of Roman citizenship.

Origen knew of persons who identified Luke as the Lucius of Rom 16:21 (Comm. in Ep.
ad Rom. 10.39), and that identification has persisted into modern times. This would
make Luke a kinsman of Paul, and hence a Jewish Christian, because Paul's phrase,
“my kinsmen” (hoi syngeneis mou) seems to refer to “Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater”
(Rom 16:21). Deissmann (LAE, 438) sought to get around this, by arguing that the
phrase "might be in apposition only to Jason and Sosipater.” Though that is
possible, the real problem is to explain why Paul would refer to Luke there as
Loukios, when he elsewhere uses Loukas of him (Col 4:14). The identification is
further complicated by the fact that the immediately preceding verse, Rom 16:20b,
is a greeting, “The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you” (the end of Paul's own
message?) and that the following verse, Rom 16:22, contains a greeting from Paul's
scribe, Tertius. Hence it is not clear to whom the pronoun “my” in 16:21 refers. So
one cannot facilely conclude from Rom 16:21 that Luke was a Jewish Christian.

Col 4:10-14 has been used to show that Luke was a Gentile Christian, indeed a
Greek. There Paul seems to say that Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus "are the
only persons of the circumcision” (i.e. converts from Judaism) who are among his
fellow workers. Immediately contrasted to them is Epaphras, identified as “one of
yourselves," seemingly converts from paganism. Then, after two verses describing
Epaphras' prayer, work, and concern for Christians in Colossae, Laodicea, and
Hierapolis, Paul mentions the greeting of Luke and Demas, who are not explicitly
identified either as Jewish or Gentile converts. Yet the implied

43

LUKE I-IX

contrast would seem to suggest that
(LAE, 438) has argued that here too
three men as Jews in 4:10, but only
pagan convert to Christianity. This
because of the natural sense of the
have been borne by a Jew.
Luke was a Gentile Christian, Again, Deissmann
it is not certain that Paul is describing all
the last two. Arie tarchus could have been a
is again a possibility, but it is not plausible
phrase and because the name Aristarchus could

Moreover, W. F. Albright has argued that it is quite wrong to infer from Col 4:10-
11 and 14 that “Luke was not himself circumcised” (AB 31. 266). He insists that the
phrase hoi ontes ek peritomēs means "those belonging to the circumcision party,”
because this Greek phrase without the article designates the party which considered
circumcision a necessary prerequisite for salvation. The phrase has this meaning in
Gal 2:12; it is a plausible meaning for Acts 11:2 and Titus 1:10 (so interpreted by
the RSV in these places). But that it always designates the circumcision party is
not at all certain. It is impossible in Rom 4:12 and is far from demanded in the
context of Acts 10:45. As for Col 4:11, what sense would it make for Paul to say
that Aristarchus, Mark, and Jesus Justus were “the only men of the circumcision
party” who were his fellow workers? It seems incredible that Paul would admit that
such persons “have been a comfort” to him. Moreover, the contrast of the phrase
with the other one, ho ex hymõn, “one of yourselves,” calls for the more general
meaning, “converts from Judaism,” among whom Epaphras was not. The contrast is
limited to w. 10-12, and the greeting that mentions Luke in v. 14 is extrinsic to
that contrast. The least one can say is that v. 11 implies that Luke is not among
the converts from Judaism.

But does it immediately mean that Luke was a “Greek”? Such a description of him has
depended in part on the common estimate of the Greek in which the Third Gospel and
Acts are written. For Jerome's high estimate of his Greek, see p. 107 below (cf. De
vir. ill. 7). That estimate has been often repeated and even grew in time. A tenth-
century writer, Symeon Metaphrastes, spun out its implications: Luke had "received
the finest education among the Greeks” (Hypomnema 1; PG, 115. 1129).

