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

Traces of Bar Kochba in the Lukan Prenatal Jesus Narrative (Luke 1)

It is my theory that the Lukan Prenatal and expanded Nativity/Early Childhood Jesus Narratives (Luke 1-2) each contain carefully calculated references to the aftermath of the Bar Kochba Wars. There appear to be contrasting comparisons between the state of Israel at the time of the writing itself, and the vision for better times which the author maintains in the light of messianic hopes attached to the birth of Jesus. 

The subtext seems to be that the downtrodden people of the diaspora should take solace in the thought that Jesus would succeed where Bar Kochba had failed. Now, among the survivors of the Bar Kochba War were those who had at one time pinned their hopes on the success of the militarized Jewish Independence Movement; only to be deported from their homeland after the Roman Army crushed the rebellion. The notion then that a baby born to a people in such desperate circumstances would somehow resolve their destitute situation must have initially seemed somewhat far fetched and fanciful. 

Yet the Lukan author carefully contrasted an underlying theme of despair and hopelessness; which included direct references to hunger, homelessness, and a diaspora, to a "with God nothing shall be impossible" theme (1.37), which in turn was demonstrated by the pregnancies and successful deliveries of an elderly barren woman (1.7,24-25,36,57); and a virgin (1.34-35; 2.5).

The very idea that God could bring forth life in such seemingly impossible circumstances would likely have been a message well received by the people of the post 135 CE Jewish diaspora; who were themselves without a homeland, helpless, and seemingly beyond hope. In the midst of such misery and despair, the promise of a messiah who would succeed where Bar Kochba had failed is a message which would surely been marketable to the downtrodden and defeated refugees of the diaspora. 

In this regard, Gabriel's speech to Mary (Luke 1.32-33)  may in fact have been a contrasting comparison between the defeated and deceased Bar Kochba and the soon to be born messiah Jesus:

-Jesus would be great; Bar Kochba was thought to be great until he was defeated

-Jesus; was the Son of the Highest; whereas Bar Kochba was called the Son of the Star

- Jesus would reign over the kingdom forever; whereas the reign of Bar Kochba was only 3 years 

Again, Mary seems a metaphor for post diaspora Israel (1.48-54); whose praise for God's mercy seems a mirrored mirage of the reality of their state of being after the Bar Kochba war:

- God's strength is demonstrated; Bar Kochba's weakness was revealed 

- God scatters the proud; the poor Jews were scattered after 135 CE

- God puts down the mighty from their seats; the mighty put down Bar Kochba and reassumed the seat of authority in Jerusalem 

- God exalts them of low degree; whereas the displaced Jews of the post Bar Kochba War diaspora, are at their lowest point since the Jewish Independence Wars had commenced in the 60's.

- God fills the hungry; many starved to death in the aftermath of the Bar Kochba War.

- The rich he hath sent away empty; those were sent away empty in 135 CE were the ones who became poor and destitute. 

- God has mercifully helped Israel; the homeless and nationless post 135 CE Israel was badly in need of merciful help wherever they could secure such. 

And again, the sentiment of nationalism in a state of exile seems to have been expressed in Zechariah's speech after his son John's birth (1.67-79):

- He praises God for visiting and redeeming his people.

- He references their enemies and all people that hate them.

- He refers to their state of being as sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death. 

Zechariah's statement that God would redeem his people could be the author's efforts to encourage the disenfranchised Jewish diaspora, whose desperate circumstances as exiled refugees is described as sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death.  As strangers in foreign lands, they would surely have been regarded as enemies and hated by many.   

Viewed as a collective then, these three speeches of the Lukan Prenatal Narrative seem to make calculated references to the destitute circumstances of the surviving diaspora of the Bar Kochba War. The underlying message being that of a reason to rejoice in spite of their seemingly dire straits by hinging their hopes upon a  messiah whose nature and whose destiny would differ significantly from that of the dead and departed failed messiah Simon Bar Kochba.

The Lukan Prenatal and Expanded Early Childhood Jesus Narratives: 2nd Century Early Christian Literature (I)

The Lukan Prenatal (Luke 1) and expanded Nativity/Early Childhood Narratives (Luke 2) seem to be supplemental material to the embryonic earthly Jesus tale. As such it should by no means be surprising that the content of such contains traces of later authorship. 

