The Theory That Luke 3 May Have Served As A Template For Acts 2

It is my theory that Luke 3 served as a template for the writing of Acts 2, and that the role of Peter in the latter was like unto that of John in the former.  The agenda for Luke 3 seems to have been to prepare the reader for the notion of an earthly Jesus; whereas that of Acts 2 that of ushering in the concept of a catholic church. The distinctions between the intended ends of each narrative notwithstanding, the similarities of each respective outline is such that a systemic utility of the former in the preparation of the latter seems likely. 

Both narratives commence by portraying settings which featured meticulous lists of demographic details suited to each respective situation. In Luke, great detail is given to listing the names and titles of certain political and religious leaders in a seeming effort to establish a sense of credibility for his/her narrative (Note: The gender of the Lukan author is a matter of debate, yet an area of research I have not explored to a degree sufficiently worthy of a personal theory as of this time). The Acts narrative follows a similar method of operation by naming a variety of nationalities of Jews who were supposedly dwelling in Jerusalem at the time of the events so alleged in the text. Again, such attention to detail seems an effort to establish credibility for the narrative itself. 

Each narrative then follows their respective detailed settings with prophecies which involved unnatural phenomena and unlikely occurrences.  Luke describes valleys being filled and mountains being flattened; whereas Acts details earthly blood, vapor, and smoke, eclipses, and lunar bleeding. Actual occurrences of such extremely unnatural phenomena would have seemed as unlikely to the natural sciences as were the subsequently proposed social and religious changes to nativist Jews.

For both narratives immediately follow their respective unnatural phenomena prophecies with assertions of a catholic gospel in the context of a Judaic audience. The notion that the Jews of Judea would accept an all inclusive gospel would have been about as likely as flat mountains or a bleeding moon. For the implication that at the timeframe so depicted the uncircumcised might be beneficiary to a common soteriology as the children of Abraham would have been both repulsive and possibly grounds for collective revolt. Yet in spite of the assumed social distinctions of the day, each narrative proceeds to add insult to injury, by transitioning from the notion of a catholic gospel to anti Semitic rhetoric and accusations of wrong doing.

The Luke narrative refers to the Jews as brooding vipers, and questions their very presence at John's preaching service. The itinerant orator even warns them to repent or be prepared to deal with the consequences.  Acts actually accuses the Jews of murdering the subsequently resurrected Jesus. The reprimands of each narrative then incite a common reaction. 

For the subsequent response in both texts is that of the collective question "what shall we do then?". There is no defense even offered in either case. Each merely seem to assume the guilt of the Jews. In fact Acts indicates that the query arose from a guilty conscience common to the crowd.

The answer in each narrative is fundamentally identical. For in both texts the seemingly guilt stricken gang of supposed vipers and murderers are told to repent and be baptized. Acts asserts such as a directive, while Luke demonstrates the concept of repentance by way of several practical examples. 

Then both narratives depict each orator as utilizing many other words in order to affirm their respective messages.  Neither text though elaborates as to the content of those generic exhortations. The instant and public response however; would seem to indicate that such succeeded as per intent. 

For each text follows their respective references to such preaching with a subsequent mass baptismal ceremony.  Whereas the Luke narrative simply states that they were all baptized, Acts quantifies the occurrence by claiming that about 3,000 people were baptized in response to the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost. The mass baptism of each instantaneously supplied a demographic for each respective ideology; that of the doctrine of an earthly Jesus in the case of the Luke narrative, and that of the institutional church in the case of Acts.

The gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism is likewise common to both narratives. In Luke, the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on Jesus seems to initially confirm his identity as the Son of God, yet subsequent texts indicate that such also empowers him to validate his earthly ministry by performing manifest miracles. In a similar fashion, the Acts text seems to indicate that the gift of the Holy Spirit is an identifying trademark of such as should be saved, and subsequent texts likewise indicate that such empowers those so endowed to perform similar miracles like unto those allegedly executed by Jesus.  

By way of summary and review, Luke 3 and Acts 2 each:

- Record a Setting, complete with meticulous details such as Names, Titles, and Places (L 3.1-2; A 2.5,8-11)

- Followed by prophecies which recorded unnatural phenomena and unusual occurrences (L 3.5; A 2.19-20)

- Followed immediately by the proclamation of a universal gospel (L 3.6; A 2.21)

- Followed immediately by negative remarks regarding the Jews (L 3.7-8; A 2.22-23)

- Followed by the collective "what shall we do?" (L 3.10; A 2.37)

- Followed by the command to repent and be baptized (A 2.38; L3.11-14 (these verses actually describe the concept of "repentance); cf L 3.8, also L 3.21 (implies the command to be baptized).