The description is also related to the tradition that Luke came from the
Hellenistic city of Antioch. Josephus spoke of Antioch as the capital of Syria,
“ranking third among the cities of the Roman world because of its size and
prosperity” (J.W. 3.2,4 § 29). Founded by Seleucus I Nicator ca. 300 B.C., it was
situated on the Orontes River near the plateau and springs of Daphne, whence was
derived the common epithet, “Antioch near Daphne.” The town was divided into
various quarters in which lived European settlers and native Syrians. Its
population was mixed: Macedonians, Cretans, Cypriotes, Argives, Jews (who had
served as mercenaries in the Seleucid army), and native Syrians. Josephus makes it

44

1. LUKR, DATE AND READERS

clear that a Jew from Antioch could have been called Antiocheus (“our Jewish
inhabitants of Antioch are called Antiochenes," 18. Ap. 2.1 $ 39; cf. Ant. 12.3,1 $
119). Sce C. H. Kraeling, “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932) 130-160;
G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria from Seleucus to the Arab Conquest
(Princeton: Princeton University, 1961) 54-201; Ancient Antioch (Princeton:
Princeton University, 1963) 27-142.

The understanding of Luke as a Gentile Greek is not necessarily called for by the
evidence. To begin with, one should distinguish clearly between the internal
evidence for the author's ethnic background and that for the destination of the
Gospel, i.e. the readers for whom Luke wrote and destined his work. W. G. Kümmel
(Introduction, 149-150) writes, “The only thing that can be said with certainty
about the author, on the basis of Lk, is that he was a Gentile Christian.” Although
Kümmel does not call the author of Luke-Acts a “Greek,” as others have done, his
paragraph mingles indiscriminately evidence about Luke's ethnic background and
evidence about the Gentile-readers destination of his Gospel. Aside from the
question of Luke's knowledge of Palestinian geography, most of the items which
Kümmel mentions support the Gentile destination of the Gospel and are irrelevant to
the consideration of the author's ethnic background. The most that one can deduce
from the Gospel is Luke's concern for Christians of Gentile background; and the
Gentile destination of the Gospel would not necessarily exclude a Jewish background
for its author. In the long run, then, the question of the author's ethnic
background has to be decided on other grounds, which would include the tradition
extrinsic to the Gospel and what might be deduced from Col 4: 10-14.

Here we may consider the phrase mentioning Luke's origin in several of the ancient
testimonies which relate the Third Gospel to him. The oldest reference is in the
Ancient Greek Prologue: estin ho Loukas Antiocheus Syros (with a variant reading,
Syros to genei; the [later?] Latin form of the prologue has Lucas Antiochensis
Syrus), “This Luke is an Antiochene, a Syrian” (with the variant, "by nationality"
(or possibly, “by descent']). Eusebius knows of the same tradition (Hist. eccl.
3.4,6): Loukas de to men genos ön ton ap' Antiocheias, "by descent Luke was of
those from Antioch.” Jerome (De vir. ill. 7) repeats it: “Lucas medicus
Antiochensis.”

Though Luke in this ancient tradition is said to be from Antioch in Syria, he is

not said to be a Greek. The statement quoted from Josephus above could be used to
explain that Luke was a “Jew from Antioch.” There is a third possibility, simpler
than the other two, viz. that Luke was a native Syrian inhabitant of Antioch, a
non-Jew from a Semitic cultural background, an incola of Antioch, a Gentile. W. F.
Albright (AB 31,

45

LUKE I-IX

264) has argued that since there were at least twenty-four different Antiochs, this
phrase means no more than that Luke was a native of Antioch in Syria. But if there
were, indeed, twenty-four Antiochs in Syria, the adjective Syros is scarcely
specific for any one of them. For this reason, the ethnic meaning is to be
preferred. Certainly, Eusebius' testimony points in that direction. (Here I have to
record that my revered teacher Albright wrote what he did about this matter in
opposition to what I was proposing about it, as he queried me at the time that he
[with his assistant) was composing the appendix to Munck's commentary. But in the
light of further study I stick to my guns.) See the Note on 7:3.

The mention of Luke's Syrian and Antiochene connections in the Ancient Greek
Prologue has in se no apologetic or theological value. But in this connection one
should recall the striking acquaintance that the author of Luke-Acts manifests with
the Christian community in Antioch (see A. Harnack, Luke the Physician, 20-24).
Some have tried to support the relationship with the variant reading in Codex Bezae
at Acts 11:28, which makes it one of the We-Sections. It is in a context concerning
the Antiochene church. But how can one assign that reading “to the second century"
(Beginnings 4. 130) or be certain that it antedates the Ancient Greek Prologue? Why
is it “certainly as early as the tradition of Luke's Antiochian provenance" (ibid.
2. 248)? As J. M. Creed notes (The Gospel, xxi), it is hardly likely that that
reading is original.

