We are continuing on in Harnack.

The next argument involves the term “Christians.” Have you ever wondered how that name came about? Or, perhaps you thought it was a natural name that started at the beginning? 

“St Luke in a well-known passage informs us that the name “οἱ Χρηστιανοί” [oi Christianoi; Google: the Christians; G#5546, Christianos] first arose in Antioch (xi. 26). 

²⁵And he left for Tarsus to look for Saul; ²⁶and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. And for the entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers of people; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.     (Acts 11:25,26; NASB)

“By the way in which he expresses himself we are assured that the name was not chosen by the believers in Jesus themselves, but was attached to them from outside (see also xxvi. 28). 

Agrippa replied to Paul, “In a short time you are going to persuade me to make a Christian of myself.”     (Acts 26:28; NASB)

“Hence St Luke himself never uses the name; he evidently considered it as a designation which it was best not to use, here agreeing with St Paul, who was of the same opinion. But from the first epistle of St Peter we find that the name had already come into general use among believers themselves, certainly in the Asiatic provinces. 

but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name.     (1 Peter 4:16; NASB)

“We must therefore regard it as improbable that St Luke could have written during the eighth or ninth decade of the first century and yet have been so averse, as he shows himself, to the use of the term Χρηστιανοί [Christianoi]. However, we cannot deduce from this a conclusive proof that he could not have written later than the beginning of the seventh decade. But there is more weight in his use of οἱ μαθηταί [oi mathitai; Google: the students, or the pupils; from G#3101, mathetes, meaning disciple, student, follower] to describe Christians; for this name has already disappeared from the vocabulary of St Paul the Apostle, on the ground of his Christology, must have regarded it as unsuitable. It is only from the Acts of the Apostles that we learn that the name ‘disciples’ — a name that since the Resurrection was no longer suitable — still continued to be used as a designation among Christians, especially those of Palestine. That St Luke himself used it as the customary name is a proof of the high antiquity of his work, and may without doubt be included among the arguments for a very early date.”

I can see why the name “disciples” would no longer be appropriate after Jesus stopped walking the earth. But, I can also see why the followers of Christ in Israel, even the new ones, called themselves that for a time: Jesus had proven that He was risen, and they still felt Him walking among them. 

The followers in Asia were slightly more removed from Jesus’ walk on earth, both temporally and physically, so it makes sense that they would take on a new name for themselves. And, while “Christian” was initially used as a pejorative, it makes sense that the followers would turn it to good and use it for themselves. This change provides a marker in time that Harnack uses to help date the writings of Luke.

The next word that Harnack focuses on is “ekklisia.” He points out that Luke tends to show little interest “in everything ‘ecclesiastical,’” as opposed to Paul, who was all about it.

“…[Luke] is an individualist who knows and values friends, brethren, fellow-disciples, but allows matters relating to ecclesiastical organization and to the community as a Church to fall into the background…It is true that ἐκκλησία [ekklisia; G#1577, meaning  church, congregation, assembly] is found 23 times in the Acts (mainly of the Palestinian communities); yet it is not the peculiar and regular name for Christians; the name ἐκκλησία [ekklisia] is used by St Luke for a community either Jewish or Gentile (vii.38; xix. 32,39,41). 

This is the one who was in the assembly in the wilderness together with the angel who spoke to him at length on Mount Sinai, and who was with our fathers; and he received living words to pass on to you.    
(Acts 7:38; NASB)

³²So then, some were shouting one thing and some another, for the assembly was in confusion and the majority did not know for what reason they had come together…³⁹But if you want anything beyond this, it shall be settled in the lawful assembly…⁴¹After saying this he dismissed the assembly.     (Acts 19:32,39,41; NASB)    

“The passage where the Church makes its appearance in its fullest significance (xx. 28) is an evident reminiscence of actual Pauline teaching.

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)

“This attitude of St Luke in regard to the term ἐκκλησία [ekklisia] and the thing signified is the harder to comprehend the later one sets the date of the book.” 

Remember that Luke accompanied Paul at least part of the time, so he would have heard Paul speak, and he would have been familiar with his point of view. As Harnack is implying, Luke didn’t integrate Paul’s teachings into his writing very much, indicating that he had not had a lot of time to let Paul’s teachings settle into his thought processes.

The next phrase that Harnack looks at is o laos, G#2992, meaning people, crowd; often denotes the people of God. He notes that Luke always used this phrase to mean “the Jewish nation,” and  never used it to refer to Christians.

