arguing that Luke would have been an “absolutely incomprehensible historian if he wrote in 80, 90, or 100 and did not include the dramatic events and seismic changes that occurred in the 60's and the year 70.”56
It is pure conjecture, however, to impose on Luke what we think he would have or should have included in his narrative. It cannot be a decisive piece of evidence for dating the documents. Luke is not interested in recording the life of Paul but the progress of the gospel. One can also argue that Luke stopped at the right place. Had he continued with his history, he presumably would have needed to record the death of James, Peter, and Paul, the blistering persecution of the church in Rome, and the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, and the church there. This series of dramatic calamities would seem to undermine his theme of the gospel advancing
“without hindrance” ( ), the last word in Acts (28:31).
More pertinent to Luke’s purpose, Marguerat states that in Acts 28:16 – 31, Luke recounts “how Christianity freed itself from its birthplace, Jerusalem, in order to acquire its new place, the Empire, as concretized in its capital.” Rome has now become “the new centre for the diffusion for the gospel.”57 The first half of Acts ends with Peter’s arrest by Herod, but then he miraculously escapes. Herod sought for him, could not find him, and then put the sentries to death. We next find Herod in Caesarea in his royal robes sitting upon his throne and making an oration. The people shouted him down, yelling, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” He was then struck down by an angel of the Lord “because Herod did not give praise to God … and he was eaten by worms and died” (Acts 12:21 – 23).58
Acts ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome, where the emperor, as all would know, made even more grandiose boasts. Readers can deduce what would happen next to an idolatrous empire that did not give glory to God. The ending of Acts is no less abrupt than the ending of Mark, and I would argue that it has a similar effect.59 The readers know that the end of Acts is not the end. Christianity is not a closed book. Acts 28 is the latest chapter in a continuing story that Jesus began. The question for them and for modern readers is the same as it was for those early apostles, “Where will God’s Spirit lead us from here?”
An intermediate date, a period of between AD 75 – 90, is most widely accepted, but the arguments in support of it are slight. Luke tells us that many have undertaken to compose an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us (1:1). If Mark is to be dated around 68 – 70,60 and if
Luke used Mark, then Luke would be written some time after this period.
The argument based on the more detailed prophecy about Jerusalem being surrounded by armies that is sometimes used to support a date after the destruction of Jerusalem is specious. It does not serve as evidence that Luke fine-tuned the saying on the lips of Jesus to accord with what he knew to have happened. Setting up “siege works” (19:43) was part of the standard method in taking fortified cities. Falling by the edge of the sword, being taken captive among the nations, and the trampling of Jerusalem (21:24) may be more explicit details than the parallel prophecies in Matthew and Mark, but, again, these things happened in the normal course of war.61
Luke also omits Jesus' concern that those who live on the cusp of those perilous days should pray that it may not be in winter (Matt 24:20; Mark 13:18), but it need not be because he knew these events did not actually occur in winter. It is more likely that it was omitted because it requires a peculiar knowledge of Palestinian weather and geography to appreciate its significance. Others have noted that the mention of Theudas-Judas in Gamaliel’s speech in Acts 5:36 – 37 oddly reverses their actual chronological order. Since Theudas is mentioned nowhere else, they take it as evidence of Luke’s familiarity with Josephus’s Antiquities. Josephus wrote about them in the same reverse order (Ant. 20.5.1 §§97 – 102).62 Since Josephus wrote Antiquities around AD 93 – 94, and if Luke knew this work, it would require that he wrote after this time. Again, this evidence is not decisive. It may be coincidental, or it could suggest that Luke and Josephus shared a common tradition.
An intermediate date still seems to be the best alternative, though Cadbury advises that when facts cannot be demonstrated incontrovertibly it is best “to leave a wide margin for possibility of error.”63 Nevertheless, Luke’s picture of Roman rule with proconsuls like Sergius Paulus, who became a believer (Acts 13:4 – 12), Gallio, who acted evenhandedly (Acts 18:12 – 17), and King Agrippa II, who was a prospect for conversion (Acts 26:27 – 28), reflects a calmer time when the gospel could be preached without hindrance. It suggests that Luke-Acts would not have been written much later than AD 75 to 85 before the persecution of Christians presumably carried out under the emperors Domitian and Trajan.64
Identifying Luke’s provenance and community is no less difficult to pin down than the date of his writing. Form criticism assumed that there was a long period of oral tradition and that the material was shaped by tradents for
their own communities and their own particular problems. The supposed rivalry among Christian camps is read into the texts from the rivalry of modern schools and professors who have assumed that diversity was a problem. This perspective rightly has been challenged.65 Many of the first Christians traveled widely, as is evident from the greeting lists in Paul’s letters, and one can surmise that they would have wanted to know all that they could about Jesus from one another. Allison argues that the term “the Lukan community” is devoid of meaning.66 Luke may have been an itinerant with no permanent home as were the apostle Paul and Jesus before him. Therefore, like Paul, he would have not been bound up with only one local community for whom he wrote, but he would have written for the church universal.
