Was Herod replaced by Pilate in virtue of the same reason why Jesus was replaced by John as giver of grace?

[Giuseppe]

The author of Luke-Acts wrote the two books together.

Now the consensus of academic scholars, at least here in Italy, recognizes that Marcion wrote proto-Luke and our "Luke" edited it, adding Acts. Only, compare the Birth Story and the surprising anomaly that in Luke Jesus is already known to have done something in Capernaum «whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in Nazareth» (Luke 4:23) without the relative presumed Capernaum episode preceding the Nazareth episode.

[Giuseppe]

Here the connection of the anti-nomian Jesus with the mere "likeness" of Joseph and with Herod is made perfectly explicit:

This, he says, is he who appeared in the last days, in form of a man, in the times of Herod, being born after the likeness of Joseph, who was sold by the hand of his brethren, to whom alone belonged the coat of many colours

http://gnosis.org/library/hyp_refut5.htm

Hence the my view is correct: the link Herod/Jesus and the link Jesus/Joseph were known to be found in a Gnostic gospel.

Differently from Matthew and from our Mark, the Cerinthians were not embarrassed about the father of Jesus being named Joseph:

But a certain Cerinthus, himself being disciplined in the teaching of the Egyptians, asserted that the world was not made by the primal Deity, but by some virtue which was an offshoot from that Power which is above all things, and which (yet) is ignorant of the God that is above all. And he supposed that Jesus was not generated from a virgin, but that he was born son of Joseph and Mary, just in a manner similar with the rest of men, and that (Jesus) was more just and more wise (than all the human race). And (Cerinthus alleges) that, after the baptism (of our Lord), Christ in form of a dove came down upon him, from that absolute sovereignty which is above all things. And then, (according to this heretic,) Jesus proceeded to preach the unknown Father, Acts 17:23 and in attestation (of his mission) to work miracles. It was, however, (the opinion of Cerinthus,) that ultimately Christ departed from Jesus, and that Jesus suffered and rose again; whereas that Christ, being spiritual, remained beyond the possibility of suffering.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050107.htm

Celsus's Jew, seeing that the Proto-Catholics were silent about the name of the father of Jesus, accused that Jesus was of unknown father because the name of this latter - Panthera - was embarrassing.

At contrary, the name of Joseph was embarrassing for the Christians, because it remembered closely the matter of the first gospel.

[klewis]

The author of Luke-Acts wrote the two books together.

Now the consensus of academic scholars, at least here in Italy, recognizes that Marcion wrote proto-Luke and our "Luke" edited it, adding Acts. Only, compare the Birth Story and the surprising anomaly that in Luke Jesus is already known to have done something in Capernaum «whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in Nazareth» (Luke 4:23) without the relative presumed Capernaum episode preceding the Nazareth episode.

The problem, is that we don't know if it was the same author or if the author of Luke copied Mark into Luke. The book of Revelation is mostly derived from the Hebrew Scriptures and yet composed from a different author. The copying is deliberate using Hebrew parallel formation techniques. For example, Revelation chapter 4 is Ezekiel chapter 1 condensed in reverse order (a chiasmus). Could it be possible that someone can take the vast majority of a work such as Mark and incorporate it into their own work that most would not detect. Since Luke is an "eyewitness account", the story cannot vary too much from Mark and other known material. We see this in the birth narratives of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke. Matthew took the same approach that Luke took. John and subsequent Gospel writers took the approach to write stories between the stories, the fill in the gap approach.

Luke's poetry formation of Mark, Hebrew Scriptures, and "Q" are simple parallel formations. Luke and Acts combined is one giant simple parallel. We also know that Luke had little information about Paul, and probably the early church. So how did Luke build the story of Acts with a small amount of information known to him.

The process was easy. He took the vast majority of Mark, some Hebrew Scriptures, and Q, then transferred it to wax tablets. He also did the same with the information he had with Paul (Simon Magus). Once done, he laid the tablets out. One side contained the life of Jesus and the other side he had the story of Paul. With those two columns, he wrote Luke-Acts using parallel formations. Content in the Gospel of Luke was used to plug the gaps in Acts. Occasionally the Pauline content would get conveyed to Luke such as Herod. The process would not take long to create Luke-Acts that we have today.

