What is a reasonable early date for the Gospel of Luke?

Many scholars assert that Luke was published in the AD 60s or later.¹ Often, these dates are tied to the premise that Mark was published first, in the late AD 50s or later.² On the other hand, a few scholars propose that Luke was written “during Paul’s two-year imprisonment at Caesarea” Maritima, around AD 56–58.³ However, if we work under the premise that the early church was not hesitant to publish Gospels as the need arose, then what should we speculate concerning Luke, which appears to have been written for a more sophisticated Greco-Roman audience than either Matthew or Mark?⁴ In this article, we survey a few authors who propose that Luke was published in the early AD 50s, during Paul’s second missionary journey.

COMMON OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING LUKE, ITS AUTHOR AND AUDIENCE

For those scholars asserting an early AD 50s date for Luke, the narrative in Acts 16–18 is key. In response to a vision summoning Paul to Macedonia (Acts 16:9), Paul began a counter-clockwise circuit around the Aegean Sea, preaching in the culturally-rich cities of Philippi, Thessalonica, etc. within the province of Macedonia, followed by Athens and Corinth within the province of Achaia. This is then followed by a relatively short visit to Ephesus, and subsequent return to Jerusalem and Antioch. Significantly, the first appearance of the author (of Luke and Acts) in the Acts narrative occurs as he briefly accompanies Paul and his team from Troas to Macedonia, per the “we” passages in the narrative (Acts 16:10). The author then apparently stayed behind in Philippi as Paul and the others traveled ahead to Thessalonica. No insight is provided in the narrative as to why Luke joined the team nor why he left shortly thereafter; nonetheless, this is where much of our speculation is focused when postulating an early publication of Luke’s Gospel.

During the outbound leg of Paul’s third missionary journey, as Paul again made the counter-clockwise sweep around the Aegean, the author apparently briefly reconnected with Paul in Macedonia, given that 2 Corinthians makes reference to someone, believed to be Luke, who is being sent ahead to Corinth with Titus, letter in-hand. More specifically, in 2 Corinthians 8:18 there is reference to a brother who is already “famous in the gospel [or perhaps, in his Gospel] throughout all the churches” (translation my own).⁵ Those who maintain that Luke was published in the early AD 50s maintain that this is a reference to Luke and his Gospel, which had been published several years earlier. The author does not subsequent travel with Paul’s team, per the “we/us” passages, until the return leg of the third missionary journey, as the author sails from Philippi back to Troas to rejoin Paul (Acts 20:5–6). The team then sails on towards Jerusalem, which ultimately leads to Paul’s arrest and detention in Caesarea Maritima. This background will be helpful as we explore the Gospel publication scenarios postulated below.

HENRY OWEN (1764)

Henry Owen published his volume on the origin of the Gospels in 1764.⁶ With respect to Luke’s Gospel, Owen asserts that it was primarily written to “Gentiles, who were far remote from the scene of action, and consequently ignorant of Jewish affairs.”⁷ Although, Owen remarks, it was also the author’s “intention to convert, if possible, the unbelieving Jews who resided in distant countries.”⁸ Owen contends that Luke’s Gospel was written in Corinth, during the eighteen months that Paul resided there during the middle of the second missionary journey.⁹ According to Owen, this conforms with the testimony of Jerome, who claimed that the Gospel was written “in the regions of Achaia and Baeotia.”¹⁰ Given the apparent quote of Luke 22:19–20 in 1 Corinthians 11:23–25, Owen ultimately dates Luke’s Gospel to AD 53, before the publication of 1 Corinthians.¹¹

At this point it should be noted that Schaff’s version of Jerome’s Lives of Illustrious Men does not contain the reference to Achaia and Baeotia in the writings of Jerome, as cited by Owen above and by others.¹² This discrepancy will make for a future research project.

THOMAS BIRKS (1852)

Contrary to many modern scholars, Birks presumes that Luke’s Gospel was written well before the book of Acts—this is suggested by the opening of Acts, which revisits events at the end of Luke’s Gospel, and by the Gospel itself, which does not suggest a purpose that encompasses a historical survey beyond the life of Christ.¹³ Birks also notes “a certain difference of style between the two works,” which suggests that “some years” had transpired.¹⁴ The oblique reference to Luke in 2 Corinthians 8:18 is likewise cited as suggesting an early date; Birks claims that this passage was recognized as referring to Luke by Origen, Jerome, and pseudo-Ignatius.¹⁵ Birks also understands the subsequent verses (8:19–20) as indicating that this individual had been selected by the churches of Macedonia to carry “the alms from Macedonia to the church at Jerusalem.”¹⁶ Evidently Luke, having resided in Macedonia for an extended period, had gained their trust during his ministry among the churches. Countering contemporary skeptics, Birks also points out that it is entirely reasonable for the “gospel” reference in 1 Corinthians 8:18 to be in reference to a published Gospel, rather than to the preaching of the gospel (as suggested by the ESV), on the premise that Matthew and Mark had been published several years earlier and that the term was by then well-established as referring to their apostolic writings.¹⁷

Contrary to Owen, Birks contends that the obliqueness of the reference to Luke in 2 Corinthians 8 infers “that he was known at Corinth by reputation, rather than by personal acquaintance.”¹⁸ In other words, Luke had not previously resided in Corinth. Additionally, Birks understands Theophilus to have been a “Gentile proselyte of rank, living in or near Antioch. Hence it is likely that the Gospel would be written while Like was residing there, rather than at Philippi. … hence a probable date will be AD 51, after the departure of Paul and Silas from Antioch, before the Evangelist joined them at Troas.”¹⁹ Per this view, “Luke would bring his Gospel with him into Macedonia; [and] copies would be sent under his direction to the churches of Macedonia and Greece, as they were successively formed,” while he himself remained in Philippi.²⁰ Birks then goes on to further elaborate on this scenario.