“O laos is contrasted with τὰ ἔθνη [ta ethne; G#1484, from ethos, meaning Gentile, pagan, foreign nation] (xxvi. 17,23; iv. 27). 

¹⁷rescuing you from the Jewish people [o laos] and from the Gentiles [ta ethne], to whom I am sending you…²³as to whether the Christ was to suffer, and whether, as first from the resurrection of the dead, He would proclaim light to both the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”     
(Acts 26:17,23; NASB)

for 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    
(Acts 4:27; NASB)

“With St Paul it is the same, yet he does write, Rom. ix.25: καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου λαόν μου. 

“I will call those who were not My people [o laos], ‘My People’ [o laos] (Romans, 9:25a; NASB)

“No such passage is to be found in St Luke. We need not draw special attention to the tremendous gulf which here separates St Luke not only from Barnabas and Justin but even from the Epistle to the Hebrews and the First Epistle of St Peter. According to St Luke there is no new ‘People’ which takes the place of the old; the Jewish nation still remains the People, to the believing section of which the Gentiles are added. Here, again, we may say that this attitude is not intelligible in a Gentile Christian after 70 A.D.”

While this may have been the attitude after 70 AD, I need to point out that there is no “new” people; the Gentiles were added to “the believing section.” It’s called Replacement Theology when you try to replace the Jews with the Christians as God’s People; and as we see in Luke, that was not the point. I’m pretty sure even Paul didn’t say anything like that, even in the quote above (Romans 9:25a); I think he was placing the believing Gentiles in with the believing Jews. I do believe, though, that the twist started in the second century.

Let’s take a moment to look at 1 Peter, whom Harnack identifies as one of those books that talked about a “new people.” 

But you are A CHOSEN PEOPLE,A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR GOD’S OWN POSSESSION…  (1 Peter 2:9; NASB)

The interlinear Bible translates it as: you But a race elect, a royal priesthood, a nation holy, a people for possession.  The word for “nation” is ethnos, and “a people for possession” islaos eis peripoiisin. This sounds more like grafting than replacing to me.

The last words looked at by Harnack are paroikia and paroikoi. Paroikia, G#3940, means “residence as a stranger;” paroikoi, G#3941, means “strange, alien, foreigner.” He says that these words were used by St Clement and in 1 Peter, and later as well, as “technical terms for Christians and the Christian community in their relation to the world.” In other words, saying that as Christians we don’t belong to the world. 

“These terms, as applied to Christians, are not yet known to the Acts and to St Paul; in the Acts they are indeed found, but simply to describe the relations of the ancient Jewish nation when in a foreign land (Acts vii. 6,29; xiii. 17). Accordingly, from this point of view also, the Acts must be associated with the Pauline epistles and not with the post-apostolic literature…” 

⁶But God spoke to this effect, that his DESCENDANTS WOULD BE STRANGERS IN A LAND THAT WAS NOT THEIRS, AND THEY WOULD ENSLAVE AND MISTREAT THEM FOR FOUR HUNDRED YEARS…²⁹At this remark, MOSES FLED AND BECAME A STRANGER IN THE LAND OF MIDIAN, where he fathered two sons.     (Acts 7:6,29; NASB)

The interlinear bible translates paroikon as “sojourner” in verse 6, which is an interesting choice as it implies temporariness. In verse 29, paroikos is also translated as “sojourner.” “Stranger” is probably a better choice here and truer to the Greek. 

The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He led them out from it.     (Acts 13:17; NASB)

Here, the interlinear bible translates it as: the people exalted in the sojourn in land [of] Egypt. Interesting that the word paroikia is again translated as “sojourn.” While “sojourn” does imply temporariness, it really doesn’t imply “stranger” very strongly, which this word in Greek seems to do. I find this interesting because in Christianity we see ourselves as “strangers,” or “foreigners” in the world, but I hadn’t really connected that to the Jewish tradition of being “foreigners” when living among Gentiles. It makes perfect sense though.

I looked at 1 Peter, and the interlinear again translates to “sojourn,” but Harnack is right that in 1 Peter the word is applied to Christians living in the world. So, if the change is then between the writing of Acts and the writing of 1 Peter, that narrows it down quite a bit.

Harnack next goes on a long explanation of two other commentators’ discussion on why the Gospel of Luke was written after 70 AD. Most of it is based around the idea that Luke didn’t use the phrase “Abomination of Desolation” from Daniel. The logic used is rather mixed up and messy as all three are trying to dance around their biases.  I think I will skip to the conclusion of Harnack:

“I have given…my refutation of Wellhausen’s exegesis of xxi. 20-24. There is nothing in these verses that compels us to assume, or even suggests to us, that the destruction of Jerusalem had already happened. 

