My daily exploration of the Bible, taking it one chapter at a time. If I do it everyday, it'll take 1189 days.



Wednesday, July 18, 2007

Luke 1

Two angels, two prophecies, two foeti

Summary:
Yo, Theophilus. Here be a carefully sourced text about Jesus.

Zechariah was a priest, and when he was on temple duty, he was told by an angel that he would have a son, John, who would bring people back to God. His wife was otherwise childless. He was skeptical cos he and his wife were old, for which he lost his speech until John was born.

Meanwhile, Mary got a similar vision. She would bear Jesus, who would be God's Son and King. She was a virgin, and the conception would be miraculous.

Mary and Elizabeth were relatives, and when they met up, John jumped in Elizabeth's womb, because he knew Jesus was near. Awesome.

Mary sang a thankful song to God for what he had done for her.

When John was born, they tried to call him Zechariah after his father, but after protests from both the mother and the father he was called John, and then Zechariah could speak.

Zechariah sang of God's plan to save Israel. John lived in the desert.

Key verse:
37. For nothing is impossible with God.

My thoughts:
Ah Luke! Luke seems to me to be the most careful of the Gospel writers. He is a truly intelligent redactor. He has looked at many sources, and he states this. I consider him the most accurate of the Gospel writers, and would point to him as an example of the fact that the writers of the New Testament are truly interested in historical accuracy.

Having said that, from a secular view, the nativity narratives are considered some of the least historically credible parts of the New Testament.

Luke, of course, also wrote Acts. And was a companion of Paul. Sections of Acts are in the first person.

So this is the only book within which we have John's nativity as well. Zechariah's story is very like Abraham's and Elkanah's and many other is the Bible's stories. People with barren wives too old to give birth, given a child by God. It's kinda a Biblical theme...

2 Comments:

Anonymous Deane said...

Pete:
I consider him the most accurate of the Gospel writers, and would point to him as an example of the fact that the writers of the New Testament are truly interested in historical accuracy.

Having said that, from a secular view, the nativity narratives are considered some of the least historically credible parts of the New Testament.


Deane:
Hmmmmmm... the most 'historically accurate' writer in the New Testament is responsible for one of the 'least historically credible parts of the New Testament'. I wonder what that says about the contention that the Gospel writers are interested in historical accuracy ... ?

5:59 pm

 
Blogger Pete W said...

Gosh I just wrote a post that got deleted.

It's historically less credible from our point of view 2000 years later, but I still think Luke made very careful steps to be historically accurate.

Luke is very careful in his accuracy, but from our viewpoint 2000 years later, it's very easy to be sceptical about the sources of such a period of Jesus' life, particularly in light of the differences with Matthew.

8:18 pm

 

Post a Comment

<< Home