WENHAM (1991), COCKBURNE (1755), FERNANDES (2015)

A few other scholars warrant brief mention. Wenham likewise leverages much of the above to date Luke to “somewhere in the early 50s,” while deferring to “early writers” who “make Achaia the place of writing.”²¹ Similarly Cockburne, deferring to Jerome and other church fathers, suggests that the Gospel was published in AD 53, from Corinth.²² In contrast, Fernandes proposes a date “between AD 45 and 50,” in order to give more time for the Gospel to have been widely distributed and for the author to have gained fame by the time that 2 Corinthians was written in AD 56.²³

SUMMARY

Although an early AD 50s date for Luke’s Gospel is certainly not a majority view amongst contemporary biblical scholars, there have been a few scattered advocates of such since at least the 1700s. Going back further, the interpretive approach to 2 Corinthians 8:18–20 has been advocated since the time of the church fathers, and remains a significant factor supporting the early dating of Luke. Other details found in early writings deserve further review, with respect to the author’s supposed home town, the location of Theophilus, and the provenance of the Gospel. Regardless, on the premise that the early church was not hesitant to publish Gospels as the need arose, it appears reasonable to propose that Luke published sometime during Paul’s second missionary journey, whether from Philippi or Achaia. We’ll continue exploring this proposition in the future.

---

1. For example, Richard Bauckham defers to “most scholars” who date Luke “to the decade 80–90.” Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017, 20. Marshall selects “a date not far off AD 70.” Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1978, 35. Carson and Moo date Luke to the mid- or late-60s. Carson, D. A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005, 210. Bock allows for anytime in the 60s. Bock, Darrell L. “Apologetics Commentary on the Gospel of Luke.” In Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible: The Gospels and Acts, edited by Jeremy Royal Howard, 319–498. Nashville, TN: B & H, 2013, 323. Blomberg suggests that Luke published shortly before AD 62, when Acts is often thought to have been published. Blomberg, Craig L. Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. 3rd ed. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022, 246. ↩︎
2. Carson and Moo, Introduction, 182; Blomberg, Gospels, 197, 246 ↩︎
3. For example, Gromacki, Robert G. New Testament Survey. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1974, 111. ↩︎
4. For this article, I am continuing to work under the premise that Matthew was published within a decade of the resurrection, coincident with the events in Acts 10–11, and that Mark was published a few years later, coincident with the events in Acts 12. For more on this approach, see Moore, Daniel B. A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024; Moore, Daniel B. A Gospel for Cornelius: Discovering Mark’s Affinity with Matthew. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2026. ↩︎
5. In 2 Corinthians 8:18, the ESV refers to “the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel”; however, the Greek text does not refer to preaching. Jerome, writing in the late fourth century, identifies Luke as the one to whom Paul referred in 2 Corinthians 8:18. Jerome, De viris illustr. 7. ↩︎
6. Owen is often credited with first arguing that the Synoptic Gospels were published in a Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence, with Matthew being published in AD 38. Owen, Henry. Observations on the Four Gospels: Tending Chiefly, to Ascertain the Times of Their Publication; and to Illustrate the Form and Manner of Their Composition. London: T. Payne, 1764, 43. ↩︎
7. Ibid., 25. ↩︎
8. Ibid., 28 note [η]. ↩︎
9. Ibid., 45. ↩︎
10. Ibid., 46. ↩︎
11. Ibid., 49. ↩︎
12. Jerome. “Lives of Illustrious Men.” In Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, Etc., vol. 3, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, translated by Ernest C. Richardson. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 2. New York: Christian Literature, 1892, 363–64. ↩︎
13. Birks, Thomas R. Horae Evangelicae: The Internal Evidence of the Gospel History. London: George Bell & Sons, 1852, 202–203. ↩︎
14. Ibid., 203. ↩︎
15. Ibid., 204. ↩︎
16. Ibid. ↩︎
17. Ibid., 206. ↩︎
18. Ibid., 208. ↩︎
19. Ibid., 208–09, 211. ↩︎
20. Ibid., 211. ↩︎
21. Wenham, John. Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. Sevenoaks, Kent: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991, 238. ↩︎
22. Cockburne, Robert. An Historical Dissertation on the Books of the New Testament; or, An Enquiry into Their Authority and Particular Character. Vol. 1. 1755, 234–35. ↩︎
23. Fernandes, Phil. “Redating the Gospels.” In Vital Issues in the Inerrancy Debate, edited by F. David Farnell, 466–88. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2015, 483. ↩︎

---

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)