A. Strobel (ZNW 49 [1958] 131-134) has argued for the plausibility of Luke's
Antiochene origin on the basis of internal evidence from Acts. Haenchen, however,
has expressed his skepticism about Strobel's arguments. But, though Haenchen has
rightly argued that the ancient socalled Anti-Marcionite Prologues do not form a
literary unit and are not directed against Marcion (Acts, 10-12), he has offered no
evidence that the attribution of the Third Gospel and Acts to Luke, a Syrian of
Antioch, is untenable.

Luke's acquaintance with Antioch would have to be limited to an early phase of the
church there, as it can be deduced from Acts 11:19-20; 13:1-4; 14:26-28; 15:1-3,13-
40; and 18:22-23. He knows of it as a city where many converts were made to
Christianity from Gentile and Jewish Antiochenes by people from Jerusalem, Cyprus,
and Cyrene; where the disciples were first called Christians; and where the
Jerusalem prophet Agabus told of a famine coming to a vast area. Much of his story
about Barnabas (aside from his work with Paul on Mission I [A.D. 46-49]) is related
to Antioch, to which Barnabas was sent by the Jerusalem community and to which he
brought Saul. Again, Luke is aware of the Antiochene efforts to alleviate the
stricken brethren in Jerusalem. He is acquainted with five prophets and teachers of
the Antiochene community,

46

11. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

perhaps intimately with Barnabas, Manaen, and Saul. He knows too of the dispatch of
Barnabas and Saul by that church on missionary work and of the sending of these men
to Jerusalem for an official resolution of the Antiochene problem of the
circumcision of Gentile converts. After the "council” of Jerusalem, he tells of the
brief Antiochene sojourn of Paul and Barnabas before their separation. At this
point Barnabas disappears not only from Antioch but also from the story of Acts.
Antioch does too, save for a fleeting mention in 18:22-23, in a way that suggests
that Luke was not on hand at all. This would then imply an early acquaintance of
Luke with the Antiochene church.

It has been further suggested by R. Glover (“'Luke the Antiochene’ and Acts,” NTS
11 [1964-1965) 97-106) that Luke was no longer associated with Antioch after a date
in the late 40s when Barnabas went off to Cyprus, and that unless the common
interpretation of the We-Sections has erred, Luke soon thereafter turned up in
Troas (Acts 16:8-10). From there he sailed with Paul to Europe, where he seems to
have made a long stay at Philippi (Acts 16:12; 20:5-6). From there he further
returned with Paul to Caesarea Maritima, visited Jerusalem, followed Paul back to
Caesarea, and then accompanied him to Rome.

If the author of the Third Gospel and Acts were a native of Antioch in Syria, one
could rule out the possibility of his coming from other places that are at times
proposed: Pisidian Antioch, Philippi, and Cyrene in Northern Africa. W. T. Whitley
("Luke of Antioch in Pisidia,” ExpTim 21 [1909-1910] 164-166) proposed Pisidian
Antioch as Luke's hometown on the basis of the “we” in Acts 14:22, which is not for
him a verbatim quotation, but a neglected We-Section. Others, such as J. H. Moulton
(A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 1. 19), think that the author was referring to
himself as the “man of Macedonia" in Paul's dream at Troas and that hence he would
have been a citizen of Philippi. The identification of Luke with "Lucius of Cyrene”
(Acts 13:1) was suggested ages ago by Ephraem of Syria (Armenian Comm. on Acts,
12:25 - 13:3; Beginnings 3. 416); it has been more recently espoused by R. C. Ford
and B. Reicke (Gospel of Luke, 10-24). The latter thinks that the “men of Cyprus
and Cyrene” (Acts 11:20), who carried the Christian message to the Greeks at
Antioch, included converted Jews and proselytes such as Barnabas (Acts 4:36) and
Luke, who is none other than Lucius of Cyrene. In all these instances, we are
dealing with speculation. It would seem preferable to give a little more credit to
the ancient tradition, that Luke was a native of Antioch (near Daphne)

B. LUKE AS A COMPANION OF PAUL. If the substance of the ancient tradition about the
author of the Third Gospel and Acts still has some

47

II. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

woman (contrast Mark 5:26 and Luke 8:43) necessarily prove that he was a physician,

More recently G. A. Lindeboom has shown that there does not really exist any
similarity between the Lucan prologue and the prologues of Galen, Hippocrates, and
Dioscurides, despite suggestions by commentators to this effect.

