We’ll start today with a source we will look at is from the web: [bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/] As can be seen in the address, it’s from 2017.

“The introduction to Luke’s gospel very plainly says that the author ‘investigated everything from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order….’ (Luke 1:3) The Greek word that’s translated as ‘consecutive order’ is καθεξῆς (kathexés) [#G2517], which literally means ‘in proper sequence’ or ‘in order’, and is a synonym for ‘chronological.’  Except an interesting thing occurs with Luke’s gospel.  Luke’s narrative actually follows Mark’s chronology of events very closely throughout – even more so than does Matthew. Yet Papias made a point to note that Mark’s account is not sequential/chronological as things happened, nor is it comprehensive. Mark simply wrote various sayings and pericopes, without respect to chronology, as he remembered them from Peter’s situational anecdotes. That both Matthew and Luke track so closely to Mark’s narrative and literary framework is itself probative evidence that ‘Luke’ and ‘Matthew’ likely knew Mark’s gospel and relied on Mark’s text as a source. This observation highlights just one of the arguments in support of Markan Priority… “

There is, of course, another even more likely possibility to explain this ordering of the Gospels: Matthew wrote, Mark wrote, Luke wrote; Luke chose to follow Mark rather than Matthew for chronology. Matthew probably wrote in Israel, while Mark was traveling in and probably writing in, the same area that Luke was. Luke probably knew Mark, and he probably didn’t know Matthew, and that alone could explain why he would choose to follow Mark’s chronology.

This same author also is sure that Luke was composed “after 74 CE” because Luke mentions an empire-wide census decreed by Augustus Caesar. The author claims that “[t]here was never a singular universal or empire-wide census instituted by Caesar Augustus,” and that “there is no record or apparent possibility of a universal Roman census ever in the empire until Vespasian and Titus conducted a universal census in 74 CE.”

The website biblearchaeologyreport.com/2019/12/13/caesar-augustus-an-archaeological-biography/ disagrees with the previous author’s conclusion about the census. It’s noted that Augustus had arranged to have an autobiographical inscription of his life posted on two bronze pillars in front of his mausoleum in Rome after his death. The pillars have not survived, but fragments of four copies have survived (these are listed on the website). Here’s an excerpt from that autobiography:

“As consul for the fifth time [29 BC] note by order of the people and the Senate I increased the number of the patricians. Three times I revised the roll of the Senate. In my sixth consulship [28 BC], with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague, I made a census of the people. I performed the lustrum after an interval of forty-one years. In this lustration 4,063,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A second time, in the consulship of Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius [8 BCE] I again performed the lustrum alone, with the consular imperium. In this lustrum 4,233,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll. A third time, with the consular imperium, and with my son Tiberius Caesar as my colleague, [14 AD] I performed the lustrum in the consulship of Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius. In this lustrum 4,937,000 Roman citizens were entered on the census roll.”     [noted to be from “Res Gestae, 8. Online: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/augustus-res-gestae/ (Accessed Nov. 30, 2019)]

The archaeology website also quotes Josephus as appearing to reference a time in Augustus’ “thirteenth consulship” when the Senate gave him the title “Father of my Country”:

“When all the people of the Jews gave assurance of their good will to Caesar, and to the King’s government; these very men [Pharisees] did not swear: being above six thousand.” [noted to be from ANTIQUITIES, 17.2.4]

The author concludes that “a census, or registration of some kind would explain how Josephus knew there were 6000 pharisees who refused to take the oath to Caesar.” He goes on to say:

“Some have attempted to pinpoint the exact census that Luke refers [to] in dating the birth of Christ. Each suggestion is based, in part, on some speculation as the picture is far from complete. It could be that an empire-wide census would take years to complete. Thus, the census that was begun in 8 BC may be the census that Luke has in mind, if Jesus was born around 6 BC (assuming one accepts the consensus view that Herod died in 4 BC). Others point to a possible registration when people in the Roman empire swore an oath to Caesar calling him ‘Father of my country.’ It has been noted that the fourth-century historian, Orosius, suggests the census Luke refers to was the one in which all great nations took an oath of loyalty to Caesar and were ‘made part of one society.’ This would have occurred around 2 BC and might also fit into the time frame of Christ’s birth (if one accepts the minority view that Herod died in 1 BC). Either way, the biblical account of a census ordered by Caesar Augustus is consistent with the type of registrations history records that he decreed and there are at least two possible registrations to which Luke may refer.”

The author then provides objections to this. First, that Caesar would not have imposed a tax on an “independent client kingdom,” which is what Judea was at that time. He then counters the argument by giving examples of the emperors doing just that. Secondly, he records the objection that Rome wouldn’t make people return to their “ancestral homes” to register. He then provides proof from a papyrus that it was done exactly that way in Egypt under Roman rule. 

The last objection is that Luke erred by conflating a census at Jesus’ birth with the census in 6 AD that provoked “a tax revolt led by a man named Judas.” The first response to this objection is found in Acts, as quoted in the article:

After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.     (Acts 5:37; NIV)

“This is why Luke explicitly states that ‘This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria’ (Luke 2:2, emphasis added). Critics will then respond that there is no definitive evidence for an earlier census administered by Quirinius. This, however, is an argument from silence; in archaelology we ought to follow Kenneth Kitchen’s maxim: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

The second response to the objection is more recent. Apparently scholars have noted discrepancies in how Josephus wrote about these events in ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS versus THE JEWISH WAR. These scholars are suggesting that Josephus “mis-dated the census, not Luke.”

