Luke

[k3n54n]

In a discussion recently, a man mentioned how the book of Mark was written in a way such that the entire book points to and leads to the Passion. He had just realized that Matthew is written to underscore the Authority of Christ.

.

In ancient times, of course, many people couldn't read, and each gospel had a symbol. Mark was symbolized by the face of a man, representing the importance of individual redemption, I suppose. Matthew was symbolized by the face of a lion, an obvious link to authority and the kingdom. John was symbolized by an eagle, representing the higher things that John discussed, Godly love and the nature of God. Luke was symbolized by an ox. That one I don't get.

It has been my decision to study Luke particularly in these days, and I am looking for some help in a kind of top-down approach. While it is easy enough to read Luke, that is not the kind of study I am interested in. I am looking for a small summation of the difference and importance of the book, along with support for that.

I wondered if anyone here might have interest or insight into this.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by k3n54n@Oct 1 2005, 12:24 PM

In a discussion recently, a man mentioned how the book of Mark was written in a way such that the entire book points to and leads to the Passion.  He had just realized that Matthew is written to underscore the Authority of Christ. 

.

In ancient times, of course, many people couldn't read, and each gospel had a symbol.  Mark was symbolized by the face of a man, representing the importance of individual redemption, I suppose. Matthew was symbolized by the face of a lion, an obvious link to authority and the kingdom.  John was symbolized by an eagle, representing the higher things that John discussed, Godly love and the nature of God.  Luke was symbolized by an ox.  That one I don't get.

It has been my decision to study Luke particularly in these days, and I am looking for some help in a kind of top-down approach.  While it is easy enough to read Luke, that is not the kind of study I am interested in.  I am looking for a small summation of the difference and importance of the book, along with support for that. 

I wondered if anyone here might have interest or insight into this.

←

Authorship

The Gospel according to Luke exhibits several differences from the other Synoptic Gospels. For instance, Luke is the only Gospel to have a sequel, the Acts of the Apostles. These two books are often referred to as a single unit called Luke-Acts. Another difference between Luke and the other Synoptics is the prologue (1:1-4).

Luke's prologue can also be called an exordium, which is a literary device that was also used by other Greek writers. There is a striking similarity between the structure of Josephus' Against Apion and Luke-Acts.

Not only does the prologue enable readers to better understand the purpose of the Gospel, but it also makes the destination clear. Unfortunately, and in a similar fashion to the other Synoptics, the author does not directly identify himself within the text. On the other hand there is enough internal and external evidence to conclude that it was written by Luke the physician. Because the book of Acts is the sequel to Luke, it should be considered when trying to define the author.

In certain sections of Acts, the author uses the first person plural in the narrative (Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-8; 27:1-28:16). These are usually referred to as the we-sections and would indicate that the author of Acts accompanied Paul at these times. Luke is the only one that would fit into this mold according to Paul's epistles. Externally, even the earliest manuscripts support the title "According to Luke" (KATA LOUKAN). Much of early church tradition also believed that Luke wrote this Gospel.

I found this... does it have what you are looking for? there is more..