We’re still looking at Wenham, who now follows the work of a few different commentators.

“Hemer [Colin J. Hemer (1930-1987) was a research fellow at Tyndale House, Cambridge England in Early Christianity] adduces fifteen general indications [for the date of Acts], of varied weight but cumulative in their effect. Thirteen, I think, should be noted: 1.) There is no mention of the fall of Jerusalem; 2.) no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66; 3.) no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution. 4.) Acts has an optimistic tone. 5.) The author betrays no knowledge of Paul’s letters. The very disjunction between Acts and the epistles is best explained by an early date. 6.) There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in 62, which would have suited Luke’s apologetic to a Roman audience. 7.) Gallio’s tolerant attitude to Paul in Acts 18:14-17 does not seem to be obsolete. 8.) The prominence of the Sadducees belongs to the pre-70 situation; 9.) as does the relatively sympathetic attitude to the Pharisees; 10.) as does the prominence of ‘God-fearers’ in the synagogues; 11.) as do details (he mentions nine) pointing to an early milieu. 12.) The controversies over the temple have greater relevance pre-70. 13.) The use of ‘Jesus’ and ‘Christ’ seems primitive. Hemer lays considerable emphasis on the ‘immediacy’ of the later chapters of Acts, claiming: ‘It is our contention that these inconsequential details are hard to explain except as vivid experiences recalled at no great distance in time’.”

We have already considered many of these, certainly the ones that are the most obvious. Things like a “relatively sympathetic attitude to the Pharisees,” and “the prominence of ‘God-fearers’ in the synagogues,” while they add weight and are worth mentioning, they are arguable at best. 

“When [Hemer] looks for greater precision he comes down firmly on the date ‘about 62’. This date in an earlier generation was particularly associated with [Adolf] Harnack, who had an immense reputation as a scholar and who changed his mind in the course of thirty years’ study of the question. In his Chronologie of 1896 (the fruit of fifteen years’ study) he dated Acts with some confidence between 78 and 93. By 1911 he had come to the painful conclusion that it was ‘in the highest degree probable’ that it should be dated 62. His whole treatment in The Date of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels merits careful attention, but a single quotation must suffice:

Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them – they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with his delivery to Pilate, because Jesus had now been brought to Jerusalem and had made his appearance before the chief magistrate in the capital city!

”This conclusion has commended itself to many readers, but few have felt able to accept it, simply because this date for Acts requires an even earlier (and seemingly impossible) date for Mark.”

We have certainly been giving Harnack’s book THE DATE OF ACTS AND THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS “careful attention.” Once you let go of the Markan priority idea, Harnack’s conclusions are very easy to take.

“F. F. Bruce [Frederick Fyvie Bruce (1910-1990) was a Scottish evangelical scholar and professor of exegesis] has changed his views about the date of Acts in the reverse direction to that of Harnack. He says:
‘a sufficient time has elapsed for the author to look back in tranquility over the course of events and present them in a more balanced perspective than would have been possible for one writing in mediis rebus [translate.com – “in the middle of things”]. The outstanding personages of the narrative – Peter, Paul and James of Jerusalem – had all died (I think) by the time of writing, and the author was able to stress their respective contributions to the rise and progress of Christianity rather than the temporal controversies in which they had been involved one with another…the author wrote a decade or two later than the last events he records.‘

“I cannot see that composition thirty years after the council of Jerusalem of 49 is in any way preferable to composition thirteen years after. That council ended with warm and brotherly accord which was felt to have been the work of the Holy Spirit (15:25-28).

²⁴Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have confused you by their teaching, upsetting your souls, ²⁵it seemed good to us, having become of one mind, to select men to send to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, ²⁶men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²⁷Therefore, we have sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will also report the same things by word of mouth. ²⁸For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials     (Acts 15:24-28; NASB)

“There is no reason to think that deep-seated animosities clung to the church leaders in the ensuing period. Bruce sees Acts as ‘an intelligible history of the rise and progress of Christianity…sure of reception among the intelligent reading public – or rather listening public – of or in Rome’. Yet…this is precisely what it does not do. It gives no hint as to the founding and vicissitudes of the world-renowned church in Rome. Bruce admits that his is a subjective judgment, but by adopting this later date for Acts he throws away the obvious explanation of its ending.

“Of the alternative ways of explaining the end of Acts, probably the favorite is to claim that the arrival of Paul in Rome to spend two full years proclaiming the kingdom of God to all without hindrance is a fitting climax to the book; the story has been told of the spread of the gospel from Jerusalem, through Judea and Samaria, and now it has reached the capital of the empire. As a matter history this is quite erroneous, since (we must reiterate) we know from Romans 1:8 that the faith of the church in Rome was world-famous long before this. 

