We’re starting again in Adolf Harnack’s book entitled THE DATE OF THE ACTS AND OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, from 1911. Harnack has a lot to say about Acts, as you might gather from the title of his book. I have his book in pdf form, and amazingly, when he writes about the Greek, I can actually copy the Greek and paste it. Usually the Greek won’t copy over correctly, but with this book it does (I know, I get excited by weird things…).

I think Harnack goes over some arguments that we have previously reviewed, but he does it so well that I think it best to include them as they come up, rather than skip over them. He starts by looking at the end of Acts:

“The conclusion of the Acts (xxviii. 30,31) must always form the starting-point for an attempt to ascertain the date of the work; [here he goes right into the Greek for the whole 2 verses; it’s pointless to copy that here, so I will have the English translation below]. It has, so far as I know, never been questioned that these words proceed from the author of the complete work even though they have the appearance of a postscript — the real conclusion of the book is xxviii. 25-28.”

²⁵And when they disagreed with one another, they began leaving after Paul said one parting statement: The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, ²⁶saying, ‘GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, “YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, AND WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, AND WILL NOT PERCEIVE; ²⁷FOR THE HEARTS OF THIS PEOPLE HAVE BECOME INSENSITIVE, AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY HARDLY HEAR, AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES; OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN, AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.”’  ²⁸Therefore, let it be known to you that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will also listen.”  ²⁹[When he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves.] ³⁰Now Paul stayed two full years in his own rented lodging and welcomed all who came to him, ³¹preaching the kingdom of God and teaching things about the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered.     (Acts 25-31; NASB)

“Moreover, in content and form they agree so closely with the Lukan style that from this point of view strong arguments can be produced in favor of their genuineness. The first impression that one receives from this notice will continue to hold the field against all other possibilities — the impression, namely, that these words were written directly after the expiration of the διετία ὅλη  [dietia oli; Google: two whole years; dietia -#G1333 meaning the space of two years; oli means all]. This also is the significance of the aorist ἐνέμεινεν[enemeinen; Google: I persisted; Bing: stayed; footnote here: If the situation were still continuing at the time St Luke wrote, then the present or the imperfect would have been the proper tense to use.]; it shows that the situation is now changed. Whether the change consisted in this, that the Apostle had now left Rome, or in this, that his situation of comparative liberty was now exchanged for one of greater restriction, we cannot tell without further information.However…in either case only quite a short time can have elapsed since the expiration of the διετία ὅλη[dietia oli]. If a longer time had elapsed the chronicler would have been obliged to relate either the place to which the Apostle had now turned his steps or the nature of the greater restrictions to which he was now subjected. It is more probable that the Apostle remained in Rome; for if the two years marked the whole length of the Apostle’s stay in Rome, and if he had already begun a new ministry in another place, it is not very easy to explain why St Luke did not simple say: “After two years of unhindered activity Paul left Rome and went to ——.” Thus, according to the concluding verses, the Acts was written very soon after the day on which St Paul was condemned to leave his hired lodging…”

In other words, Paul was likely martyred sometime not too long after the 2 years were up, which helps date the writing of Acts.

“Not only is the slightest reference to the outcome of the trial of St Paul absent from the book, but not even a trace is to be discovered of the rebellion of the Jews in the seventh decade of the century. We must, moreover, combine this negative testimony to an early date with the positive indication that the Jews never appear in this book as the oppressed and persecuted, but rather as the beati possidentes [Latin for “blessed are the possessors”] and the persecutors. How remarkable that a vivacious writer like St Luke, and one so fond of giving prophecies of events, should remain so ‘objective’ as to betray nothing of what happened in 70 A.D. and the years immediately preceding! Nay, more, at the conclusion of his book he feels called upon to proclaim in the most solemn form the prophecy of the judgment upon the Jewish nation; and yet he does this simply in the words of Isaiah, which speak of the hardening of the heart of the nation; there is not one hint of the fact that the destruction of Jerusalem has come as a punishment upon the nation!”

One note here, Luke puts the prophecy of Isaiah in Paul’s mouth, which is most likely where it belongs. Luke, based on all his other writings, doesn’t seem likely to say this himself.