- Followed by preaching with "many other words" (L 3.18; A 2.40)

- Followed by a mass baptism (L 3.21; A 2.41)

- Followed by the descent of the Holy Spirit in the case of Luke 3.22, and the gift of the Holy Spirit after baptism as implied in Acts 2.38.

Conclusion:

As stated from the outset, it is my theory that Luke 3 may have served as a template for the writing of Acts 2, and that the role of Peter in the latter was like unto that of John in the former.  The agenda for Luke 3 seems to have been to prepare the reader for the notion of an earthly Jesus (L 3.4 "Prepare ye the way of the Lord", L 3.22"); whereas that of Acts 2 that of ushering in the concept of a catholic (universal)  church (A 2.21,47). The distinctions between the intended ends of each narrative notwithstanding, the similarities of each respective outline is such that a systemic utility of the former in the preparation of the latter seems likely.

Such as they are, these are my thoughts regarding the theory that Luke 3 may have served as a template for the writing of Acts 2.

Dave Henderson

Denison, Texas

Luke 2: An Allegorical Interpretation of The Lukan Nativity and Early Childhood Jesus Narrative

The Lukan Nativity and Early Childhood Jesus Narrative supplements the Matthean version such that each reads as a seemingly separate tale. The basic agenda of portraying Jesus as the miraculous product of divine procreation does indeed remain fundamental to each respective account.  Yet the Lukan author introduces unique material which I perceive to have been utilized as a carefully articulated allegorical dictate directed towards diaspora Jews. Such distinctive material includes:

- Portraying Jesus as being born approximately  10 years or so after the Matthean narrative 

- Providing expanded background material on Joseph 

- Portraying Mary as delivering Jesus in a manger 

- The Angelic band scene

- And the Temple scene

Now, the later dating of the birth of Jesus and the background material regarding Joseph appear to be interrelated. Firstly, the taxation which serves as the general context of the Lukan Birth Narrative is the very circumstance which lead to the commencement of The Jewish Independence Movement in 6 CE. Secondly, the individual who initiated that rebellion was Judah of Galilee, which according to the Lukan text was likewise the homeland of Joseph.  The historic setting and the similarities between the Insurrectionist Judah and the Lukan Joseph are matters which may be more than incidental, and hence are details worthy of contemplative consideration. 

Among those similarities:

- As mentioned, both Judas and Joseph were each from Galilee. 

- Judas and Joseph each responded to the taxation of Quirinius; the Governor of Syria. Their respective responses however; differed significantly, a matter of subsequent consideration below.

- Judas and Joseph each had sons who were crucified; two of the sons of Judas having been executed by the government of Rome due to their involvement in the insurrection inspired by their Father. 

- Judas and Joseph each had sons who were executed due to the influence of the High Priestly family. Judas had either a son or grandson whose involvement in the insurrection lead to being murdered by the the High Priestly family, while the High Priestly influence in the crucifixion of the son of Joseph is basic to the Jesus narrative. 

Now, in consideration of these similarities, Joseph appears to be somewhat of a prototype of Judas. Yet with regards to the aforementioned taxation, the former rather seems the alter ego of the latter. For whereas Judas lead an open and violent rebellion against the Roman taxation, Joseph meekly complied with same, even to the extent of traveling with his soon to deliver expectant spouse in order to comply with the details of the dictate.

Joseph's determined obedience to Roman law subsequently resulted in the famous manger scene, where the Lukan text portrays the delivery of Jesus by his mother Mary. The reason for the inconvenient and impractical setting for child delivery was that "there was no room for them";  which I interpret as a thematic description of the despondent diaspora of post 135 CE Jews who had been exiled from Jerusalem at the bloody conclusion of the Simon Bar Kochba War. 

I thus interpret the meek compliance of Joseph to Roman law in contrast to his alter ego Judas, and the manger scene as a maternity ward for Mary as an agenda based allegory representative of both the commencement of and the conclusion of the 130 year Jewish Independence Movement which began as a tax rebellion in 6 CE and which ended with the complete diaspora of all Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE.

The angelic band and the Temple scenes I then take to be exhortive epilogues which were so scripted as to encourage displaced Jews to accept their despondent state of being as a necessary element of God's grand plan for a catholic coordination of all humanity. Hence the angelic proclamation of peace on earth and good will towards all humanity seems to be a divine dictate directed to those Jews of the diaspora who may have been clinging to the concept of a distinct identity as Israelis to abandon such notions and to assimilate into what they perceived to be gentile cultures. The prophecy then of the just and devout Simeon in the Temple that baby Jesus was set for the rise and fall of many in Israel as a light to lighten the Gentiles, all the while being the glory of Israel, seems to have served as supplemental material to the heretofore mentioned catholic message of the angelic band. 