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, because your faith is being proclaimed throughout the world.     (Romans 1:8; NASB)

“And even if Acts is discarded as a source of history, the idea that it is telling the story of how the gospel got to Rome breaks down on the grounds of internal inconsistency. When Paul arrived at Puteoli the news soon reached Rome and brethren from there came the forty miles to the Forum of Appius to meet him. The author of Acts makes it clear as can be that there was a lively church in Rome before Paul arrived. He is not telling the story of how the gospel got to Rome, but of how Paul got there. Yet the myth of the late date of Mark has driven Lukan studies into this absurdity. In the circumstances of 62 Acts has a thoroughly fitting end, it brings the story of Paul up to date and tells how the apostle to the Gentiles preached in the capital, without hindrance, to both Jew and Gentile. But in circumstances later than the trial, the Neronian persecution or Paul’s martyrdom it is hard to credit an author ending this way. P. W. Walaskay [Paul William Walaskay (1939-2021), noted to have “died suddenly,” was an American Baptist Minister and Professor of Biblical Studies] has made the further point: it is difficult to imagine the author of Acts giving so favorable a view of the Roman authorities after the horrors of Nero’s persecution in 64. He argues that ‘Luke has carefully consistently and consciously presented an apologia pro imperio’ [translate.com – apology for the government].

“Among the various secondary reasons given for dating Acts late in the century the following may be mentioned. Acts is said to present a picture of Paul so different from that in his epistles that it must be unhistorical. This applies to matters factual; some scholars, for instance, say that at almost every point Acts and Paul disagree; this is illustrated particularly in the difficulties in harmonizing Paul’s visits to Jerusalem as given in Acts and Galatians. It applies also to matters theological – differences are seen between the approach of Paul and Luke to natural theology, the law, Christology and eschatology; and the Lukan writings are said to reflect an early catholic rather than a primitive stage in the church’s development.”

This last point is the exact opposite to what Harnack was saying about Lukan primitiveness.

“As to matters factual, the researches of W. M. Ramsay [William Mitchell Ramsay (1851-1939] was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar] (and now of C. J. Hemer) need to be borne in mind. They have shown conclusively how accurate Luke’s record is in many particulars. The harmonization of Acts and Galatians is not very difficult, as Bruce and Hemer have shown. The supposed theological irreconcilability between Paul and Luke seems to stem from two errors: one is the underrating of the versatility and adaptability of Paul, who knew how to be all things to all men when he was trying to convince them of his point of view. The other is the failure to distinguish between the theological emphases of Luke and of Paul. There is no reason to think that one was a carbon-copy of the other. The author of Luke-Acts, whose writing occupies more space in the New Testament than all the Pauline epistles put together, was (in spite of his self-effacingness) a great man, and his individuality must be recognized. As to the supposed early catholicism of Luke, C. K. Barrett [Charles Kinglsey Barrett (1917-2011) was a British biblical scholar and Methodist minister] sees little trace of it.  These objections do not in fact stand up to close examination and they lead to a new set of difficulties, for one would expect any late admirer of Paul to base his story on the epistles, which quite evidently the author of Acts did not do.

“The decisive reason for rejecting 62 for the dating of Acts has been the dating of Luke (and lying behind that the dating of Mark).”

I have had my issues with Wenham, but I agree with most of his conclusions here. My main disagreement is still the whole Markan priority thing; when there is just one assumption in the way of the obvious, a person should review that one assumption.

Wenham now gets down to dating the Gospel of Luke. He starts by refuting the idea that Luke and Acts are two parts of one book. He acknowledges that they are “of course the product of one mind and they show a unity of outlook and a common theology.” But, in looking at Luke 24 and Acts 1, he sees no continuity between them.

⁵⁰And He led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up His hands and blessed them. ⁵¹While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. ⁵²And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, ⁵³and were continually in the temple praising God.      (Luke 24:50-53; NASB)

¹The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, ²until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had given orders by the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom He had chosen.     (Acts 1:1,2; NASB)

Personally, I can see some continuity in these two passages; but, I can agree that they do not read like the continuation of one book. Wenham points out that Luke did not write about the 40 days of appearances that occurred after the resurrection, but he makes it sound like those appearances happened in the time period between the two books: “It hardly seems likely that this explanation of what happened between the resurrection and the ascension, which looks clumsy in a continuous narrative, was written as part of a single book.” It’s pretty obvious that the two books were not written as one. The lack of reportage on the 40 days is a lack of the Gospel of Luke (stopping too soon), not a missing piece between the two parts of one book.

