Dave,
What practical applications would you give for church people if you were preaching on the opening section that we’ve been discussing? It seems like ‘epistemology’ ain’t a layman’s term. I’m asking because I find application the most difficult part of preaching/teaching. I enjoy diving into the topics we’ve discussed, but how do we make that accessible to congregants?
I mentioned in my comment to your post how the three pillars of Western Civlization are Roman law/governance/engineering, Greek philosophy, and Judeo-Christian religion. Well, we see these three things represented to some degree in verses 5-6. Herod gets identified as the king of Judea. Herod’s family came to power by siding with the Romans. I remember that – though I don’t have a book with me to check it – Herod’s two sons studied in Rome, partly as a means for the Empire to retain Herod’s loyalty.
At the same time, Herod and his wife were high-cultured Hellenists. So while we don’t have the mention of Greek philosophy, we know that the influence of a particular philosopher on Alexander drove Greek culture far and wide. Not only were the Herodians complicit with the Romans, but also, in the eyes of the Zealots, compromised with Hellenistic culture. So the mention of Herod and his position represent both the Roman and Greek elements.
Luke, as he does in chapter two, moves from the big to the small. After setting the stage in the specific time of the Empire, he focuses on these individuals, Zechariah and Elizabeth. They are both in the line of Aaron, so they are not only Jewish but from the priestly line. And they practiced their religion with integrity, obeying God’s law, living the way that all of Israel was supposed to have. I’ll deal more with their situation later, but wanted to point out here the presence of these three elements of Roman rule, Greek culture, and Israelite religion. Interesting.
It’s interesting to contrast the trust that people like Luke and Theophilus put into historical research to students in the post-modern world. The former found history credible, but why? Did they believe, like St. Augustine, that history actually existed in the memory of God, or were they simply more simple folk than we have become?
In my limited teaching experience in the American university system, most students seem to view the credibility of universal statements on a continuum, with religion being the most subjective, and mathematics being the least subjective. (Except for things we Know are wrong, like slavery or rape, of course.) Luke almost seems simplistic in his introduction, first by expecting Theophilus to trust him a person objective in his research, but secondly, and more important, that there was one true history to be discovered, not to write itself like the “texts” of Derrida.
Are we intellectual dinosaurs to believe, with Luke and Theophilus, that there is One history to be discovered? That wherever our historical narrative departs from this Actual History, it is not an interpretation, but wrong?
It is getting increasingly difficult to convince students that things like whether Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon matter for our lives – even, or primarily, our civilization – today. We aren’t simply people of the book, but of books, of history, of tradition. As Burke said, and Kirk echoed, it is the accumulated wisdom of the ages that allows us to survive and thrive as a civilization. Once we abandon that – characterized it one way, at least, but the dissipation of history into subjectivism – we can’t be sure of our own existence, let alone the survival of the West.
Luke’s beginning his Gospel with employing a ’scientific method’ of research and checking sources contrasts with John’s. Luke starts from the bottom-up, with the human sources and earthly history. John’s starts from the top-down, so to say, in identifying Jesus as the logos who created all things. As I mentioned in the last post, the Gospel writers have different viewpoints they’re working from, but they all agree on the same Jesus.
As long as we’re going on this – Matthew starts horizontally, starting back from Abraham in a genealogy leading up to Christ. And although Mark starts with a prophecy about John the Baptist, he jumps right into the action of the narrative.
So what’s the big deal about these? I think that each of these introductions give us different stances to approach or understand our faith. John’s is cosmic (though he quickly moves to the earthly, human testimony of John the Baptist) – Jesus is the all-in-all, the ultimate reality, the Dao, the other, etc. Luke shows us that the Apostolic testimony of Jesus is certifiable, verifiable, genuine, and reliable. Matthew shows us that Jesus is the seed of Abraham, the promised one to come from the human line, from Israel. (Luke later shows that he is the descendant of Adam.) And Mark shows us that, in Jesus, God’s is on the move, his kingdom re-enters our world.
We, then, know and believe in a multi-faceted Jesus. He’s the one who is historically credible – he ‘happened’ here. He’s the one who resides with God and is God, and dwells throughout the entire universe made by and through him. He’s the one who is flesh and blood, making good on God’s promises to individuals, to a people, to humanity. And he is the center of God’s action, bringing in God’s kingdom.
Here’s Luke’s intro to his book, the dedication to Theophilus. I’ve put the ESV here:
1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
I studied this passage with a Chinese friend in Taiwan. I was struck by and pointed out how Luke, in compiling a sound, reliable history that will aid to Theophilus’s having certainty in believing what he’d been taught, assumes shared understanding and perception. Luke would concur with those who would later be called critical realists or common sense realists in that he believes in an objective reality, the knowledge of which can be shared by a community of people, and verified with evidence. My Chinese friend, who was highly educated and sharp, didn’t see the big deal in it – this wasn’t an issue for their contemporary society.
I had a conversation last year here in the States, however, with a fellow believer who was pretty lax on doctrine because ‘we each have our own perception of reality’ and we each bring so much baggage to the table that we can’t see beyond ourselves. I tried to show him how Luke presents the life and ministry of Jesus as an objective reality that can be studied and known by a group of people, not as a kaleidoscope viewed through an infinite number of POVs, each one equally valid. He thought I was just trying to proof text my argument, however, and didn’t seem to understand what I was getting at.
I should readily admit that the canonization of the four Gospels does offer four different – though related and overlapping (think Synoptics) – POVs, but their overlapping and Mathew and Luke’s building from Mark (and Q!) hang together closely.
Dave, please either respond to what I’ve written with a comment here, and/or write a new post on this section if you want to write out some of your own thoughts on these verses.
Hi Dave,
I’d love to study Luke with you, and then bring in or compare with Matthew (and the other two Gospels) as appropriate and timely. I’ve put a couple of links to Bible translations at the right. I like the ESV, as it has a closer feel to the original texts. But I’ve also put the NIV there as well.
Here’s a prayer to start our study:
Lord God, Almighty Heavenly Father,
You’ve given us your written word as a testimony to your greatness, your kindness, your love, and your plan for this world. We ask you to be present in our efforts: give us understanding by your Holy Spirit; give us a shared desire to know you, love you, and serve you more in this life, so that we may be prepared for the life to come.
In the name of your Son who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
