risen life of Jesus. He certainly knew about the Galilee part in the forty days' story, and he says nothing to contradict it, but as he himself tells things you would think it all happened in Jerusalem, instead of just beginning and ending there. Why?
Well, one can only guess. My guess is that, by the time he was putting his gospel together, any intelligent observer such as himself or his master Paul could see that Jerusalem was doomed and the original Jerusalem Church along with it. It would flee to the desert, as Our Lord had told it to, and it would never come back.
But by that time it would have done its work, and the Christian Way would be firmly rooted in Antioch. Alexandria, Rome, the world. But meanwhile Luke found it needful to compile a written record of the beginnings for "Theophilus", the average Greek or gentile convert who would be pouring into the Church during the little while before the Lord's Coming.
One could almost imagine
Luke discussing the point with Paul; "Theophilus" might not be greatly interested in the Jews or Jerusalem, but for that very reason wasn't it desirable to stress that the New Covenant was the fulfilment of the Old, that the New Law went forth from Jerusalem?
Above all in telling about the Resurrection and the resulting "mission" of the Church. was it really necessary to confuse "Thcophilus" by bringing in that beautiful holiday-time period in Galilee'? Might it not weaken the impact just where it needed strengthening? And so, for one reason or another, Luke would decide for drastic simplification.
That is one guess. The critics, of course, have another. In their dogged "either or" fashion (and "fashion" is the right word) they mostly at present prefer to scrap the Jerusalem traditions as fictional. Whatever happened (they like to suggest), hallucinations or what not, must have happened in Galilee.
And this, dear reader, is to be considered in our next article.