Luke Introduction

The date of Luke is debated among scholars, and the issue is clearly tied up with the book’s authorship. The latest possible date for Luke is about AD 80, since there is evidence of its use from AD 95 on and since Acts makes no use of Paul’s letters. On the other hand, the book probably was not written earlier than, say, the late AD 50s, since Luke was apparently written not long before Acts (Ac 1:1), and AD 62 is the date of the last event recorded in Acts (Paul’s house arrest in Rome). Most critical scholars argue that Luke could not have been written before AD 70 since it records as a prophecy of Jesus the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in that year (Lk 13:35; 19:43-44; 21:20,24). However, aside from the question of the ability of Jesus to prophesy or even merely to predict the destruction of Jerusalem, the language describing the destruction is general rather than detailed. Those recording Jesus’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem would likely have included more detail had they experienced this series of devastating events or had talked with witnesses of these events. It has in fact been argued that Jesus could have couched his prediction in such terms solely from Old Testament precedents. Furthermore, it is astonishing that Luke, who recorded so much in Acts about the Jerusalem church and the expansion from there of the gospel to the Gentiles, should fail anywhere in that book to mention such a historically and theologically momentous event as the destruction of the temple, or of Emperor Nero’s persecution that preceded it, or yet of Peter’s and Paul’s deaths in the same general time period. It is much more likely that Luke made no mention of these events because they had not yet happened. Acts ends with Paul in prison because that was the state of affairs when Luke concluded his writing. Thus a date prior to AD 62 for the third Gospel is best.

Luke wrote as a historian and noted that he was aware of both written sources (the Gospel of Mark appears to have been one of them) and oral testimony from eyewitnesses. His Gospel and Acts are thus noteworthy for the number of named characters (e.g., Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Cleopas). Presumably these names attest to his careful research, including the interviewing of primary witnesses. He could have conducted this research in Palestine while he awaited the outcome of Paul’s case in Caesarea (Ac 23:23–27:1).

Each of the four Gospels emphasizes something different about the significance of Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah of Israel. Luke especially emphasizes Jesus as Savior and his work as one of salvation (2:11; 19:10). And though the author stressed Jesus’s life and work as fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel, a primary point of his Gospel (and Acts) is that Jesus brought salvation not just to Jews but also to Gentiles. In turn, love of neighbor, expressed in concern for the poor and marginalized, becomes a major demand of discipleship in Luke and Acts. Other major emphases include the Holy Spirit and prayer.

For more on the similarities and differences among the Gospels, see the Introduction to Mark.