Luke, Gospel According To
Luke, Gospel According To
the third in order of the canonical books of the New Testament,
I. Author Genuineness. The universal tradition of Christendom, reaching up at least to the latter part of the 2d century, has assigned the third member of our Gospel collection to Luke, Paul’s trusted companion and fellow-laborer, , who alone continued in attendance on his beloved master in his last imprisonment (Col 4:14; Phm 1:24; 2Ti 4:11). Its authorship has never been questioned until comparatively recent times, when the unsparing criticism of Germany the main object of which appears to be the demolishing of every ancient belief to set up some new hypothesis in its stead has been brought to bear upon it, without, however, effectually disturbing the old traditionary statement.
The investigations of Semler, Hilgenfeld, Ritschl, Baur, Schleiermacher. Ewald, and others, have failed to overthrow the harmonious assertion of the early Church that the third Gospel, as we have it, is the genuine work of Luke. It is well known that, though the ” Gospels” are referred to by Justin Martyr as a collection already used asnd accepted by the Church (Apol. 1:66; Dial. c. Tryph. c. 10). and his works supply a very considerable number of quotations, enabling us to identify, beyond all reasonable doubt, these with the first three Gospels, we do not find them mentioned by the names of their authors till the end of the 2d century. In the Muratorian fragment, which call hardly be placed later than A.D. 170, we read, “Tertium Evangelii librum secundum Lucam Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eum Paulus quasi ut juris ( ) studiosum [‘itineris socium,’ Bunsen] secum adsumsisset nomine suo ex ordine ‘opiinione,’ Credner] conscripsit (Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne), et idem prout assequi potuit,ita et a nativitate Johannis incepit dicere” (Westcott, Hist. of Can., page 559). The testimony of Irenaeus, A.D. cir. 180, is equally definite, (Contra Haer. 3:1, 1), while from his enumeration of the many particulars, pluria evangelii (ib. 3:14, 3), recorded by Luke alone, it is evident that the Gospel he had was the same we now possess. Tatian’s Diatessaron is an unimpeachable evidence of the existence of four Gospels, and therefore of that by Luke, at a somewhat earlier period in the same century. The writings of Tertullian against Marcion, cir. 207, abound with references to our Gospel, which, with Irenaeus, he asserts to have been written under the immediate guidance of Paul (Ach. Marc. 4:2; 4:5).
In Eusebius we find both the Gospel and the Acts specified as , while Luke’s knowledge of the sacred narrative is ascribed to information received from Paul, aided by his intercourse with the other apostles ( , H.E. 3:4 and 24). Eusebius, indeed, tells us that in his day the erroneous view which interpreted (Rom 2:16; comp. 2Co 8:18) of a written document was generally received, and that, in the words “according to my Gospel,” Paul was supposed to refer to the work of the evangelist. This is also mentioned by Jerome (De Vir. Illust. 7), and accepted by Origen (Eusebius, H.E. 6:25) one among many proofs of the want of the critical faculty among the fathers of that age. Additional evidence of the early acceptance of Luke’s Gospel may be derived from the guaestio vexata of its relation to the Gospel of Marcion. This is not the place to discuss this subject, which has led critics to the most opposite conclusions, for a full account of which the reader may be referred to De Wette, Einleit. in N.T. pages 119-137, as well as to the treatises of Ritschl, Baur, Hilgenfeld, Hahn, and Volckmar. It will be enough for our purpose to mention that the Gnostic teacher Marcion, in pursuit of his professed object of restoring the purity of the Gospel, which had been corrupted by Judaizing teachers, rejected all the books of the canon with the exception of ten epistles of Paul and a gospel, which he called simply a gospel of Christ. We have the express testimony of Irenaxus (Conr. lcaer. 1:27, 2; 3:12,12, etc.), Tertullian (Cont. Marc. 4:1, 2, 6), Origen (Colit. Cels. 2:27), and Epiphanius (Illusr. 42:11) that the basis of Marcion’s Gospel was that of Iuke, abridged and altered by him to suit his peculiar tenets (for the alterations and omissions, the chief being its curtailment by the first two chapters, see De Wette, pages 123-132), though we cannot assert, as was done by his enemies among the orthodox, that all the variations are due to Marcion himself, many of them having no connection with his heretical views, and being, rather, various readings of great antiquity and high importance.
Of late years, however, the opposite view, which was first broached by Semler, Griesbach, and Eichhorn, has been vigorously maintained, among others, by Ritschl and Baur, who have endeavored to prove that the Gospel of Luke, as we have it, is interpolated, and that the portions Marcion is charged with having omitted were really unauthorized additions to the original document. See Bleek, Einl. in das N.T. 52. Volckmar, in his exhaustive treatise Das Evansn. Marcions (Lips. 1852), has satisfactorily disposed of this theory, and has demonstrated that the Gospel of Luke, as we now have it, was the material on which Marcion worked, and, therefore, that before he began to teach, the date of which may be fixed about A.D. 139, it was already known to and accepted by the Church. Zeller and Ritschl have since abandoned their position (Theol. Jahrb. 1851, pages 337, 528), and Baur has greatly modified his (Isl-Markusevangel. 1851, pages 191). See also Hahn, Das Evangelium Marcions (Konigsb. 1823); Olshausen, Echtheit der vier Kanon. Ecanszyelien (Kinignsb. 1823); Ristschl, Das Evangeliunm Marcions (Tubing. 1846); Baur, Krit. Untersuchung ber d. Kan. Evangelien (Stubing. 1847); Hilgenfeld, Krit. Untersuchunzenz (Halle, 1850); bishop Thirlwall’s Introduction to Schleierunacher on St. Luke; De Wette, Lehrbuch d. N.T. (Berl. 1848); Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels (Bost. 1844), 3, add. note C, page 49.
II. Sources. The authorities from which Luke derived his Gospel are clearly indicated by him in the introduction (Luk 1:1-4). He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord’s ministry, or to have any personal knowledge of the facts he records, but, as an honest compiler, to have gone to the best sources of information then accessible, and, having accurately traced the whole course of the apostolic tradition from the very first, in its every detail ( ), to have written an orderly narrative of the facts () already fully believed () in the Christian Church, and which Theophilus had already learned, not from books, but from oral teaching ; comp. Act 18:25; Gal 6:5).
These sources were partly the “oral tradition” () of those “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word,” and partly the written records (to which Ewald, 6:40, on unexplained grounds, dogmatically assigns a non-Judaean origin) which even then “many” () had attempted to draw up, of which, though the evangelist’s words do not necessarily bear that meaning, we may well suppose that he would avail himself. Though we thankfully believe that, as well in the selection of his materials as in the employment of them, Luke was acting under the immediate influence of the Holy Spirit, it will be remarked that he lays claim to no such supernatural guidance, but simply to the care and accuracy of an honest, painstaking, and well-informed editor, not so consciously under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as to supersede the use of his own mental powers. His use of his authorities is not mechanical; though often incorporating, apparently with little alteration, large portions of the oral tradition, especially in the case of the words of our Lord, or those with whom he conversed, and adopting narratives already current (of which the first two chapters, with their harsh Hebraistic phraseology, immediately succeeding the comparatively pure Greek of the dedication, are an example), the free handling of his pen is everywhere to be recognized. The connecting links and the passages of transition evidence the hand of the author, which may again be recognized in the greater variety of his style, the more complex character of his sentences, and the care he bestows in smoothing away harshnesses, and imparting a more classical air to the synoptical portions. Notwithstanding the almost unanimous consent of the fathers as to the Pauline origin of Luke’s Gospel (Tertull. adv. Marc. 4:5, “Lucre digestum Paulo adscribere solent;” Irenaeus, Cont. Haer. 3:1; Origen apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 6:25; Euseb. Hist. Ecc 3:4; Jerome, De Vir. Illust. 7), there is little or nothing in the gospel itself to favor such a hypothesis, and very much to contradict it. It is true that the account of the institution of the Lord’s Supper, 1Co 11:23-25, displays an almost verbal identity with Luk 22:19-20; and, as Paul affirms that he received his “from the Lord,” it is highly probable that the evangelist has in this instance incorporated a fragment of the direct teaching of his master. But this is a solitary example (Luk 24:34, comp. with 1Co 15:5, is too trifling to deserve mention), and it is impossible that the evangelist should have expressed himself as he has done in his preface if he had derived the facts of his narrative from one who was neither “an eye-witness” nor “a minister of the Word from the beginning.” Nor again in the general tone and character of the gospel, when impartially viewed, is there much that can fairly be considered as bearing out the hypothesis of a Pauline origin.
Those who have sifted the gospel with this object have, it is true, gathered a number of passages which are supposed to have a Pauline tendency (see Hilgenfeld, Evang., and the ingenious essay prefixed to this gospel in Dr. Wordsworth’s Greek Testament), e.g. Luk 4:25 sq.; Luk 9:52 sq.; Luk 10:30 sq.; Luk 17:16-18; and the parables of the prodigal son, the unprofitable servant, and the Pharisee and publican, which have been instanced by De Wette as bringing out the apostle’s teaching on justification by faith alone; but, as dean Alford has ably shown (Greek Test. 1:44, note b), such a list may easily be collected from the other gospels, while the entire absence of any definite statement of the doctrinal truths which come forward with the greatest prominence in the apostle’s writings, and, with very scanty exceptions, of his peculiar theological phraseology, is of itself sufficient to prove how undue has been the weight assigned to Pauline influence in the composition of the gospel. It is certainly true that, in the words of bishop Thirlwall (Schleiermacher On St. Luke, Introd. page 128), “Luke’s Gospel contains numerous indications of that enlarged view of Christianity which gave to the gospel, as preached by Paul, a form and an extent very different from the original tradition of the Jews,” but no more can be legitimately inferred than that Luke was Paul’s disciple, instructed by the apostle of the Gentiles, and naturally sharing in his view of the gospel as a message of salvation for all nations; not that his gospel was in any sense derived from him, or rested on the apostolic basis of Paul. The question naturally arises whether the gospels of Matthew and Mark were among the to which Luke refers.
The answers to this have been various and contradictory, the same data leading critics to the most opposite conclusions. Meyer (Comment. 2:217) is of opinion that Luke availed himself both of Matthew and Mark, though chiefly of the latter, as the “primitive gospel;” while De Wette, on the other hand (Einleit. sec. 94, page 185), considers Mark’s Gospel the latest of the three, and based upon them as authorities. In the face of these and other discordant theories, of which a list may be seen (De Wette, Einleit. 88, pages 162-168), it will be wise not to attempt a categorical decision. A calm review of the evidence will, however, lead most unbiassed readers to the conclusion that all three wrote in perfect independence of one another; each, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, giving a distinct view of the great complex whole, the reflex of the writer’s own individual impressions, and that least of all is Luke to be considered as a mere redaucleur of the prior writings of his brother synoptists-a theory, the improbabilities and absurdities of which have been well pointed out by dean Alford in the Prolegonem to his Greek Testament, 1:2-6, 41.
III. Relation to Matthew and Mark. Believing that no one of the three synoptical gospels is dependent on the others, and that the true explanation of this striking correspondence, not only in the broad outline of our Lord’s life and work, and the incidents with which this outline is filled up, but also, to a considerable extent, in the parables and addresses recorded, and even in the language and forms of expression, is to be sought in the same apostolical oral tradition having formed the original basis of each, we have presented a very interesting point of inquiry in tracing the correspondence and divergence of the several narratives. In particular, a comparison of Luke with the other synoptists furnishes many striking and important results. With the general identity of the body of the history, we at once notice that there are two large portions peculiar to this evangelist, containing events or discourses recorded by him alone. These are the first two chapters, narrating the conception, birth, infancy, and early development of our Lord and his forerunner, and the long section (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14) devoted to our Lord’s final journey to Jerusalem, and comprising some of his most beautiful parables. We have also other smaller sections supplying incidents passed over by Matthew and Mark the questions of the people and the Baptist’s replies (Luk 3:10-14); Simon and the woman that was a sinner (Luk 7:36-50); the raising of the widow’s son (Luk 8:11-17); the story of Zacchaeus (Luk 19:1-10); our Lord’s weeping over Jerusalem (Luk 19:39-44); the journey to Emmaus (Luk 24:13-35). In other parts he follows a tradition at once so much fuller and so widely at variance with that of the others as almost to suggest the idea that a different event is recorded (Luk 4:16-30; comp. Mat 13:54-58; Mar 6:1-6; Luk 5:1-11; comp. Mat 4:18-22; Mar 1:16-20). Even where the language employed so closely corresponds as to remove all question of the identity of the events, fresh details are given, often of the greatest interest, e.g. (Luk 3:21); (Luk 3:22); . . . (Luk 4:1); , . . 50( Luk 4:6); (Luk 4:13); , . . 50 (Luk 5:17); and . (Luk 5:28-29); the comparison of old and new wine (Luk 5:39); . (Luk 6:11); . (Luk 6:19); the cures in the presence of John’s disciples (Luk 7:21), and the incidental remarks (Luk 7:29-30); many additional touches in the narratives of the Gadarene demoniac (Luk 8:26-39), and the transfiguration, especially the fact of his “praying” (Luke records at least six instances of our Lord having prayed omitted by the other evangelists), and the subject of the conversation with Moses and Elijah (Luk 9:28-36); notices sipplied (Luk 20:19; Luk 21:37-38), all tending to convince us that we are in the presence not of a mere copyist, but of a trustworthy and independent witness. Luke’s account of the passion and resurrection is to a great extent his own, adding much of the deepest significance to the synoptical narrative, particularly the warning to Simon in the name of the twelve (Luk 22:31-32); the bloody sweat (Luk 22:44); the sending to Herod (Luk 23:7-12); the words to the women (Luk 23:27-31); the prayer for forgiveness (Luk 23:34); the penitent thief (Luk 23:39-43); the walk to Emmaus (Luk 24:13-35); and the ascension (Luk 24:50-53).