Consider the active influence of the Holy Spirit in each respective writing. Since no such doctrine is known of until mid to late 2nd Century, then there is no reason to assume an earlier date for the following material:

- John was filled with the Holy Spirit from the womb (1.15,41)

- Mary was impregnated by the Holy Spirit (1.35)

-  Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, and then prophesied (1.41)

- Zechariah  was filled with the Holy Spirit, and then prophesied (1.67)

- Simeon received revelations from, was directed by, and prophesied by the Holy Spirit (2.25,26,27)

It is difficult to date this material earlier than the mid 2nd Century since there is no evidence of the doctrine of a personal, directly influential Holy Spirit in Church writings before that time.

The emphasis within each such narrative as to ritual and obedience would likewise indicate a similar dating, for the concept of Christian Orthodoxy is also not known to have developed any earlier than the mid to late 2nd Century:

- Zechariah was a Priest who performed priestly duties (1.5,8-9,23)

- He and his wife Elizabeth walked in the commandments and ordinances of God blamelessly (1.6)

- They circumcised John on the eighth day (1.59)

- Joseph obeyed the command to appear in his home city in order to be taxed, along with his impregnated spouse Mary (2.1-5)

- They circumcised Jesus on the eighth day (2.21)

- Mary was obedient to the purification laws (2.22)

- Then they brought Jesus to Jerusalem to do the sacrifices according to the law of Moses (2.22-24)

- While there, they performed all things according to the law of God (2.39)

- They obeyed the command by appearing in Jerusalem each year (2.41)

- Reemphasized (2.42)

These several references to a compulsive and consistent obedience to routine and detailed ritual imply the structure and hierarchy which was developing within the Orthodox branch of Christianity from the mid to late 2nd Century. As such it would be difficult to date these passages any earlier.

Finally, the blending of the direct operation of a personal Holy Spirit and that of obedience and ritual seems representative of the latter 2nd Century struggles between the gnostic and orthodox branches of early Christianity. The very fact that such experiences and exercises are shared by the same characters within each narrative would further indicate a Catholicizing agenda by the author; for gnostic Christians claimed direct revelation as their basis of knowledge, while the Orthodox Church maintained written law and hierarchy as the foundation for faith and order. 

That each such narrative portrayed Orthodox believers operating by the direct influence of the Holy Spirit would only further seem to date this material to the later development within that struggle when the Orthodox Church was attempting to Catholicize both branches of faith into one united body.

And so the incorporation of the direct influence of the Holy Spirit and the emphasis upon ritual and obedience into each of the  Prenatal (Luke 1) and expanded Nativity/Early Childhood Narratives (Luke 2), and  even more so the portrayal of each in common characters therein likely dates this material even later in the 2nd Century historical development of early Christianity.

The catholic nature of these introductory narratives not only dates such as mid to late 2nd Century material, but remains consistent throughout the Luke-Acts corpus itself. 

Dave Henderson

Denison, Texas

The Book of Mark Summarized

Many Biblical scholars regard Mark as having been written before any of the other Canonical Gospels.  Although I don't know for certain, it does seem reasonable in the light of its comparative brevity.  It would seem more reasonable that the additional content which is found in the other Gospels is supplemental to the Markan material, rather than the notion that the minimalist Markan author ignored material in the other gospels in order to abbreviate the story.  Or so it seems to me.

As to the nature of the material, Mark appears to be a fictional drama which portrays the heroics of one who rose from obscurity to overwhelming fame, only to be cut off in the prime of his life due to a traditional technicality.  The story may have been written after the complete diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem in 135 CE, in which case the narrative itself is possibly an allegory utilized to describe the rise and the fall of the Jewish independence movement during the first century and third of the common era.

The tale features a small town commoner who is thrust into the limelight after a religious experience at his baptism renders him empowered by the Holy Spirit. The commoner uses his newly realized powers to slay the demonic forces which have plagued the villagers, hence becoming somewhat of a local superhero.  His mere presence leaves demons quaking in fear. The villagers are ever so grateful, and in spite of his expressed wishes for anonymity, they publicize his exploits far and near to the extent that he must oftentimes hide in secluded areas.

The local authorities become suspicious of the small town commoner turned hero, and accuse him of being demon possessed himself. They soon grow weary of his popularity, and scheme to entrap him at an opportune time.  Since the local hero prefers to speak in parables, the authorities seem uncertain as how to deal with the situation.  This changes when the small town hero finally speaks plainly regarding his death, and even makes the bold claim that he will be resurrected from the dead.  His band of faithful followers seem unsure themselves what to make of his claims, and so the opportunistic authorities seize the moment.

First they pay one of his closest followers to identify the controversial hero of the tale so they can arrest him. (The notion that such efforts for proper identification would have been unnecessary since the hero of the story had been teaching in their midst and was so well known as to have developed a notable following seems lost to the author of the narrative.  As is oftentimes the case in a narrative, the quest for dramatic effect seems to supersede detail.) Subjected to interrogation, the hero of the story finally admits that he actually believes that he is the Son of God, and is subsequently accused of blasphemy and sentenced to death.

