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

The Two Conclusions of NT Mark: A Case to Deconstruct the Text

The New Testament book of Mark is the most basic of the known Jesus narratives. Compared to the other Synoptic accounts, the material in the Markan narrative is minimalist and concise.  One perspective is that Mark might be a condensed version of Matthew and Luke.  Then again, Mark may be the earlier of the accounts, in which case the additional material in the others could be due to the development of the Jesus legend over the course of time.  Regardless, I personally find Mark to be the best source to ascertain the basic content of  the Jesus narrative.

The basic narrative thus being the tale of a young Hebrew itinerant preacher, who engaged in exorcisms and healings; and who likewise exerted mystical powers over nature, including the power over death itself. He quickly gained a following, and his popularity was such that at times he could not even find the time to eat when at home, leading him to withdraw to remote areas from time to time. Although popular with the masses, his liberal interpretation and loose application of Jewish teachings and traditions lead to disfavor with the Jewish leaders; who subsequently conspired with the Roman officials to have the hero of the narrative executed by crucifixion. Then, depending upon which of the two conclusions of the tale one chooses to accept; either a) three days after his death his grave was found empty, and one sole eyewitness claimed that Jesus had risen from the dead; or b) Jesus made several appearances to numerous disciples after rising from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion.  As the narrative asserts that Jesus claimed that he would rise from the dead on the third day, the implications of either documented conclusion have fascinated followers of the Jesus narrative for nigh unto two millenniums.  

It seems to me that the existence of two different endings to the narrative raises certain questions as to the composition of its content which merit serious consideration, separate and apart from the content of the material itself.  For example, why are there two endings?  Was the latter ending (16.9-20) a later rendition than the first ending (16.1-8)? What are implications of the two endings?  And perhaps the question most pressing in my mind relates to the credibility of the concept of an alleged united narrative, in the light of a fragmented finale.  In other words, since there are two different conclusions to this one single narrative, then can we reasonably assume that the narrative itself is a united text?

To my way of thinking, these questions are reasonable and relative to the study of the Markan narrative, in the light of the existence of two Markan conclusions. One popular means of dealing with the dual conclusion issue has been to gloss over the differences between the two accounts by writing them both into the text as a single conclusion.  Yet the end of the first conclusion account states that the women who fled the empty tomb were too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen, which would seem to contradict the account of the second conclusion that Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene.  The latter can hardly be reconciled with the former as a single conclusion since Mary Magdalene was one of the women who according to the first conclusion fled the empty tomb too afraid to tell anyone what they had seen.  Clearly then, these two conclusions are two different versions of the Jesus narrative.

My conclusion then with regards to the existence of the two conclusions of the biblical book of Mark is that it is therefore not reasonable to assume such to be a single narrative in and of itself, and furthermore that the entire text should be the subject of studious scrutiny as to its construction.  It is thus my personal perspective that there needs to be a reasonable yet critical analysis of the construction of the entire narrative itself, in order to be able to more accurately determine the nature of its composition.

Such an endeavor is for me in fact a work in process.