It has been remarked that there is nothing in which Luke is more characteristically distinguished from both the evangelists than in his selection of our Lord’s parables. There are no less than eleven quite peculiar to him:
(1.) The two debtors; (2.) Good Samaritan; (3.) Friend at midnight; (4.) Rich fool; (5.) Barren fig tree; (6.) Lost silver; (7.) Prodigal son; (8.) Unjust steward; (9.) Rich man and Lazarus; (10.) Unjust judge; (11.) Pharisee and publican; and two others, the Great Supper, and the Pounds, which, with many points of similarity, differ considerably from those found in Matthew.
Of our Lord’s miracles, six omitted by Matthew and Mark are recorded by Luke:
(1.) Miraculous draught; (2.) The son of the widow of Nain; (3.) The woman with a spirit of infirmity; (4.) The man with a dropsy; (5.) The ten lepers; (6.) The healing of Malchus’s ear.
Of the seven not related by him. the most remarkable omission is that of the Syrophoenician woman, for which priori reasoning would have claimed a special place in the so-called Gospel of the Gentiles. We miss also the walking onl the sea, the feeding of the four thousand, the cure of the blind men, and of the deaf and dumb, the stater in the fish’s mouth, and the cursing of the fig-tree.
The chief omissions in narrative are the whole section, Mat 14:1 to Mat 16:12; Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26; Mat 19:2-12; Mat 20:1-16; Mat 20:20-28; comp. Mar 10:35-45; the anointing, Mat 26:6-13; Mar 14:3-9.
With regard to coincidence of language, a most important remark was long since made by bishop Marsh (Michaelis, 5:317), that when Matthew and Luke agree verbally in the common synoptical sections, Mark always agrees with them also; and that there is not a single instance in these sections of verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke alone. A close scrutiny will discover that the verbal agreement between Luke and Marl is greater than that between Luke and Matthew, while the mutual dependence of the second and third evangelists on the same source is rendered still more probable by the observation of Reuss, that they agree both in excess and defect when compared with Matthew: that when Mark has elements wanting in Matthew, Luke usually has them also; while, when Matthew supplies more than Mark, Luke follows the latter; and that where Mark fails altogether, Luke’s narrative often represents a different , from that of Matthew.
IV. Character and general Purpose. We must admit, but with great caution, on account of the abuses to which the notion has led, that there are traces in the gospel of a leaning towards Gentile rather than Jewish converts. The genealogy of Jesus is traced to Adam, not from Abraham, so as to connect him with the whole human race, and not merely with the Jews. Luke describes the mission of the Seventy, which number has usually been supposed to be typical of all nations; as twelve, the number of the apostles, represents the Jews and their twelve tribes.
On the supposed “doctrinal tendency” of the gospel, however, much has been written which it is painful to dwell on, but easy to refute. Some have endeavored to see in this divine book an attempt to ingraft the teaching of Paul on the Jewish representations of the Messiah, and to elevate the doctrine of universal salvation, of which Paul was the most prominent preacher, over the Judaizing tendencies, and to put Paul higher than the twelve apostles! (See Zeller, Apost.; Baur, Kanon. Evang.; and Hilgenfeld.) How two impartial historical narratives, the Gospel and the Acts, could have been taken for two tracts written for polemical and personal ends, is to an English mind hardly conceivable. Even its supporters found that the inspired author had carried out his purpose so badly that they were forced to assume that a second author or editor had altered the work with a view to work up together Jewish and Pauline elements into harmony (Baur, Kanon. Evang. page 502). Of this editing and re-editing there is no trace whatever; and the invention of the second editor is a gross device to cover the failure of the first hypothesis. By such a machinery it will be possible to prove in after ages that Gibbon’s History was originally a plea for Christianity, or any similar paradox.
The passages which are supposed to bear out this “Pauline tendency” are brought together by Hilgenfeld with great care (Evangelien, page 220); but Reuss has shown, by passages from Matthew which have the same “tendency” against the Jews, how brittle such an argument is, and has left no room for doubt that the two evangelists wrote facts and not theories, and dealt with those facts with pure historical candor (Reuss, Histoire de la Thioloyie, volume 3, b. 6, chapter 6). Writing to a Gentile convert, and through him addressing other Gentiles, Luke has adapted the form of his narrative to their needs, but not a trace of a subjective bias, not a vestige of a personal motive, has been suffered to sully the inspired page. Had the influence of Paul been the exclusive or principal source of this gospel, we should have found in it more resemblance to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which contains (so to speak) the Gospel of Paul.
The chief characteristic of Luke’s Gospel which distinguishes it from those of the other synoptists, especially Matthew, is its universality. The message he delivers is not, as it has sometimes been mistakenly described, for the Gentiles as such, as distinguished from the Jews, but for men. As we read his record, we seem to see him anticipating the time when all nations should hear the Gospel message, when all distinctions of race or class should be done away, and all claims based on a fancied self-righteousness annulled, and the glad tidings should be heard and received by all who were united in the bonds of a common humanity, and felt their need of a common Savior, “the light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.” It is this character which has given it a right to the title of the Pauline Gospel, and enables us to understand why Marcion selected it as the only true exponent of Christ’s Gospel. This universalism, however, is rather interwoven with the gospel than to be specified in definite instances; and yet we cannot but feel how completely it is in accordance with it that Luke records the enrollment of the Savior of the world as a citizen of the world-embracing Roman empire-that he traces his genealogy back to the head of the human race-that his first recorded sermon (Luk 4:16-27) gives proof of God’s wide-reaching mercy, as displayed in the widow of Sarepta and Naaman that in the mission of the twelve, the limitation to the “cities of Israel” should have no place, while he alone records the mission of the seventy (a number symbolical of the Gentile world) that in the sermon on the mount all references to the law should be omitted, while all claims to superior holiness or national prerogative are cut away by his gracious dealings with, and kindly mention of, the despised Samaritans (9:52 sq.; 10:30 sq.; 17:11 sq.).
As with the race in general, so with its individual members. Luke delights to bear witness that none are shut out from God’s mercy nay, that the outcast and the lost are the special objects of his care and search. As proofs of this, we may refer to the narratives of the woman that was a sinner, the Samaritan leper, Zacchaeus, and the penitent thief; and the parables of the lost sheep and lost silver, the Pharisee and publican, the rich man and Lazarus, and, above all, to that “which has probably exercised most influence on the mind of Christendom in all periods” (Maurice, Unity of the Gospel, page 274), the prodigal son.
Most naturally also in Luke we find the most frequent allusions to that which has been one of the most striking distinctions between the old and modern world the position of woman as a fellow-heir of the kingdom of heaven, sharing in the same responsibilities and hopes, and that woman comes forward most prominently (the Syrophcenician, as already noticed, is a single marked exception) as the object of our Lord’s sympathy and love. Commencing with the Virgin Mary as a type of the purity and lowly obedience which is the true glory of womanhood, we meet in succession with Anna the prophetess, the pattern of holy widowhood (comp. 1Ti 5:5); the woman that was a sinner; the widow of Nain; the ministering women (Luk 8:2-3) Mary and Martha; the “daughter of Abraham” (Luk 13:11); and close the list with the words of exquisite tenderness and sympathy to the “daughters of Jerusalem” (Luk 23:28).
This universal character is one, the roots of which lie deep in Luke’s conception of the nature and work of Christ. With him, more than in the other gospels, Jesus is “the second man, the Lord from heaven” (Lange); and if in his pages we see more of his divine nature, and have in the more detailed reports of his conception and ascension clearer proofs that he was indeed the Son of the Highest, it is here too, in ” the life-giving sympathy and intercourse with the inner man, in the human fellowship grounded on not denying the divine condescension and compassion” (Maurice, u.s.), that we recognize the perfect ideal man.
Luke, it has been truly remarked, is the gospel of contrasts. Starting with the contrast between the doubt of Zacharias and the trustful obedience of Mary, we find in almost every page proofs of the twofold power of Christ’s word and work foretold by Simeon (2:34). To select a few of the more striking examples: He alone presents to our view Simon and the sinful woman, Martha and Mary, the thankful and thankless lepers, the tears and hosannas on the brow of Olivet; he alone adds the “woes” to the “blessings” in the sermon on the mount, and carries on in the parables of the rich man and Lazarus, the Pharisee and publican, and the good Samaritan, that series of strong contrasts which finds so appropriate a close in the penitent and blaspheming malefactors. Once more, Luke is the hymn-writer of the New Testament. Taught by thee, the Church prolongs her hymns of high thanksgiving still” (Keble, Christian Year). But for his record the Magnificat, Benedictus, and Nunc Dimittis would have been lost to us; and it is he who has preserved to us the Ave Maria, identified with the religious life of so large a part of Christendom, and the Gloria in Excelsis, which forms the culminating point of its most solemn ritual.
To turn from the internal to the external characteristics of Luke’s Gospel, these we shall find no less marked and distinct. His narrative is, as he promised it should be, an orderly one (, 1:3); but the order is one rather of subject than of time. As to the other synoptists, though maintaining the principle of chronological succession in the main outline of his narrative, “he is ever ready to sacrifice mere chronology to that order of events which was the fittest to develop his purpose according to the object proposed by the inspiring Spirit, grouping his incidents according to another and deeper order than that of mere time” (Maurice, u.s.). It is true that he furnishes us with the three most precise dates in the whole Gospel narrative (Luk 2:2; Luk 3:1; Luk 3:23 each one, be it remarked, the subject of vehement controversy), but, in spite of the attempts made by Wieseler and others to force a strict chronological character upon his gospel, an unprejudiced perusal will convince us that his narrative is loose and fragmentary, especially in the section Luk 9:49 to Luk 18:14, and his notes of time vague and destitute of precision, even where the other synoptists are more definite (Luk 5:12; comp. Mat 8:1; Luk 8:4; comp. Mat 13:1; Luk 8:22; comp. Mar 4:35, etc.).
“The accuracy with which Luke has drawn up his Gospel appears in many instances. Thus, he is particular in telling us the dates of his more important events. The birth of Christ is referred to the reign of Augustus, and the government of Syria by Cyrenius (2:1-3). The preaching of John the Baptist is pointed out as to its time with extreme circumstantiality (Luk 3:1-2). But it is in lesser matters that accuracy is chiefly shown. Thus the mountain storm on the Lake of Gennesaret is marked by him with a minute accuracy which is not seen in Mark or Matthew (comp. Luk 8:23 with parallel Gospels, and with Josephus, War, 3:10; Irby and Mangles, Travels, chapter 6). In Luk 21:1, we read of a gesture on Christ’s part which marks a wonderful accuracy on the part of Luke. We read there that Christ “looked up,” and saw the rich casting their gifts into the treasury. From Mar 12:41 we learn the reason of Luke’s expression, which he does not give himself, for there we read that Christ, after warning his disciples against the scribes, “sat down,” and would therefore have to look up in order to see what was going on. This minute accuracy marks Luke’s description of our Lord’s coming to Jerusalem across the Mount of Olives (Luk 19:37-41). Travellers who are very accurate in topographical description speak of two distinct sights of Jerusalem on this route, an inequality of ground hiding it for a time after one has first caught sight of it (Clerical Journal, August 22, 1856, page 397). Luke distinctly refers to this nice topographical point; in Luk 19:37 he marks the first sight of Jerusalem, and in Luk 19:41 he marks the second sight of the city, now much nearer than before. The correctness of Luke’s date in the matter of the government of Syria by Cyrenius has indeed been often questioned, but on insufficient grounds. The just way of dealing with very ancient documents which have given general proofs of trustworthiness, but which, in particular instances, make statements that do not appear to us to be correct, is to attribute this apparent want of correctness to our ignorance rather than to that of the writer. In the particular case before us recent research has shown that Cyrenius was in all probability twice governor of Syria, thus establishing, instead of overthrowing, the correctness of Luke” (Fairbairn). Compare Huschke, Ueber den zur Zeit der Geburt Christi gehaltenen Census (Breslau, 1840); Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der vier Evanzgelien (Hamburg, 1843); Tholuck, Glaubwrdigkeit der evanzgelischen Geschichte. SEE CYRENIUS.
In his narrative we miss the graphic power of Mark, though in this he is superior to Matthew, e.g. chapter 7:1-10; comp. Mat 8:5-13 : chapter 8:41-56; comp. Mat 9:18-26. His object is rather to record the facts of our Lord’s life than his discourses, while, as Olshausen remarks (1:19, Clark’s ed.), “He has the peculiar power of exhibiting with great clearness and truth our Lord’s conversations, with all the incidents that gave rise to them-the remarks of the bystanders, and their resuits.”
We may also notice here the passing reflections, or, as bishop Ellicott terms them (Hist. Lect. page 28), “psychological comments,” called up by the events or actors which appear in his Gospel, interpolated by him as obiter dicta in the body of the narrative. We may instance Luk 2:50-51; Luk 3:15; Luk 6:11; Luk 7:29-30; Luk 7:39; Luk 16:14; Luk 20:20; Luk 22:3; Luk 23:12. V. Style and Language. Luke’s style is more finished than that of Matthew or Mark. There is more of composition in his sentences. His writing displays greater variety, and the structure is more complex. His diction is substantially the same, but purer, and, except in the first two chapters, less Hebraized, as remarked by Jerome (Comment. in AEs.; compare ad Damas. Ep. 20). It deserves special notice how, in the midst of close verbal similarity, especially in the report of the words of our Lord and others, slight alterations are made by him either by the substitution of another word or phrase (e.g. Luk 20:6; comp. Mat 21:26; Mar 11:32 : Luk 7:25; Mar 11:8 : Luk 9:14; Mar 6:39-40 : Luk 20:28-29; Mar 12:20; Mar 12:22 : Luk 8:25; Mar 8:27), the supply (Luk 20:45; Mar 12:38 : Luk 7:8; Mat 8:9), or the omission of a word (Luk 9:25; Mat 16:26; Mar 8:36), by which harsh constructions are removed, and a more classical air given to the whole composition.