²⁰”But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. ²¹Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are inside the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; ²²because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled. ²³Woe to those women who are pregnant, and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land, and wrath to this people; ²⁴and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.  
  (Luke 21: 20-24; NASB)   

“Everything is much better explained on the hypothesis that St Luke had omitted the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ because he naturally thought that it would not be intelligible to his readers, and that he had replaced it by a prophecy of the destruction of the city. The fact that in the substituted passage he did not make use of more significant details than those which also appear in St Matthew and St Mark proves that he had not more accurate knowledge than they; and he had not more accurate knowledge than they, because he could not have it—the event prophesied had not yet come to pass. It is no sign of new prophetic wisdom to foretell that the city would be encompassed with soldiers, and that this would be the sign of the pre-ordained desolation, any more than to give the information that a war will bring distress upon the land, and that in a war many will fall by the sword and that the rest will be carried away into captivity! Moreover, verse 28 sets its seal upon the fact that Jerusalem is not yet destroyed, for we read: ‘When these things begin to come to pass, then look up and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh.’ Here everything is in the future, everything is accomplished in a brief space of time. 

“Hence it is proved that it is altogether wrong to say that the eschatological passages force us to the conclusion that the third gospel was written after the year 70 A.D.  And since there are no other reasons for a later date, it follows that the strong arguments, which favor the composition of the Acts before 70 AD., now also apply in their full force to the gospel of St Luke, and it seems now to be established beyond question that both books of this great historical work were written while St Paul was still alive.”

I just want to add that I don’t find Luke’s reportage of the prophecy to be that terribly different from Matthew or Mark, except for the mention of the Abomination of Desolation from Daniel. I think Harnack is correct, that Luke either knew his audience would understand the reference, or less likely, Luke himself didn’t understand it, so he just used the word “desolation.”

We’ll move on from here to the book REDATING MATTHEW, MARK & LUKE: A FRESH ASSAULT ON THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, by John William Wenham, written in 1992. 

“Luke knew Mark’s gospel. We have already seen the wide scholarly consensus that Luke and Mark are not entirely independent. The Griesbach school [Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), a German textual critic) argues that Mark followed Luke, being a composite narrative produced by the weaving together of Matthew and Luke, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence, word by word. Such a procedure is improbable. There is very little of Luke’s wording in Mark. The ready-made Q parallels are not used by Mark. The argument from order is invalid. Therefore Luke probably came after Mark.”

While I agree that Luke probably came after Mark, I think that there is more to the argument. Hopefully we will find more on that topic as we go, because this is pretty dismissive.

“Fifty-two pericopes of Luke and Mark have a common origin (Category 1 passages), fourteen others cover the same ground, but show no signs of common origin (Category 2).”

 Luke, not being an eyewitness, is very upfront about using multiple sources to write his Gospel; Mark is clearly one of them. Mark, while not claiming to be an eyewitness, is identified by reliable early sources as writing for Peter, an eyewitness; so his material is identified as being from the one source. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses; while one or both of them may have seen one or more of the other Gospels, they would have been used as memory-joggers much more than ‘source material.’ As I believe that Matthew was written first and earliest, he would be the only “Q” material needed.

“Luke keeps to the sense of Mark in the truly parallel passages. In Category 1 passages the two gospels differ in wording five thousand times, but not in sense. Differences are complimentary rather than contradictory, as in Jesus’ eschatological discourse. The apparent contradiction about whether to carry a staff or not does not look like Luke’s adaptation of Mark. 

And He said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics.    
(Luke 9:3; NASB)

⁸and He instructed them that they were to take noting for their journey, except a mere staff — no bread, no bag, no money in their belt — ⁹but to wear sandals; and He added, “Do not wear two tunics.”    
(Mark 6:8; NASB)

“The fourteen Category 2 passages, eleven in the passion/resurrection accounts and three earlier, are shown not to have a common origin by their vast differences of wording and by the differences of order within pericopes. To claim that Luke keeps to the sense of Mark in Category 1 passages and not Category 2 is not arguing in a circle since the two categories of material are self-evidently distinct.”

All this really proves is that Luke used Mark as one of many sources; and perhaps mainly as a chronological prompt for the pre-passion material. He probably had far more actual witnesses for the passion/resurrection time period than he did for the earlier material.