Next Harnack gets very ironic and says that the commentators and historians suggest that “everything in the early history of the Christian Church must be made to look as gentle and innocent as possible, neither the Roman State nor Judaism must be shocked, and so forth, in order that the innocency and harmlessness of the Church might appear in clear light.” He then says that of course they have to think this if they are going to say “that St Luke wrote after 70 A.D. and yet did not use his later experience to illuminate the earlier history of the Church.” He concludes with:

“St Luke’s absolute silence concerning everything that happened between the years 64 and 70 A.D. is a strong argument for the hypothesis that his book was written before the year 64 A.D.”

Here is Harnack on Acts vs the Pauline epistles:

“A further negative indication makes its appearance in the fact that no use is made of the Pauline epistles, a fact that suggests that the date of the Acts should be set as early as possible. It is true that P. W. Schmidt [appears to be a linguist of the turn of the last century in Germany, books are in German]…wishes to revive the hypothesis that dependence upon these epistles can be traced in a few passages of the Acts…but in no instance is the evidence sufficient. In iii. 25 it is supposed that use is made of Gal. iii. 8; but of all St Paul’s epistles that to the Galatians is most foreign to the thought of St Luke, and the coincidence here does not extend beyond the common quotation of Gen. xii. 3. 

It is you who are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.’    
(Acts 3:25; NASB)

The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “ALL NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU.”    
(Galatians 3:8; NASB)

And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”    
(Genesis 12:3; NASB)

“It is the same with v. 30 (Gal.iii. 13) and x. 34 (Rom. ii. 11)… 

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a cross.    
(Acts 5:30; NASB)

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us — for it is written: “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE” —     (Galatians 3:13; NASB)

Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality    
(Acts 10:34; NASB)

Now, that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS ONE WILL LIVE BY FAITH.”    
(Romans 2:11; NASB)

“…Acts ix. 24 f. and 2 Cor. xi. 32 f., except for the words τεῖχος  [teichos; wall, G#5038] and χαλάζειν [chalazein; from the word chalaza, G#5464, meaning hail, hailstorm, hailstone], simply coincide in the event they record, so that there is no need to assume literary dependence here, especially as there are by no means slight differences in detail between the two passages…

²⁴but their plot became known to Saul. They were also closely watching the gates day and night so that they might put him to death; ²⁵but his disciples took him at night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a large basket.   
(Acts 9:24,25; NASB)

³²In Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king was guarding the city of the Damascenes in order to seize me, ³³and I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and so escaped his hands.    
(2 Corinthians 11:32,33; NASB)

“Acts xiii. 33 f. is parallel in subject matter to Rom. i. 4 and vi. 9; this likeness, however, like the whole discourse of which the passage forms part…must be ascribed to the writer’s general recollection of actual Pauline discourses — it is not due to dependence upon any particular passage of the epistles. 

that God has fulfilled this promise to those of us who are the descendants by raising Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘YOU ARE MY SON; TODAY I HAVE FATHERED YOU.’    
(Acts 13:33; NASB)

who has declared the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord    
(Romans 1:4; NASB)

knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him    
(Romans 6:9; NASB)

“How it can be said that Acts xv. 24,41 and xx. 31 thoroughly establish dependence upon St Paul’s writings is more than I can see. 

²⁴Since we have heard that some of our number to whom we gave no instruction have confused you by their teaching, upsetting your souls…⁴¹And he was traveling through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.     (Acts 15:24,41; NASB)

Therefore, be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.    
(Acts 20:31; NASB)

“As for the speech at Miletus [Acts 20:18-35] — the very point which is characteristic of that speech is that it bears a strongly Pauline stamp, and yet nowhere suggests dependence in detail. 

³²And now I entrust you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified. ³³I have coveted no one’s silver or gold or clothes. ³⁴You yourselves know that these hands served my own needs and the men who were with me. ³⁵In everything I showed you that by working hard in this way you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” 
 (Acts 20:32-35; NASB)

“We are thus left with the result that it cannot be proved that the author of the Acts has made any use either of any particular epistle, or of the collected epistles of St Paul — a result of no slight importance for the chronological problem…” 

I think, looking at the example passages, we can see that there is truly no evidence that Luke was borrowing from Paul. It’s hard to understand how commentators can look at two books and declare that one copied the other because they were talking about the same, or a similar, subject. Of course, that does seem to be what most commentators do (copy what those who came before wrote), whether it’s admitted or not. I certainly am doing that, but, I can’t assume that the Gospel writers, who were calling upon memories of Christ, or listening to those who had memories of Christ, had any need to do that.