His last point: that “there is absolutely no evidence of the two books being put together in the manuscript tradition. Luke always belongs with the other gospels, not with Acts” is far more compelling. To me, the beginning of Acts reads more like a sequel than like a continuation.

Wenham next reports on a very interesting way of looking at the dating of Luke:

“An attractive way of dating Luke, if it must be dated no later than 62, is to place it during the time of Paul’s imprisonment in Caesarea: 57-59. This is related in a we-passage which records the arrival of Paul and Luke in Jerusalem: ‘When we had come to Jerusalem’ (21:17), and their departure from Caesarea: ‘we put to sea’ (27:2).“

After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us gladly.     (Acts 21:17; NASB)

And we boarded an Adramyttian ship that was about to sail to the regions along the coast of Asia, and put out to sea accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica.     (Acts 27:2; NASB)

“During this long stay in Palestine, Luke would have had ample opportunity for interviewing scores of witnesses and building up an accurate body of information to put in his gospel. It is perfectly possible that Luke did this, but there is evidence to suggest that we should look for an even earlier date.”

“A tradition, far from universal yet strongly supported in the early church, identifies Luke with ‘the brother whose praise is in the gospel’ of 2 Corinthians 8:18, who carried Paul’s letter from Macedonia to Corinth. 

¹⁸We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches; ¹⁹and not only that, but he has also been appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work, which is being administered by us for the glory of the Lord Himself, and to show our readiness     (2 Corinthians 8:18,19; NASB)

“According to Acts Luke was present during the second missionary journey in about 49 (according to Hemer 269), when, in response to Paul’s vision of the man of Macedonia calling for help, Luke tells us, ‘immediately we sought to go’ (16:10). He accompanies Paul to Philippi, where Lydia is baptized and the slave girl is exorcised. Paul and Silas are briefly imprisoned and the story continues in the third person as these two travel to Thessalonika, apparently leaving Luke behind in 49 and 50. Paul goes to Athens and to Corinth in Achaia, staying in the latter ‘many days’, before paying a hasty visit to Palestine. His third journey involves a long stay at Ephesus, whence he writes his first epistle to the Corinthians, and makes a further visit to Macedonia and Corinth, before retracing his steps to Philippi. On his return journey in 57 (Hemer 255) he is joined by Luke, who accompanies him to Jerusalem (20:3-21:17), evidently bearing the collection for the poor. 

³And there he spent three months, and when a plot was formed against him by the Jews as he was about to set sail for Syria, he decided to return through Macedonia. ⁴And he was accompanied by Sopater of Berea, the son of Pyrrhus, and by Aristarchus and Secundus of the Thessalonians, and Gaius of Derbe, and Timothy, and Tychicus and Trophies of Asia. ⁵Now these had gone on ahead and were waiting for us at Troas. ⁶We sailed from Phillipi after the days of Unleavened Bread, and reached them at Troas within five days; and we stayed there for seven days. ⁷One the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight. ⁸There were many lamps in the upstairs room where we were gathered together…¹³But we went ahead to the ship and set sail for Assos, intending from there to take Paul on board; for that was what he had arranged, intending himself to go by land. ¹⁴And when he met us at Assos, we took him on board and came to Mitylene…    
(Acts 20:3-8,13,14; NASB)

…³When we came in sight of Cyprus, leaving it on the left, we kept sailing to Syria and landed at Tyre; for the ship was to unload its cargo there. ⁴After looking up the disciples, we stayed there for seven days; and they kept telling Paul, through the Spirit, not to set foot in Jerusalem…¹⁷After we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers and sisters received us gladly.    
(Acts 21:3,4,17; NASB)

“There is thus a period of some seven or eight years, beginning and ending in Macedonia, where Luke drops out of the Acts story. But tradition has something to say about his movements at this time…”

Wenham continues on regarding “the brother whose praise is in the gospel” of 2 Corinthians, and notes: “The subscription ‘The second epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi dia [Google translate: “for”] Titus and Luke’ is found in most Byzantine-type manuscripts at the end of the letter. It was incorporated in many editions of the Authorized Version and the tradition continues right up to modern times…” He further notes, that despite this ancient evidence, many don’t believe it. 

Wenham lists some of the other followers of Paul who might have been this brother. He says that Luther, Calvin, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact all thought that Barnabas was the brother. But, Wenham points out that there is no evidence that Barnabas was with Paul then, and that it wasn’t “likely that he would have been left unnamed,” though I’m not sure why that wouldn’t apply to Luke as well. Others have thought of Mark (there’s no evidence he was there at that time), Silas (unlikely because  the Corinthians already knew him, and he was already mentioned in the letter), or Timothy (probably not as he was mentioned in the salutation, therefore would not be delivering the letter).

