Thoughts On The Theory Of The Testimony Of Tacitus As A Witness To The Historicity Of 1st Century Christianity

Although the Annals of Tacitus are technically not among the writings which I personally would classify as Early Christian Literature, nonetheless the utility of Annals XV.44 by Christian Apologists as a proof text for the theory of the historicity of 1st Century CE Christianity renders an examination of such expedient for those interested in the studies of topic itself. More specifically, the latter portion of Annals XV.44 is the text of interest for Christian Apologists, hence such will be the primary text under consideration for the purposes of my personal commentary on the topic.

As noted, Tacitus is oftentimes referenced as a secular source who supposedly verified the historicity of 1st Century Christianity.  Such a theory is based primarily upon the third paragraph of the text at hand (See below, Paragraphed by myself), which describes the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome of 64CE. Although quite frequently so cited by Christian Apologists in order to support that theory, rarely is the text itself subjected to critical examination or dialectic inquiry when so referenced.  Such will be my effort in this brief commentary.

That said, note Annals XV.44 in its entirety, with the primary portion of interest for this commentary italicized:

"Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.”

(Tacitus: Annals XV.44 http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/tac/a15040.htm)

(NOTE: Emphasis and Paragraph Division mine, DLH)

In fact, the text so noted merely records an anachronistic and unconfirmed claim that the Roman Emperor Nero tortured and murdered a group of people known as “Christians/Chrestians” in the aftermath of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 CE.  Anachronistic in that the text itself was to have been written around 112 CE.  And unconfirmed in that there are no corroborating sources to verify the claims which are asserted in this text.

The limitations of the case against Nero then would be comparable to the indictment of Nazi war crimes in the 1940’s having been based upon an unconfirmed newspaper article written in 2003.  It seems clear to me then, that the only Court which would even indict, much less convict Nero of these accusations is that of public opinion.  It further seems unfortunate, if not inconsistent, that the biblical standard that “One witness cannot establish any wrongdoing or sin against a person, whatever that person has done. A fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 19.15) has for some reason not been applied to these accusations against Nero.  For in this case, there are actually not even any witnesses to the alleged crime, but rather only a mere anachronistic claimant in the form of this unconfirmed written allegation.

Of course, Tacitus would have been a boy when these atrocities allegedly occurred, yet there is no indication from the text that these are the memoirs of a child.  Memories from one’s childhood would certainly not include assessments of the victims being guilty of crimes of “hatred against mankind”. There is as little reason to believe that young Tacitus was an eyewitness to the atrocities which are described in the third paragraph above, as there is to conclude that the claims of such are even credible in the first place.

The lack of reliability of this unconfirmed claim as an historical account is a matter to itself, but there are further reasons to consider that these accusations against Nero may not even have been written by Tacitus in the first place.  A critical analysis of the text so referenced raise questions as to its authenticity, and quite frankly evidences traces of later interpolation.

Why so much effort to explain the background of Christians (Chrestians), and yet such brevity with reference to the Sybilline religion, and the deities so referenced?  And which term did Tacitus employ to describe the identity of the people under discussion: Chrestians or Christians?   

Chrestians (the original reading, which was evidently changed to “Christians” by an unknown hand at a later date) of course would likely be a reference to the rebellious Jews who Claudius reportedly banished from Rome in the 40’s (Seutonius, Claudius 25.4).  As the Chrestians were a group so well known to the Romans that they were expelled from their fair city in the 40’s, then why would Tacitus have felt compelled to give the backstory that he provided in the third paragraph above?  And how could their leader Chrestus have been executed during the time of Pontius Pilate in the 30’s, when he was so alive and well in the 40’s that he instigated his band of troublemakers to such mischief in Rome during that time that they were expelled from the city?  The time frames simply do not match, nor do the locations if in fact Tacitus was referring to “Christians’; instead of to “Chrestians”? Quite frankly, paragraph 3 of this Chapter seems to so conveniently provide backstory similar to the Christian gospels that its presence in the text seems out of place, and hence may be indicative of a later interpolation by a Church Scribe or Christian Apologist. A critique then of what may have been an anachronistic supplement to the original text seems in order, in consideration of the circumstances.