The one final hope for the hero of the tale to be spared is the local tradition to free a criminal on a particular cultural holiday.  Under pressure from the populace, who have inexplicably turned on the hero, the government unfortunately opts to free one who was a murderer and a seditionist instead.  And so at public expense and by public means, the hero of the tale is executed.

The developments being what they were, our hero’s final words expressed frustration at being forsaken by God in such a crucial situation.

And then the hero of the story dies, and is laid to rest.

In the cliffhanger conclusion of the tale, some of the hero’s female entourage visit his tomb on the third day after his execution in order to anoint his body with selected spices, only to find his tomb empty.  According to one unidentified individual who was on the scene, our hero was raised from the dead, precisely as he had promised while he was alive. In spite of being directed by the unidentified stranger to go tell his disciples what they had seen, the entourage of females flee the scene in fear, and told no one what they had seen.

And so the story ends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On The Letter Of Pliny The Younger To Trajan Regarding Christians

One of the common sources which Christian Apologists oftentimes cite as a secular witness of 1st Century Christianity is Pliny the Younger. Pliny was an elected official who allegedly wrote a letter to the Roman Emperor Trajan in the first decade of the 2nd Century CE, seeking advice as to how to deal with a certain people known as Christians. Some also cite this same letter as evidence of the historicity of an earthly Jesus In so doing, Pliny was to have claimed inexperience in trying and sentencing Christians, and subsequently he was to have sought the advice of the Emperor with regards to the matter.  Oddly enough, in spite of his alleged reservations as to how to deal with the matter of Christians in the Empire, Pliny claimed to have executed numerous Christians for mere stubbornness and obstinance.

The Pliny letter then goes on to exonerate the very people who he allegedly executed of any actual culpability for any crime except for stubbornly refusing to worship the Emperor himself.  Furthermore, Pliny was to have assured the Emperor that in spite of the extensive influence of Christianity in the local economy, as evidenced by an unfortunate decrease in sacrificial animal slaughter, that the projections for recovery from such were promising.  The Pliny letter concludes with an expressed optimism that the Christians would surely reform, if they were but given time to repent.

Now, as to whether the Pliny letter refers to Christians who believed in a flesh and blood Jesus  is very difficult to determine with any degree of certainty. There is certainly no expressed evidence of such beyond the utility of the terms “Christians” and “Christ”, the latter term a common Greek name, meaning “anointed”.  That the referenced Christians praised a “Christ” as a god is recorded in the letter, but no qualifiers as to the identity of or the nature of “Christ” are included in the text.

Furthermore, the letter so noted appears in a book which is somewhat distinct from the original corpus of letters of Pliny, for originally there was but a nine book collection.  The Pliny letter which references Christians is included in Book 10  (Book 10.96-97; including Trajan’s alleged response), which is a posthumous collection of his alleged personal correspondence with the Emperor during the former’s time as an elected official in the Trajan administration.  The correspondence between the two has been edited and organized by an unknown redactor, hence allowing ample opportunity for forgery and/or interpolation.  In addition, no one knows either the identity of the redactor of the content of Book 10, nor the logistics involved in the process.  For example, there is no known explanation as to how the unknown redactor retrieved both the letters of Pliny to Trajan, and all the corresponding replies.  Such matters being the case, a critical and dialectical analysis of the Pliny letter at hand seems expedient, if not advisable.  

In addition, the lack of contextual content renders dating the letter seemingly impossible, and thus somewhat discredits the authenticity of the account itself. In fact, there is simply no internal evidence which would lead one to date this letter to Pliny’s time. To the contrary, the degree of systemic persecution of Christians described in the text, and the notion presented within the letter that Christianity was contra Paganism are each verifiable late 2nd Century themes.

There seems little doubt in my mind then upon an examination of the content of the letter of Pliny to Trajan that the literature therein is neither a letter, nor that such is contemporary to the first decade of the 2nd Century CE.  For the letter of Pliny seems to be an effort to educate the reader regarding the practices and to over exaggerate effects of  Christianity in the process, rather than to actually correspond with the Emperor. Such then leads me to conclude that although contextualized as  a personal letter, the literature at hand is actually a brief treatise instead. The effort to predate the 2nd Century history of the embryonic development of Christianity into a 1st Century context merely seems a complement to similar such literary efforts which have since been catalogued as New Testament Epistles.