Because Acts 8:18,19 is about the collection of funds for the “poor saints in Jerusalem,” one of those listed as going with them on the journey would have been the brother “appointed by the churches to travel with us in this gracious work.” Wenham rules out all but Luke and Tychicus.

Regarding Tychicus, Paul commends him “to the Ephesians as ‘the beloved brother and faithful minister in the Lord’ (Eph. 6:21), and to the Colossians as ‘the beloved brother and faithful minister and fellow-servant in the Lord’ (Col. 4:7).” It was also noted that Tychicus was frequently sent by Paul as “his emissary and the bearer of his epistles to different churches or persons.”

“So it seems to be the case of two main contenders: Luke with a strong backing of tradition behind him versus Tychicus with none. Is not the ideal solution, then, to accept as well grounded the tradition that ‘the brother whose praise in the gospel has spread through all the churches’ is Luke; and to adopt as a plausible conjecture the hypothesis that the third messenger, the ‘often tested’ and ‘earnest’ brother, is Tychicus?

“…Two questions need to be asked: How is it that the brother has earned praise in all the churches? And: Why is he introduced anonymously?

“‘In the gospel’ has been taken by many (e.g. RSV) to mean ‘for his preaching of the gospel’ and by others (e.g. NEB; cf. NIV) to mean ‘for his services to the gospel’.

We have sent along with him the brother whose fame in the things of the gospel has spread through all the churches    
(2 Corinthians 8:18; NASB)

With him we are sending the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel     
(2 Corinthians 8:18; RSV)

And we are sending along with him the brother who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel.    
(2 Corinthians 8:18; NIV)

And we have sent with him the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches    
(2 Corinthians 8:18; KJV)

And we sent along with him the brother who is highly respected throughout all the churches for his work in the gospel.    
(2 Corinthians 8:18; Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament)

“But it is curious to introduce this unnamed brother as the one famous among all the churches for his preaching. It seems almost to suggest an invidious comparison between Titus, who formerly did a spell of preaching among the Corinthians, and this other man who could really preach. Furthermore, how was it possible to gain fame as a preacher in all the churches? Even allowing for a measure of hyperbole, such fame could only be gained before the days of mass media by going in person to a large number of them. As we know from Paul’s experience this was a long and arduous business and there must have been few who earned such a reputation. The incongruity of thus seeming to compare the preaching abilities of Titus and his colleague presumably [is what] lies behind the alternative translation ‘for his services to the gospel’, for this might suggest the gifts of an administrator or organizer or personal worker. But is it likely that one particular man in Macedonia had gained such a reputation that he would be recognized in Achaia as the brother famed for his services to the gospel? Neither suggestion has plausibility. If, on the other hand, Luke’s gospel had been circulating in the churches of Greece for a year or two, he would indeed have been famous for one very special service to the gospel…

“As to why he is introduced in this indirect way, one can at this distance do no more than guess at what factors influenced Paul. Possibly Titus is named because he has already served the church at Corinth and is well known to its members, whereas Luke may not have visited them before. More probably it was little more than a whim of the moment which caused Paul to commend him by reminding them of his fame rather than simply using his name.

“So then, this piece of external evidence, if we have assessed it correctly, would give us our first firm gospel date: the gospel of Luke was written before 56, the approximate date of 2 Corinthians. It is difficult to say how long it would take for the fame of the book to spread through ‘all the churches’. the expression suggests more than just the churches of Macedonia and Achaia, so we should probably allow at least a year, and say therefore that the writing had taken place by 55 at the latest.”

Wenham next compares 1Timothy 5:18 to Luke 10:7. He states that it is an exact quote and draws the tentative conclusion that Paul was quoting from Luke’s Gospel, indicating that it was well known at that time.

Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they provide; for the laborer is deserving of his wages. Do not move from house to house.    
(Luke 10:7; NASB)

For the Scripture says, “You SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE IT IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”   (1 Timothy 5:18; NASB)  

We can see that the NASB recognizes it as a direct quote by the added quotation marks. It also seems to be included in the “Scripture says” part of the sentence. However, we can also see that Paul is not quoting Luke directly.

So, Wenham concludes that we are unaware of what Luke was doing between his time with Paul in Philippi in Acts 16 (~50 AD) to when he arrives in Corinth in about 56 AD. He also notes that Luke appears to have been in Macedonia and Achaia during that time, and that some of the “early writers” put the writing of Luke’s Gospel in Achaia, so, he may have written his Gospel in the early 50’s.

That’s enough for today; next time we will move on from Wenham to a new source.