The Hebraistic character is more perceptible in the hymns and speeches incorporated by him than in the narrative itself. The following are some of the chief Hebraisms that have been noticed:
(1.) the very frequent use of in a new subject, especially , with the accusative and infinitive, corresponding to , twenty-three times, not once in Matt., only twice in Mark;
(2.) the same idiom, without , e.g. Luk 9:34; Luk 9:36; Luk 10:35; Luk 11:37;
(3.) , or alone of time, the Hebrew , e.g. Luk 2:15; Luk 5:4, only once each in Matthew and Mark;
(4.) , used for God= , five times, once in Mark;
(5.) olscog, for family ;
(6.) = , four times, not once in the other gospels;
(7.) in the genitive as an epithet, e.g. , ;
(8.) , Luk 20:11-12;
(9.) = . On the other hand, we find certain classical words and phrases peculiar to Luke taking the place of others less familiar to his Gentile readers, e.g. for , six times; for , six times; , , or for , which only occurs seven times to thirty in Matthew, and fourteen in Mark; for ., four times; of the Lake of Gennesareth for , five times; for ; for ; for .
The style of Luke has many peculiarities both in construction and in diction; indeed, it has been calculated that the number of words used only by him exceeds the aggregate of the other three gospels. Full particulars of these are given by Credner (Einleit.) (copied by Davidson, Introd. to the N.T.) and Reuss (Geschichte d. II. Schfri-.). The following are some of the most noteworthy. Of peculiar constructions we may remark,
(1.) the infinitive with the genitive of the article (Winer, Gr. Gr. 1:340), to indicate design or result, e.g. Luk 2:27; Luk 5:7; Luk 21:22; Luk 24:29; Luk 1:9; Luk 1:57; Luk 2:21.
(2.) The substantive verb with the participle instead of the finite verb. Luk 4:31; Luk 5:10; Luk 6:12; Luk 7:8; Luk 23:12 (Winer, 6567). (3.) The neuter participle with the article for a substantive, Luk 4:16; Luk 8:34; Luk 22:22; Luk 24:14.
(4.) , to substantivise a sentence or a clause, especially in indirect questions, Luk 1:63; Luk 7:11; Luk 9:46, etc.
(5.) , sixty-seven times; , ten times; , four times, the first being used once by Matthew, and the others not at all by him or Mark.
(6.) Participles are copiously used to give vividness to the narrative, , seventeen times; , seven times; , etc.
(7.) used with a substantive, e.g. , Luk 5:8; Luk 19:7; and , Luk 24:19.
Of the words peculiar to, or occurring much more frequently in Luke, some of the most remarkable are, the use of in the narrative as a synonym for , which occurs fourteen times (e.g. Luk 7:13; Luk 10:1; Luk 13:15, etc.), and nowhere else in the synoptical gospels save in the addition to Mar 16:19-20; , , not found in the other gospels, except the first two once each in John; , eight times in the Gospel, sixteen in the Acts and only thrice in John, , , very frequent, while does not occur at all; , twenty-one times in the Gospel, ten in the Acts, and only once in Mark; , not used in the other three gospels; . thirty-two times in Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, and only twice each in Matthew, Mark, and John; , frequent in Luke, and only twice elsewhere, in Matthew; , seven times in Gospel, twenty-six in Acts, but nowhere in the other gospels, and , eight times in Gospel to three in Matthew alone; , twenty times in Gospel, sixteen in Acts, to thrice in Matthew and four times in Mark; , instead of the of the other gospels; , twenty-two times in Gospela fourteen times in Acts, once besides in John; , twenty-four times in Gospel, fifty-one in Acts, and only ten times in the other gospels; the particle , which hardly appears in the other gospels, is very frequent in Luke’s writings. The words , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , are almost or quite peculiar to him; he is very partial to and , , , , and abounds in verbs compounded with prepositions, where the other evangelists use the simple verb.
Some omissions are to be noted: does not occur once, ( only once, , , , not once; only once; and , which is found fifteen times in Matthew, and thirteen in Mlark, occurs only thrice in the whole gospel.
A few Latin words are used by Luke , Luk 12:6; , Luk 7:41; , Luk 8:30; , Luk 11:33; , Luk 19:20; Act 19:12, but no Hebrew or Syriac forms, except , Luk 1:15.
On comparing the Gospel with the Acts, it is found that the style of the latter is more pure and free from Hebrew idioms, and the style of the later portion of the Acts is more pure than that of the former. Where Luke used the materials he derived from others, oral or written, or both, his style reflects the Hebrew idioms of them; but when he comes to scenes of which he was an eye-witness, and describes entirely in his own words, these disappear.
VI. Quotations from the O.T. It is a striking confirmation of the view propounded above of the character of Luke’s Gospel, and the object of its composition, that the references to the O.T., the authority of which with any except the Jews would be but small, are so few only twenty-four in the one against sixty-five in the other when compared with their abundance in Matthew. Only eight out of the whole number are peculiar to our evangelist (marked with an asterisk in the annexed list), which occur in the portions where he appears to have followed more or less completely a of his own; the history of the birth and childhood of our Lord, the visit to Nazareth (chapter 4), and that of the passion. The rest are found in the common synoptical sections. We may also remark that, with the most trifling exceptions, Luke never quotes the O.T. himself, nor speaks on his own authority of events occurring in fulfillment of prophecy, and that his citations are only found in the sayings of our Lord and others. The following list is tolerably complete, exclusive of the hymns, which are little more than a cento of phrases from the O.T.
VII. Time and Place of Composition. In the complete silence of Scripture, our only means for determining the above points are tradition and internal evidence. The statements of the former, though sufficiently definite, are inconsistent and untrustworthy. Jerome (Praef. in Matthew) asserts that it was composed “in Achaia and the regions of Boeotia,” an opinion which appears to have been generally received in the 4th century (Gregory Nazianzen, v), and has been accepted by Lardner (Credibility), who fixes its date A.D. 63 or 64, after the release of Paul. An Arabic version, published by Erpenius, places its composition “in a city of Macedonia, twenty-two years after the ascension,” A.D. 51; a view to which Hiilgenfeld and Wordsworth (Gr. Test. 1:170) give in their adherence. A still earlier date, thirteen years after the ascension, is assigned by the subscription in some ancient MSS. Other statements as to the place are Alexandria Troas, Alexandria in Egypt (the Peshito and Persian versions, Abulfeda, accepted by Mill, Grabe, and Wetstein), Rome (Ewald, 6:40; Olshausen), and Caesarea (Bertholdt, Schott, Thiersch, Alford, Abp. Thomson). Amid this uncertainty, it will be well to see if there is any internal evidence which will help us in determining these points. We are here met at the outset by those who are determined to see in every clear prophecy a vaticinium post eventumn, and who find in the predictions of the overthrow of Jerusalem (Luk 13:34-35; Luk 19:43-44; Luk 21:20-24), and the persecutions of our Lord’s followers (Luk 12:52-53; Luk 21:12), and the nearness of the (Luk 21:25-33), a clear proof that the Gospel was composed after A.D. 70.
This has come to be regarded as a settled point by a certain school of criticism (Ewald, 5:134; De Wette, Einleit. page 298; Credner, Einleit.; Reuss, Gesch. de Heil. Schr. page 195; Meyer; Renan, Vie de Jesus, 16; Nicolas, Etudes, N.T., etc.), though there is no small diversity among its representatives as to the time and place of its publication of the Gospel and the sources from which it was derived. Those, on the other hand, who, brought up in a sounder and more reverent school, see no a priori impossibility in a future event being foretold by the Son of God, will be led by the same data to a very different conclusion, and will discover sufficient grounds for dating the Gospel not later than A.D. 58. It is certain that the Gospel was written before the Acts of the Apostles (Act 1:1). This latter could not have been composed before A.D. 58, when the writer leaves Paul in his own hired house” at Rome; nor probably long after, since otherwise the issue of the apostle’s imprisonment and appeal to Casar must naturally have been recorded by him. How long the composition of the Gospel preceded that of the Acts it is impossible to determine, but we may remark that the different tradition followed in the reports of the ascension in the two books renders it probable that the interval was not very small, or, at any rate, that the two were not contemporaneous. If we follow the old tradition given above, we may find reason for supposing that the interval between Luke’s being left at Philippi (Act 16:12; Act 17:1) and his joining the apostle there again (20:5) was employed in writing and publishing his gospel. This view is accepted by Alford, Proleg. page 47, and is ably maintained by Dr. Wordsworth, Gr. Test. 1:168-170, though he weakens his argument by referring (2Co 8:18) to a written gospel, a later sense never found in the New Test. Another and more plausible view, adopted by Thiersch, which has found very wide acceptance, is that the Gospel was written under the guidance and superintendence of Paul during his imprisonment at Caesarea, A.D. 55; but, as this imprisonment did not last for two years, as usually held, there is here no room for the composition. Olshausen, among others, places it a little later, during Paul’s captivity at Rome, where he may have mad he the acquaintance of Theophilus, if, as Ewald (6:40) maintains, the latter was a native of Rome. This view, which places the writing of the Gospel in the early part of Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome, A.D. 56, is supported by Luke’s leisure at the time, and the fact that the Acts followed not very long after as a sequel.
VIII. For whom written. On this point we have certain evidence. Luke himself tells us that the object he had in view in compiling his gospel was that a certain Theophilus “might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been (orally) instructed.” Nothing more is known of this Theophilus, and it is idle to repeat the vague conjectures in which critics have indulged, some even denying his personal existence altogether, and arguing, from the meaning of the name, that it stands merely as the representative of a class. SEE THEOPHILUS.
One or two inferences may, however, be made with tolerable certainty from Luke’s words. He was doubtless a Christian, and, from his name and the character of the Gospel, a Gentile convert; while the epithet , generally employed as ‘a title of honor (Act 23:26; Act 24:3; Act 26:25), indicates that he was a person of official dignity. He was not an inhabitant of Palestine, for the evangelist minutely describes the position of places which to such a one would be well known. It is so with Capernaum (Act 4:31), Nazareth (Act 1:26), Arimathlea (23:51), the country of the Gadarenes (Act 8:26), the distance of Mount Olivet and Emmaus from Jerusalem (Act 1:12; Luk 24:13). By the same test he probably was not a Macedonian (Act 16:12), nor an Athenian (Act 17:21), nor a Cretan (Act 27:8; Act 27:12). But that he was a native of Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant of Rome, is probable from similar data. In tracing Paul’s journey to Rome, places which an Italian might be supposed not to know are described minutely (Act 27:8; Act 27:12; Act 27:16); but when he comes to Sicily and Italy this is neglected. Syracuse and Rhegium, even the more obscure Putteoli, and Appii Forum and the Three Taverns, are mentioned as to one likely to know them. (For other theories, see Marsh’s Michaelis, volume 3, part 1, page 236; and Kuinol’s Praolegomena.) All that emerges from this argument is that the person for whom Luke wrote in the first instance was a Gentile reader. But, though the Gospel is inscribed to him, we must not consider that it was written for him alone, but that Theophilus stands rather as the representative of the whole Christian world; not, as we have already seen, of the Gentiles, as such, to the exclusion of the Jews, but the whole race of man, whom Luke had in his eye; and for whom, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work was adapted “as the Gospel of the nations ( , Origen, apud Euseb. 6:25), full of mercy and hope assured to the whole world by the love of a suffering Savior” (Westcott, Study of Gospel, page 218).
IX. Contents of the Gospel. After the brief preface the value of which it is difficult to overestimate as throwing light on the history of the composition of the gospels in general, and the true theory of scriptural inspiration the narrative of the Gospel may be divided into four portions:
1. The time preceding our Lord’s public life, including the conception and birth of John the Baptist, and of Christ, his circumcision, presentation in the Temple, and the single incident recordled of his childhood (Luk 2:41-51), comprised in the first two chapters. The whole of this portion is in form, and to a considerable extent in substance, peculiar to our evangelist. See X.
2. A large number of originally detached and independent narratives, comprising our Lord’s baptism, temptation, and Galilaean ministry, almost the whole being common to Luke with the other synoptists.
3. A large section, sometimes, but improperly, termed the gsnomology, containing narratives of events and reports of discourses belonging to the period from the close of our Lord’s direct Galilean ministry to his visit to Jericho a few days before his royal entrance into Jerusalem, and mostly occurring during the actual journey (Luk 9:50 to Luk 18:14). The whole of this, in its present form, is peculiar to Luke.
4. The last days of Christ: his entry into Jerusalem, discourses in the Temple, his sufferings and death, his resurrection and ascension, common to Luke and the other evangelists in substance, though there are considerable differences in detail in the narratives of the passion and resurrection (especially the journey to Emmaus), and that of the ascension is entirely Luke’s own (Luk 18:15 to Luk 24:53).
X. Integrity of the Gospel the first two Chapters. The Gospel of Luke is quoted by Justin Martyr and by the author of the Clementine Homilies. The silence of the apostolic fathers only indicates that it was admitted into the canon somewhat late, which was probably the case. The evidence of the Marcionite controversy is, as we have seen, that our gospel was in use before A.D. 120. A special question, however, has been raised about the first two chapters. The critical history of these is best drawn out perhaps in Meyer’s note. The chief objection against them is founded on the garbled opening of Marcion’s Gospel, who omits the first two chapters, and connects 3:1 immediately with 4:31. (So Tertullian, “Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit Deum descendisse in civitatem Galileaae Capharnaum,” cont. Marc. 4:7.) But any objection founded on this would apply to the third chapter as well; and the history of our Lord’s childhood seems to have been known to and quoted by Justin Martyr (see Apology, 1, 33, and an allusion, Dial. cum Tryph. 100) about the time of Marcion. There is therefore no real ground for distinguishing between the first two chapters and the rest; and the arguments for the genuineness of Luke’s Gospel apply to the whole inspired narrative as we now possess it (see Meyer’s note; also Volckmar, page 130).
