How far is Luke�s account credible as a historical account of the Jerusalem church, and how far is it an idealisation in accordance with Hellenistic ideals? Hellenistic ideals were prominent in this part of the Roman Empire. Greek was the official language, and centuries of Greek-speaking occupation had left its mark. Greek philosophical thought dominated the world of morals and practices. It was against this backdrop that the apostles had to work. The Community of goods, as described in this passage was an Hellenistic ideal applied to the Jewish Christian situation in Jerusalem. Whether or not this practice actually occurred is not clear. The implementation, as Luke recognises, would have been troublesome and the extent of the system could well have been limited. It could have been little more than a few grand gestures by some of the wealthier of the new Christians. It is possible that Luke�s account was more historical than the above postulation credits, the system could have worked and been implemented to a significant extent. The focus of the story is on the social status of Christians and their interpretation and application of the patronage system. The ancient Mediterranean world was dominated by the question of social status and patron-client relationships. This permeated every area of life in every person. The earliest leaders of the Church were not of high social status and had little education (high status was a prerequisite for education). This meant that it was very hard to have an impact on those of higher social status who held the influence. The community of goods as described in this passage attempts to dispense with the patronage system and make all the �believers� equal in status and possessions. This was a very radical step to take. Attempting to overthrow the patronage system was a massive undertaking. This leads to doubts about the accuracy of Luke�s account. An effort of this scale would have been tremendously difficult to achieve any success, as it would have been alien to both Jew and Greek and too radical for these people to comprehend. The aims and practices were probably much more limited, exaggerated by Luke in order to provide an ideal for his contemporaries to strive for and also to lionise the early Jerusalem church. As Witherington says in The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary p.207: �What Luke means is that those Christians who were in need were soon provided for. The aim was for the rich to help the poor by equal distribution of wealth. This was a noble aim, strongly influenced by the Bible, such as (Deut. 15:4) �There will, however be none in need among you, because the Lord is sure to bless you in the land�. The practise of communal ownership was not unique to the Jerusalem Christians. The Essenes were known to have practised this, though by living apart from all other people the situation was very different. They reduced the effect of outsiders� opinions and the worries of status were not so visible. The Christians remained a part of the wider Jerusalem and actively sought new converts. The trappings of wealth and status were laid bare to them. The patronage system that they wanted to break free of still remained in power in many activities and locations such as the market place. The Essenes avoided this to a large degree. The fact that other contemporary groups of Jewish origin were known to have practised a community of goods leads to greater weight on the historicity of Luke�s account. The large differences in the situations do mean however, that any similarities are perhaps irrelevant to the historicity of the account. The communities are just too different to provide significant proof for the other. Josephus records details of the Essenes� community of goods in his �Jewish War�: �Riches they despise, and their community of goods is truly admirable; you will not find one among them distinguished by greater opulence than another.� The Christian community wasn�t as communal as this, but the fact that Josephus, who was a respected historian, records the Essene example means that this idea did exist. The Essene texts themselves also record the community of goods that they practised. Luke�s intention of the account is, as stated above, to provide an ideal for his contemporaries to follow. The account could well be a descriptive one. It may have been his intention to describe the real situation in Jerusalem at the time that he was writing about. The fame of the Jerusalem church and its altruistic nature led by the apostles and success at providing for the needy may have spread far and wide. The trouble with this thesis is that the Jerusalem church had had recourse to seek economic assistance, as documented by Paul when he was collecting aid for the Jerusalem church. The practice of community of goods does not seem to have been pursued further in other churches. The Jerusalem church itself drew away from following this practice, though this may have been related to the city�s ransack by the future emperor Titus. The account was probably more prescriptive than descriptive. Luke intends to provide a theoretical model for his readers to adhere to. This would mean that the model was based in some grounding of reality, but the original was expanded to fit Luke�s plan. This would mean that the historicity of Luke�s account is limited though the account does have elements of fact in it. The notion of a community of goods fits in well with Lukan theology alongside the table fellowship motif and other things. It is therefore not inconceivable that Luke would have elaborated on a tale of the Jerusalem church. This implies further doubt on Luke�s accuracy. The historical account does have support due to the specifics that Luke mentions. The names of people specified in the account such as Barnabas and Ananias. Specifics such as these tend to be more historical than generalisations. The readers would have been aware of who these people were and what they had done. Luke is writing his account at a time when people who knew these people were still around. The status of these people had grounding in reality; indeed Barnabas is later a companion of Paul�s on his missionary journeys. Luke would have been aware of this, and the account could have been corroborated with the personal experience of Luke�s contemporaries. This adds historical weight to Luke�s account, as he would have been unlikely to invent untrue tales about well-known people. As Witherington explains on page 209: �It reveals that Luke did not have to deal in mere generalities with the earliest Christian community � he has specific examples to draw upon.