In reality, it is a matter of little consequence for the interpretation of the

Third Gospel whether its author was a physician or not. He is said to have been
such in Col 4:14, if one accepts the traditional ascription of the Third Gospel to
him; but that is the extent of the matter.

In fact, it makes little difference to the interpretation of the Lucan Gospel

whether or not one can establish that its author was the traditional Luke, a
sometime companion of Paul, even a physician. I think that some of the modern
objections to the traditional identification are not all that cogent; hence the
foregoing reassessment of them and of the traditional thesis. The important thing
is the text of the Lucan Gospel and what it may say to Christians, regardless of
the identity of its author.

2. The Date and Place of the Composition of the Lucan Gospel. The identification of
the author of the Third Gospel and Acts as Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, a physician,
and a sometime collaborator of Paul, in no way necessitates an early dating (i.e.
pre-70) of the composition of these two NT books. In the prologue to the Gospel
Luke speaks of his dependence on the first generation of Christian disciples
(“eyewitnesses”), possibly on some of the second generation (“ministers of the
word”-if these are to be understood as distinct from the eyewitnesses), and on
"many” others who undertook to write accounts of the Christevent before him. Among
the latter must be included Mark, whose Gospel was composed about A.D. 65-70. The
Lucan Gospel should be dated, therefore, later than the Marcan, but how much later?

Despite the suggestions of F. H. Chase, R. Koh, P. Parker, H. G. Russell, C. S. C.

Williams, and others, that Acts was composed before the Lucan Gospel (or at least
the final form of it), there is really no serious reason to question Luke's
reference in Acts 1:1 to his “first book," or its implication that the Gospel was
written before Acts. Williams and others have argued that Luke sent Theophilus not
his Gospel, but an early draft of it, a collection of the sayings and doings of the
Lord; later on he wrote Acts, and still later he revised the Gospel-draft, making
use of a copy of Mark that he had actually acquired before he wrote Acts. This sort
of explanation, however, is highly speculative and depends in part on the
questionable theory of Proto-Luke (see below).

The story in Acts comes to a close with the house-arrest

of Paul in

53

11. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

woman (contrast Mark 5:26 and Luke 8:43) necessarily prove that he was a physician.

More recently G. A. Lindeboom has shown that there does not really exist any
similarity between the Lucan prologue and the prologues of Galen, Hippocrates, and
Dioscurides, despite suggestions by commentators to this effect.

In reality, it is a matter of little consequence for the interpretation of the

Third Gospel whether its author was a physician or not. He is said to have been
such in Col 4:14, if one accepts the traditional ascription of the Third Gospel to
him; but that is the extent of the matter.

In fact, it makes little difference to the interpretation of the Lucan Gospel

whether or not one can establish that its author was the traditional Luke, a
sometime companion of Paul, even a physician. I think that some of the modern
objections to the traditional identification are not all that cogent; hence the
foregoing reassessment of them and of the traditional thesis. The important thing
is the text of the Lucan Gospel and what it may say to Christians, regardless of
the identity of its author.

2. The Date and Place of the Composition of the Lucan Gospel. The identification of
the author of the Third Gospel and Acts as Luke, a Syrian of Antioch, a physician,
and a sometime collaborator of Paul, in no way necessitates an early dating (i.e.
pre-70) of the composition of these two NT books. In the prologue to the Gospel
Luke speaks of his dependence on the first generation of Christian disciples
(“eyewitnesses”), possibly on some of the second generation (“ministers of the
word”-if these are to be understood as distinct from the eyewitnesses), and on
“many” others who undertook to write accounts of the Christevent before him. Among
the latter must be included Mark, whose Gospel was composed about A.D. 65-70. The
Lucan Gospel should be dated, therefore, later than the Marcan, but how much later?

Despite the suggestions of F. H. Chase, R. Koh, P. Parker, H. G. Russell, C. S. C.