There are lots of things I am glossing in this description. But we need to think of this type of writing not as writing a story from beginning to end but writing in stages. These are the stages that Luke used:

• Gathering the material
• Copying the desired text from the source material
• Building Luke-Acts through parallel formation
• Constructing a theme -- in the case of Luke-Acts, the story of Luke is the story of Jesus going to Jerusalem. In the case of Acts, it is Paul going from Jerusalem. This would involve shifting of material and adding original text.
• Book specific internal parallel formation -- The story of Acts needed to be bulked up, so Luke used parallel formation with elements in other sections of Acts. Likewise he did that with Luke as well. This is how some passages of Mark gets moved around.
• The Finishing Phase -- Clean up the grammar and make it sound good.

The process by and large is mechanical, requires less creative writing. It is consistent with the vast majority, if not all, of your observations that you have posted. More importantly, it is falsifiable, and it can be applied to the vast majority of Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

[klewis]

The author of Luke-Acts wrote the two books together.

Now the consensus of academic scholars, at least here in Italy, recognizes that Marcion wrote proto-Luke and our "Luke" edited it, adding Acts. Only, compare the Birth Story and the surprising anomaly that in Luke Jesus is already known to have done something in Capernaum «whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in Nazareth» (Luke 4:23) without the relative presumed Capernaum episode preceding the Nazareth episode.

I just wanted to add, that missing parallels do not exclude the process of parallel formation. Thinking that a person writes one parallel and is done with the work is like thinking that a movie is filmed and there is are no deleted scenes. I can show many examples of which parallels are formed, content is moved or removed. Depending upon the stage of the writing, it is possible that content is added without regard to parallel formation. These are simple concepts in which we practice every day in our lives and writing, yet for some reason, we don't think the ancients did that as well.

[Ben C. Smith]

The process was easy. He took the vast majority of Mark, some Hebrew Scriptures, and Q, then transferred it to wax tablets. He also did the same with the information he had with Paul (Simon Magus). Once done, he laid the tablets out. One side contained the life of Jesus and the other side he had the story of Paul. With those two columns, he wrote Luke-Acts using parallel formations. Content in the Gospel of Luke was used to plug the gaps in Acts. Occasionally the Pauline content would get conveyed to Luke such as Herod. The process would not take long to create Luke-Acts that we have today.

Both Ignatius and the gospel of Peter put Herod in the works, as well. Does your hypothesis require that both of them postdate the finished gospel of Luke, and that both of them copied that detail from him? And there are these passages, too:

Ascension of Isaiah 11.19: 19 And after this the adversary envied Him and roused the children of Israel against Him, since they did not know who He was, and they delivered Him to the king and crucified Him, and He descended to the angel who is in Sheol.

Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 40.5-7: 5 And we have thought it right and relevant to mention some other prophetic utterances of David besides these, from which you may learn how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, 6 and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers, 7 and how He should be believed on by men of every race; and how God calls Him His Son, and has declared that He will subdue all His enemies under Him; and how the devils, as much as they can, strive to escape the power of God the Father and Lord of all, and the power of Christ Himself; and how God calls all to repentance before the day of judgment comes. / 5 πρὸς τούτοις δὲ καὶ λόγων ἑτέρων τῶν προφητευθέντων δι’ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Δαυεὶδ καλῶς ἔχον καὶ οἰκείως ἐπιμνησθῆναι λελογίσμεθα, ἐξ ὧν μαθεῖν ὑμῖν πάρεστι πῶς προτρέπεται ζῆν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τὸ προφητικὸν πνεῦμα, 6 καὶ πῶς μηνύει τὴν γεγενημένην Ἡρώδου τοῦ βασιλέως Ἰουδαίων καὶ αὐτῶν Ἰουδαίων καὶ Πιλάτου τοῦ ὑμετέρου παρ’ αὐτοῖς γενομένου ἐπιτρόπου σὺν τοῖς αὐτοῦ στρατιώταις κατὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνέλευσιν, 7 καὶ ὅτι πιστεύεσθαι ἔμελλεν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐκ παντὸς γένους ἀνθρώπων, καὶ ὅτι αὐτὸν υἱὸν καλεῖ ὁ θεὸς καὶ ὑποτάσσειν αὐτῷ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἐπήγγελται, καὶ πῶς οἱ δαίμονες, ὅσον ἐπ’ αὐτοῖς, τήν τε τοῦ πατρὸς πάντων καὶ δεσπότου θεοῦ καὶ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐξουσίαν φυγεῖν πειρῶνται, καὶ ὡς εἰς μετάνοιαν καλεῖ πάντας ὁ θεὸς πρὶν ἐλθεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς κρίσεως.

