Liveblogging The Bible: Luke

1:1 The implication is clearly that there are more than just three other gospels, which would hardly qualify as "many".

1:3,4 and possibly that Luke is dissatisfied with these other accounts, considering his own more "truth"ful.

1:5 Whereas Matthew jumps right into Jesus' life, and Mark starts with a glance at John, Luke takes a step even further back to John's parents. He begins to show a regard for thoroughness at the expense of brevity.

1:23 I have always smirked at the Witnesses' avoidance of the obvious act of faith on Zechariah's part: sleeping with his old wife.

1:29 but seemingly not perplexed at the appearance of an angel in the first place. Perhaps Mary was favored with visits before this, a la Teresa of Avila.

1:35 I'm going to hell for even thinking this, but bukkake.

1:46 Luke has a bit more regard for Mary than the other two: he reveals her wisdom and creativity.

What are the chances of Luke finding out exactly what Mary said? Only she and Elizabeth were present; he--or a proxy--would have to have interviewed one or the other, each surely old by the time of this writing.

1:68 The same is surely true of this poem-song. Is this to be taken as a word for word quotation? Unlikely.

2:1,2 Luke's attention to detail in this verse is of the type that definitely lends authority to the narrative. Specific names and dates always help eliminate the flavor of myth.

2:4 with the attention he gives to detail, though, it is interesting that he does not give Jesus' exact lineage the way his fellows do.

2:5-7 The phrasing here has the feel of something added after the fact; it doesn't fit with 1:27 phrased this way. On second thought, it feels more like the previous chapter is out of place.

2:19 this is not the first time Mary is portrayed in the gospels as a contemplative person.

2:25 Luke again is giving a far more comprehensive account. Neither Matthew nor Mark seems to have this much interest in Jesus' birth and childhood.

2:26 And Luke does not seem to have Mark's compunctions about identifying Jesus as the Messiah right away.

2:29 yet for all Luke's attention to detail, he also has an eye for poetry. This gospel is both journalistically and artistically sound.

2:32 A mention of Gentiles? Matthew and Mark would never do that.

2:51 We hear so little about Mary, every bit of characterization is to be cherished.

3:1 More names and dates.

3:7 Wow. I don't remember John being so full of brimstone. I thought these expressions were Jesus' alone. This certainly paints him in a different light, but one befitting his apparel.

3:10-14 A contrast with Jesus' methods. Jesus would never just give them the answer like this. John doesn't seem to have a knack for parable, although he is moderately handy with a metaphor.

3:21 this makes it sound like there were others to witness the descent of the holy spirit.

3:23 I knew the genealogy had to be here somewhere. Interesting that Luke prefaces it with "as was thought", indicating some uncertainty about the exact lineage. Also, Luke does not take this opportunity to mention Mary, as Matthew does. Instead, he traces it all the way back through Adam, whereas Matthew stops at Abraham.

4:2 devil not capitalized in this translation (NRSV)

4:10 The devil turns Jesus' own trick on him: "It is written . . ."

4:12 An interesting change from"It is written" to "It is said".

4:21 Again, Luke's Jesus has no qualms about claiming his identity right away. It is the very first step on his quest.

4:23 I hadn't noticed before that Jesus was the one to raise this objection, not the Nazarenes.

4:30 A ninja!

4:38 Luke introduces the character of Peter rather offhandedly. It seems like Theophilus may already have known Peter, or at least of him.

4:41 Here we see that Mark's fixation was not without basis.

5:8 What could Peter have possibly done such that this was his first reaction to seeing a miracle? Many people would have this thought eventually, but he seems to have had it instinctively. Also: I wonder if there is any significance to Luke's appellation of him as Simon.

5:14 Even if Luke has no compunctions about Jesus' identity, Jesus himself clearly did.

5:20 although it does not seem to have been his faith at work, at least not entirely. Those are some swell friends.

5:39 This is an interesting addendum that I had not caught before. It seems to sap his point a little: for the old wine is clearly the Jewish system of things.

6:8 If I ever return to the other gospels, I shall have to make a point of ermembering whether they make a point of Jesus' seeming prescience, as Luke does, here for the third time.

6:13 The word disciple means one who follows. Apostle means one who is sent--a nice contrast.

6:14 This explains why Luke calls Peter Simon: he is trying to be as precise as possible, and he was not given the other name yet. Let's see if he henceforth calls him Peter.

6:17 if it was a level place, how was he seen?

6:22 Why is only the first part of the beatitudes in verse?

6:29 not the way I am used to seeing this translated. "takes away your coat" is an interesting alternative to "asks for your coat", and one that certainly gives it a different flavor.

6:35 "for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked" poops in the face of many a religous doctrine.

6:37 again an unfamiliar translation, but one that I really like: "do not judge, and you will not be judged" is more reassuring and definite somehow than "judge not, lest you be judged".

6:43 Not entirely true, of course. Tomatoes do not come from a friendly plant, nor do pineapples, but he would never have seen one of those.