XI. Commentaries. The following are the special exegetical helps on Luke’s Gospel: Origen, Fragmenta (in Opp. 3:979); also Scholia (in Bibl. Patr. Gallandii, 14); Athanasius, Fragmenta (in Opp. I, 2); also Commentaria (ib. 3:31); Ambrose, Expositio (in Opp. 1:1257); Augustine, Quaestiones (in Opp. 4:311); Jerome, Homiliae [from Origen] (in Opp. 7:245); also Expositio (in Opp. [Supposita] 10, 1:764); Cyril Alex., Additamentum (in Mai, Script. Vet. 9:741); Commentaria (ed. Smith, Lond. 1858, 4to; Commentary, tr. by same, ibid. 1859, 2 volumes, 8vo); Eusebius, Excepta (ibidem, 1:107); Titus Bostrensis, Commentarius (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 4:415); Apollinarius Laodicensis, Fragmenta (in Mai, Class. Auct. 10:495); Bede, In Lucam (in Opp. 5:217; Works, ed. Giles, 10 and 11); Photius, Specimen (in Mai, Script. Vet. I, 1:189); Nicetas Senon. Catena, (ib. 9:626); AElfridus Rivellensis, Homiliae (in Bibl. Max. Patr. 23:1); Bonaventura, Expositio (in Opp. 2:3); Albertus Magnus, Commantarii (in Opp. 10); Decorosus, Latudes (in Mai, Scriptt. Vet. 9:182); Zwingle, Annotationes (in Opps. 4:181); Brentius, Homiliae (in Opp. 5); Lambert, Commentarius (Norib. 1524, Argent. 1525, 8vo); Agricola, Commentarius (Aug. Vind. 1515, Norib. 1525, Hag. 1526, 8vo); Sarcer, Scholia (Basil. 1529, Francft. 1541, 8vo); Bullinger, Commentaria (Tigur. 1546, fol.); Hofmeister, Commentarius [includ. Matthew and Mark] (Lovan. 1562, fol.; Paris, 1563, Colon. 1572, 8vo); Logenhagen, Comnmentarius [from Augustine] (Antwerp, 1574, 8vo); Soar, Conmmentaria (Conimb. 1574, Par. 1578, fol.); Stella, Commentarius [Rom. Cath.] (Salmart. 1575, Complut. 1578, Lugdun. 1580, 1583, 1592, Rom. 1582, Antw. 1582, 1584, 1591, 1600, 1605, 1608, 1613, 1622, 1654, Mosgunt. 1680, fol.; Ven. 1583, Mayence, 1681, 4to); De Horosco, Commentarius (Complut. 1579, 4to); Gualther, Homiliae (Tigur. 1585, fol.); Piscator, Analysis (Sigen. 1596,1608, 8vo); De Melo, Commentaria (Vallis. 1597, fol.) Toletus, Commentarian [on chapter 1-13 (Rom. 1600, Par. 1600, Colon. 1612, fol.; Ven. 1600, 4to); Winckelmann, Commentarius (Francf. 1601, Giess. 1609, Lub. 1616 8vo); Del Pas, Commentaria (Romans 1625, 2 volumes, fol.); Corderius, Catena (Antw. 1628, fol.); Novarinus, Expensus (Lugd. 1642, fol.); Gomarus, Illustratio (in pop. theolog. 1:149); A Lapide, In lucam (Antwerp, 1660, fol.); Spielenberg, Commentarius (Jen. 1663, 4to); Hartsocker, Aantekingen [continued by Molinaeus] (Amst. 1687, 4to); Tolaar, Verklaring (Hamb. 1741, 3 volumes, 4to); Pope, Erlauterung (Bremen, 1777, 1781, 2 volumes, 8vo); Anon. Amerk. (Lps. 1792, 8vo); Morus, Praelectiones (Lips. 1795, 8vo); Schleiermacher, Versuch (volume 1:1817, 8vo; trans. Essay, Lond. 1825, 8vo); Major, Notes (Lond. 1826, 8vo); Bomermann, Scholiac (Lips. 1830, 8vo); Stein, Kommentar (Halle, 1830, 8vo); Wilson, Questions (Cambridge, 1830, 12mo); Sumner, Exposition (3d ed. 1833, 8vo); Watson, Exposition [chapter 1-13] (in Works, 13; also separately, N.Y. 8vo) ; Short, Lectures (London, 1837, 12mo); Sirr. Notes (part 1, London, 1843, 8vo); Trollope, Commentary (Lond. 1849, 12mo); Thomson, Lectures (Lond. 1849-51, 3 volumes, 8vo); Ford, Illustration (Lond. 1851, 8vo); Gumming, Readings (London, 1854, 8vo); Foote, Lectures (Glasg. 1857, 2 volumes, 8vo); Goodwin, Commentary (Lond.. 1865, 8vo); Stark, Commentary (London, 1866, 2 volumes, 12mo); Van Doren, Commentary (Lond. and N.Y. 1868, 2 volumes, 12mo); (Godet, Commentaire (Neufchatel, 1870, 8vo). SEE GOSPELS.
Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
Luke, Gospel according to
was written by Luke. He does not claim to have been an eye-witness of our Lord’s ministry, but to have gone to the best sources of information within his reach, and to have written an orderly narrative of the facts (Luke 1:1-4). The authors of the first three Gospels, the synoptics, wrote independently of each other. Each wrote his independent narrative under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Each writer has some things, both in matter and style, peculiar to himself, yet all the three have much in common. Luke’s Gospel has been called “the Gospel of the nations, full of mercy and hope, assured to the world by the love of a suffering Saviour;” “the Gospel of the saintly life;” “the Gospel for the Greeks; the Gospel of the future; the Gospel of progressive Christianity, of the universality and gratuitousness of the gospel; the historic Gospel; the Gospel of Jesus as the good Physician and the Saviour of mankind;” the “Gospel of the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man;” “the Gospel of womanhood;” “the Gospel of the outcast, of the Samaritan, the publican, the harlot, and the prodigal;” “the Gospel of tolerance.” The main characteristic of this Gospel, as Farrar (Cambridge Bible, Luke, Introd.) remarks, is fitly expressed in the motto, “Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil” (Acts 10:38; comp. Luke 4:18). Luke wrote for the “Hellenic world.” This Gospel is indeed “rich and precious.”
“Out of a total of 1151 verses, Luke has 389 in common with Matthew and Mark, 176 in common with Matthew alone, 41 in common with Mark alone, leaving 544 peculiar to himself. In many instances all three use identical language.” (See MATTHEW; MARK; GOSPELS)
There are seventeen of our Lord’s parables peculiar to this Gospel. (See List of Parables in Appendix) Luke also records seven of our Lord’s miracles which are omitted by Matthew and Mark. (See List of Miracles in Appendix) The synoptical Gospels are related to each other after the following scheme. If the contents of each Gospel be represented by 100, then when compared this result is obtained:
Mark has 7 peculiarities, 93 coincidences. Matthew 42 peculiarities, 58 coincidences. Luke 59 peculiarities, 41 coincidences.
That is, thirteen-fourteenths of Mark, four-sevenths of Matthew, and two-fifths of Luke are taken up in describing the same things in very similar language.
Luke’s style is more finished and classical than that of Matthew and Mark. There is less in it of the Hebrew idiom. He uses a few Latin words (Luke 12:6; 7:41; 8:30; 11:33; 19:20), but no Syriac or Hebrew words except sikera, an exciting drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes (from Heb. shakar, “he is intoxicated”, Lev. 10:9), probably palm wine.
This Gospel contains twenty-eight distinct references to the Old Testament.
The date of its composition is uncertain. It must have been written before the Acts, the date of the composition of which is generally fixed at about 63 or 64 A.D. This Gospel was written, therefore, probably about 60 or 63, when Luke may have been at Caesarea in attendance on Paul, who was then a prisoner. Others have conjectured that it was written at Rome during Paul’s imprisonment there. But on this point no positive certainty can be attained.
It is commonly supposed that Luke wrote under the direction, if not at the dictation of Paul. Many words and phrases are common to both; e.g., compare:
Luke 4:22; with Col. 4:6. Luke 4:32; with 1 Cor. 2:4. Luke 6:36; with 2 Cor. 1:3. Luke 6:39; with Rom. 2:19. Luke 9:56; with 2 Cor. 10:8. Luke 10:8; with 1 Cor. 10:27. Luke 11:41; with Titus 1:15. Luke 18:1; with 2 Thess. 1:11. Luke 21:36; with Eph. 6:18. Luke 22:19, 20; with 1 Cor. 11:23-29. Luke 24:46; with Acts 17:3. Luke 24:34; with 1 Cor. 15:5.
Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Luke, Gospel According To
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
i.The Synoptic Problem.
1.Solutions offered in the past.
2.Priority of St. Mark.
3.The doctrine of a proto-Mark, of a deutero-Mark, and of a trito-Mark.
ii.Analysis of St. Lukes Gospel according to the sources used.
1.First SourceSt. Mark.
2.Second SourceSt. Matthews Logia.
3.Third Sourcea Pauline Collection.
4.Fourth SourceAnonymous Fragments.
5.Fifth Sourcea Private Collection (from the Holy Family?).
6.Editorial Notes.
iii.Points of contact with St. John.
iv.St. Lukes characteristics.
v.Date of writing.
Literature.
i. The Synoptic Problem.To a student of the Synoptic Problem St. Lukes Gospel is the most interesting of the three. Indeed, we may confidently affirm that, but for St. Luke, the Synoptic Problem would never have existed. For the connexions between St. Matthew and St. Mark are comparatively simple and are easily explained. It is only when we read St. Luke that the perplexing questions which constitute the Problem arise. We have first to explain the fact of his omissions (a) of Markan matter, (b) of Matthaean; next, his additions (a) of narrative, (b) of discourse; thirdly, his variations from the other Gospels in arrangement (a) of Markan matter, (b) of Matthaean; then we must examine his editorial work, which consists (a) of prefaces to introduce a section, (b) of conclusions to wind it up, (c) of explanatory notes, (d) of corrections, alike in fact, in style, and in grammar; lastly, we must consider cases where he agrees with St. Matthew against St. Mark, and cases where he alone of the Synoptists has some contact with St. John. Anyone who attempts to solve the Problem by neglecting one or more of these factors, may fascinate the reader by the simplicity of his proposals, but he does so at the expense of success. He has not really grappled with the Problem, and therefore has not solved it. If, on the other hand, the reader thinks the proposals which are here offered too intricate; if he accuses the writer of vacillation, because two or more solutions are frequently offered of the same difficulty, let him rellect that in mathematicsthe most exact of sciencesa similar fact may be observed. For every quadratic equation has two solutions, and when the Radeliffe Observer published his calculation of the distance of the sun from the earth, the answer came out as a double quadratic with four variations. Similar complications should be expected in an intricate literary problem like this. Let the beginner cultivate patience and suspense of judgment. He will have made good progress, if he learns to suspect the man who is too simple or too confident.
1. Solutions offered in the past.Augustine, bishop of Hippo, at the close of the 4th cent., was the first writer who made a serious attempt to solve the Synoptic Problem. He was guided partly by tradition, but chiefly by a careful examination of the internal evidence which the Gospels offer. In that age it was perhaps inevitable that he should assume, what modern critics are almost united in denying, that the Apostle Matthew was the author of the First Gospel in its present form. From this fundamental error it inevitably followed that he assumed the priority of St. Matthew, and spoke of St. Mark as the abbreviator and humble follower of St. Matthew. St. Luke he held to have copied from the other two. Augustines influence in the Western Church was so transcendent, that his opinion on these intricate questions was accepted without examination until quite modern times. Strange to say, the founders of the famous Tbingen school in theology, though they reversed most of the traditional beliefs, adhered to this. They upheld the priority of St. Matthew, not for any literary reason, but for a dogmatic one. The miraeulous element is somewhat less prominent in St. Matthew than it is in St. Mark; therefore, they argued, he must be the earlier writer.
2. Priority of St. Mark.The notion of the priority of St. Matthew has, however, been so completely beaten off the field, that we need not spend time in refuting it. Suffice it to say that even so conservative a writer as Dr. Salmon, the late Provost of Trinity College, Dublin, admitted that St. Marks is the arehaic Gospel. And no wonder, for it is simple where the others are complex; it is meagre where they are rich; it is a chronicle while they are histories; it contains Latin and Aramaic words which they have translated or removed. For example, in Mar 15:39 we find the Latin word , but in the parallel passages St. Matthew writes and St. Luke . Both Evangelists felt that they must not disfigure their pages with St. Marks barbarism, and the different forms which they used indicate independent action. Who, on the other hand, could suppose that St. Mark found in St. Matthew, and deliberately altered it into , or that St. Luke found , and deliberately altered it into ? For these and other reasons it is maintained in all orthodox schools of criticism that St. Matthew and St. Luke made use of St. Mark. Indeed, St. Marks Gospel furnishes the historical framework for the others. Equally certain is it that St. Matthew and St. Luke were unacquainted with each others writings. Whatever agreement exists between them in non-Markan sections comes from their use of a common source. Augustine therefore is wrong in every particular.