The phrase “during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus” is notably similar to Luke 3.1 “in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea,” yet refers to Pilate as the “procurator”, instead of as “governor”.  The significance of such a change of wording is that the Latin Vulgate translation of Luke 3.1  likewise references Pilate as “procurator”.  Hence, it appears that this phrase may have been a  rewrite of, or at least referenced from, the Latin Vulgate translation of Luke 3.1, which could be dated no earlier that the 4th Century CE.  As an added note, Tacitus would surely have well understood that Pilate was a mere Prefect instead of a Procurator since he himself discussed the fact that the role and responsibilities of the regional governors was not expanded accordingly until the time of Claudius, in the early 40’s CE. (Annals XII.60)

As to “an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind”, if the main reason for their conviction was due to their hatred against mankind, then why wait for the fire as a pretext for such convictions?  And what group of people is arrested, much less executed, for the hatred against mankind in the first place? The accusation of “hatred against mankind” is furthermore similar to the accusation in 1 Thessalonians against the Jews as a people who were “hostile to everyone”, leading back to the question of the actual identity of the Christians/Chrestians being referenced in the first place.

The mockery and crucifixion references seem reminiscent of the Crucifixion of Jesus narrative, which would be more suited to the mid to latter 2nd Century CE historical development of Church doctrine of a flesh and blood earthly Jesus.  The degree of persecution so described likewise seems more suited to the mid to latter 2nd Century CE history (if not later), than to 60’s Rome.  

The description of Nero lighting his garden at night with the burning bodies of human beings seems hardly reconcilable with Tacitus’ description earlier in this narrative of Nero opening those same gardens to the homeless in an effort to “relieve the people” and to “receive the destitute multitude” in the aftermath of the catastrophic fire (Annals XV.39).  Nero’s personal shortcomings notwithstanding; nonetheless the malevolence attributed to him in the text under discussion simply seems unlikely in the light of the benevolence attributed to Nero by this same writer earlier in the same text.

Furthermore, if Nero was so preoccupied with his public image that he fingered a specific group of people as scapegoats on whom to blame the fire, then why ruin his public image in the process of executing punishment upon those scapegoats?  Why divert blame as to the cause of the fire, only to become blameable for cruelty beyond measure in the eyes of the very people whose scorn he was allegedly attempting to avoid in the first place?  In this regard, the described atrocities would have been too much of an “overkill” to merit credibility.  Yet, the recording of such atrocities by an overzealous Christian interpolator would have been quite suited to the claims of persecution and the Martyrdom theme of the latter 2nd and 3rd Century Church.

Furthermore, if in fact such atrocities were exercised against Christians in 64 CE Rome, then why did the early Church Fathers never refer to such in their writings?  Surely Patristic writers such as Tertullian, Origen, and even Eusebius would have added the tale of Christians being burned at the stake in order to illuminate a Roman Emperor’s garden to their allegations of persecution against early Christians.  And even though Cassio Dio and Seutonius both recorded that Nero played his lyre and sang on a hillside as Rome burned, neither of these commentators wrote a word of the atrocities attributed to the Emperor in the text under discussion.  

Even the historian Josephus, who lived in Rome for an extended period of time just a few short years after the fire, seems to have known nothing about the persecution of Christians by Nero as described in the text at hand. Josephus likewise spoke of historians who hated Nero so much that their accounts included many lies about the controversial Emperor (Antiquities 20.8). In this regard, Nero would have been an easy mark for a later interpolation to record an anachronistic account of the persecution of Christians, using the Great Fire of Rome as the context for such a literary endeavor.

There is simply no evidence or corroborating testimony to sustain the allegations recorded in the Tacitus account, which lends further credence to the theory that the portion of the account so referenced may very well have been a later interpolation by an unknown hand. Upon examination of the text at hand then, it is my personal conclusion then that the unconfirmed allegations that Nero tortured and murdered Christians as so described are far fetched and fictional. And as to the notion of the historicity of 1st Century Christianity, whether such merits any measure of validity, it is my personal view that the Annals of Tacitus lend no credibility to the theory as is so oftentimes proposed.

Dave Henderson
Denison, Texas

On 2nd Century Origins Of New Testament Christianity: Considerations of 1 Clement

A critical examination of the New Testament in the light of known and verifiable history leads me to the theory that most, if not all of the writings known as the New Testament were written in the 2nd Century CE, as opposed to the common view that such are 1st Century CE historical accounts.  My theory is based upon:

A lack of evidence that the material written in the New Testament reflects actual 1st Century CE history.

And yet several traces of evidence that the material written in the New Testament do reflect actual 2nd Century CE history.

