The Gospel of Luke: Comments and Observations, Part I

Last year the Catholic Thought Book Club read the Gospel of Mark.  It was the liturgical year B, so we thought it would help with the year’s Gospel readings if we read the entire Gospel in one stretch.  And it was great and learned a lot and I posted three times in this blog from my part of the discussion.  There is something to be said for reading entire chapters rather than listening to short segments.

This year we decided to read the Gospel of Luke, since we are in liturgical year C.  I’m going to post what I said here as well.  Let’s start with the very first chapter.

⁑

Manny Comment:

I am so fascinated by the introduction.  It's one sentence stretched to four verses. 

(1) Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us, (2) just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, (3) I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.

Let's parse this, because unless you read closely a lot will fly right by.  What does he mean "many have undertaken"?  How many?  There are three other Gospels and as far as I know everyone agrees that John's was the last to be written.  So there are at least two, Mark and Matthew, and we disputed which came first when we discussed Mark.  Setting that aside, I think most agree that Mark and Matthew came before Luke.  All the non-canonical Gospels I believe are all dated into at least the second century with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, but most also think that's a second century document.  There are speculations of "proto-Gospels," but how many?  Many in Luke's sentence to me implies a dozen perhaps, or certainly more than half a dozen.

In the discussion last year on Mark's Gospel I suggested there weren't many full Gospels but fragments of stories about Jesus and the events of His life all across the Roman Empire, perhaps hundreds of fragments.  Notice what Luke further says: "I too have decided...to write it down in an orderly sequence for you."  Putting it into an orderly sequence implies that the stories floated around haphazardly, uncoordinated.  If Luke was basing the gist of his work on Mark's Gospel, would he have considered Mark's Gospel not "orderly"?  I maintain that the Gospel writers did not copy off each other but collated all the different fragments that were handed about.  Sorry if I'm being controversial again.

Another interesting thing in that introduction is that Luke is writing for the "most excellent, Theophilus."  Was Theophilus a real person or was Luke just employing a rhetorical device?  Here I'm torn because there's logic to both arguments.  It would seem unlikely that someone would write twenty-four chapters on scrolls just to convince a single person.  But if that single person was a benefactor paying someone to write it, then that's more likely.  And if the intention of writing for the benefactor has the possibility that the written work will be open to the community at large, then the writer has a real motivation for a detailed work of considerable length and craft.  And that's essentially where I fall, though not as strongly as I tend to be on controversial topics.  ;) 

Wikipedia has an interesting entry under "Theophilus (biblical)."  It goes through the possibility that it's a generic title or a specific person.  It lists three possibilities for that person: St. Paul's lawyer in Rome, A Jewish priest, Theophilus ben Ananus, in Jerusalem, and Roman convert, Titus Flavius Sabinus.  It seems unlikely to me that a high priest of the Temple would be receiving this and distributing it around, but who knows.  I think it would also support that the Gospels were written before the Temple collapse as the Catholic Church historically holds, and which I hold. 

Another observation I can make from that first sentence is how balanced and syntactically complex it is.  I don't read the original Greek, but if it's a good translation then it reflects a skilled writer.  The stylistic textures of all the books in the Bible is something that gets glossed over.  That's one of the reason I don't like the Kings James Version.  It's one harmonious style throughout and yet there are many authors, each with their own style.  That initial sentence by Luke reveals to me a writer of considerable skill, someone who has written extensively beforehand.  This is not his first attempt at writing.  So if he's written beforehand, what did he write?  Unfortunately whatever it may have been, it's been lost to history.

⁑

The Magnificat

Manny Comment:

The Gospel of Luke has the fullest delineation of the Nativity events, and unlike Matthew's version, it's more centered from the perspective of the Blessed Mother. I find her acceptance of God's request to be so moving. Remember, as an unwed mother or even just an unwed pregnant girl, she faces potential stoning to death, and yet when God asks, she accepts.

31 Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus.

32 He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father,

33 and he will rule over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

34 But Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?"

35 And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.

And then possibly the greatest words ever uttered by a creature, "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word."

I get so moved every time I read that. And I also get moved by the Beatles' song, "Let it Be," and yes despite what Paul says it most definitely is about Blessed Mary.

I also get moved further down in chapter 1 when Mary visits her cousin Elizabeth. When Elizabeth blesses Mary for acceptance of her divine impregnation, I just love Mary's response, what has been called The Canticle of Mary, or The Magnificat:

46 "My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord;

47 my spirit rejoices in God my savior.

48 For he has looked upon his handmaid's lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed.

49 The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is his name.

50 His mercy is from age to age to those who fear him.

51 He has shown might with his arm, dispersed the arrogant of mind and heart.b

52 He has thrown down the rulers from their thrones but lifted up the lowly.

53 The hungry he has filled with good things; the rich he has sent away empty.

54 He has helped Israel his servant, remembering his mercy,

55 according to his promise to our fathers, to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

Those that pray the Evening Prayer of the Divine Office pray that every night. If you don't, I recommend you keep it in your list of prayers, and pray it every so often. It is an honor to the blessed mother. Notice also in line 48, that from now on they will call her "blessed." I try to always refer to her as "blessed" in whatever title or name I choose for her. The Bible tells us so!