3. The doctrine of a proto-Mark, of a deutero-Mark, and of a trito-Mark.It has, however, long been debated whether St. Marks Gospel in its complete form lay before St. Matthew and St. Luke. Many critics have held that St. Luke, at any rate, had only an Urmarkusa term which has been used in Germany to signify a document shorter than our St. Mark, earlier in date, and free from those picturesque additions which strike the reader of St. Marks Gospel. Of late years there has been a growing tendency, both in Germany and in England, to repudiate the doctrine of an Urmarkus. Dr. Swete, without arguing the question at length, expresses the opinion that we can dispense with it. The Dean of Westminster is more positive in setting it aside. Nor is this surprising. Those who reject the oral hypothesis are beginning to feel that they cannot multiply documents at pleasure. Litera scripta manet. If St. Marks Gospel circulated in the Apostolic age in three widely different editions, it is impossible to believe that the first and second editions perished without being noticed by such scholars as Origen and Jerome. Nor is it conceivable, as some maintain, that St. Mark entrusted his first edition to St. Luke, who incorporated it into his Gospel, but allowed no one else to make use of it. No wonder that with men who have an historical sense such hypotheses are unpalatable. But the oral hypothesis readily admits of, nay requires, these gradual growths in St. Mark. Under it there is no difficulty whatever in believing that St. Lukes (oral) St. Mark was much shorter than St. Matthews, and that St. Matthews had not received the final touches. In fact, the oral hypothesis solves the Synoptic Problem. The documentary hypothesis fails to do so. Both are equally hypothetical. And those who declare the oral hypothesis to be incredible have never, as yet, fairly tackled the arguments on which it rests, or sufficiently taken into account the habits of the East and of that age. This, however, is not the place to plead for the oral hypothesis, nor has the present writer any wish to do more than demand for it a dispassionate consideration. In the examination which follows he will not assume its truth.
ii. Analysis of St. Lukes Gospel according to the sources used
1. First SourceSt. Mark.St. Marks Gospel (oral or written) was not merely used by St. Luke, it forms the backbone of his Gospel. It is hardly too much to say that without St. Mark there would have been neither a St. Luke nor a St. Matthew. But, as we have already intimated, there is strong reason for concluding that St. Luke used a much shorter work, not merely than our St. Mark, but than the St. Mark which lay before the redactor of St. Matthew. In short, he used an Urmarkus or an (oral) proto-Mark. By adopting this view we account at once (a) for his omissions, (b) for his variations from St. Marks order. He omitted nothing which his St. Mark contained: he adhered to St. Marks order in every section which he took directly from St. Mark. The marvellous simplification of the Synoptic Problem which this view offers can be appreciated only by those who have seriously endeavoured to explain to themselves and justify to others St. Lukes omissions and his order.
But St. Lukes omissions are so important that we must consider them at some length. In the Synopsis St. Marks Gospel is divided into 223 sections, of which St. Luke omits 54. A group of sections is omitted between Mar 3:22; Mar 4:1. A much larger groupamounting to more than two out of St. Marks 16 chaptersis omitted between Mar 6:17; Mar 8:26. The remaining omissions consist of single sections scattered over the rest of St. Marks Gospel. Only from Mark 2, 5 are no sections omitted. It is manifestly the duty of the critic to account for these omissions, and attempts have been made by harmonists to do so. Thus they have suggested (1) that St. Luke omitted what his readers would not value: being a Gentile himself, and writing for Gentiles, he naturally omitted sections which dealt with questions of Jewish interest; (2) that he objected to repetition, and left out what he regarded as dittographies; e.g. having given the feeding of 5000, he thought it unnecessary to narrate the feeding of 4000; having described the anointing of our Lords feet, he deemed it superfluous to record the anointing of His head. These reasons, however, are quite inadequate. St. Luke is particularly fond of alluding to Jewish customs, and Gentile Christians have always taken a deep interest in them. Furthermore, the great majority of his omissions cannot be accounted for under either of the above heads. Thus he omits 25 out of St. Marks 86 proper names. He does so in defiance of his instincts as an historian (Wright, NT Problems, 5690). Again, he omits the healing of the Syrophnicians daughter (Mar 7:24-30)the only case in which our Lord is recorded to have healed a Gentile. He omits the only journey which our Lord is said to have taken through Gentile lands (Mar 7:31 to Mar 8:10). He omits our Lords teaching about the inferiority of the moral precepts of the Old Testament to those of the New (Mat 5:27; Mat 5:31; Mat 5:33; Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43). All these topics were of overwhelming interest to Gentile readers, and we find it impossible to believe that St. Luke deliberately rejected them. The only satisfactory hypothesis is that he was not acquainted with them, as be would not he if he used a shorter recension of St. Mark and of the Login.
(a) Now, if St. Luke used an earlier recension of St. Mark, whether oral or written, it is reasonable to suspect that in several places he has preserved for us the primitive Petrine wording. He will occasionally be nearer to St. Peters teaching than is either St. Matthew or St. Mark. For, if the trito-Mark has made many additions to the primitive records, so also has he sometimes altered the tradition. In the index to the Synopsis nine passages are pointed out in which St. Lukes account is held to be the oldest, but there are probably many more. At any rate it is of the greatest advantage to the critic to feel that he is not always bound to vindicate the priority of St. Mark in details, however highly he may value it on the whole. And although subjective reasoning must always be received with caution, it ought not to be altogether discarded.
(b) Although St. Luke omits, as we have seen, 54 out of St. Marks 223 sections, he does not always omit them entirely, but has preserved short fragments or scraps of 24 out of the 54. These scraps are always misplaced in his Gospel. In fact, the departure from St. Marks order is our chief means of detecting them. (They may be seen in the Synopsis, Table I. a). No one is likely now to maintain that these scraps were copied directly from a written St. Mark. It is surely incredible that they should have been torn from their context and misplaced. But if these scraps came to St. Luke orally, is it conceivable that he was so careless as never to have discovered that he had a full account of them in writing before him? To the present writers mind the very existence in St. Lukes Gospel of these scraps is conclusive proof that he used an abbreviated St. Mark. When, therefore, these scraps reached him, he was not aware that they were Markan. For, if we mistake not, there were in the Apostolic age two kinds of oral tradition, both of which contributed much to the composition of St. Lukes Gospel. First there was a vast body of uncodified fact, rudis indigestaque moles. Striking sayings were remembered apart from their surroundings, striking deeds were recorded without mention of place or person. These passed from mouth to mouth informally. Secondly, there was the regular course of catechetical teaching preserved by those catechists to whose ill-requited toil St. Paul bears testimony in Gal 6:6. From these men St. Luke derived the sections of the proto-Mark in their invariable order: from the former source he derived the scraps of the deutero-Mark together with much other matter.
(c) St. Matthews redactor frequently introduces non-Markan material into a Markan section, mixing the two together to the readers confusion. St. Luke avoids doing this, as a rule, rightly feeling that his sources ought to be treated with respect. But, of course, all the scraps are amalgamated with and lost in other matter.
(d) There are cases in which St. Luke corrects the proto-Mark or forsakes it in favour of other sources. Not only does he polish St. Marks style in a multitude of instances, but in his third chapter he gives (with some additions) the account of the Baptist which he found in the second Source, preferring it to the much shorter account which is found in St. Mark. The same thing is done in Mar 3:22-26. He differs from the proto-Mark in holding that only one of the malefactors who were hanged reviled our Lord, the other turned to Him for help (Luk 23:39). In the account of the Eucharist (according to the true text) he puts the administration of the Cup before that of the Bread (Luk 22:17-19), following in all probability a local liturgical usage of which several traces remain. These changes must have been made deliberately. And in all cases in which St. Luke or St. John corrects St. Mark, it is reasonable to believe that they had good warrant for doing so.
(e) It used to be argued that the testimony of four men is true, and those passages which are found in more than one Gospel were held to be doubly or trebly attested. Criticism has considerably altered our view of this matter. No doubt the Triple tradition deserves special respect. When three Gospels agree verbatim (as they seldom do for more than a few words at a time), they are reproducing a source which must be as old as, and may be considerably older than, any of them. Tradition assigns St. Marks Gospel to St. Peters teaching, and we are entitled to claim that at least the proto-Mark may in large measure be regarded as his work. In this there is scope for apologetics. But it is evident that, if three Evangelists are reproducing the same Source, they may be reproducing its defects as well as its excellences. Their agreement proves the antiquity, but not the infallibility, of the original. Now Papias expressly asserts that St. Marks Gospel is defective in order. And when we examine it critically we find that it is arranged topographically. It takes us first to the Jordan valley for our Lords Baptism, then to Galilee for His ministry; after that comes a journey to Jerusalem, followed by the Passion. Finally, the lost verses must have contained a journey into Galilee, for such a journey is expressly enjoined on the disciples. All three Synopties adopt this arrangement, except that the final journey into Galilee is omitted by St. Luke, belonging, as it does, to the deutero-Mark. Can we accept St. Marks arrangement, supported, as it is, by St. Matthew and St. Luke? Is the testimony of three men true? No one until quite modern times has ever thought so. The traditional account is that it is partly true. The Galilaean ministry was broken by visits to Jerusalem, which St. John alone records. In ignoring them the Synoptists were wrong. But the ministry in Jerusalem which the Synoptists give is assumed to have been unbroken by visits to Galilee, and must therefore merely be adjusted with John 12-20. This is improbable. St. Mark assigns 360 verses to the ministry in Galilee, which is commonly supposed to have lasted three years, 251 to the ministry in Jerusalem, which lasted about a week. Events in real history seldom move so rapidly. Our contention is that St. Mark is, as Papias says, and as his contemporaries probably well knew, defective in arrangement. Not only ought the ministry in the North to be broken by several visits to Jerusalem, but St. Marks account of the ministry in Jerusalem ought to be broken by several visits to Galilee. Both ministries must be split up and dovetailed together, if we would attain to the true sequence of events. St. John corrects St. Mark by putting the Cleansing of the Temple into the first years ministry (Joh 2:13-22) instead of the last. The traditional view that there were two cleansings is discredited in every other case, and is particularly incredible here. But if St. Mark has misplaced it, he has misplaced also some other sections which adhere to it. And although we cannot with any confidence decide at which particular visit to Jerusalem each of the recorded events happened, it is an enormous gain to the historian to be at liberty to distribute them.
2. Second SourceSt. Matthews Logia.When Papias wrote that St. Matthew compiled the Logia (or Utterances of our Lord) in the Hebrew dialect, and each man interpreted them as he was able, he cannot, as the traditionalists suppose, be alluding to our First Gospel, which was written (at Alexandria?) in Greek. Critical opinion is fast coming round to the view that St. Matthew compiled, not a formal Gospel, but a collection of our Lords Utterances, which was incorporated into our First Gospel, and formed so distinctive a feature of it, that the whole book was with some justice called the Gospel according to St. Matthew. And if this collection was originally oral, as many who deny an oral Mark are ready to admit, there is nothing strange in our contention that St. Luke used it, when it was much shorter: in fact, he used a proto-Matthew. In that way we explain his omissions, which are more glaring even than his omissions from St. Mark.
The question of order, which was complex in the case of the first Source, is simple here. For St. Lukes order is entirely different from St. Matthews. Except on the rare occasions when St. Mark furnishes a clue, as he does in the account of the Baptist and of the Temptation, St. Luke arranges the Logia in one way, St. Matthew in another. Which, then, of these arrangements is to be preferred? Which Evangelist reproduced St. Matthews order? Not the redactor of the Gospel according to St. Matthew, for he has massed most of the Logia into five huge Discourses, which are impressive for Church reading, but can hardly correspond to any actual Sermons. Many critics, however, incline to believe that St. Luke has preserved the original order, because he has so scrupulously followed the order of the proto-Mark. Even if he has done so, we must not assume that he is any nearer the truth, for we have no right to suppose that St. Matthew, any more than St. Mark, had regard to anything else in arrangement than convenience in Church teaching. It seems to us, however, that there is considerable evidence to show that originally the Logia were piled one upon another in confused disorder, as they are in the Oxyrhynchus fragment, with no other prefaces than Jesus said or John said. Their arrangement into speeches was the work of later hands (Synopsis, xxv). If so, this was done by the art of conflation, which consists in picking out all the Utterances which dealt with one subject and arranging them into an artificial speech on that subject. Such speeches, of which the Sermon on the Mount is a typical example, do not correspond to any Sermon that was ever preached, but are compiled for the simplification of teaching, and for the preservation of important Utterances which were in danger of being lost. St. Matthew prefers long conflations. One of these covers three chapters (Matthew 5-7), another two (24, 25), and three more one each (10, 13, 23). St. Lukes conflations are shorter, never filling one chapter. They are therefore more numerous (we reckon nineteen of them) and more compact; for, whereas it is difficult to say what is the subject of the Sermon on the Mount or of the Charge to the Twelve, there is no such difficulty with St. Luke. In St. Matthews Eschatological Discourses (24, 25) the prophecies respecting the destruction of Jerusalem and those respecting the Second Coming of the Son of Man are inextricably blended together, as though the redactor regarded the two events as synchronous, whereas St. Luke separates them (Luk 17:20-37; Luk 21:5-38), and it may well be that our Lord habitually did so.
The hypothesis of conflations may come as a shock to those who have been brought up in the belief that the Sermon on the Mount is a single discourse. We credit the Evangelists with some audacity. Their literary morality must not be judged by the standard of this century. They were composing Gospels and not formal histories. They were providing for the need of an age which lived in daily expectation of the return of their Lord. The work was done wisely and well, for it has stood the test of time; but we must understand its limitations if we really care to attain to the truth.
That the art of conflation was a real thing, actually practised by the Evangelists, can be fully proved only by a detailed examination into all the conflations; and for that we have no space now; but it may help to remove prejudice if we compare St. Matthews Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) with St. Lukes Sermon on the Plain (Luk 6:20-49). Both begin with Beatitudes, and both end with the same Warning. We conclude, therefore, that the source contained the nucleus of a sermon. But the proto-Matthaeus had only three short and one long Beatitude, for St. Luke gives no more. In St. Matthew five others have been added by the deutero-Matthaeus. St. Lukes Beatitudes, short and long, are all expressed in the second person, owing to an editorial change made by him for the purpose of securing literary uniformity. In St. Luke, Woes follow the Blessings. St. Matthew contains Woes, but not here. Either, therefore, St. Luke borrowed these Woes from another source unknown to us, or they are mere editorial work to enhance the Blessings. Their close uniformity to the Blessings favours the latter view. The wording of the Warning, with which the Sermons end, has been slightly altered in St. Luke to suit the comprehension of readers who did not live in Palestine, and would not know the action of winter torrents on a wady. Between the Beatitudes and the Warning the Source must have contained some Utterances setting forth the Law of Love. Besides these, St. Matthew has collected much material, St. Luke comparatively little; for St. Matthews Sermon contains 107 verses, St. Lukes only 30. Yet we cannot regard St. Lukes Sermon as an abbreviation of St. Matthews. True, he reproduces 26 out of St. Matthews 107 verses; but he reproduces 32 more of them in other parts of his Gospel, spreading them over no fewer than seven chapters. Again, he gives in his Sermon four passages (Luk 6:24-27; Luk 6:34-35; Luk 6:37-38) which are not found in St. Matthew at all, and therefore do not come from the Logia. He adds two (Luk 6:39-40) which are given by St. Matthew in a different context. We are justified, therefore, in regarding the Sermons as in large part independent conflations. St. Lukes subject, as usual, is precise, being simply the statement of the Law of Love; but the most that we can say for St. Matthew is that he seems here to be setting forth the duty of Christian laymen, while in the charge to the Twelve he gives our Lords teaching about the duty of the clergy.