“Luke may be presumed to keep to the sense of his other sources. This makes the existence of Q or large-scale borrowing from Matthew improbable, since the the Lukan and Matthean forms of the Q-material often differ widely in sense…”

At least we have some agreement here. Luke and Mark traveled in the same circles, Matthew is never mentioned by them. It’s possible that Luke hadn’t seen Matthew’s Gospel by the time he wrote his own, though if he had, I would think that he would have used it for chronology more than substance. And again, “Q” is not really needed.

“If we think of Luke as working directly on the scroll of Mark, we find that he often omits from, adds to or gives a more polished version of Mark’s story, but he almost always does so without changing the basic meaning. This is particularly true with regard to the words of Jesus. In the vast majority of cases the words are either identical, nearly identical or give the same sense in similar words; in some cases they give the same sense in markedly different words; in a few cases there are minor differences of sense; and there is just one case in the teaching of Jesus where Luke’s account appears to contradict that of Mark.”

When Jesus spoke, He was often heard by many people, sometimes, ‘multitudes.’ Luke undoubtedly sought out as many eyewitnesses as he could. Now, if Mark was from an eyewitness, and Luke talked to many eyewitnesses, wouldn’t you expect that there would be a lot of identical words used? Especially with the words of Jesus? Wouldn’t those be the words most remembered? We really don’t need to think of Luke “working directly on the scroll of Mark” to come up with a reason that the wording is so similar. Wenham does eventually come around to saying that “the likenesses between the synoptic gospels [were] accounted for mainly by their common origin in the apostolic preaching.” As I wrote in an earlier post, all of the Apostles were out teaching before they even left Jerusalem. Luke was one of the non-Apostles who were also out there teaching; they all were striving to teach the same thing, so those who wrote it down would, of necessity, also be writing very similar things.

“…In Lukes’ Central Section the Q-material has no common order…Likenesses in wording may sometimes be due to the repetitions of an itinerant preacher, sometimes to independent recollection or transmission of the same discourse; it hardly ever looks like the adaptation of someone who is copying. There are nine examples of difference in sense of a kind that Luke could not have made if his aim was the faithful following of reliable sources…In the Great Sermon there is common order, but many verbal differences, suggesting independent condensed reports of one discourse. In the rest of Luke there are two passages concerning the Baptist so close to Matthew as to suggest that Luke is actually copying Matthew.”

In other words, Luke used multiple sources. Wenham more or less agrees with me here, but unfortunately, he goes on to get more carried away with the “Q-material” angle. He sees Matthew as being too close to Mark for Matthew to have been the shaper of the “Q” (“the innovator”), and that both Matthew and Luke were unlikely to both be shapers of the “Q.” He goes on:

“The differences in the Q-material also rule out large-scale use of Matthew by Luke, though small-scale borrowing seems likely…The text of Q cannot be firmly delineated. S. Petrie in his Novum Testamentum 3 (1959) article ‘“Q” is Only What You Make It’ has shown this in a colorful way. He speaks of the ‘exasperating contradictoriness’ of scholarly views as to its nature:

“‘Q’ is a single document; it is a composite document, incorporating earlier sources; it is used in different redactions; it is more than one document. The original language of ‘Q’ is Greek; the original language is Aramaic; it is used in different translations. ‘Q’ has a definite shape; it is no more than an amorphous collection of fragments. ‘Q’ is a gospel; it is not a gospel. ‘Q’ includes the Crucifixion story; it does not include the Crucifixion story. ‘Q’ consists wholly of sayings and there is no narrative; it includes some narrative. All of ‘Q’ is preserved in Matt. and Luke; not all of it is preserved; it is better preserved in Luke. Matt.’s order is the correct order; Luke’s is the correct order; neither order is correct. ‘Q’ is used by Mark; it is not used by Mark….”

Apparently Wenham doesn’t recognize irony when he sees it; it’s just “colorful.” I think Q is the biggest scam in modern theological history.

Almost no one disputes that Luke wrote the third Gospel and Acts. Wenham states:

“The Anti-Marcionite Prologue says he [Luke] was a Syrian of Antioch, a disciple of the apostles, unmarried, who died at the age of eighty-four, having written his gospel in Achaia… Hobart’s The Medical Language of St. Luke (1882) does not in fact prove the author a physician.” He also adds that there is a slight possibility that Luke was one of the 70 disciples sent out by Jesus to teach. That’s a nice story, but wouldn’t that make Luke an eyewitness? Wenham also reports rumors that Luke was the “unnamed disciple of the Emmaus road;” these two disciples recognized Jesus when He broke the bread…wouldn’t that also at least imply that he was an eyewitness?

We’ll leave it here for today. Next time we’ll pick up where we left off in Wenham.