St. Luke and the Cow
My favorite Bible books are Genesis, Mark, and The Apocalypse, Revelation, they fascinate me the most. In Genesis, the creation stories from The Very Beginning right out nine chapters to sorting the shuffled and blended J&P Flood Story, and the adventures of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph too. Revelation, which many view, mistakenly in my opinion, as prophecy for our future, a bizarre nightmare of threatening fiery horror
but with agenda, likely date and audience that to me seem fairly clear. The gospel according to Mark is my favorite Jesus story, oldest, shortest, eccentric, unembellished, with a masterful cohesiveness and agenda. Mark, we can read you like a book.
but with agenda, likely date and audience that to me seem fairly clear. The gospel according to Mark is my favorite Jesus story, oldest, shortest, eccentric, unembellished, with a masterful cohesiveness and agenda. Mark, we can read you like a book.
For lectionary A that just started with Advent, our readings this year will focus on Matthew, with some John and other salted in for Lent and Easter, but overwhelmingly Matthew. Not as simple as Mark, but with study, Matthew’s agenda clarifies and is -- what? effable?
Skipping one, the gospel according to John also can be stated in a paragraph, this late gospel with its high christology. The lengthy verbatims bother me but I realize what they are, and John’s agenda is clear, and the words and actions of Jesus in this story support John’s agenda more so than in the synoptics. All this is my opinion, nobody is called to agree and if anyone takes issue I’ll just change the subject and continue unphased, not the least interested in argument.
What I’m about though, ignited by the upcoming nativity story that will climax the season of expectant waiting, is the gospel according to Luke.
Luke isn’t unfathomable but is not up for a short, one paragraph synopsis. Luke’s agenda is no clear and singular straightline storm, at least to me, but cyclonic multiple-vortex. He seems to be a Gentile Christian writing for a Gentile audience (audience, not readership, because most people couldn’t read but heard it, had to listen to it read aloud to them).
Unlike Mark, Matthew and John, the author of Luke writes an extended before and after story, GLuke and Acts. He may be sponsored, writing for an honorarium. He knows the other stories that have been written about Jesus, and though he knows Paul he doesn’t know Paul’s letters, a fact that helps date and clarify. He may be writing for a church, or for one man, or even for the ears-of, to calm the fears-of, the Roman authorities at large. GLuke and Acts must be taken together to figure Luke out. He seems to write late, maybe 80 to 95, though some scholars say much earlier and some go to 130 A.D. His picture of Jesus has much for women, for Gentiles, compassionate, a man of chesed, agape’, lovingkindness, a healer, teacher. God’s ultimate Old Testament style prophet who begins, continues and ends in Jerusalem as a prophet should. Luke does some inexplicable things like leaving out a large chunk of Mark, his main source along with the Q gospel and his own material. Mark, Matthew and John are easily synopsized, but to me Luke is not, his agenda is a shotgun blast not a rifle shot and it’s easy to miss something important in Luke, who's trying to lay out all the facts for Theophilus.
In RCatholicism, Luke is patron saint of butchers, his symbol has the bovine creature, and someone wrote that Luke should be invoked before throwing a steak on the grill.
To the contrary, I visualize Luke’s companion whispering in Luke’s ear, “write, 'eat mor chikin'” and even closing his message with an apocalyptic doomsday for any who are having rib roast instead of turkey for Christmas: you dare not open your chamber door to see who's rapping tapping
and don't bother watching the fireplace for Santa.
And that ain't no bull.
TW+
And that ain't no bull.
TW+