The accuracy of Luke has already been spoken of, and has been well vindicated by Godet
against Renan in several minor details. "While remaining quite independent of the other three, the
Gospel of Luke is confirmed and supported by them all."
Time of Composition.
There are strong indications that the third Gospel was composed (not published) between
58 and 63, before the close of Paul’s Roman captivity. No doubt it took several years to collect and
digest the material; and the book was probably not published, i.e., copied and distributed, till after
the death of Paul, at the same time with the Acts, which forms the second part and is dedicated to
the same patron. In this way the conflicting accounts of Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus may
be harmonized.^1026- Luke had the best leisure for literary composition during the four years of Paul’s
imprisonment at Caesarea and Rome. In Caesarea he was within easy reach of the surviving
eyewitnesses and classical spots of the gospel history, and we cannot suppose that he neglected the
opportunity. - The Gospel was written before the book of Acts, which expressly refers to it as the first
treatise inscribed to the same Theophilus (Acts 1:1). As the Acts come down to the second year of
Paul’s captivity in Rome, they cannot have been finished before a.d. 63; but as they abruptly break
off without any mention of Paul’s release or martyrdom, it seems quite probable that they were
concluded before the fate of the apostle was decided one way or the other, unless the writer was,
like Mark, prevented by some event, perhaps the Neronian persecution, from giving his book the
natural conclusion. In its present shape it excites in the reader the greatest curiosity which could
have been gratified with a few words, either that the apostle sealed his testimony with his blood,
or that he entered upon new missionary tours East and West until at last he finished his course after
a second captivity in Rome. I may add that the entire absence of any allusion in the Acts to any of
Paul’s Epistles can be easily explained by the assumption of a nearly contemporaneous composition,
while it seems almost unaccountable if we assume an interval of ten or twenty years. - Luke’s ignorance of Matthew and probably also of Mark points likewise to an early date
of composition. A careful investigator, like Luke, writing after the year 70, could hardly have
overlooked, among his many written sources, such an important document as Matthew which the
best critics put before a.d. 70. - Clement of Alexandria has preserved a tradition that the Gospels containing the
genealogies, i.e., Matthew and Luke, were written first. Irenaeus, it is true, puts the third Gospel
after. Matthew and Mark and after the death of Peter and Paul, that is, after 64 (though certainly
not after 70). If the Synoptic Gospels were written nearly simultaneously, we can easily account
for these differences in the tradition. Irenaeus was no better informed on dates than Clement, and
was evidently mistaken about the age of Christ and the date of the Apocalypse. But he may have
had in view the time of publication, which must not be confounded with the date of composition.
(^1026) The critics differ widely as to the date of composition: (1) For a date prior to a.d. 70 are all the older divines, also Lange,
Ebrard, Guericke, van Oosterzee, Godet (60-67), Thiersch (58-60), Alford (58), Riddle (60). (2) For a date between 70 and 90:
De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, Güder, Meyer, Weiss (70-80), Keim, Abbott (80-90). (3) For a.d. 100 and later: Hilgenfeld
and Volkmar (100), Zeller and Davidson (100-110). The date of Baur, a.d. 140, is perfectly wild and made impossible by the
clear testimonies of Justin Martyr and Marcion. Hence he was unwilling to retract in toto his former view about the priority of
Marcion’s Gospel, though he felt obliged to do it in part (Kirchengesch. I. 75 and 78).
A.D. 1-100.