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
No comments:
Post a Comment