Another look at Luke: What's unique?

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Status
Not open for further replies.
unsafe said:
This reflection verse for today in my view needs to be read in context to understand it rightly ---it pretty much tells us that Theophilus. is a real person as it says ----So that you may know for certain the things you were taught. (Luke 1: 4 NET)
Click to expand...
Just a point of clarification unsafe. I am not suggesting that anyone look at the verse out of context. I plan to do a brief summary of the unique passage we are considering every day. This helps me to understand the context and I hope others find it helpful. too. I also hope folks will read the text itself.

The verse for reflection is a way to focus my thoughts and sometimes it serves as my mantra throughout the day. Experience with using this format on the Mark thread tells me it works as a spark for discussion, too.
 
Thing is, none of that means Theophilus was a real person. Luke could be addressing the community but putting a name on it to make it feel more personal. Theophilus just happening to have a highly symbolic name ("Lover of God") is suspicious to say the least. I am not saying Theophilus was not a real person, only that it seems rather a rather convenient name to be Luke just writing to a random person. At the very least, I suspect he chose his recipient carefully and was really targeting a broader community of which Theophilus was a part.
 
We can agree that Luke's gospel is not a private letter, right? This seems to be the key point here. Does it really matter if Theophilus was a real person or not? It is certainly interesting to speculate about and such conversations increase our store of biblical trivia. But Luke's gospel is powerful either way.
 
Mendalla said:
Of course, the temptations is an interesting one. Mark 1:13 just basically says Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness, so Matthew and Luke were clearly fleshing them out themselves or maybe with material from Q or other lost sources.
Click to expand...
paradox3 said:
Good argument for another common source rather than Matthew using Luke or vice-versa.
It seems likely that Matthew and Luke had a second common source when you consider all the material they share in the 2 way tradition.
Click to expand...

I never realized how many theories there are about this.....Q has become prominent lately, but then there's the Farrer Hypothesis
en.wikipedia.org

Farrer hypothesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
- the two document hypothesis
-the Augustinian hypothesis
-and on and on and on......

bible.org

The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

Any serious discussion of the Synoptic Gospels must, sooner or later, involve a discussion of the literary interrelationships among Matthew, Mark, and Luke. This is essential in order to see how an author used his sources (both for reliability’s sake as well as for redactional criticism), as...
bible.org bible.org
 
Waterfall said:
I never realized how many theories there are about this.....Q has become prominent lately, but then there's the Farrer Hypothesis
Click to expand...
It is probably important to keep in mind that theories come and go in theology, just like in other fields of endeavor.

My NIV study bible supplies a number of theories about the authorship of the gospels. Last on the list it gives us direct divine inspiration. While endorsing human construction myself, I am mindful many Christians believe God either wrote or dictated the bible as we know it.

Duplication doesn't necessarily rule out divine inspiration IMO. Why couldn't God have chosen to repeat God's self?
 
The general consensus of modern Bible scholars seems to be that Luke came about five years after Matthew.
 
Just saying my view here -----

I personally find that many are more interested in arguing about the Bible ---who wrote it ---is it true ---should we take it literal ---the stories can't be true ---this scholar says this and this one says that --- than they are in finding the real message that God is trying to convey to us and the meaning behind the written word -----

The Word is there to change us ---to help us understand God and How His Kingdom works and to Respond to God's commands -----but we don't seem to interested in that part of God's word ----??????
 
unsafe said:
I personally find that many are more interested in arguing about the Bible ---who wrote it ---is it true ---should we take it literal ---the stories can't be true ---this scholar says this and this one says that --- than they are in finding the real message that God is trying to convey to us and the meaning behind the written word -
Click to expand...

Disagree. Profoundly.

That is HOW we (I am one of the people you are talking about) try to find the real message that God is trying to convey to us and the meaning behind the written word.

We don't assume "God wrote it" but that humans wrote inspired by encounters with God and God's Word. Because it is a human product, we can't take it at face value. We need to know context of both the writing and the story, literary style, imagery used, history, who has messed with it since (e.g. Mark 16:9 and later) to be able to find that message. We need to know why Luke tells the Nativity different from Mark or why the naked young man is in Mark and not in Luke and Matthew because knowing that sheds light on the meaning of the stories and the message being sent.

So don't think we aren't interested in God and God's message. We are. It's just that we see this kind of analysis as a way to find that message and confirm that we are seeing God's message, not just some words someone wrote on a page. If it's not your way or your belief, great. But it is the way that some (many even) of us follow in seeking that message.

And it's been like that for a long time. Theology and biblical scholarship wasn't some twentieth century invention. It goes back to Augustine and even earlier.
 