Some such history is cloaked in the form of rewritten material, but regardless the New Testament writings reveal traces of foreknowledge of verifiable historical realities which include the complete diaspora of Jews from Jerusalem; 132-135CE (cf Acts 8.1-3; 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16; Romans 9-11); the persecution of Christians and the subsequent Church doctrine of Martyrdom which occurred and developed during the reign of Marcus Aurelius in the 160’s through 170’s (Acts 14:21-22; Rom 8:35; 12:14; 1 Cor 4:12; 2 Cor 4:9; 12:10; Gal 6:12; 1 Thess 2:14); the development of an organized and recognized Church hierarchy of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons; unknown of until the mid 2nd Century CE (Philippians 1.1); doctrinal discussions such as whether justification is by faith or by works of the law (Rom 4.1-5; James 2.14-24; cf Tertullian's Against Marcion (Ad Marc)  5.2); the relationship of the Old and New Testaments (Luke 16.16; Hebrews 9.15, cf Ad Marc; 5.2); whether one should be circumcised or merely baptized (Justin’s dialogue with Trypho Ch 39; Ad Marc 5.3; cf Galatians 2.3-4, 5.1-6); and the dual nature Paul (Gnostic Paul of Galatians as contrasted with Catholicized Paul of Acts of the Apostles) which reflects the transformation of Paul from Marcion’s personal false Apostle (Tertullian Ad Marc 5.1) to patron Saint Paul of Catholic Church fame.

Indeed, when the New Testament is read in the light of verifiable Church and World History, it is as though the history of 2nd Century Christianity is rewritten into the New Testament as alleged 1st Century history.

A common objection to the theory of the origins of Christianity dating to the 2nd Century CE, is to cite 1 Clement as a proof text of 1st Century origins.  The theory being that 1 Clement was written in 95 CE.  Yet, a critical analysis of the text of 1 Clement in the light of known and verifiable history yields the same results as a similar such approach to New Testament writings.  The text reveals traces of 2nd Century authorship which simply outweigh any notions that 1 Clement may have been written in the latter 1st Century, as is commonly believed.

Consider the overall theme of obligatory submission to rulers, presbyters, and bishops. There are several such passages throughout 1 Clement, which beg the question as to exactly what point in history the Orthodox Church might have actually developed a recognizable hierarchy and formal structure. It is difficult to pinpoint, but there is little evidence of any clerical hierarchy within Christianity prior to the mid 2nd Century CE.

1 Clement was of course a treatise which clearly promoted Orthodoxy by both confirming the authority of the Church hierarchy, all the while reminding laymen to know their place. A variety of topics are emphasized including unity, peace, harmony, and obedience, but such was merely laying the groundwork for putting “headstrong and selfwilled persons” (1.1) in their rightful place. Their rightful place of course being in submission to the Church hierarchy.

The apex of this argument is recorded in Chapters 40-42, in which the notion that all things must be done in order is asserted, even to the extent that the only acceptable worship is done at appointed times, places, and only by the administration of certain people. This was Clergy over laymen, Priests over people, authority over self will. The case for the ultimate authority of the Clergy was seemingly sealed tight by an appeal to Apostolic order, and the focal point of the case was a sober reminder to the rubble of the Orthodox Church that “the layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances” (40.5)

However; the struggle so described in 1 Clement between those who maintained a respect for order and hierarchy, in direct contrast to those “head strong and self willed persons” is strikingly reminiscent of Tertullian’s similar rebuke of the “heretics” who “are puffed up” and who “all offer you knowledge (gnosis)” as recorded in his “Prescription Against Heretics” (Ch. 41). Tertullian was aghast at the fact that Gnostic Christians (“heretics” per his terminology) allowed women to teach, and made no distinction between who served as deacon, presbyter, or bishop at any particular time in their assemblies. To Tertullian, the ultimate disrespect for the order of the hierarchy was that the “heretics” actually allowed laymen to function as priests!

Frankly, the general message of 1 Clement fits the setting of the latter 2nd Century CE struggle between the Orthodox and Gnostic Christianity so well, that there is no reason to assume that such was written any earlier.

Furthermore, the utility of Peter and Paul as mutual examples of martyrs of the faith (Ch. 5) is a clear indicator of latter 2nd Century CE authorship. Firstly, the era of Christian martyrdom as a means of salvation seems to have developed during the persecution of Christians during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, from 161 CE to the latter 170’s,thus this chapter appears suited to that chronological time frame. Secondly, the presentation of Peter and Paul as seemingly equals was the latter 2nd Century CE Orthodox approach to its struggles against the Gnostic Christian movement. In fact, the Acts of the Apostles seems to have been a literary tool utilized to help incorporate “the Apostle of the heretics” (“Against Marcion”; 3.5) into the fold of Orthodoxy by uniting the Pauline and Petrine legends into early Catholic Church compatriots. Thus, the content of Chapter 5 is indicative of latter 2nd Century CE authorship.