An attempt to bring the provenance of Luke’s gospel into some neat geographical alignment may be behind the tradition that Luke was written in Greece (Achaia) with Mark written in Rome, John in Asia Minor, and Matthew in Palestine.67 Other options tie the gospel to Alexandria or Antioch, but these are based on conjecture. The elegant dedication to Theophilus, who seems to be a person of high rank (1:1 – 4), and the conclusion of Acts taking place in Rome suggest to some a Roman provenance.
The readers are assumed to be Christians (see comment on 1:4), and they also are assumed to have familiarity with Scripture and to accept its divine authority. As Roth points out, “Numerous passages contain unclarified references to historic characters in the drama of Israel’s story.”68 For example, Luke mentions the following names without any elucidation:
Abijah and the daughters of Aaron (1:5), Elijah (1:17), Gabriel (1:19), David (1:27, 32, 69), Jacob (1:33), Abraham (1:55; 3:8), Asher (2:36), the widow of Zarephath and Naaman and Elijah and Elisha (4:26 – 27), Noah (17:26 – 29), and Lot’s wife (17:32). To those unfamiliar with Israel’s biblical story, the names would be baffling, but Luke also does not explain the meaning of terms like the “Son of Man” or the “reign of God.”69
Ancients did not read silently, and Luke was intended to be read aloud in a group. Its oral character aided memorization and recall. Writers therefore did not try to make reading easier so that one could read more quickly.
Reading was done slowly so that one would not miss the catchwords and allusions. Hearers and readers attribute coherence and relevance to the text until they are forced not to do so,70 and the approach of discourse analysis
in this commentary assumes the coherence of the text. McComiskey argues, however, that the structural “design for the book has eluded scholarly detection.”71 He presents a new proposal for the structure of the narrative in 4:14 – 24:53 that consists of four cycles (4:14 – 9:50; 9:51 – 13:21; 13:22 – 19:27; 19:28 – 24:53) with a sequence of twelve strata that is successively repeated in each cycle.72
This complex proposal is based on the assumption that Luke borrowed an architectonic pattern that is found in the detailed repetitive structures of earlier and contemporary, biblical and secular, ancient literature.73 To my mind, this theory with its several pages of charts best elucidates how Luke proceeded in composing his work, though I would only quibble about where the third panel ends and the last one begins. Where the central section (or travel narrative) beginning in 9:51 ends is disputed. Some contend it ends in 18:14, where Luke again picks up the Markan narrative in 18:15. Others, like McComiskey, contend that it ends in 19:27, with the conclusion of the parable of the vengeful throne claimant. The most logical ending point, however, is 19:44.
Baarlick sees a cyclical structure for the central section (which he thinks begins in 9:43b) that revolves around the statement in 13:33, “Nevertheless, it is necessary for me to go today, tomorrow, and the next day, because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem.”74 The various proposals for a chiastic structure to this section are unconvincing, and their number and variations confirm that this pattern is in the eye of the beholder.75 Baarlick sees fourteen matching units (e.g., 9:43b – 45/18:31 – 34; 9:46 – 50/18:15 – 17; 9:51/19:28) that rather may be attributable to the parallels resulting from a panel assembly than to an elaborate chiasm. What is crucial in this section is the stated intention that Jesus' destination is Jerusalem (9:51, 53; 13:22, 33 – 34; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11, 28). In 19:28 he is still going up to Jerusalem, and 19:29 – 44 serves as a kind of hinge that describes his preparation for entry into Jerusalem and his descent from the Mount of Olives. In the next scene (19:45 – 48), Jesus enters the temple and engages in prophetic actions that will precipitate his death.