NT Pod 34: Was Luke a Historian?

I noticed the other day that I have not kept up to date here with the latest episodes of the NT Pod. So this is to mention NT Pod 34: Was Luke a Historian?.

Over on the NT Pod pages, I have also added a new media player. It's the third one I have tried. One of the problems with using blogger for podcasts is that it does not automatically add a media player for those who wish to listen directly on the web. I tried two different solutions, but both depended on a web player present on another site, and eventually they vanished. So I have finally uploaded a web player to my own site. Thankfully it seems to be working fine.

Bibledex: Luke

There is a new Bibledex video from the University of Nottingham:



As usual, it's nicely done. My only criticism is that they should put the scholars' names on screen the first time they appear. They are Anthony Thiselton, Alison Milbank, Emily Gathergood and I think Pete Watts.

NT Pod 32: The Passion of Jesus in Luke's Gospel

I uploaded the third of this week's four Passion Podcasts early on Thursday morning.  In this one, we turn to Luke's Gospel, NT Pod 32: The Passion of Jesus in Luke's Gospel.

It is certainly my most ambitious plan so far on the NT Pod, but it's something I have enjoyed doing.  I am pleased that the regular release schedule is not quite so demanding, though, and look forward to returning to normal again next week.

BCE / CE vs BC / AD

Bob Cargill's latest In My View over on Bible and Interpretation argues in favour of BCE / CE vs. BC / AD, Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System . In my previous post, I looked at N. T. Wrong's take on the issue, but now I would like to make a few additional comments of my own.

For some, the usage will not in any case be a matter of choice. Within Biblical Studies, the usage is now so widespread that some authors will have had it imposed on them by publishers who make this an element in their house style. Indeed, the usage is much more widespread in our area than it is in any other discipline, and by a country mile. Bob speaks of "the increasingly accepted international scientific standard of BCE (“Before Common Era”) and CE (“Common Era”)": but I am not sure that it is so widespread. I rarely hear it outside of our field.

Bob's focus is on the BC / AD labels as they are used by Christians (note the title), but the difficulty is that everyone uses these labels. As Chris Heard points out in comments, Richard Dawkins uses it without apology.

Moreover, I don't think the term "dating system" is quite right. The dating system is the same, on BCE / CE and BC / AD; it is the labelling within the system that differs.

I would like to comment also on the following:

While the Gregorian calendar accurately represents years of 365.25 days, Dionysius’ calculations skipped the year zero, jumping immediately from the year 1 BC to the year 1 AD. The result is a calendar that claims to be based upon the birth of Jesus, but which skips the first year of his life.

There is also no "year zero" on the Gregorian calendar, so bringing it up in this context is a bit of a red herring. Dionysius did not "skip[] the year zero"; he did not factor in a year zero. It is true that there are astronomical calendars that subsequently have factored in a year zero, but this is not relevant to the Gregorian calendar, or to Dionysius Exiguus, which work with a transition from 1 BCE to 1 CE. There is no question of the first year of Jesus' life being "skipped".

Bob goes on to note that Jesus' birth can be located around 4BCE because it happens near to the death of Herod in Matthew 2:

If we add to these 4 years the fact that Herod the Great did not die immediately after the birth of Jesus, but, according to Matthew, ordered the death of all children two years of age and younger in an attempt to kill Jesus, we can add an additional two years to the birth of Jesus, making his birth approximately 6 BCE. If we also add the missing year zero, it is most likely that, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was born around 7 BCE!

I doubt that we can be too precise about Matthew's dating. I am a bit of a sceptic when it comes to the historicity of Matthew 1-2. At best, I think he had a vague idea of the rough time when Jesus was born. The murder of children of two years old and younger may also say nothing about the time elapsing; it may have to do rather with Herod's attempts, as Matthew conceptualized it, to be thorough. The extra year for year zero is not necessary and should be dropped too.

Bob goes on:

Thus, the BC/AD system is fundamentally flawed in that it misrepresents the birth of Jesus by approximately 7 years. This means that Jesus’ ministry did not begin around the year 30, but instead around the year 23. Likewise, Pentecost and the origin of the Christian Church should not be dated to “33 AD,” but to about 26 CE.

The "year 30" is presumably based on Luke's notice that Jesus was "about thirty years old" at the beginning of his ministry (Luke 3:23), working forward from 7 BCE to 23 CE. But there are other indicators of date here in Luke, most specifically the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberias (Luke 3:1), which places the beginning of Jesus' ministry in 29CE. Bob's "year 23" can't be right. Moreover, 23 CE is too early for the note that Pontius Pilate was governor of Judaea (Luke 3:1), which makes 26 CE the earliest possible date for this (26-36 CE).