In essence; the allegorical message of the Lukan Nativity and Early Childhood Jesus Narrative seems to be that of a turning point in Jewish history from their self perceived identity as the chosen people of God to that of "all flesh shall see the salvation of God".

And such seems to be the consistent catholic theme throughout the remainder of the Lukan-Acts narrative. 

Dave Henderson 

Denison, Texas

On The Celestial Christ And Earthly Jesus Theories

Among the basic tenets of Christianity are a belief in both a savior representative and in the resurrection of the dead.  During the embryonic era of Christianity there were well documented contrasting views as to the nature of each. The source documents are early Christian writings dated to the 2nd Century, among which are those writings commonly known as the New Testament. 

The contrasting views of the nature of the savior representative related as to whether such was a celestial being, a natural human being, or even a docetic humanoid. The debate as to the nature of the resurrection ranged from whether there was such an occurrence at all; to whether such was physical, celestial, post physical death, or a during one's lifetime event.

Conflicting ideologies as to the nature of the savior representative were reflected by varying views regarding the nature of the salvific process itself.  Questions as to whether salvation was this worldly or other worldly; a deliverance from elements of this world or from a celestial torment; on behalf of a specific demographic or catholic as to its scope were each factors as to any given perspective as to the nature and mission of the ideal savior.

With regards to Christianity itself, such perspectives eventually became a test of fellowship from the standpoint of the so called early Orthodox Church.  Accusations of heresy were levied against those who denied the physical resurrection of an earthly Jesus, and as is reflected in the writings of the Gnostic Christians, the feelings seem to have been mutual.  The teachings of the Pauline writings became a matter of debate as is revealed in 2nd-3rd Century Patristics; and Tertullian even labeled Paul as the apostle of the heretics. 

Thus the general claims of the Orthodox Church seems to have been that those who maintained faith in a celestial Christ had departed from the original doctrine of an earthly Jesus. Yet the chronological logistics of a seemingly evolving Christology are debatable, and the proverbial shoe may have been on the other foot. Consider the observations of Doston Jones; commentator on the Facebook Group "The Bible Geek Listeners", regarding the implications of Pauline writings such as 1 Corinthians 15:

"there are numerous reasons why I don't think that the Corinthian Creed is speaking of a bodily Earthly resurrection. But I'll give one reason that is not often discussed. In that very same chapter (and elsewhere in Paul's letters), Paul is addressing the concern among the churches that there will be no Resurrection. So, he goes out of his way to explain that there will in fact be a resurrection for believers, but that it will be in a spiritual body like Jesus. In fact, he goes out of his way to distinguish the heavenly spiritual body of Jesus from the earthly body of Adam.

This tells us two things: 1.) if the earliest and default belief among Christians was that Jesus was raised bodily on Earth, then we have to explain why the believers in Paul's churches did not think there would be a physical resurrection; and 2.) When Paul does describe the resurrection of believers, he says that it will be in *heaven* in a spiritual body (just like Jesus). Then he *contrasts* it with a human body (see generally, 1 Cor. 15:40-49)."

Now as to which concept of the savior representative preceded the other, the case may never be settled conclusively. Yet there remains another question related to the matter which in my judgment bears serious consideration and contemplation. That being whether either the concept of a celestial Christ or an earthly Jesus would have even developed to any noticeable degree during the era of the Jewish Independence Movement. This line of inquiry admittedly entails troubling consequences for the theories of the historicity of 1st Century Christianity. 

Nonetheless; it seems debatable whether either savior representative theory would have been marketable in Judea during the days of the Jewish Independence Movement; which commenced with the uprising of Judah of Galilee in 6 CE and which ended quite abruptly with the bloody and violent subjugation of the Bar Kochba rebellion in 135 CE. It seems inconceivable to imagine the concept of a non military messiah as a meaningful motif among a people whose quest for national independence resulted in two major wars and several minor uprisings over the course of 130 years. 

Now perhaps the origin of the Jesus myth may be traced to some minor pre 135 CE mystical cults who imagined such as a counter effort to the conventional clan of the Jewish Independence movement. But due to the lack of any credible evidence to substantiate the theory, the consideration of alternative possibilities seems both preferable and practical. 

That said, it is my personal thought that the very notion of a non military messiah and a spiritual kingdom are each concepts more suited to the plight of the post 135 CE diaspora Jews, than to those of the era of the Jewish Independence Movement.  In such a case, the nature of the savior representative would be irrelevant to the intended end of any given mythical narrative so related.

Though admittedly speculative, these are my thoughts as to both the celestial Christ and earthly Jesus theories.

Dave Henderson

Denison, Texas