the role of the lukan parables in terms of the purpose of luke's gospel

Christians who were attacked by Jews on account of Paul, not to Rome. That is why there are
a number of secondary motifs in Luke’s work that are at odds with a defense addressed to
Rome. Luke desires to defend Paul’s missionary endeavors before Jewish Christians
threatened by Jews who accuse Paul of teaching sedition against Israel, the Mosaic Law, and
the temple. 66 In particular, Paul’s defense concerning his missionary activity is provided
from the account of his trial and especially his apologetic speeches in this context (22:1-21;
23:1; 24:10-21; 26:1-23). For him, the political apologetic thesis appears to be weak due to its
absence in the early chapters of Acts, although within the speeches there might be some
elements of a political apologetic present which may have stemmed from the sources utilized
by Luke. Luke in the last section (Acts 22-28) shows that Paul is the true Pharisee, a Jew
faithful to the law, and that he believed and taught the Scriptures. In this respect, the defense
speeches in Acts 21-28 represent Paul as the true teacher of Israel and his accusers as the
apostates. Luke strives to acquit Paul of all accusations on the grounds of his credibility with
Jewish orthodoxy within the church, so that he preserves the special status of the church as
the people of God. 67
Having defended M. Schneckenburger who views Acts as a Tendenzschrift written to
68
Jewish Christians in Rome with a twofold apologetic purpose,
A.J. Mattill argues that Luke
writes to treat the objection of the Jewish Christian against Paul, and to motivate them to
support him in the context of his trial in Rome. Luke, Mattill presumes, would have been
collecting material for Acts from persons such as Philip and Mnason. However, Luke
becomes keenly aware that the suspicion on Paul’s political legitimacy from Jewish
Christians in Rome leads them to oppose Paul. Luke then decided to show Paul’s acquittals in
other cities (Acts 16:38 f.; 17:9; 18:14 f.; 19:37-40; 23:29; 24:27; 25:25; 26:31 f.) in order to
66. Jervell, “Paul: The Teacher of Israel: The Apologetic Speeches of Paul in Acts,” in Luke and the People of
God: A New Look at Luke-Acts, 167-68.
67. Ibid., 173-74; idem, “Retrospect and Prospect in Luke-Acts Interpretation,” in ed., E.H. Lovering, SBL
Seminar Paper 1991 (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1991), 383-404, here 402.
68. M. Schneckenbutger’s twofold apologetic purpose is as follows: (1) “to defend the Apostle Paul in his
apostolic dignity in his personal and apostolic behavior, especially in the matter of the Gentiles, against which
Paul defended himself in his Epistles.” and (2) “to demonstrate to these same Jewish Christians the political
legitimacy of Paul, for they opposed preaching to Gentiles not only because of their particularistic pride but also
because of their fear of the Rome government, which, though it recognized the legitimacy of their Judaism,
prohibited the proselytizing of Gentiles.” The Tübingen School however, generally objects to
Schneckenburger’s suggestion of “apologetic tendency”, since they, in contrast to his proposed date for the
writing of Acts (before A.D. 70), view the date as after A.D. 70, so that they are in favour of the “conciliatory
tendency”. See A.J. Mattill, “The Purpose of Acts: Schneckenburger Reconsidered,” in ed., W.W. Gasque and
R.P. Martin, Apostolic History and the Gospel: Biblical and Historical Essays presented to F.F. Bruce on his
60th Birthday (Grand Rapids, Mich.: The Paternoster Press, 1970), 108-22, here 108, 112-13.
259