� Barnabas is a very positive example of how a devout Christian should act in the Jerusalem church�s community of goods archetype. He sold a field that he owned and gave all the money to the good of the church. The account states that Barnabas sold a field. This is significant. The fact that it was one field of perhaps more implies that the Christians were not required to give up all possessions. They were expected to contribute to preventing people from hardship. Barnabas is presented as the model Christian. He is an apostle, one of the central missionaries who even accompanied Paul. He is the ideal archetype presented by Luke. The fact that his name is explained means that the intended reader had a limited knowledge of Aramaic, so his �nick�-name would have needed explanation. Barnabas was a prominent active Christian, so his actions would have been well documented. This would add credibility to the historical accuracy of Luke�s account as mentioned above. Barnabas was a Levite, though the ancient law forbidding owning of land appears to have fallen out of use. As Marshall recounts in The Acts of the Apostles, p.110: �The ancient law forbidding Levites to own land seems to have been a dead letter.� Ananias and Sapphira are portrayed as the opposite of Barnabas. Marshall describes this on p.111: �The opening But contrasts Ananias and Sapphira.� The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is a powerful negative example of how the community of goods worked used by Luke. This account is found in Acts 5:1-11. Ananias sold some property for the benefit of the Jerusalem church, but kept some of the proceeds for himself. His wife Sapphira was party to this information. When Peter questioned Ananias about the sale, Ananias died. After this, his wife came to Peter without knowing of Ananias� death. She lied also and then died because of it. This graphically illustrates the morals of the system and the fact that you would be punished for lies and deception. The report that fear gripped the whole church is mentioned twice, in verses 5b and 11. This is significant, as it is an attempt by Luke to intone that abiding by Jesus� example and teaching by helping the poor and needy is critical. Severe punishment follows for those who fail to do so. Luke believes that the example of the Jerusalem church of this period is an ideal archetype for Christians to follow. The example of Ananias and Sapphira is likely to have been true to a degree, though the deaths were perhaps exaggerated. A death in this situation could have been an �ex-communication� or metaphor for �dying in Christ�. This would have been widely known so Luke couldn�t afford to exaggerate too heavily for fear of losing credibility. This adds credibility to the historicity of Luke�s account. The appointment of the Seven was a significant event in the history of the Jerusalem church. This act radically changed the roles of the church leaders. The apostles were thus free to preach whilst these �deacons� were left with the running of the church�s affairs. This was a major step in the development of the church for the expanding numbers of people that were involved. This event is recorded in Acts 6:1-4. It was the result of a conflict between the Hebrews and the Hellenists over food distribution. This already indicates that difficulties had arisen in the community of goods arrangement. Measures had to be taken to right it. If Luke were intending to portray the Jerusalem church as the ideal model for Christians then it would not necessarily have been wise to describe faults in the system. This lends credibility to the notion to Luke�s account of the community of goods in the Jerusalem church was accurate historically. This passage also introduces Stephen to the narrative of Acts. The practice of appointing a board of seven for particular duties was common in Jewish circles as Marshall says on page 126: �The choice of seven men corresponded with Jewish practice in setting up boards of seven men for particular duties.� Extra-biblical Christian texts also implore their readers to follow some notion of a community of goods. It was not unique to Luke. The Didache tells readers to give up some of what they have earned in order to help the poor and share what you own: �You shall not turn away from someone in need, but shall share everything with your brother, and not claim that anything is your own.� This is found in Didache 4:5-8. The Epistle of Barnabas also tells its readers to share all goods with their neighbours: �You shall share everything with your neighbour, and not claim anything that is your own� (Epistle of Barnabas 19:8a). The existence of extra-Biblical literature following the same notion as Luke in this matter increases the likelihood that Luke�s account is more historical than an attempt to reach an Hellenistic ideal. The works quoted are later than Luke is though. The authors may have been aware of Lukan theology and attempt to follow his work. The net effect is to lend greater historicity to Luke�s account as the examples quoted show that the idea is not unique to Luke, though they fail to mention Jerusalem by example. In conclusion, Luke�s account is a presentation of an idealised account of the real situation at Jerusalem in the earliest parts of the Christian church. It has a great deal of factors lending credibility to its historicity. The presence of other communities attempting the same thing is important, as is Luke�s use of specific examples and detailed explanations. The over-riding feature of society in the ancient world was the patronage system. To overcome this would be incredible. The extent of the community of goods was more limited than is perhaps suggested. It probably only extended to poor relief and donations by the more wealthy members of the Christian church in Jerusalem. It is part of Luke�s theology that there should be a distribution of wealth and equality amongst members of the Christian community so the account is likely to be influenced by this. This was also a Hellenistic ideal, and Luke is the most Hellenistic of the gospel writers. The Hellenistic influence is strong, but much historical accuracy can be found in Luke�s account of the community of goods in the Jerusalem church.