It is a further proof of the fact of conflation that in some cases, where the subject-matter is so clearly marked that two Evangelists have collected the utterances respecting it, which may have been widely separated in the Source, into one conflation, they have nevertheless arranged the sections in different order. Thus in the Temptation, St. Matthew gives the second and third Temptations in one order, St. Luke in another. In the passage about the Ninevites, and Solomon and the Queen of the South (Mat 12:38-45, Luk 11:24-32), two such differences of arrangement occur. In the Woes on the Pharisees, St. Lukes order (Luk 11:37-54) differs repeatedly from St. Matthews (Mat 23:13 ff.), and the deutero-Matthaeus supplies fresh Woes. It is, of course, possible that St. Luke was dissatisfied with St. Matthews order, and thought to improve upon it; it is more probable that he was not acquainted with it.
In cases where the subject is less clearly marked, the Evangelists collect the utterances into independent conflations. But there is one very instructive example. Both Evangelists have gathered together our Lords teaching on the subject of prayer. St. Matthew has put it into the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 6:5-13), St. Luke into an independent conflation (Luk 11:1-13). St. Luke, however, has very properly included in his conflation the utterance, Ask, and it shall be given you, etc. St. Matthew has put this also into the Sermon on the Mount, but in a different department (Mat 7:7-11). Why is this? The words pray or prayer do not occur in it, and the redactor of St. Matthew, acting, as we are all liable to do, mechanically, did not perceive that this Logion dealt with prayer. St. Luke was more observant.
That the original Logia had no prefaces beyond Jesus said, etc., is shown by four remarkable cases in which St. Matthew (Mat 3:7; Mat 12:24; Mat 12:38; Mat 16:1) applies to the scribes and Pharisees, i.e. to the ruling class, denunciations which in St. Luke (Luk 3:7; Luk 11:15-29; Luk 11:16) are addressed to the lower orders. Plainly the Evangelists were left to gather from the contents of the Logion the persons to whom it was addressed. St. Lukes pronounced dislike of the rabble made him incline to them, while St. Matthews indictment of the upper class led him into the opposite direction. It may well be that both Evangelists were mistaken. At any rate the limitations under which they worked must be acknowledged by all seekers after truth.
The contents of the second Source may be seen in the Synopsis, 187239. St. Lukes parable of the Pounds is identified with St. Matthews parable of the Talents, and St. Lukes parable of the Great Dinner with St. Matthews of the Marriage Feast.
3. Third Sourcea Pauline Collection.If the first Source contained a good deal of triple tradition, and the second Source a good deal of double tradition, the remaining sources consist almost entirely of single tradition. Again, St. Mark contains a small quantity of single tradition, added (we believe) by the trito-Mark. St. Matthew gives a considerable amount; but St. Luke surpasses them both in respect of quantity and interest. And first we must recognize in his Gospel a collection of nineteen discourses, parables, and stories which stand by themselves, and may be called Pauline from their character (Synopsis, 241250). We do not mean that St. Paul had much, if anything, to do with their wording; but some one in sympathy with Pauline teaching must have edited them. Our Lord spoke the words, but credit must be given to the collector who preserved them from oblivion. And if in St. Johns Gospel it is more and more recognized that the mind of the Evangelist east the utterances of our Lord into the peculiar form which they there hold, the same process of redaction may be observed in St. Luke, who comes nearest of the Synoptists to the methods of St. John. The story of the Prodigal Son is the crown of this division, but the stories of the Good Samaritan, of the Pharisee and the Publican, of the woman who washed our Lords feet with her tears, are scarcely of inferior interest, while the parable of the Unjust Steward, when properly interpreted, is full of interest, and that of the Rich Man and Lazarus of difficulty. The more we consider this collection, the more entranced we are with it. It is the very cream of the Gospel, and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to St. Luke.
In all cases, but especially in those of the single tradition, the question arises, How near do our records come to the actual words of Christ? The traditionalists, although they are forced to admit that in the triple and the double tradition some doubt may exist through the divergences in three, or two, Gospels, quietly assume that in the single tradition we have a verbatim report. To this assumption the critic is unable to assent. If the triple tradition was first taught by St. Peter, and confirmed by the general consent of the Churches; if the double tradition was taught by St. Matthew and diffused extensively, the single tradition was later in formation, lays no claim to Apostolic origination, and must have been known to few, or else by its intrinsic interest it would often have found its way into more Gospels than one. It is possible that St. Philip the Evangelist was the worker to whom we are indebted for the third Source; but it is mere guesswork to say so; there are no solid grounds for argument. We do not therefore claim for the single tradition the same authority that we claim for the others. The work of an editor is often conspicuous in it, and always to be suspected. And yet it would be mere scepticism to throw much doubt on these utterances, many of which vindicate their claim to have been given by Him who spake as never man spake. When a witness recollected only one or two sayings of our Lord, his memory would be specially trustworthy. The apologist has no cause to fear, but he must recognize the human element which plays its part in all Scripture. In this division the human element, if we are not mistaken, may be most clearly seen in the narrative of the washing of our Lords feet by the woman who had been a sinner (Luk 7:36-50). Our view of this most perplexing section is that its groundwork belongs to the deutero-Mark, being identical with the Markan account of the anointing of our Lords head. It has been misplaced by St. Luke, but he misplaces all the deutero-Markan sections which he gives. St. Luke agrees with St. John in saying that the feet, not the head, were anointed. In this, according to our contention, St. Luke and St. John are simply following St. Marks original narrative. In the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Mark the feet have been changed into the head, because the Psalmist wrote, Thou anointest my head with oil (Psa 23:5). The early Christians were always searching for fulfilments of Scripture, and in some eases the primitive records have been changed to secure a more complete fulfilment. Such changes appeared legitimate to the literary morality of that age, and we have no right to object (Synopsis, 269).
4. Fourth SourceAnonymous Fragments.To this Source we assign 80 fragments of St. Luke, of which nine are found also in St. Matthew, but, of course, in a different context. If the sections in the third Division lack Apostolic authority, still more probable is it that these do so. Nay, to some of us it may appear their chief glory, as it is of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that their authors are unknown. Hundreds of Christians in Palestine had seen our Lord in the days of His flesh, and every one of them would treasure up some personal reminiscence. The great majority of these have inevitably been lost, but a few were so widely known and so much valued that they forced their way into local Church tradition and so passed into oneseldom into twoGospels. All this is quite certain to the historian. But, of course, difficulties about chronology arise. Probably most of these fragments are widely misplaced. Thus St. Luke (Luk 5:1-11) by a conflation blends the Draught of fishes with the deutero-Markan account of St. Peters Call. St. John places it (in what we believe to be its true position) after the Resurrection (Joh 21:1-14). Now, as St. Luke leaves no room either in his Gospel or in the Acts for a visit to Galilee after the Resurrection, it is at last being confessed that he was not aware of such a visit, and therefore it was quite natural for him to infer that the Draught of fishes belonged to St. Peters Call, and indeed explains his readiness to rise and follow Christ without question. But, if this had been the true connexion of events, it is incredible that St. Mark, if he gives St. Peters account of the call, did not mention it (Synopsis, 13).
If in the deutero-Mark and in the Logia St. Luke was content to find a literary connexion for many of our Lords Utterances, it is no wonder if he did so in the fourth Source. He certainly endeavoured to write, as he says, in (chronological) order, but in many cases he had not the detailed information which was necessary for doing so. St. Lukes Gospel is probably the least chronological of the three (as we shall show hereafter more fully), but in all the Gospels criticism teaches us to value the picture more than the frame; to treasure the Utterance, but esteem at a much lower value the setting which the Evangelist has given it.
5. Fifth Sourcea Private Collection (from the Holy Family?).St. Lukes first two chapters, together with the Genealogy, the Sermon at Nazareth, and the Raising of the widows son at Nain, form our fifth and last Division. Marcion rejected the first two chapters and many other sections from his canon. Wellhausen omits them from his edition of St. Luke. The Bishop of Ely infers from Act 1:1; Act 1:22 that they were no part of the first edition of the Gospel. The present writer has long taught that they are among the latest additions to the Gospel, and that they never were part of the oral teaching: beyond that we can hardly go. The idea that St. Luke issued two editions of his Gospel has gained few converts, and Dr. Blass, its chief advocate, assigns these chapters to both supposed editions. That they proceed from St. Luke is shown by the literary connexions which Sir John Hawkins has traced.
This Division bears testimony to the fact, which Irenaeus records, that there was difference of opinion in the early Church on the question of the Virgin Birth. St. Paul is silent on that subject, showing, perhaps, that it had not been raised in his day. St. John alludes to it in his own peculiar way (Joh 1:45). Both Genealogies seem to have issued from Ebionite circles, in which our Lords descent from Joseph was affirmed. They have been altered with some rather clumsy editorial changes, to make them square with orthodox belief. But the trito-Mark has altered the wording of a passage (Joh 6:3) with a view to support the Virgin Birth (Synopsis, xli), while St. Matthews first chapter and St. Lukes second strenuously assert it. There can be no doubt that, when once the question was raised, it was answered in widely different Churches in no hesitating way. East and West, at Rome and in the provinces, belief in the Virgin Birth became a test of orthodoxy.
In St. Matthew, Joseph is the hero, and all action is taken by him. Mary is kept in the background, in accordance with Eastern feeling. But in St. Luke, Elisabeth and Mary are brought forward. Honour is claimed for women, as it is throughout the Third Gospel.
It is obvious that the story told in these chapters, unless it be regarded as a free invention, must have been derived, directly or indirectly, from the Virgin Mary herself. The style is strangely Semitic, in striking contrast to the four verses of preface. Not only was the original narrative told in Aramaic, but the translator has closely imitated the language and manner of the LXX Septuagint , feeling that he could thus best convey the meaning. Few parts of the Gospel have been more popular than this. The Sermon at Nazareth (Luk 4:16-29) is conflate, much of a (misplaced) deutero-Markan section having been worked into it. But it shows additional information; and long ago the observation was made, that St. Lukes knowledge of events at Nazareth is unique. If he had intercourse with some member of the Holy Family, the mystery is explained.
6. Editorial Notes.The editorial element in all the Gospels is very great, for ancient authors took immense pains to reduce the crude chronicles which they used into literary form. In Herodotus, Thucydides, Livy, and Tacitus the charm of style is all their own, and it must have been gained by unsparing labour. Nor did inspired authors deem it unnecessary to take pains. Nay, the Divine treasure which they held in earthen vessels demanded and received all the skill which they possessed. Both St. Luke and the redactor of St. Matthew are artists of a high order.
Editorial changes, however, though they often improve upon the original, do so at some sacrifice. The substitution of a more elegant word alters the precise meaning of the original. The critics endeavour must always be to recover the primitive wording. And in the triple tradition he can generally feel sure of his ground; in the double tradition there is more room for subjective preferences; while in the single tradition he has little else to guide him. Just where the records are most likely to be obscured, the means of verifying them disappear. We cannot attain to greater certainty than God has given.
St. Lukes editorial contributions are manifold and important. He had sources of information which are closed to us. Even his own opinion is of high value. But, nevertheless, he worked under limitations, and an exact scrutiny throws some doubt upon many of his assertions.
Let us first consider the general arrangement of his Gospel, which, as we have said, depends almost entirely on St. Mark. The first thing which strikes us is the extraordinary fact, that whereas St. Mark describes our Lords last journey to Jerusalem in 52 verses, which St. Matthew expands to 64, St. Luke devotes to it no fewer than 408: more than one-third part of his whole Gospel. How are we to understand this amazing disproportion? First, let us look at the Travel Narrative in itself. It contains a very few and slight Markan scraps: so few, that we are entitled to call the whole of it non-Markan. There is a good deal of matter which has been taken from the second Source; this, of course, is arranged by St. Matthew in an entirely different way. But much of the material is peculiar to St. Luke. For example, sixteen out of the nineteen sections of the third Source are embedded here.
Harmonists say that St. Luke is giving us a Peraean ministry, in which our Lord repeated much of what He had taught in Galilee. But who were these Peraeans, that the wealth of the third Source should have been reserved for them? St. Luke gives us no help in answering that necessary question. Not a single town or village is named until we reach the Markan Jericho. If there was a door open to our Lord at all in Peraea, it would seem to have been among those Galilaean pilgrims who passed through Peraea on their way to keep the Feast. But there are other difficulties. We are distinctly taught that our Lord gradually withdrew from public teaching, first speaking only in parables, and finally confining Himself to the training of the Twelve. But here within a fort-night of His death (though harmonists try to lengthen the journey, and, indeed, change it into several journeys, with visits to Jerusalem and retirements into Galilee of which St. Luke says nothing) some of the simplest and plainest of His teaching is set forth. Again, why does St. Matthew put so many of these sayings into the Sermon on the Mount or the Charge to the Twelve? The theory of repetition is entirely unsatisfactory (NT Problems, 3039).
We have little doubt that a different explanation must be found. If St. Lukes sole guide to chronology was St. Mark, what was he to do with non-Markan matter? The difficulty confronted him continually. New materials reached him, while he taught at Philippi, by every ship which arrived. Seldom did the new fragments contain any clue to their date or occasion. If they were not worked into his oral teaching they would soon be forgotten. Some niche must be found for them. And he began, it would seem, by placing them into this last journey. Slowly they accumulated until they reached their present proportions. The famous Travel Narrative is therefore really a collection of undated material. The extraordinary vagueness which characterizes this Division favours that view. It is discourse matter, but quite indeterminate. Some of the most striking parables have no further preface than He said, and there are no indications of locality except that He was still on the journey. St. Lukes idea was that our Lord brought forth the best of His treasures as the time of His departure drew nigh: it is a noble conception, but not in agreement with what we learn from the other Gospels. The matter (we believe) is scarcely arranged at all, and always wrongly.