Harnack next does a short word study on the names of Jesus used in Acts:

“…The names used for our Lord in the Acts are ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Lord’; on the other hand, the use of the word ‘Christ’ is quite characteristic: to St Luke ‘Christ’ is not a proper name like ‘Jesus’; he still feels to the full that it means ‘the Messiah,’ and in this his attitude of mind is even more primitive than St Paul’s.”

We will see as we go on that Harnack’s use of the word “primitive” is not a pejorative, but rather a way of saying “an earlier example of.”

“In the first place, we are surprised to find how rarely Χριστός [Christos, #G5547] occurs in the Acts. In all it occurs only 25 times…Compare with the 25 passages where ‘Christ’ occurs the threefold number of passages where ‘Jesus’ is found. Coming to details, the occurrences of ‘Christ’ are of the following character: ‘Jesus Christ’ is found 11 times and ‘Christ’ by itself only 14 times. Of the 11 occurrences 7 are of the nature of a formula, for they run: τὸ ὄνομα Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ  [onoma Iisou Christou; Google: the name of Jesus Christ], hence ‘Jesus Christ’ was familiar to St Luke only in formal combination, for among the 4 remaining occurrences 2 (xi. 17; xxviii. 31) are also formal in character, seeing that they are combined with κύριος [kyrios; G#2962, meaning lord, master]. 

Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as He also gave to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?     (Acts 11:17; NASB)

preaching the kingdom of God and teaching things about the Lord Jesus Christ with all openness, unhindered.    
(Acts 28:31; NASB)

“Only in ix. 34 and x. 36 do we find ‘Jesus Christ’ without ‘ὄνομα’ [onoma; G#3686, meaning name; title; reputation] and without ‘ὁ κύριος’ [o kyrios; the lord, the master, #G2962]…

Peter said to him, “Aeneas, Jesus Christ heals you; get up and make your own bed.”    
(Acts 9:34; NASB)

The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all) —    
(Acts 10:36; NASB)

“…But in the 14 passages where o Christos stands alone it everywhere means the Messiah, and never has the signification of a proper name. Among these passages 5 are most instructive, where ‘Jesus’ is found together with ‘Christ,’ but in peculiarly loose connection:

[Harnack reproduces the 5 verses in Greek, I’m doing that in English here]

and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you   
(Acts 3:20; NASB)

And everyday, in the temple and from house to house, they did not stop teaching and preaching the good news of Jesus as the Christ.    
(Acts 5:42; NASB)

explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”     (Acts 17:3; NASB)

⁵But when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul began devoting himself completely to the word, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Christ…¹⁸for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.    
(Acts 18:5,28; NASB)

“St Luke accordingly only uses the expression ‘Jesus Christ’ (with the exception of one passage) in two formal combinations; he himself calls our Lord ‘Jesus’ and ‘the Lord.’ If he describes him as ‘Christ’ he counts upon his readers knowing what this official title means; for he postulates it as an official title. This is an attitude which, as has been said, St Paul no longer adopts nor any Gentile Christian after him. It is primitive, it presupposes a circle of readers which was still in connection with Judaism; or, rather, it characterizes an author who had not yet been forced, in the interest of the majority of his readers, to take the fateful step of treating ‘Christ’ as a proper name.”

This last paragraph also explains why Mark wasn’t copying Paul. Mark’s writing was to a mixed audience, quoting a very Jewish source in Simon Peter. Paul was writing to a Gentile audience and was moving away from some of the Jewishness of the first two Gospels in order to relate to his audience.

Harnack’s next point involves the phrase, “Son (or Servant) of God.”

“In the four gospels, in the epistles of the New Testament, and in the Apocalypse, except in the quotation from Isaiah (xlii. 1) in St Matt. xii. 18, our Lord is never called ‘O παῖς θεοῦ [o pais theou Google says “the play of god,” but that’s not right; pais, G#3816, means son/girl/child, usually a servant, often means “as often beaten with impunity”, so we have “a son of God” or “a servant of God” as a meaning], but always ‘the Son’; 

“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.    
(Isaiah 42:1; NASB)

“BEHOLD, MY SERVANT WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN; MY BELOVED IN WHOM MY SOUL DELIGHTS; I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT UPON HIM, AND HE WILL PROCLAIM JUSTICE TO THE GENTILES.    
(Matthew 12:18; NASB)

“however, in Acts iii. 13, 26; iv. 27, 30 he is called ‘O παῖς θεοῦ [o pais theou]. 