Williams, and others, that Acts was composed before the Lucan Gospel (or at least
the final form of it), there is really no serious reason to question Luke's
reference in Acts 1:1 to his “first book," or its implication that the Gospel was
written before Acts. Williams and others have argued that Luke sent Theophilus not
his Gospel, but an early draft of it, a collection of the sayings and doings of the
Lord; later on he wrote Acts, and still later he revised the Gospel-draft, making
use of a copy of Mark that he had actually acquired before he wrote Acts. This sort
of explanation, however, is highly speculative and depends in part on the
questionable theory of Proto-Luke (see below).

The story in Acts comes to a close with the house-arrest of Paul in

53

LUKE I-IX

Rome, in the early sixties, perhaps a.d. 61-63 (28:30). The abrupt ending of that
story has always been problematic, and many commentators have concluded from it
that Luke-Acts was composed prior to the death of Paul, of which Luke makes no
mention. Among these are Jerome, M. Albertz, F. Blass, J. Cambier, L. Cerfaux, E.
B. Ellis, N. Geldenhuys, F. Godet, B. Gut, A. von Harnack, M. Meinertz, W.
Michaelis, B. Reicke, H. Sahlin, J. A. T. Robinson, etc. No one knows why the story
ends where it does, despite many attempts to explain it. But the straightforward
reading of it, and the conclusion that the Lucan writings must have been composed
prior to Paul's trial or death, are not warranted. They encounter too many
problems.

First, Luke's own allusion to “many” other attempts to recount the Jesus-story
(Luke 1:1) before his own would be difficult to understand at such an early date.
Second, Luke 13:35a (“your house is abandoned,” addressed to Jersualem) is almost
certainly a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. Third, Jesus' judgment about
the Temple (Mark 13:2; cf. Luke 21:5) and his announcement about the desecration of
it by the “abomination of desolation” (Mark 13:14) become in the Lucan version a
saying about “Jerusalem surrounded by camps” (21:20). The Marcan apocalyptic
prophecy, making an allusion to Dan 12:11 or 9:27, about the destruction or
desolation of the Temple has given way to a description of a siege and capture of
the city of Jerusalem itself. Many commentators agree that this is in part a
vaticinium ex eventu, with allusion being made to the details of the taking of the
city by Titus. Again, Luke 19:4344 seems to be an allusion to earthworks of the
sort that Josephus described as being used in the siege (J.W. 6.2,7 $$ 150, 156).
In my opinion, these allusions make it clear that Luke has modified his Marcan
source in the light of what little he knew about the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans.

C. H. Dodd sought to counter this interpretation of the Lucan material by treating

the two Lucan oracles (19:42-44 and 21:20-24) as "composed entirely from the
language of the Old Testament.” For him, the picture of the coming disaster which
Luke has in mind was a generalized one about the fall of Jerusalem as imaginatively
presented in OT prophets; insofar as any historical event has colored the picture,
it was not Titus' capture of Jerusalem (A.D. 70) but rather Nebuchadnezzar's (587
B.C.) (“The Fall of Jerusalem,” 79). Some of the vocabulary used by Luke may,
indeed, have been influenced by the OT prophetic passages about the destruction of
cities. But the use of such vocabulary does not rule out an allusion to the
destruction of Jerusalem itself in A.D. 70. The shift of emphasis from the Temple
(in Mark) to the city of Jerusalem (in Luke) is not to be overlooked. Moreover,
even Dodd was convinced that it was “fairly certain” on other grounds that “the
Third Gospel was in fact produced after the Fall of Jerusalem” (ibid. 69). > "

54

II. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

Building in part on Dodd's analysis of these predictions, J. A. T. Robinson has

recently sought to date the Lucan Gospel ca. 1.D. 57-60 (Redating, 57-60). He does
well to remind us all how little evidence there really is for dating any of the NT
writings and how odd it is that "what on any showing would appear to be the single
most datable and climactic event of the period”-the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70—is
never mentioned as a past fact in those writings (ibid. 13). From this he
concludes, using other internal criticism as well, that all of the NT books were
composed prior to A.D. 70.