If this be so, it is no wonder that we attach low historical value to those editorial prefaces with which St. Luke introduces so many sections in this Travel Narrative, and, indeed, outside it also. Such prefaces appear usually to be inferences from the contents of the passage or transferences from other occasions. Thus the parable of the Marriage Feast according to St. Matthew (Mat 22:1-14) was spoken in the courts of the Temple. But the parable of the Great Dinner, which we identify with it, was, according to St. Luke (Luk 14:15-24), part of a long discourse at a Pharisees dinner table: the machinery of the dinner table is made much of by St. Luke in binding the conflation together. St. Luke stands alone in telling us that our Lord on three occasions (Luk 7:36; Luk 11:37; Luk 14:1) accepted hospitality from Pharisees. There is reason to think that the last two of these occasions are due to transference or assimilation.
St. Luke, like the other Synoptists, seems to have thought that our Lords ministry lasted one year onlythe acceptable year of the Lord (NT Problems, 182194). He appears to have placed our Lords Birth after Herods death, though St. Matthew distinetly places it before that event. For a discussion of this difficult question the present writer may be allowed to refer the reader to his edition of St. Lukes Gospel. Suffice it here to record the conviction that, though St. Luke has done much for us in connecting our Lords life upon earth with secular history, his Gospel is very far from being arranged with the chronological accuracy at which he aimed. He was working in a place and amid surroundings which precluded historical research, and, when he visited Palestine, it was too late to recast the whole work of his life.
Philosophy was sedulously cultivated among the Gentiles for whom St. Luke wrote. All the more earnest thinkers, who were attracted by Christianity, had been brought up as neo-Platonists or Stoics. They would, of course, bring their philosophy with them into their new religion. Christianity became to a considerable extent leavened by Hellenistic thought. This is what our Lord foretold in the parable of the Leaven, rightly interpreted. Now Plato taught the indestructibility of the soul. But in Mat 10:28 God is declared to be able to destroy both soul and body in hell, which is the usual Biblical doctrine. St. Luke (Luk 12:5) has altered this into him who has power to cast into hell. It would seem that he, or his informant, did this to avoid giving offence to the Platonists. In the Markan account of the Agony in Gethsemane (Mar 14:32-42) there is much to perplex a Stoic, who believed that a good man is never perturbed. All trace of agony is absent from St. Lukes account (cf. (Revised Version margin) at Luk 22:43 f.); perhaps because the proto-Mark did not contain it; more probably because St. Luke has deliberately struck it out.
St. Luke has long been accused of Ebionism, because the rich are severely handled in his pages, and because he expressly commands us to part with all our property (Luk 12:32-34); whereas St. Matthew (according to the Greek) bids us only think more highly of the heavenly than of the earthly treasure (Luk 6:19-21). St. Luke was certainly not an Ebionite, or he would not have defended the Virgin Birth or praised Joseph of Arimathaea. In speaking words of severity against the rich he is probably faithfully reproducing our Lords words, which were wont to be incisive. The strongest of all these sayings against the wealthy is preserved in the proto-Mark (Mar 10:25), and it is followed by a declaration in which our Lord Himself cautions us against interpreting His utterances with prosaic literality. Nor have Christians generally supposed that He intended us to pluck out our right eye or cut off our right hand and foot.
The most striking example of editorial addition in St. Luke is that in which he attributes the three hours darkness to a solar eclipse (Luk 23:45). In saying so he cannot be right for many reasons (Comp. of the Gospels, 119).
iii. Points of contact with St. John.If St. Johns teaching was esoteric, intended for advanced disciples only, we shall better understand the rarity of the occasions on which allusions to it are found in the sub-Apostolic age. But that it existed orally for many years before it was committed to writing, is indicated not only by its own characteristics, but by several cases in which it is simpler to assume that one of the Synoptists learned a fact from St. John than that St. John learned it from him. Many passages are pointed out in the index to the Synopsis in which the trito-Mark is held to have drawn from St. Johns oral teaching. There is one case where St. Matthew does so. And we have now to consider cases where St. Luke appears to have followed their example. We have already seen that St. Luke agrees with St. John that our Lords feet were anointed and not His head. But in that matter we held that St. Luke is reproducing the original deutero-Markan statement which has been corrupted in St. Matthew and in the trito-Mark. The trito-Mark tells us that the day of the Crucifixion was Friday (Mar 15:42). This statement St. Luke repeats (Luk 23:54), but in a different context and in different language. The simplest explanation of these peculiarities and of the absence of the words from St. Matthew is that both Evangelists, directly or indirectly, derived their information from St. John. Finally, St. Luke and St. John tell us that the sepulchre in which our Lords body lay was a new one, where no one had yet lain (Luk 23:53).
iv. St. Lukes characteristics.St. Luke the Gentile was cosmopolitan in his sentiments. St. Luke the beloved physician had sympathy for the sorrows of mankind. The words of pity which he records were drawn from the all-compassionate heart of the Saviour, but to St. Luke is due the credit of preserving them from oblivion. To his literary skill we are probably right in attributing some of the beauty of their form. St. Luke the disciple of St. Paul tells of the publican, who durst not so much as lift up his eyes to heaven, but kept smiting his breast and saying, God be merciful to me the sinner (Luk 18:13). He tells of the traveller by the wayside, stripped, wounded, and half-dead, and how the good Samaritan had pity upon him (Luk 10:30-37). He tells of the Prodigal, wandering in thoughtless levity from home, spending his substance in riot and revelry, and then eating the husks which were thrown to the swine; and how the father had compassion upon him and welcomed him home (Luk 15:11-32). He tells of the poor woman who had been a sinner in the city, coming behind and washing the Saviours feet with her tears (Luk 7:36-50); of the robbers appeal on the cross, Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom (Luk 23:39-43). These and other passages which set forth the freeness and fulness of pardoning love have been preserved to us only in the writings of St. Luke, who had more pity for the weak and for the suffering, for widows and for the poor, than any other NT writer.
St. Luke was no idealist. He had a literal, matter-of-fact mind, which blurted out facts without glossing them. We have seen how he records without reservation the command to part with our possessions, as St. Barnabas and others in their first love did (Act 4:36-37). Being a physician, he nevertheless had the strongest belief in the truth of demoniacal possession, understanding literally what was originally given as a burst of insanity (Mar 5:9 with parallels). He stands alone in affirming that our Lord, after His resurrection, ate a piece of broiled fish before His disciples (Luk 24:41-43). To this he refers, probably in Act 1:4, certainly in Act 10:41. Many persons in modern times have felt some difficulty in reconciling this with the general Scripture account of the nature of our Lords resurrection body. It may be one side of the truth which is apt in these days to be ignored; in a coarser age it was the only side that was accepted. Ignatius supports it in the saying which he preserves: I am not an incorporeal demon (Smyr. iii. 1).
v. Date of Writing.St. Lukes Gospel is not, like St. Marks, a bare record of our Lords deeds and words, but, to a considerable extent, a theological exposition of their meaning. St. Luke, like his master St. Paul, has reflected on them, and is anxious to impress on the reader his own ideas about them. Such action demands time. In spite of 1Ti 5:18, we cannot admit that St. Luke wrote before St. Pauls death.
Again, if we observe the treatment in his pages of the destruction of Jerusalem, contrasting his precise language (Luk 21:20) with the vague predictions in St. Mark (Mar 13:14), we can hardly doubt that he wrote after the event, and edited the wording accordingly. The end of the world was not with him, as it was with the redactor of St. Matthew, synchronous with the burning of the Temple. He carefully puts our Lords teaching about the last days into a separate conflation, which he prefaces with a remarkable saying which warns us against a literal interpretation: The kingdom of God is within you (Luk 17:21).
But there are no 2nd cent. ideas in the Gospel, nor anything to throw doubt upon the unanimous and early tradition of St. Lukes authorship. Nor would so obscure a member of the Church have been selected as author if there had not been good ground for the belief. Probably his name stood on the original title-page.
We are, therefore, probably right in assigning the date to about 80 a.d.
Literature.Plummers Commentary (T. & T. Clark) is good on the linguistic side. The Commentaries of Meyer (German) and of Godet (French) have been published in English by T. & T. Clark, but the later German editions of Meyer, edited by B. and J. Weiss, are preferable. In the Expositors Greek Testament the Synoptic Gospels are treated from the side of the higher criticism by A. B. Bruce, but unfortunately the Textus Receptus is used. Wellhausen has translated the Gospel into German with a few critical notes. For comparative study Wrights St. Luke and his Synopsis may be used. In Hor Synoptic Sir J. C. Hawkins has collected statistics of great value. Hobarts Medical Language of St. Luke needs some weeding out, but has never been refuted. A. Resch, in Das Kindheits-Evangelium, as in his other writings, collects an immense quantity of illustrative matter, but the critical standpoint which he adopts is not generally acceptable. Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem?) successfully defends St. Luke as an historian of high rank, but insists too much on his accuracy in editorial details. Blass, in his edition of St. Lukes Gospel and of the Acts, follows Lightfoot in suggesting that St. Luke published two editions of his worksone for Theophilus and another for use by the Church. In this way he accounts for the Western readings, which, however, are found in other books of the NT.
A. Wright.
Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels
Luke, Gospel According To
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
1. The Third Gospel in the Early ChurchOf 2nd cent. writers the following can without doubt be said to have known the Gospel or to imply its previous composition: Justin Martyr (c [Note: circa, about.] . 150 a.d.), who gives particulars found in Lk. only; Tatian, his pupil, who included it in his Harmony (the Diatessaron); Celsus (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 160 or c [Note: circa, about.] . 177), who refers to the genealogy of Jesus from Adam; the Clementine Homities (2nd cent.); the Gospel of pseudo-Peter, a Docetic work (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 165? Swete); the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, a Jewish-Christian work (before a.d. 135, Sinker in Smiths Dict. of Christ. Biog.); the Epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne (a.d. 177); Marcion, who based his Gospel upon Lk. and abbreviated it [this is certainas against the hypothesis that Lk. is later than, and an expansion of, Marcion, as the Tbingen school maintainedfrom the evidence of Irenus, Tertullian, and Epiphanius; from the exact similarity of style between the portions which are not in Marcion and those which are; and for other reasons]; the Valentinians; and Heracleon, who wrote a commentary upon it. The first writers who name Luke in connexion with it are Irenus and the author of the Muratorian Fragment (perhaps Hippolytus), Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandriaall at the end of the 2nd century. If we go back earlier than any of the writers named above, we note that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, and the Didache writer perhaps knew Lk.; but we cannot be certain if their quotations are from Mt. or from Lk. or from some third document now lost, or even from oral tradition. Yet Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp probably quote Acts, and the title of the Didache seems to come from Act 2:42, and this presupposes the circulation of Luke. It will be observed that the ecclesiastical testimony shows the existence of Lk. before the second quarter of the 2nd cent., but we have not, as in the case of Mt. and Mk., any guidance from that early period as to the method of its composition or as to its author.
2. Contents of the Gospel.The preface (Luk 1:1-4) and the Birth and Childhood narratives (Luk 1:5 to Luk 2:52) are peculiar to Luke. The Evangelist then follows Mk. (up to Luk 6:19) as to the Baptists teaching and the early ministry, inserting, however, sections common to him and Mt. on the Baptist and on the Temptation, and also the genealogy, the miraculous draught of fishes, the anointing by the sinful woman, and some sayings (especially those at Nazareth) peculiar to himself. From Luk 6:29 to Luk 8:3 Lk. entirely deserts Mk. The intervening portion contains part of the Sermon on the Mount (not in the order of Mt.), the message of the Baptist, and the healing of the centurions servant (so Mt.) and some fragments peculiar to himself, especially the raising of the widows son at Nain (Lk. practically omits the section Mar 6:45 to Mar 8:26 = Mat 14:22 to Mat 16:12). The Markan narrative, containing the rest of the Galilan ministry, the charge to the Twelve, the Transfiguration, etc., is then resumed, nearly in the same order as Mk., but with some omissions, to Luk 9:50 (= Mar 9:40), where a long insertion occurs (Luk 9:51 to Luk 18:14). After this Luke takes up Mk. almost where he left it (Luk 18:15 = Mar 10:13). The insertion deals largely with the Peran ministry and the journeys towards Jerusalem, and contains many parables peculiar to Lk (the Good Samaritan, the Importunate Friend, the Rich Fool, the Barren Fig-tree, the Lost Sheep, the Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Ten Lepers, the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Publican), and also several incidents and sayings peculiar to Lk., e.g. the Mission of the Seventy; this section also has portions of the Sermon on the Mount and some parables and sayings common to Mt. and Lk., a few also which are found in other parts of Mk. From Luk 18:15 to the end the Markan narrative is followed (from Luk 19:45 to Luk 22:14 very closely) with few omissions, but with some insertions, e.g. the parable of the Pounds, the narrative of Zacchus, of the Penitent Robber, of the two disciples on the Emmaus road, and other incidents peculiar to Lk. In the Passion and Resurrection narrative Luke has treated Mk. very freely, adding to it largely, and in several cases following other sources in preference.
Viewing the Third Gospel as a whole, we may with Dr. Plummer divide it thus: Preface, Luk 1:1-4; Gospel of the Infancy, Luk 1:5 to Luk 2:52; Ministry, mainly in Galilee, Luk 3:1 to Luk 9:60; Jourueyings towards Jerusalem, and the Ministry outside Galilee, Luk 9:51 to Luk 19:28; the Ministry in Jerusalem in the last days, Luk 19:29 to Luk 21:28; the Passion and Resurrection, 2224.