The internal evidence of 1 Clement when examined in the light of known and verifiable history thus reveals clear traces of 2nd Century authorship.  Hence, we maintain our theory that the origins of Christianity and the writing and composition of the New Testament date to the 2nd Century CE, and not the 1st Century as is commonly believed.   

The Enuma Elish and Genesis: A Contrast of Two Creation Myths

The Enuma Elish (literally "When On High") is an ancient Babylonian Creation Myth which may have influenced other cultural Creation Myths, including the Hebrew Creation Myths recorded in the Bible.


The Babylonian account opens with two original deities; one male and one female, as the explained original source of the gods (Table 1. 1-10;  cf. the Hebrew Creation Myths, each of which opens with a Monotheistic God as the explained source of all that is; Genesis 1.1; 2.4, though the existence of other deities is alluded to in 3.22).

The Babylonian account features a story of domestic dysfunction, which involved troublesome teen like disruptive behavior, quarreling parents, and which eventually escalated to the point of patricide (Table 1.21-69; cf. the Hebrew account which featured a story of sibling rivalry which likewise lead to murder; Genesis 4.1-8).

The Enuma Elish accounts for the creation of the earth and humanity, while exalting the Babylonian Warrior/Creator God Marduk and his mighty feats.  (Table 5; cf. the Hebrew Creation Myths which likewise account for the creation, all the while exalting the Hebrew Warrior/Creator God Jehovah; Genesis 1, 2.4; Exodus 15).

The Babylonian account portrays humanity as a slave race created by Marduk for forced servitude in order to benefit the gods (Table 6.5-8, 33-36; cf. the Hebrew account of Genesis 2-3; which portrays the Hebrew god creating man and then placing him in the garden to till it; Genesis 2.4-8,15).

The Babylonian account portrays the construction of Babylon as an act of the gods in order to serve as a shrine to the greatness of Marduk (Table 6.47-68; cf. the Hebrew account which portrays the construction of Babylon as an autonomous act of a human collective in order to make a name for themselves; Gen 11.4)


The Babylonian account then is a narrative of divine procreation, domestic dysfunction, death, and dominion.

The Hebrew account on the other hand is a narrative of monotheistic creation, domestic dysfunction, death, and dominion.

Although each respective narrative appears to be mythical; nonetheless they both contain elements of truth regarding human nature which transcend time and circumstance.

Genesis 3: A Myth of Life as an Existential Exile From Eden

Why is life so difficult?  Why is the ground cursed with thorns, thistles, and snakes?  Why do I have to work by the sweat of my brow just to survive?  Why does my wife have to suffer so merely to have babies?

Serves her right though, because she is to blame.  My life would be so much better if I didn't listen to her. She is to blame.  She holds me back.


Such seems to have been the perspective of the originator of the myth of the Garden of Eden as recorded in Genesis 3.  He appears to have been a man who toiled strenuously to survive, yet never seemed to get ahead. Though he doubtlessly loved his wife, like so many men he felt that she was holding him back, and was surely the reason that his life was so damned difficult.

This disheartened man who felt trapped and downtrodden envisioned the plight of the human predicament as being due to independent women and weak men.  Perhaps he even resented himself as a pushover because he actually listened to his wife.

Regardless, the myth of the Garden of Eden is an early effort to address the existential circumstances of humanity as envisioned and expressed  by a frustrated dude living the domestic life back in the day.

Hard labor for man and woman alike.  And then we die.

(Commentary based upon Genesis 3)

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.

The Markan Myth 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 hero of the tale speaks to his followers exclusively in parables,

 the authorities seem uncertain as to how to deal with the situation.  This all changes when he finally speaks plainly to them regarding his death, and makes the bold claim that he will be resurrected from the dead.  His band of faithful followers seem unsure themselves as to what to make of his claims, and so the opportunistic authorities seize the moment. 

First they pay one of his closest followers money 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 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 of the people, 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 o

n 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.

Lukan Literature: Transitional Phases Within The Christian Myth

The nature of Lukan Literature is evident upon reading.  Both treatises of Lukan Literature are clearly mythical narratives.  The virgin birth and miraculous healings of Luke; the divine manifestations and miraculous healing handkerchiefs of Acts; and the sky flying, heavenward ascending Jesus of both Luke and Acts, are representative of legend and folklore.