Specifically with reference to Luke, he discusses the alleged “three 'hard' pieces
of evidence” (ibid. 88): (1) prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem; (2)
dependence (according to the most widely held solution of the Synoptic problem) of
the Lucan Gospel on the Marcan; and (3) the ending of Acts. His discussion of these
pieces of evidence can be summarized thus: (1) The prophecies afford no ground for
supposing that they were vaticinia ex eventu; Jesus could have predicted the
destruction of Jerusalem just as another Jesus, the son of Ananias, did in the
autumn of A.D. 62 (ibid. 15, referring to Josephus, J.W. 6.5,3 300-309). (2)
Robinson writes off the dependence of Luke on Mark, preferring to see the Gospels
as parallel, though not isolated, developments of common material from different
communities (ibid. 94). (3) Following A. von Harnack, Robinson reiterates the view
that Luke-Acts must be dated prior to Paul's trial and death at Rome, because that
is where Acts ends. If the outcome of Paul's trial were already known, it surpasses
belief that no reference to it or no foreshadowing of it would appear in Acts
(ibid. 91). Hence Robinson concludes that the burden of proof is on those who would
argue that Acts comes from a later period.

It is difficult to respond to a writer who likes to shift the burden of proof to

others and characterizes as “dogmatic” (an adjective very dear to Robinson) any
view that he opposes. But perhaps a few comments here might be in order.

a) Modern interpreters have long been puzzled by the failure of NT writers to

mention the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. Much was made of the
event by the Jewish historian Josephus, on whose writings we depend so heavily for
what little is known of that part of the eastern Mediterranean world in which
Christianity was born and developed. This emphasis is understandable in the
writings of a Jew, and especially of one who was so intimately involved in the
event itself. But the real question is, Why should Christian writers not have made
more of the destruction of Jerusalem than they do? Even Robinson's carefully honed
prose subconsciously raises the problem when he comments on the oddity of “what on
any showing would appear to be the single most datable . . . event" (my italics).
After all, the destruction of Jerusalem took place at least a generation after the
crucifixion of Jesus, and Christianity

55

LUKE I-IX

had by that time moved out of its Palestinian matrix. Moreover, how few of the NT
writings were actually composed in Palestine, where we would expect Jewish
Christians to have been concerned about the destruction of the city of their
mother-church! A case has been made for the composition of James and 1 Peter in
Palestine (see J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First
Jewish Christians Have Known? (NovТSup 19; Leiden: Brill, 1968]). Those who would
argue for the Caesarean imprisonment as the place where the captivity letters of
the Pauline corpus were composed would thus relate them too to a Palestinian
origin; but that is definitely a minority opinion. The real question, however, is
why the Christian authors of NT books should have shown as much interest in the
destruction of Jerusalem as they do, when the focus of their attention and the
spread of Christianity into the Mediterranean world and among European Gentiles
were obviously more important to them than the Palestinian matrix which, in
general, showed itself so unreceptive to and uninterested in what was of supreme
importance to these writers: the interpretation of the Christ-event. (Paul, with
his concern for the collection to be taken to the poor at Jerusalem, is a prime
example to the contrary—and that concern manifested itself well before the
destruction of the city.)

b) To regard the Synoptic Gospels as parallel, though not isolated, developments of

common material and on this basis to deny Lucan dependence on Mark flies in the
face of the best NT scholarship and work on the Synoptic problem of the past
century—W. R. Farmer and his attempt to resurrect the Griesbach hypothesis
notwithstanding. In taking such a position, Robinson is closing his eyes to the
obvious Lucan references to the destruction of Jerusalem. It is, indeed, not
impossible that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple—no more impossible
than the prophecy of Jesus, son of Ananias. That could well be a plausible way to
interpret Mark 13:2. But when one reflects on the Lucan passages that allude to
Jerusalem and its fate (13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20 (and possibly 23:28-31]) and sees
how the emphasis falls not on the Temple, but on the city, it is beyond
comprehension how one can say that there is no reference in the Lucan Gospel to the
destruction of Jerusalem. Working from a modified form of the Two-Source Theory as
the solution of the Synoptic problem, we would say that the “prophetic” passages of
the Marcan apocalypse have been deliberately recast in terms of what little Luke,
writing outside of Palestine, knew of the Roman siege and final destruction of the
city. (To press the text of Luke 21:20 about the impossibility of flight to the
mountains from Judea or “the city” at the time of the siege and circumvallation is
to miss the point of the apocalyptic style of writing. Possibly the same should be
said for 23:30; cf. Hosea 10:8.)