Our next source is the website article evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels/. This article sees Acts as written ~62 AD. He starts with Colin J. Hemer (1930-1987, British research fellow) that we looked at in Wenham’s book. At the risk of being repetitive, I’ll outline how this website article uses Hemer’s work.

The author makes a collapsed list of Hemer’s 15 point list:

1. The Jewish War and the Fall of Jerusalem are not recorded in Acts. The author compares this omission “to a reporter failing to mention World War II while on assignment in Paris in the early 1940s.”
2. Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome was left out of Acts, after mentioning other persecutions. The author notes that Luke depicts the Romans as “friendly and positive to Christianity.”
3. Acts “doesn’t even hint at” the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James, while mentioning the deaths of Stephan and James son of Zebedee.
4. The theological arguments in Acts are only pertinent before 70 AD. “…the gospels are thoroughly Jewish, but Judaism and Christianity departed radically after AD 70.”
5. Prior to 66 AD, Judaism was a legal religion in the Roman empire. The Romans saw Christianity as a sect of Judaism and thus a legal religion of the realm. After the Jewish War, Rome revoked Judaism’s status as a legal religion, and Christianity, as a sect of Judaism, was also outlawed. Relations with Rome in the Gospels and in Acts were not those of a government with an illegal religion.

“Luke states that he took much of his material from earlier sources (Lk. 1:2). As a matter of fact, Luke copied 88% of Mark’s gospel into his own, and whenever Luke is mentioned in the NT, Mark is mentioned in the same context (Phile. 23-24; Col. 4:10-11,14; 2 Tim. 4:11). 

²³Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, greets you, ²⁴as do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.    
(Philemon 23,24; NASB)

¹⁰Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, sends you his greetings; and also Barnabas’ cousin Mark (about whom you received instructions; if he comes to you, welcome him); ¹¹and also Jesus who is called Justus; these are the only fellow workers for the kingdom of God who are from the circumcision, and they have proved to be an encouragement to me…¹⁴Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and Demas does also.    
(Colossians 4:10,11,14; NASB)

Only Luke is with me. Take along Mark and bring him with you, for he is useful to me for service.    
(2 Timothy 4:11; NASB)

“This means that Luke and Mark knew one another, and that Mark’s gospel predated Luke’s gospel. Thus if Luke dates to the late 50s AD, then how early should we date Mark? John Wenham dates Mark to the mid-40s AD, and even critic James G. Crossley (co-founder of the highly skeptical Jesus Seminar) dates the book to the late 30s or early 40s AD…In addition, several sources state that Luke wrote under Paul’s supervision (Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus AGAINST HERESIES 3.1.1; Origen CHURCH HISTORY 6.25.4). Since Paul died under Nero in AD 67, this would place the writing of Luke before this time.”

I need to start by saying that James G. Crossley appears to have nothing to do the Jesus Seminar people. I found a list of the original people involved and he is not on it. The founders were Robert Funk and John Dominic Crossan. Crossley’s book is not listed as a Jesus Seminar publication.

I agree that Luke could have been written in the 30s or 40s.

Clearly Mark and Luke knew each other. Has it occurred to anyone that Mark and Luke may have been writing around the same time? Or that they were talking about the events of the Gospel period together? Mark may have been regaling Luke with stories of his time with Peter as he wrote his Gospel. I’m not saying that I’m right about this, I’m just saying that it seems to be as likely as picturing Luke at a desk copying from Mark’s book.

Regarding the idea that Luke was writing “under Paul’s supervision,” let’s look at the quotes the author refers to:

“…The third book of the Gospel is that according to Luke. Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.”     (The Muratorian Fragment, 4,5; from THE JOURNAL OF THE EVANGELICAL THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY 57/2 (2014) 231-64 by Eckhard J. Schnabel)     

“…Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”     (AGAINST HERESIES, by Irenaeus; 3.1.1)  

“⁴Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language…⁶And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”     (CHURCH HISTORY, by Eusebius; 6:25:4,5)

The closest thing to Luke writing “under Paul’s supervision” in these quotes is Eusebius saying: “commended by Paul.” This author was counting on no one looking up his quotes. Paul may well have read Luke’s writings as he did them, and even made comments, but that’s not the same as “supervision.” I think Luke would have mentioned it if Paul was “supervising” him, as it may have provided added credence to Luke’s writings.

And then there is the designation of CHURCH HISTORY as being written by Origen. This book was written by Eusebius, who was heavily influenced by Origen.

The next source we’ll look at is https://aclayjar.net/2021/06/about-gospels/, and, as it’s not terrible original in its thinking, I will just outline the conclusions:

• The author of the Gospel of Luke and of Acts is “anonymous,” by tradition Luke, who seems to be a “sometimes traveling companion” of Paul’s [I think Luke was more to Paul than a “sometimes traveling companion”]
• There are three small sections of Acts where the narration changes from third-person to first-person plural; the detail is greater in first-person plural [we’ve looked at this; the narration changes for a reason, it’s not arbitrary]
• Acts ends with Paul “spending two years under Roman house arrest in Rome;” Paul was killed between 64 and 68 AD; Acts doesn’t mention Paul’s death; therefore Acts was written before 68 AD. [He’s ignoring the death of Jesus’ brother, James ~62, the death of Peter ~64-68, and the Jewish War of 66 here; if Acts was composed after 66, why wouldn’t these major events have been mentioned?
• The Gospel of Luke must have been written before Acts, probably early to mid-60s; Mark must be earlier [as discussed earlier, Mark was not necessarily earlier]

We have one more big source left to look at, so we will end here for today. Next time we will go through a book by Jonathan Bernier.