I have one more concern. Bob notes rightly that Matthew dates Jesus' birth near to the death of Herod the Great (Matt. 2.15, 19-21) and that Luke apparently dates it at the time of the census that took place "when Quirinius was governor of Syria" (Luke 2.2). Since the latter probably occurred in 6 CE, Bob suggests that there is a 10 year (or so) discrepancy between the dates of Jesus' birth in Matthew and Luke. However, this cannot be the case. Luke 1.5 follows Matthew in dating the action during Herod's reign. Unless he thought that Elizabeth had a ten-year pregnancy, Luke is not dating Jesus' birth in 6 CE. What on earth he is doing with the mention of Quirinius in Luke 2.2. is a mystery, but my guess is that his dating is a bit off. He has things roughly in the right decade or so, but he is not precise enough here for us to work out exactly when he thought Jesus was born. (He is a bit more confident when he gets to the beginning of John's ministry, on the other hand, in 3.1).

See also comments on Daniel McClellan, Clayboy and The Sacred Page.

Luke on Wealth and Poverty (NT Pod 11)

I uploaded the latest NT Pod last week, Ep. 11, on Wealth and Poverty in Luke's Gospel. I don't have a lot to add to this one by way of programme notes except to add that the ideas I discuss here are developed in a little more detail in my Case Against Q: Studies in Marcan Priority and the Synoptic Problem (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2002), Chapter 6 ("How Blessed are the Poor?") where I attempt to build the case for Luke's narrative interest in poverty as a prerequisite for discipleship, at the same time as noting the importance of the theme of eschatological reversal involving rich and poor. Non Q sceptics should not worry -- I did not even mention Q in this podcast. I just wanted to share some of the broader issues that emerged when I was thinking, some years ago now, about the likelihood that Luke was the one responsible for the wording of Luke 6.20.

On Luke's use of sources

I have enjoyed reading some of April DeConick's questions and reflections on Luke and History in The Forbidden Gospels Blog. In particular, a post headed Is Luke a Trustworthy Historian? asks:

Why is Acts written off today as a Lukan myth with little or no historical value? Why do scholars who wish to argue for the historicity of elements of Acts have to go through an inordinate amount of justification before doing so?

and there are a series of interesting points that focus the question, and I would like to comment on these points, even though doing so takes me off at tangents from April's main points.

1. When Luke uses Mark, he does not rework Mark as much as Matthew.

I did a double take when I first read this, thinking that perhaps April had joined us in the Q sceptical camp, but then I realized that I was reading it incorrectly! It is "he does not rework Mark as much as Matthew (reworks Mark)" and not "he does not rework Mark as much as (he reworks) Matthew". Nevertheless, I think the comment is debatable and for several reasons. First, Matthew features much more of Mark than Luke does; or, to put it another way, Luke omits much more of Mark than Matthew does. Second, the perception that Luke generally retains Mark's order more carefully than Matthew does is problematic. Matthew's rearrangement of Mark is primarily limited to Matt. 8-12. After Matthew 13 // Mark 4, Matthew follows Mark's order very closely. Luke is radical in some of his treatment of Mark, especially drawing forward the Rejection at Nazareth (Luke 4.16-30) from a much later point in Mark, and drawing forward the Anointing (Luke 7.36-50) from a later point still. (I have more on this in The Case Against Q, 86-90). Third, I would draw special attention to the Passion Narratives in the three Synoptics. Luke departs far more from Mark here than does Matthew. It is worth reminding ourselves that B. H. Streeter and Vincent Taylor conceived the Proto-Luke theory on the basis of Luke's massive departures from Mark in material like that.

2. When Luke uses Q, Q-scholars tell us that he retains Q better in terms of verbage and order than Matthew. In fact, our reconstructed Q is versed according to Luke.

From my reading of Q scholarship, I think this overstates the standard view. It is consensus in Q scholarship that Luke retains the order of Q better than does Matthew, but opinions are divided on how far Matthew and how far Luke retains Q's wording and there is no real tendency in either direction, at least if we are to go on the work of the IQP. With respect to the Lucan chapter and verses getting used for referring to Q, a practice I have criticized (e.g. in Case Against Q, 8), it is important to note that it has always been said that this is done for convenience and without prejudice to decisions about whether or not the order of a given pericope is better reflected in Luke or Matthew.

3. Luke tells us in the beginning of his gospel that he relied on older sources to rewrite the Christian narrative which we apparently trust given our hypothesis that Luke is a second edition of Mark.
4. If we think that Luke used Mark and Q as literary sources, wouldn't the best assumption be that he also used older traditional sources for the composition of Acts?
5. If 4 is valid, then shouldn't we be trying to figure out what those older traditions are and what they tell us about Christianity earlier than Luke?