c) Finally, I have already alluded to the problematic character of the

56

II. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

ending of Acts. (For a brief survey of attempts to explain it, sce my commentary,
"Acts of the Apostles," IBC art. 45, $ 119.) Robinson's treatment of this matter
skirts the literary problem involved. Perhaps Luke deliberately ended the book
where he did because he thought that he had by that time written what he wanted to
say in his account of the sequel to the Christ-event. The analysis of that ending
should begin with what is there instead of speculation about what it should have
contained. The boldness of Paul in his preaching, even in Rome, the capital of the
empire in which Christianity was then feeling its way, was more important for Luke
than any foreshadowing of the martyrdom of his hero. Cf. Acts 28: 14c.

For these reasons the dating of Luke-Acts must be not only post-Mark but also after
the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. But how much later? There is no way to be
certain about the extent of time required. I should be reluctant to date it in the
second century. This has been suggested at times by such writers as P. W. Schmidt,
M. S. Enslin, F. Overbeck, J. Knox, J. C. O'Neill. The last-named has proposed A.D.
115-130. It was once argued that Luke shows dependence on Josephus, but that is a
view that is largely abandoned today (see A. Ehrhardt, ST 12 [1958] 45-79, esp. pp.
64-65). The relationship between Acts and the writings of Justin Martyr has been
greatly overestimated by O'Neill (Theology, 1-53); see the review of his book by H.
F. D. Sparks, JTS 14 (1963) 454-466, esp. pp. 457-466.

On the other hand, Luke-Acts should be dated prior to the formation or circulation
of the Pauline corpus. As we have already noted, there is no evidence that Luke was
acquainted with Paul's letters, much less with the corpus as such.
Hence the best solution is to adopt the date for Luke-Acts that is used by many
today, ca. A.D. 80-85. See further W. G. Kümmel, Introduction, 151 ("between 70 and
90”); A. Wikenhauser and J. Schmid, Einleitung, 272 (“zwischen 80 und 90”).

As for the place of composition of the Lucan Gospel, it is really anyone's guess.
The only thing that seems certain is that it was not written in Palestine. Ancient
tradition about the place of composition varies greatly: Achaia, Boeotia, Rome.
Modern attempts to localize the composition elsewhere are mere guesses: Caesarea
(H. Klein), Decapolis (R. Koh), Asia Minor (K. Löning). In the long run, it is a
matter of little concern, because the interpretation of the Lucan Gospel and Acts
does not depend on it.

3. Luke's Intended Readers. A few words must be added here about the destination of
the Lucan Gospel, a topic on which we have touched briefly above. It is widely held
today that Luke has written his Gospel for a Gentile Christian audience, or at
least one that was predominantly Gen

57

LUKB I-IX

tile Christian. This view is based on Luke's obvious concern to relate his account
of the Christ-event and its sequel to a Greco-Roman literary tradition (e.g. in the
prologue of the Gospel), his dedication of his two volumes to a person bearing a
Greek name (though it could have been borne by a Jew), and his manifest desire to
relate the salvation promised to Israel in the OT to Gentiles or non-Jews.

Taldg

His elimination of materials from his sources, “Mk” or “Q," that are predominantly
Jewish preoccupations (e.g. in the Sermon on the Plainwhere most of the matter in
the antitheses of Matt 5:21-48 disappears; or the details about Jewish ritual
purity and piety; or the controversy about what is clean or unclean, Mark 7:1-23)
are best explained by this Gentile Christian destination of his writings. Certain
items in the stories or the sayings of Jesus are best regarded as Lucan redactional
modifications, adjusting a Palestinian tradition to a non-Jewish Hellenistic
situation (e.g. Luke 5:19; cf. Mark 2:4; Luke 6:48-49; cf. Matt 7:24-27).
Similarly, the substitution of Greek names for Hebrew or Aramaic names or titles:
kyrios, “Lord,” or epistatēs, “teacher,” for rabbi/rabbouni (Luke 18:41; cf. Mark
10:51; Luke 9:33; cf. Mark 9:5); kranion, “Skull,” for Golgotha (Luke 23:33; cf.
Mark 15:22); Zēlõtēs, "zealot," for Kananaios (Luke 6:15; cf. Mark 3:18); his
occasional substitution of nomikos, “lawyer," for grammateus, "scribe” (Luke 10:25;
cf. Mark 12:28; Luke 11:52; cf. Matt 23:13). His interest in Gentile Christians is
likewise responsible for his tracing of Jesus' genealogy back to Adam and God (and
not just to David or Abraham, as in Matthew). Most of Luke's quotations from the OT
are derived from the Greek version, the so-called LXX (at times with some
redactional modification). Finally, his use of the term, “Judea," at times in the
generic sense of Palestine as a whole (1:5; 4:44; 6:17; 7:17; 23:5; Acts 2:9;
10:37), suggests that he wrote with non-Palestinians in mind. >