Last edited:
Mendalla said:
So don't think we aren't interested in God and God's message. We are. It's just that we see this kind of analysis as a way to find that message and confirm that we are seeing God's message, not just some words someone wrote on a page. If it's not your way or your belief, great. But it is the way that some (many even) of us follow in seeking that message.
Click to expand...

This, and it's totally in keeping with our roots. If you have the opportunity to hang out at shul with a bunch of Jewish people, you'd know exactly what I mean. Every word, every accent is looked at from every conceivable angle. It's not disrespectful, and is really totally true, that if you've 12 Jews, you've got at least 13 opinions.
 
Chuckling along with unsafe when she writes:

unsafe said:
I personally find that many are more interested in arguing about the Bible ---who wrote it ---is it true ---should we take it literal ---the stories can't be true ---this scholar says this and this one says that ---
Click to expand...
We do a lot of this around here. :whistle:

But I agree with mendalla:
Mendalla said:
We don't assume "God wrote it" but that humans wrote inspired by encounters with God and God's Word.
Click to expand...
This goes along with my worldview.

When we study the bible, we need to employ both our minds and spirits. We need to strive for a balance IMO. In real life, I have participated in bible studies which went too far in one direction or the other. It can go both ways.

The bible is both our sacred story and an amazing piece of literature, I would say. Lots to delve into in a variety of ways.
 
Luke 1: 5-25 Birth Announcement of John the Baptist

There was a priest named Zechariah and he had a wife named Elizabeth, who was a descendant of Aaron. They were righteous in the sight of God and they followed all the commandments. They had no children because Elizabeth was barren. They were both very old.

Zechariah was serving in the temple. According to custom, he was chosen by lot to burn incense in the Holy Place of the Lord.. At the time of the incense offering, a whole crowd of people stood outside praying. An angel of the Lord appeared to Zechariah and he was seized with fear.

"Do not be afraid," the angel said. "Your prayer has been answered and your wife will bear a son. You will name him John. He will never drink wine or strong spirit and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth." He will bring many back to God and will bring about reconciliation between people.

Zechariah questioned how this could be possible and the angel rebuked him. He was made silent and unable to speak until "these things take place". When he came out from the Holy Place, the people realized he had seen a vision.

After some time, Elizabeth became pregnant and she kept herself in isolation for five months. The Lord has been gracious to her, she thought, and has taken away her disgrace.

For reflection:

Joy and gladness will come to you and many will rejoice at his birth. (Luke 1:14 NET)
 
Joy and gladness will come to you and many will rejoice at his birth.

This verse almost leapt off the page at me. Shouldn't this be the birthright of all children born in the world? Sadly, this is not reality, but couldn't these words apply to the birth of any welcomed and beloved baby?

Luke gives us more information about John the Baptist than any other gospel writer. John the Baptist has an impressive heritage and he is an incredible blessing to his parents. He is born to do great things.

Interesting that Zechariah is struck dumb for questioning the angel. I predict that Luke will not take kindly to doubt and questioning as we go further into his gospel. Once again, an encounter with the divine causes fear.

This is a great little story. I like the crowd of people outside praying as Zechariah has his encounter with the angel.
 
In Mark and Matthew, John is described as living in the wilderness, dressed in camel hair, eating locusts and wild honey. In Luke, no mention is made of his diet or wardrobe; though he is pictured as receiving the Word in the wilderness. Indeed, by his birth, it seems John would have been well-to-do. Wondering if this might have made any difference in how the Gospel's original audience saw John the Baptist and his work.
 
The angel identifies himself to Zechariah as Gabriel.

My study bible tells me the name Gabriel can mean "God is my hero" or "mighty man of God".
And it gives me my piece of biblical trivia for today. Only two angels are named in scripture. Gabriel and Michael.
 
It seems clear that Luke is really building up John the Baptist's connection to Jesus. Here we have an angelic annunciation paralleling the one Mary receives in Matthew and later in Luke. The striking dumb is an odd touch, but it sets up a nice scene for later so we'll get back to it. Interesting that it's an older, infertile couple here, versus a young couple just starting out for Jesus. Kind of reminiscent of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac. I have more to say, but it reflects more on the later passages after Mary is introduced so I'll hold it until we get further along.

Slight tangent on Gabriel: When I was studying Islam in university, the point was made that Gabriel is the angel who reveals the Qu'ran to Muhammad. The prof suggested that this is not coincidental, since the Qu'ran is the "Word of God" and so is Jesus (per John 1). Hence, Gabriel revealing the Qu'ran parallels Gabriel being the angel of the annunciations. In both cases, Gabriel is used by God to reveal The Word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top