Rev. Michael Piazza in Liberating Word says, “ It is common today for books to have a preface as a way of preparing the reader for what is about to come. Luke’s Gospel is the only one to use such a device. In it, he notes that “ many have tried to set down an orderly account of the events.” Scholars long to know what he meant by “many.” We have Matthew and Mark’s versions, but John’s didn’t come along until after Luke’s. Two are not “many.” Most scholars believe that, in addition to depending on Mark’s version for information and structure, Matthew and Luke had a second shared resource known as Q. So, what does it say about our understanding of scripture when we know that a number of Gospels have gone missing? Essentially, we have the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—which tell basically the same story in the same order, with slight variations. And then there is John. How different might our faith be if suddenly we discovered four missing Gospels and they told a very different version of Jesus’ life? While that idea is interesting and should inform what we believe about the Bible being the “complete” story, the truth is Luke says that he is recording what he has heard from “eyewitnesses,” and, ultimately, he is recording it as one of “us.” Part of Acts is written in first person, which is the only way to respond to the story of Jesus. Here in the Gospel of Luke we have a story told by someone who was originally an outsider, a Gentile. He obviously is sharing some of what he has heard that was meaningful to him. Now it is up to us to consider the stories and discover what is meaningful to us. Luke is great at retelling the parables of Jesus. Much of what is recorded as historical accounts in Luke is actually a parable of faith. Arguing about the historicity of this record may occupy Biblical scholars; however, we must read it as a testimony of what Luke found to be true for himself. Luke’s scholarship is the best, but that doesn’t mean that he is a historian. If we are looking for facts when we read the scripture, we are in danger of missing the truth. Luke offers us a testimony of truth, not an account of historical facts. Therefore, we must read with the eyes of our spirit, not the left-brain training of Western education. As the prayer-book says, “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.” “
Rev. Michael Piazza in Liberating Word says, “ It is common today for books to have a preface as a way of preparing the reader for what is about to come. Luke’s Gospel is the only one to use such a device. In it, he notes that “ many have tried to set down an orderly account of the events.” Scholars long to know what he meant by “many.” We have Matthew and Mark’s versions, but John’s didn’t come along until after Luke’s. Two are not “many.” Most scholars believe that, in addition to depending on Mark’s version for information and structure, Matthew and Luke had a second shared resource known as Q…the truth is Luke says that he is recording what he has heard from “eyewitnesses,” and, ultimately, he is recording it as one of “us.” Part of Acts is written in first person, which is the only way to respond to the story of Jesus... Arguing about the historicity of this record may occupy Biblical scholars; however, we must read it as a testimony of what Luke found to be true for himself. Luke’s scholarship is the best, but that doesn’t mean that he is a historian. If we are looking for facts when we read the scripture, we are in danger of missing the truth. Luke offers us a testimony of truth, not an account of historical facts. Therefore, we must read with the eyes of our spirit, not the left-brain training of Western education. As the prayer-book says, “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.” “
Rev. Michael Piazza in Liberating Word says, “ It is common today for books to have a preface as a way of preparing the reader for what is about to come. Luke’s Gospel is the only one to use such a device. In it, he notes that “ many have tried to set down an orderly account of the events.” Scholars long to know what he meant by “many.” We have Matthew and Mark’s versions, but John’s didn’t come along until after Luke’s. Two are not “many.” Most scholars believe that, in addition to depending on Mark’s version for information and structure, Matthew and Luke had a second shared resource known as Q.
ReplyDeleteSo, what does it say about our understanding of scripture when we know that a number of Gospels have gone missing? Essentially, we have the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—which tell basically the same story in the same order, with slight variations. And then there is John. How different might our faith be if suddenly we discovered four missing Gospels and they told a very different version of Jesus’ life?
While that idea is interesting and should inform what we believe about the Bible being the “complete” story, the truth is Luke says that he is recording what he has heard from “eyewitnesses,” and, ultimately, he is recording it as one of “us.” Part of Acts is written in first person, which is the only way to respond to the story of Jesus.
Here in the Gospel of Luke we have a story told by someone who was originally an outsider, a Gentile. He obviously is sharing some of what he has heard that was meaningful to him. Now it is up to us to consider the stories and discover what is meaningful to us. Luke is great at retelling the parables of Jesus. Much of what is recorded as historical accounts in Luke is actually a parable of faith. Arguing about the historicity of this record may occupy Biblical scholars; however, we must read it as a testimony of what Luke found to be true for himself.
Luke’s scholarship is the best, but that doesn’t mean that he is a historian. If we are looking for facts when we read the scripture, we are in danger of missing the truth. Luke offers us a testimony of truth, not an account of historical facts. Therefore, we must read with the eyes of our spirit, not the left-brain training of Western education. As the prayer-book says, “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.” “
Rev. Michael Piazza in Liberating Word says, “ It is common today for books to have a preface as a way of preparing the reader for what is about to come. Luke’s Gospel is the only one to use such a device. In it, he notes that “ many have tried to set down an orderly account of the events.” Scholars long to know what he meant by “many.” We have Matthew and Mark’s versions, but John’s didn’t come along until after Luke’s. Two are not “many.” Most scholars believe that, in addition to depending on Mark’s version for information and structure, Matthew and Luke had a second shared resource known as Q…the truth is Luke says that he is recording what he has heard from “eyewitnesses,” and, ultimately, he is recording it as one of “us.” Part of Acts is written in first person, which is the only way to respond to the story of Jesus... Arguing about the historicity of this record may occupy Biblical scholars; however, we must read it as a testimony of what Luke found to be true for himself. Luke’s scholarship is the best, but that doesn’t mean that he is a historian. If we are looking for facts when we read the scripture, we are in danger of missing the truth. Luke offers us a testimony of truth, not an account of historical facts. Therefore, we must read with the eyes of our spirit, not the left-brain training of Western education. As the prayer-book says, “Hear what the Spirit is saying to the Church.” “
ReplyDelete