Justin Martyr, Dialogue With Trypho 103.4: 4 And when Herod succeeded Archelaus, having received the authority which had been allotted to him, Pilate sent to him by way of compliment Jesus bound; and God, foreknowing that this would happen, had thus spoken: "And they brought Him to the Assyrian, a present to the king" (= Hosea 10.6). / 4 Ἡρώδου δὲ τὸν Ἀρχέλαον διαδεξαμένου, λαβόντος τὴν ἐξουσίαν τὴν ἀπονεμηθεῖσαν αὐτῷ, ᾧ καὶ Πιλάτος χαριζόμενος δεδεμένον τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἔπεμψε, καὶ τοῦτο γενησόμενον προειδὼς ὁ θεὸς εἰρήκει οὕτως· Καὶ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἀσσυρίου ἀπήνεγκαν ξένια τῷ βασιλεῖ.

I think a lot more is going on here than just one single author having transferred a single datum from Paul to Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

Note also the frequent citation of Psalms 2

The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together, against the LORD and against His Christ.

[Ben C. Smith]

Note also the frequent citation of Psalms 2

The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together, against the LORD and against His Christ.

Absolutely:

Acts 4.23-31: 23 When they had been released, they went to their own companions and reported all that the chief priests and the elders had said to them. 24 And when they heard this, they lifted their voices to God with one accord and said, “O Lord, it is You who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them, 25 who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Your servant, said, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples devise futile things? The kings of the earth gathered together, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ/Anointed.’ 27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant/child Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur. 29 And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Your bond-servants may speak Your word with all confidence, 30 while You extend Your hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Your holy servant/child Jesus.” 31 And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak the word of God with boldness.

[klewis]

Both Ignatius and the gospel of Peter put Herod in the works, as well. Does your hypothesis require that both of them postdate the finished gospel of Luke, and that both of them copied that detail from him? And there are these passages, too:

I hope this is not a snarky answer, but it really depends upon which side of the parallel was the source for the other side. If the Acts side was the source than the answer would be yes, and if Luke was the source than no. My conjecture was based upon the event with Herod not happening in Matthew or Mark but that absence does not mean proof by any means.

I think a lot more is going on here than just one single author having transferred a single datum from Paul to Jesus.

I see the literary continuity (the Hebrew poetry) between the two works as an affirmation that they were written together by a single author.

[Ben C. Smith]

Both Ignatius and the gospel of Peter put Herod in the works, as well. Does your hypothesis require that both of them postdate the finished gospel of Luke, and that both of them copied that detail from him? And there are these passages, too:

I hope this is not a snarky answer, but it really depends upon which side of the parallel was the source for the other side. If the Acts side was the source than the answer would be yes, and if Luke was the source than no. My conjecture was based upon the event with Herod not happening in Matthew or Mark but that absence does not mean proof by any means.

I think a lot more is going on here than just one single author having transferred a single datum from Paul to Jesus.

I see the literary continuity (the Hebrew poetry) between the two works as an affirmation that they were written together by a single author.

My main point is that I am convinced it is perilous to explain only one datum among these texts without also either (A) making sure to explain other data which seems related or (B) making sure that those other data belong to texts which are too late to matter. I do not think there is any certainty to be had on option B in this case, so option A ought to be exercised: explaining Luke alone (by way of Acts) leaves open very real questions involving Ignatius, the Ascension of Isaiah, the gospel of Peter, and perhaps other texts.

[neilgodfrey]

Just curious --- apologies if I have missed the obvious -- but what kind of group or would be motivated to change an "Ephraimite" to a "Davidite", presumably "messiah", figure? And what would be the motive/rationale to do so?