The Gospel of Luke was an anonymously written version of the story of the earthly Jesus; a tale which evidently was in circulation as early as the mid 2nd CE.  As noted in the introduction to Luke, several writers had written their particular version of this common narrative.  By the late 2nd CE, the Orthodox Church had adopted four such versions as authentic and authoritative, one of those being the Gospel of Luke. 

Although each of the four Church sanctioned Gospels have a similar cast of characters, and although three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) seem to have used a common original source (either Matthew or Mark possibly being the original source), yet Luke is distinguished from the others in that he wrote Acts as an addendum; a supplementary treatise as it were, which provided a link between the story of the four Gospels and the late 2nd CE Orthodox Church.  The Lukan author also cited certain transitional phases which distinguish specific eras within the Christian narrative, thus establishing a direct relationship between Judaism and the early Roman Church.


"The Law and the Prophets were until John, since that time the kingdom of God is preached" (Luke 16:16)

"all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law of Moses, and the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me" (Luke 24:44)



The major eras of the Christian myth were those of "The Law and the Prophets", and that of "the kingdom of God"; the former representing the national identity of the Hebrew people, and the latter referencing the era of the Church.  "The Law and the Prophets" are representative of the religion of Judaism, the Hebrew people, and their epoch struggle and collective obsession with independence and national identity.  Throughout the first Century and a third of the common era, certain elements of the Hebrew people were engaged in an ongoing revolt against what they perceived to be the Roman occupation of their homeland. As a result of their quest for religious freedom and national independence, several "Messianic movements" arose in support of a variety of attempted military coups against the reigning Roman government.  The final such effort; the Simon Bar Kochba uprising of 132-135CE, was seemingly successful for about 3 years, until a confederation of several national armies was dispatched by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to subjugate the insurgents and restore order to the region.  The action was swift, brutal, and effective.  Jerusalem was surrounded; the insurgents were starved out, Bar Kochba and his forces were killed, and the aftermath was that all Jews were driven out of Jerusalem, which was then leveled and hand plowed by the Roman victors.  The military tactics employed, the brutal nature of the subjugation of the Bar Kochba uprising, and the complete diaspora of all Jews from Jerusalem were historic events evidently known to the anonymous author of Lukan Literature (Luke 21:20-21; Acts 8:1,4).  After the unsuccessful Bar Kochba uprising and the complete diaspora of the Hebrew people from Jerusalem in 135CE, the Jews who were not slaughtered, starved to death, or sold into Egyptian slavery, became refugees who over the course of the following decades slowly assimilated into a variety of Roman-Greco cultures throughout the Empire.


"Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection" (Acts 1:21-22)


The baptism of Jesus by John is recognized in Lukan Literature as a transitional event which signified the end of one era of the Christian myth, and the dawning of another.  For whereas John symbolizes the end of the era of the Law and the Prophets, the baptism of Jesus by John marks the commencement of the proclamation of the kingdom of God. The nature of the kingdom God is then revealed at the baptism of Jesus, an event which could be interpreted as an anointing of the kingdom's symbol of peace.  Hence, rather than being crowned as an icon of militarism, Lukan Literature envisions Jesus the baptized as one anointed as a symbol of peace (Luke 3:21-22; cf  Luke 2:11,14).  And so the kingdom of God envisioned by Lukan Literature is a contrast to the sought after and fought for, yet ever elusive earthly kingdom based upon militarism; one which the Hebrew Zionists of the first Century and a third of the common era had coveted. For whereas the Hebrew Zionists had sought a national identity based upon militarism and might; the kingdom of God of Lukan Literature was rather a spiritual relationship based upon peace, healing, and non-violence (Luke 8:1; 9:1-2;10-11; 11:1-2; 22:15-16; Acts 1:3,6-8).


"The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the Apostles whom he had chosen" (Acts 1:1-2)

"ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth" (Acts 1:8)


The ascension of Jesus, by its very nature, represented the end of the era of the earthly Jesus, and likewise introduced an advanced role of the Apostles within the Christian myth.  For once Jesus cleared the clouds so to speak, the Apostles suddenly evolved from wandering comrades of Jesus, into confident witnesses of the resurrection of the same from the dead. The era of Apostolic authority in this embryonic stage soon developed into the Orthodox Church doctrine of Apostolic succession, which would prove to be their major competitive edge over Gnostic Christians in the 2nd CE, as well as the foundation for Church hierarchy ever since.