¹³The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His Servant Jesus, the one whom you handed over and disowned in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release Him…²⁶God raised up His Servant for you first, and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.”    
(Acts 3:13,26; NASB)

²⁷For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel…³⁰while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.”    
(Acts 4:27,30; NASB)

“This is extremely primitive; for it is only found elsewhere in the primitive prayers of the first epistle of St Clement [Pope from 92 to 100], of the Didache [1st century, Christian treatise written in Koine Greek], and of the Mart. Polycarpi [The Martyrdom of Polycarp; mid 2nd century]. Where it occurs in later literature it is dependent upon this tradition. Therefore, just as St Luke is more primitive than St Paul in his use of  ‘ὁ Χριστός’ [o Christos], so also is it here: with him ‘ὁ Χριστός’ [o Christos] has not yet become a proper name for our Lord, and the Messianic title ‘O παῖςθεοῦ’ [o pais theou] has not yet dropped out of fashion. The Christology of St Luke…shows that this is not a mere relic of old days.”

What we are seeing here is that Luke had different word usage than Paul did, so that Luke, using older phrasing, was more likely the earlier writer. Paul, using more advanced phrasing (as seen in the progression of Christian thought), would not be pulling from an older usage. Paul would most likely be building on older ideas, but he wouldn’t have to be reading and borrowing from older writing to do that.

Harnack follows this with a study on Luke’s Christology. He makes the point that in Luke, Jesus was not the Messiah until His Resurrection; before that, He was a Prophet. He cites Peter speaking in Acts 2:22 as significant of Luke’s thinking:

Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR COUNTRYMEN; TO HIM YOU SHALL LISTEN regarding everything He says to you.     (Acts 2:22; NASB)

Harnack says that per Luke, even after the Resurrection, “still the Messianic times have not yet arrived upon earth,” and that Jesus is the “Messiah designate” because “the Resurrection signified the appointment to the Messiahship.” That it’s Jesus’ Second Coming where He ascends to “the throne of David.” He then says that there is no “trace of the so-called higher Christology, as St Paul proclaimed it… to be found in the Acts of the Apostles” or “in the gospel of St Luke.” 

“St Luke’s Christology simply cries out in protest against such procedure; nor is the case different with other characteristics of this writer. Rather we must say that St Luke, in spite of his acquaintance with St Paul, remains far behind the Apostle in his doctrine concerning Christ, and in complete independence holds fast to a Christology which is absolutely primitive. The same, however, can also be asserted of his conception of the death of Christ. It is true that St Luke connected this death with the forgiveness of sins (iii. 18 f.), but here he had in no sense attained to the heights of Pauline doctrine.”

But the things which God previously announced by the mouths of all the prophets, that His Christ would suffer, He has fulfilled in this way.    
(Acts 3:18; NASB)

Just a quick note here: it’s this type of evidence that is leading people to believe that Luke was not a Gentile, but a Jew. Of course, Luke could have been a Gentile who was very connected to Judaism before believing in Jesus.

“In one passage only (xx. 28, St Paul’s discourse at Miletus) does the death of the Son appear as the necessary means by which God had purchased His Church; 

Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.     (Acts 20:28; NASB)

“here, however, St Luke doubtless gives one of those reminiscences of the actual teaching of St Paul in which this discourse is so rich. The situation which thus presents itself to us demands that we set the date of the Acts as early as possible; for it is quite improbable that ten to twenty years after the death of St Paul a Christology such as that of St Luke could have been maintained in the Church so far as it stood under the influence of St Paul; we need only compare the Christology of the Pastoral Epistles, of the First Epistle of Clement, of the Apocalypse, of the Fourth Gospel, and of Ignatius.”

This is a really good point. With this type of universal change in theology it’s unlikely that the older point of view would be expressed by those writing at a Scriptural level. 

That’s enough for today. We will continue with Harnack in the next post.