3. The Sources.The preface (Luk 1:1-4), the only contemporary evidence of the manner in which Gospels were written, tells us that the Evangelist knew of written Evangelic narratives, and had access to eye-witnesses, though he himself had not seen the events which he chronicles. Of the former sources (documents), the preceding section will lead us to name two (see also art. Gospels), namely the Petrine tradition (see art. Mark [Gospel acc. to]), which is our Mk. or else something very like it, and which the First Evangelist also used; and another, which is often called the Logia, but which it is safer to call the non-Markan document, which is a common source of Mt. and Lk., but which is now lost (see art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to]). In the use of the latter the order of Lk. differs greatly from that of Mt., and the question arises which of the two Evangelists has followed this source the more closely. Now we have seen ( 2) that Luke has followed the order of his Markan source very closely; it is therefore probable that he did the same with the non-Markan document. We may then presume that the order of the latter is more faithfully reproduced in Lk. than in Mt.With regard to the sections peculiar to Lk. we must probably separate Luk 1:5 to Luk 2:52 from the rest. This section has a strong Aramaic tinge; it is an episode of family history of the most private character (Ramsay); it is told from the point of view of a woman, and is full of womanly touches; it represents the Mary side of the story, while the narrative in Mt. represents the Joseph side. It is therefore highly probable that the ultimate, if not the immediate, source was the Virgin Mother, and that the story had not passed through many hands. Some postulate an Aramaic written source for this section (Plummer). But it is by no means certain that Luke the Gentile understood Aramaic; and the character of the narrative rather points to an oral source (Ramsay). The introduction of the Aramaic style (which begins abruptly at Luk 1:5 after the very Greek preface) may probably be an intentional change on the authors part, and be due to a diligent study of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] . For the rest of the matter peculiar to Lk., it is usual, perhaps rightly, to assume a special source, oral or written; but it must be observed that the silence of Mt. does not negative the supposition that much or most of this matter was contained in the non-Markan document. Silence does not necessarily mean ignorance.
Assuming now (see 5) that the author was Luke, Pauls companion, we can see at once that he was in a position to gather together not only written materials, but also first-hand oral reports. The two years at Csarea (Act 24:27) would give him good opportunities for collecting materials both for the Gospel and for Acts. Mary may well have been alive at the time (c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 57), or at least Luke may have met several of the women best known to her. And both in Palestine at this time and later at Rome, he would have direct access to Apostolic information: in the former case, of several of the Twelve; in the latter, of St. Peter. At Rome he would probably read the written Petrine tradition, his Markan source.
We must notice that Lk. is not the Pauline Gospel in the same sense that Mk. is the Petrine. St. Paul could not be a source as St. Peter was; and indeed the preface to Lk. contradicts such an idea. Yet the Pauline influence on Luke is very great, not only in his ideas but in his language. Many words and phrases are peculiar in NT to Luke and Paul. Among other topics insisted on by both may be mentioned the universality of the Gospel (Luk 3:5 f., Luk 4:24 ff., Luk 10:29 ff., Luk 13:29 etc.).
As a detail in the consideration of the treatment of his sources by Luke, we may notice the Lords Prayer, which is much shorter in Lk. than in Mt. (see RV [Note: Revised Version.] ). Does this mean that the Prayer was delivered twice, in two different forms, or that Luke abbreviated the original, or that Matthew enlarged it? The first hypothesis is a priori quite probable; but if we have to choose between the two others, the presence of the Lukan phrase day by day (Luk 11:3, so Luk 19:47, Act 17:11, not elsewhere in NT), and of others which seem to be simplifications (as we forgive for we have forgiven of Mt. RV [Note: Revised Version.] , or sins for debts of Mt.), points to the Matthan prayer being the original. But it is difficult to believe that either Evangelist would deliberately alter the Lords Prayer as found in his sources; the case is not parallel with other alterations. If we hold the Prayer to have been given only once, the most probable explanation of the differences would seem to be that, our Lord not haying laid down fixed rules for worship, but only general principles, the first Christians did not feel bound to use, or did not know, His ipsissima verba; hence the liturgical usage with regard to the Prayer would vary. The First and Third Evangelists might well incorporate in their Gospels that form to which they were accustomed in worship. We must not forget also that as originally delivered the Prayer was, doubtless, in Aramaic, and so in any case we have not Jesus exact words.
4. The writers style and interestsThe Third Evangelist is at once the most literary and the most versatile of the four. The sudden change from a classical to an Aramaic style at Luk 1:5 has been noticed in 3; when the writer is working on the Petrine tradition, and the non-Markan document, the Aramaic tinge is much less marked. The same thing is seen in Acts, where the early chapters have a strong Aramaic tinge which is absent from the rest. Yet the special characteristics of language run through both the books, and their integrity and common authorship, is becoming more and more certain. The writer has a keen sense of effective composition, as we see by the way in which he narrates his incidents (e.g. that of the sinful woman, Luk 7:36 ff.). Yet his descriptions are not those of an eyewitness; the autoptic touches which we find in the Second Gospel (see Mark [Gospel acc. to]) are absent here. The authors interests are manyhis sympathy with women, his domestic tone shown by the social scenes which he describes, his medical language and descriptions of cures (a large number of technical phrases used by Greek medical writers and by Luke have been collected), and his frequent references to angels, are clearly marked in both books. It has been said that in his Gospel he avoids duplicates; but this statement can hardly stand examination (cf. the two songs (Luk 1:45; Luk 1:68), the two feasts (Luk 5:29, Luk 19:5), the mission of the Twelve and of the Seventy (Luk 9:1, Luk 10:1), the two disputes as to who is the greatest (Luk 9:45, Luk 22:24), etc.).
The Evangelic symbol usually ascribed by the Fathers to Luke is the calf, though pseudo-Athanasius gives him the lion; and it is said that the Gospel has a sacrificial aspect, the calf being the animal most commonly used for sacrifice. But this appears to be very fanciful, and it is not easy to see why Lk. is more sacrificial than the other Gospels.
5. Authorship and date.(a) The Third Gospel and Acts have the same author. Both books are addressed to the same person, Theophilus; the style of both is identical, not only in broad features, but in detail (see 4), and Act 1:1 refers to a former (or first) treatise. Thus, if the author is not the same in both cases, the later writer has deliberately interwoven into his book the whole style of his predecessor, in a manner that absolutely defies detection. That this should have happened is a gross Improbability. (b) We have no external evidence of authorship before Irenus, who names Luke ( 1). But the internal evidence of Acts is very strong that the writer was Luke, the companion of St. Paul (see art. Acts of the Apostles). We must therefore conclude either that the author was Luke, or that he wished to pass for him. The latter hypothesis is maintained by some on the ground that the writer is indebted to Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 94. It may be remarked that this fact, if proved, would not preclude the Lukan authorship, for if Luke was a young man when travelling with St. Paul, he might well have been alive and active in a literary sense c [Note: circa, about.] . a.d. 100 (so Burkitt). But it is extremely improbable that he had ever read Josephus. The crucial cases are those of the taxing in Luk 2:2 and of Theudas in Act 5:36, discussed in 7 below, and in art. Theudas, where dependence is shown to be most unlikely (see also art. Egyptian [the]). Other things point to an absence of literary connexion; e.g. Acts describes Agrippas death quite independently of Josephus. The argument from language, on the other side, scarcely deserves serious refutation; the common use of the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] accounts for most of the resemblances (see, further, Plummer, St. Luke, p. xxx; the connexion between Lk. and Josephus is denied by Schrer, Harnack, Zabn, and by most English writers). For the reasons, then, which are stated in art. Acts of the Apostles, we conclude that Luke was the author. It may be added that it is difficult to conceive any reason which the author, if not Luke, could have had for the pretence. Luke was not sufficiently well known for a forger to use his name.
(b) Date.For the reasons just stated we must probably choose a date immediately after Act 28:30 (Blass, Headlam, Salmon, etc.), or else between a.d. 70 and 80 (Sanday, Plummer, Ramsay, etc.). To the present writer the earlier date for Acts, and therefore for Lk., seems on the whole more likely (see art. Acts of the Apostles), and this probability is not diminished by Luk 1:1; Luk 21:20, the chief passages adduced for the later date. Sanday and Plummer think that the earlier date does not allow enough time for drawing up the narratives spoken of in Luk 1:1; but it is not obvious why written Gospels should not have been attempted at an early stage. The passage Luk 21:20, where Jerusalem compassed with armies replaces the abomination of desolation of Mar 13:14, is said to betoken a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, and to describe what had actually happened. But if the change be due to Luke, it is just what we should expecta Hebraism interpreted for Gentile readers (see 6); in any case it scarcely goes further than Dan 9:26. Sir J. Hawkins (Hor Synoptic) thinks that there must have been a considerable interval between Lk. and Acts. The whole question of date is far from certain.
6. Purpose of the Gospel.St. Luke clearly writes for the Gentiles, being a Gentile himself (see art. Acts of the Apostles, 2), and undertakes his task because the works of his predecessors were incomplete,probably as not beginning with our Lords birth,and because he was in possession of good information. He writes to Theophilus, thought by Origen and Ambrose to be an imaginary Christian, but more probably a real person, perhaps, as Ramsay deduces from the epithet most excellent (Luk 1:3), a Roman citizen of rank [this is denied by Blass and Plummer]. He has also in view, however, other Gentile converts. He explains Jewish customs (Luk 22:1), substitutes Greek names for Hebrew (Zelotes for Cananan Luk 6:15, Act 1:13, the Skull for Golgotha Luk 23:33, Master for Rabbi often), is sparing of OT quotations and of references to prophecy, uses Juda for the whole of Palestine (Luk 1:5, Luk 7:17, Luk 23:5, Act 2:9; Act 10:37; Act 11:29; but in Luk 4:44 RVm [Note: Revised Version margin.] and Act 11:1 the more restricted sense is probable), and insists on the universality of the Gospel (see 3). An Interesting detail which shows the readers to whom the book is addressed is pointed out by Sir Wm. Ramsay (Was Christ born at Bethlehem p. 63). In Luk 5:19 Luke alters the description of the breaking up of the mud roof through which the paralytic was let down (Mar 2:4)a description which would be unintelligible to a Westernand speaks of the man being let down through the tiles.
7. Accuracy of LukeVery different estimates have been made as to the trustworthiness of Luke as a historian. He is the only Evangelist who connects his narrative with contemporary events in the world at large (Luk 2:1 f., Luk 3:1, Act 11:28; Act 18:2; Act 24:27, etc.), and who thus gives us some opportunities of testing his accuracy. His accuracy has been assailed by a large number of scholars, and as strongly defended by others. The former fix especially on two points: (a) Gamaliels speech about Theudas (Act 5:36 f.) is said to be absolutely unhistorical, and to be an invention of the writer, who had read and misread Josephus (see 5 and art. Theudas). (b) The reference to the enrolment (AV [Note: Authorized Version.] taxing) in Luk 2:1 ff. is said to be also unhistorical. It is objected that Augustus did not order a general enrolment, that if he did, the order did not apply to Herods kingdom, and that, even if it did so apply, there was no reason why Joseph and Mary should go to Bethlehem; that no census had been made in Juda till a.d. 67, when Quirinius was governor of Syria (the census Act 5:37, Josephus); and that Quirinius was never governor of Syria in Herods lifetime (he died b.c. 4). As against these objections it used to be urged that Luke was accurate in most particulars, but that he made a mistake about Quirinius only. Now Luke does not say that a Roman census was being made in Palestine when Jesus was born; the enrolment is said by him to have been tribal and according to lineage, not according to the place where persons happened to be at the time, as was the Roman custom. He says that this was the first of a series of enrolments, and that Augustus instituted the rule of enrolments for the [Roman] worldthis is the force of the Greek phrase used. A remarkable confirmation of Lk. has recently come to light, by the discovery in Egypt of some papyri which show that periodic enrolments by households in a cycle of 14 years did as a matter of fact take place in that country. Many actual census papers, beginning a.d. 20, have been found. This fact is confirmed by Clement of Alexandria. Sir Wm. Ramsay, in his fascinating work (Was Christ born at Bethlehem? 1st ed. 1898), argues with much probability that the first enrolment in Syria was in b.c. 8, and that the 14 years cycle was used. The second enrolment would be that of Act 5:37, which led to great riots in Palestine, because the Roman system, so offensive to Jewish patriotism, was then first introduced. No such riots are said by Luke to have occurred at the census when Jesus was born. Ramsay gives reasons for thinking that this was because Herod, ruling a semi-independent kingdom, though he could not from fear of losing Augustus favour forego the census (this agrees with Josephus account of his relations with Rome), yet conducted it in Jewish fashion, and postponed it for a year or two. This would give b.c. 6 (summer) for our Lords birth. All this fits in well with Luke. The difficulty of Quirinius alone remains. An inscription found near Tibur makes it probable that he was for the second time governor of Syria a.d. 69. He was consul b.c. 12; and his former governorship must therefore have fallen between these dates. In a technical argument Ramsay urges that Quirinius, during a time of war, held in b.c. 6 a special office in Syria as the Emperors deputy, with command of the forces, while another was civil governor; and that Lukes phrase (lit. while Quirinius was ruling Syria) suits this state of affairs. This would completely vindicate Lukes accuracy. Cf. Quirinius.
The accuracy of the Gospel is really vouched for by the remarkable accuracy of Acts, which gives so many opportunities of testing it (see art. Acts of the Apostles, 12, and also art. Lysanias). But it may be asked whether Luke was a good chronologer. Did he really write in order (Luk 1:3)? This phrase does not necessarily imply chronological order; it may merely imply method. Yet the chronological note in Luk 3:1 leads us to think that Luke meant the former, though he certainly is less definite as to dates than Josephus or Tacitus, who were able to consult public records. Sir Wm. Ramsay decides that he had little of the sense for chronology. It may be said, however, that he had more of this characteristic than his predecessors. The sources used by him had probably few, if any, marks of time. The earliest generation of disciples did not write histories for posterity, but religious narratives to teach their contemporaries faith. Luke, however, does insert some definite chronological landmarks; we may be certain that they come from him and not from his sources. He shows his trustworthiness in giving dates when he can do so; and when he has no information he does not pretend to guide us.
A. J. Maclean.