These are interesting points. One thing that is worth taking seriously is to find out what we can about Luke's compositional and redactional habits from an analysis of his Gospel sources Mark and (I would say) Matthew and to learn from them in working out how he is writing in Acts. I argued on this blog a while ago (A Chronological Clue in Acts 9.25, The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15 and The Jerusalem Council: Gal. 2.1-10 = Acts 15: Response to Critics) and one day I will publish on this, that where Luke has Paul visiting Jerusalem in Acts 9, clearly out of sequence when we look at Galatians 1, he has brought the account forward in his narrative from its natural location three years later, just as he draws forward the Rejection at Nazareth in his Gospel from its Marcan location later in the ministry. My own feeling is that the more familiar one gets with Luke from studying his use of sources in the Gospel, the more light it sheds on the way he behaves in Acts, where we have Paul's letters as a useful point of comparison.

Ben Sira and Luke

Over on Scripta de Divinis, Tim Brookins has an introductory post on Ben Sira, including some NT parallels. One of the most remarkable parallels between Ben Sira and the NT is, I think, the Rich Fool parable in Luke:

Sirach 11.18-19 (RSV): [18] There is a man who is rich through his diligence and self-denial,
and this is the reward allotted to him:
[19] when he says, "I have found rest,
and now I shall enjoy my goods!"
he does not know how much time will pass
until he leaves them to others and dies.

Luke 12.15-21 (NASB): 12:15 Then He said to them, "Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." 16 And He told them a parable, saying, "The land of a rich man was very productive. 17 "And he began reasoning to himself, saying, ''What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?'' 18 "Then he said, ''This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 ''And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."' 20 "But God said to him, ''You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'' 21 "So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."

The fact that this parable also appears in Thomas 63 raises some interesting questions about the relationship between Thomas, Luke and Ben Sira, but I don't have time to blog on them just now.

James Tabor on Early Christian Assumptions

James Tabor has an interesting and provocative post on the Jesus Dynasty Blog on:

What We Assume About Early Christianity

Here is an excerpt:

. . . . Acts might well be called “From Jerusalem to Rome: The Story of Paul’s Triumph.” Luke is anxious of course to show great harmony between Peter and Paul, and even a kind of tacit agreement of James, the brother of Jesus, whom Luke has to relunctantly (sic) admit was the leader of the Jesus movement at that time. In fact the “kerygma” or “preaching” of the apostles according to Luke, as reflected in Peter’s speeches in Acts 2:22-38 and 3:11-26, is pure “Paulinism” in terms of its basic parameters–that Christ was sent from God as Messiah, that he died for the sins of mankind, that he was raised from the dead, and that he has ascended to heaven, soon to return as apocalyptic Judge.

I would like to comment on a few things here. I agree about the way that Luke brings James on to the scene to offer "a kind of tacit agreement". Luke's portrait of James is quite odd, like that of a major historical character playing a minor role in the drama. It's like Hamlet in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead but more so. Indeed, it is worth noting that Luke never even identifies James as the brother of Jesus. We know that he is not James the son of Zebedee, who dies in Acts 12, but otherwise the reader unacquainted with other early Christian sources like Galatians 1-2 would have no idea who this character was.

I have a couple of qualms, though, about the characterization of the preaching of the apostles in Acts 2 and 3 as pure "Paulinism", and from two different angles. First, and following Käsemann, Conzelmann et al, I can't help thinking that there is something very odd going on with the theologia crucis (theology of the cross) in Luke-Acts. The thing conspicuously absent from those early Acts sermons is any declaration that "Christ died for our sins". This is a really striking fact, all the more striking given the absence of Mark 10.45 (the "ransom for many" saying) in Luke.

My second qualm relates to the idea that things like "Christ died for our sins" are pure Paulinism. If there is one thing we do know from those "dark ages" of 30-50CE, it is that the earliest Christian preaching, which Paul gave to the Corinthians as of first importance, and which had been handed on to him, placed at its heart Jesus the Messiah's death for his people's sins according to the Scriptures, his burial, and his resurrection according to the Scriptures. Paul is pretty clear in 1 Corinthians 15.1-3 that this key material was traditional. On this, one of my favourite articles is Jeff Peterson, "The Extent of Christian Theological Diversity: Pauline Evidence", Restoration Quarterly 47 (2005): 1-12 [PDF], which I have mentioned on a previous occasion.

Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a: Thomas's dependence on Luke

I recently posted a temporary draft of an article I have written on the Gospel of Thomas's dependence on Luke 11.27-28. If you are interested in looking at the piece, I would be grateful for any feedback. It is at:

Luke 11.27-28 // Thom. 79a: A Case of Thomasine Dependence

Note: this is only going to be available on-line temporarily (latest update today at lunchtime). I am currently revising it in the light of feedback I am receiving ahead of sending it off for publication. I mentioned this on the Gospel of Thomas e-list just the other day and Mike Grondin asked April DeConick for her opinion. She kindly posts her response on her blog in a post entitled Is the Gospel of Thomas Dependent on the Synoptics. I will respond later.