The same destination has to be maintained for Acts as well. J. Jervell has ably
shown that “Israel” in the Lucan writings always refers to "the Jewish people” and
that it is not used “as a technical term for the Christian gathering of Jews and
Gentiles.” Jews made up a divided people, of "two groups, the repentant (i.e.
Christian) and the obdurate” (“Divided People,” 49). It seems to me that he has
made a convincing case for the idea that the Gentiles have gained a share in what
had been given to Israel, i.e. the salvation of God sent first to reconstituted
Israel (Acts 15:16-18; cf. 3:23) is by God's own design sent further to the
Gentiles without the law, especially when part of Israel rejects the invitation
(Acts 13:46). Thus Luke explains the relationship of the Gentile Christians for
whom he is writing to Israel of old. Similarly, Jervell has well explained that the
Lucan treatment of Paul in Acts is based on a desire to show that the greatest
segment of the Christian church does not stem from a

Gunnos f2017

58

II. LUKE, DATE AND READERS

а Jewish apostate, but rather from the teacher of Israel” (“Paul: The Teacher of
Israel,” 173-174). But less satisfactory is Jervell's further suggestion that “only
in a milieu with a Jewish-Christian stamp would such a lengthy explanation of the
justification of the circumcision-free Gentile mission be required” (ibid. 175).
That Luke writes for Christian readers who are under fire from their Jewish
neighbors because of Paul's controversies (ibid. 177) may be true; but that they
are therefore themselves Jewish-Christians is not a necessary conclusion. Jervell
thus reverts to an older position once espoused by E. R. Goodenough and M.
Schneckenburger (with varying nuances). Rather, Luke's discussion serves to
explain, precisely to Gentile Christians, what their status is vis-à-vis Israel.
They are not, indeed, the new people of God, but belong to the reconstituted people
of God. In other words, much of Jervells thesis stands, except for the suggestion
that the composite work of Luke-Acts was destined for Jewish-Christians.

M. Moscato has rightly seen that Luke does not present Paul predominantly as “a
missionary to the Gentiles” (“Current Theories,” 359), and that his treatment of
Paul actually constitutes an excellent portrayal of the "continuity between Judaism
and Christianity” (ibid.); nor is it clear that Luke was, therefore, writing “for a
community of Jews and Gentiles” (ibid.), or that the Jewish Christian sect of the
Nazoreans were part of that mixed community (ibid. 360). The latter identification
is entirely too speculative. The readers envisaged by Luke were not Gentile
Christians in a predominantly Jewish setting; they were rather Gentile Christians
in a predominantly Gentile setting. There may have been some Jews and Jewish
Christians among them—as the quotation of Isaiah at the end of Acts suggests. But
the audience envisaged by Luke in his writing of Luke-Acts is one that is
predominantly Gentile Christian, and Theophilus is one of them.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

The Identity of Luke

Argyle, A. W. “The Greek of Luke and Acts,” NTS 20 (1973-1974) 441-445. Bacon, B.
W. “Le témoignage de Luc sur lui-même," RHPR 8 (1928) 209-226.

Baker, J. “Luke, the Critical Evangelist,” ExpTim 68 (1956-1957) 123-125. Beck, B.

E. "The Common Authorship of Luke and Acts,” NTS 23 (1976-1977) 346-352.

Bleiben, T. B. “The Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of Paul,” ITS 45 (1944) 134-140.

Cadbury, H. J. “The Diction of Luke and Acts,” in The Style and Literary Method of
Luke (HTS 6/1; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 1920).

59