Examine critically the purpose of Saint Luke in writing his Gospel?

Answer 1

First, it is possible to establish that Luke knew nothing about the gospel Jesus, other than what he found in an incomplete copy of Marks' Gospel. Whenever Luke agrees with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, something that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "Missing Block", a section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. That he was trying to follow Mark faithfully and did not know that there were missing sheets in his copy, is demonstrated by the fact that he unintelligibly merged the verses from Mark, before and after the Missing Block. Given the importance of material in the "Missing Block", particularly the miracle of walking on water, we could expect that Luke would have added this material from his other sources, if any such sources were known to him.

Clearly, if Luke had a copy of Mark's Gospel, there was no real need for a new gospel, unless he felt that the existing gospel was lacking something important. Luke elaborated some of the material from Mark and added a number of important sayings from the hypothetical 'Q' document, as well as a nativity story and appearances of the risen Jesus.

A quite important change was to put the story of Jesus into a historical context, a theme that was even more apparent in Acts of the Apostles, by the same author. Thus, Luke established that Jesus was born in Bethlehem during the reign of King Herod, but also during the census of Quirinius. He tells us who were the high priests of the time and in which year John the Baptist began to preach. Some scholars have identified evidence that Luke used material from the works of Josephus to provide historical depth to his gospel.

By writing a story of the birth of Jesus, Luke was able to assure his readers that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as the Old Testament had prophesied the Jewish Messiah would be. Thus, he tells us that Jesus really was the Messiah. He was also able to show that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of his conception, whereas Mark only had Jesus adopted by God as his son at the time of his baptism.

Undoubtedly, Luke's copy of Mark's Gospel did not yet have the "Long Ending" (verses 16:9-20), and therefore did not say whether Jesus was resurrected in his physical body on earth or whether he rose straight to heaven. By telling us that Jesus appeared to the apostles in the upper room, actually showing them his wounds, Luke demonstrated that Jesus was resurrected on earth and remained on earth for the entire day before ascending to heaven.

A critical examination of Luke's Gospel shows the author to have been a good and humane man. More than any other gospel, Lukedemonstrates concern for the poor. This could reflect the special circumstances of the community in which he lived, or it could simply reflect his ethic. He altered or deleted material from Mark that reflected poorly on Jesus or those whose subsequent careers showed they deserved respect. It has even been suggested that the Missing Block was removed, unbeknown to him, because this contained the passage in which Jesus referred to gentiles as 'dogs', and that not one but probably thirteen pages were removed in order to cover up the deceit. This hypothesis supposes that Luke would have been deeply troubled by such a remark.

I have shown that Luke wanted to preach this new religion, of which he had known nothing, into a community that no doubt also knew nothing of Jesus. He was a quite gifted author and improved on Mark's Gospel in ways to suit his needs. By emphasising the historical background, he preempted objections that the gospel story did not really happen.

Answer:

Luke, as a disciplined medical doctor, determined to inform his elite fiend, Theophilus, of an accurate account of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ: "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed." Luke 1:1-4.

He also wrote the book of Acts, in which he again instructs his friend, Theophilus, maintaining that he had thoroughly told him in his Gospel all that Jesus had done: "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen: to whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God..." Acts 1:1-3.