Bible Commentaries
Luke

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

General Editor: J. J. S. PEROWNE, D.D.,

Bishop of Worcester.

The Gospel According

to

St Luke,

with maps, notes and introduction

by

The Ven. f. w. farrar, d. d.

archdeacon of westminster.

edited for the syndics of the university press.

Cambridge:

at the university press

London: C. J. CLAY and SON,

cambridge university press warehouse,

ave maria lane.

1891

[ All Rights reserved .]

Preface

By The General Editor

The General Editor of The Cambridge Bible for Schools thinks it right to say that he does not hold himself responsible either for the interpretation of particular passages which the Editors of the several Books have adopted, or for any opinion on points of doctrine that they may have expressed. In the New Testament more especially questions arise of the deepest theological import, on which the ablest and most conscientious interpreters have differed and always will differ. His aim has been in all such cases to leave each Contributor to the unfettered exercise of his own judgment, only taking care that mere controversy should as far as possible be avoided. He has contented himself chiefly with a careful revision of the notes, with pointing out omissions, with suggesting occasionally a reconsideration of some question, or a fuller treatment of difficult passages, and the like.

Beyond this he has not attempted to interfere, feeling it better that each Commentary should have its own individual character, and being convinced that freshness and variety of treatment are more than a compensation for any lack of uniformity in the Series.

Deanery, Peterborough,

14 th Feb . 1880.

Contents

I. Introduction

Chapter I . The Gospels

Chapter II . Life of St Luke

Chapter III . Authenticity of the Gospel

Chapter IV . Characteristics of the Gospel

Chapter V . Analysis of the Gospel

Chief Uncial MSS. of the Gospels

The Herods

II. Notes

III. Excursus I VII

IV. Index

Map I. Environs of Jerusalem

Map II. Palestine

Map III. Galilee

Map IV. Sea of Galilee

“Luke the beloved, the sick soul’s guide.”

Keble.

Almighty God who calledst Luke the Physician, whose praise is in the Gospel, to be an Evangelist and Physician of the soul: May it please Thee that by the wholesome medicines of the doctrine delivered by him, all the diseases of our souls may be healed; through the merits of Thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Collect for St Luke’s Day .

Introduction

Chapter I

The Gospels

The word Gospel 1 1 By euphony for godspel , as gossip for godsib, and gossamer for god-summer. The word seems to have acquired its currency from Wyclif’s translation. On the title “New Testament” see note on 22:20. is the Saxon translation of the Greek Euangelion . In early Greek (e. g. in Homer) this word meant the reward given to one who brought good tidings. In Attic Greek it also meant a sacrifice for good tidings but was always used in the plural euangelia . In later Greek, as in Plutarch and Lucian, euangelion meant the good news actually delivered. Among all Greek-speaking Christians the word was naturally adopted to describe the best and gladdest tidings ever delivered to the human race, the good news of the Kingdom of God. In the address of the Angel to the shepherds we find the words “ I bring you good tidings of great joy,” where the verb used is euangelizomai . From this Greek word are derived the French Evangile , the Italian Evangelio , the Portuguese Evangelho , &c. Naturally the word which signified “good news” soon came to be used as the title of the books which contained the history of that good news.

The existence of four separate, and mainly if not absolutely, independent Gospels, is a great blessing to the Church of Christ. It furnishes us with such a weight of contemporaneous testimony as is wanting to the vast majority of events in Ancient History. A fourfold cord is not easily broken.

Of these four Gospels the first three are often called the Synoptic Gospels. The Greek word Synopsis has the same meaning as the Latin Conspectus , and the first three Evangelists are called “Synoptists” because their Gospels can be arranged and harmonised, section by section, in a tabular form, since they are mainly based on a common outline. The term appears to be quite modern, but has been rapidly brought into general use, probably by Griesbach. It is intended to indicate the difference of plan which marks these Gospels as compared with that of St John 1 1 See Holtzmann in Schenkel, Bibel-Lexicon , s. v. Evangelien; and Ebrard in Herzog, s. v. Harmonie. I am not aware of any earlier use of the word “Synopsis,” as applied to a tabular view of the first three Gospels, than Georgii Sigelii Synopsis historiae Jes. Christi quemad-modum Matthaeus, Marcus, Lucas descripsere in forma tabulae proposita . Noribergae. 1585. Folio. .

In the Synoptic Gospels we find much that is common to all, and something which is peculiar to each. It has been ascertained by Stroud that “if the total contents of the several Gospels be represented by 100, the following table is obtained 2 2 Westcott, Introd. to the Study of the Gospels , p. 179. :

St Mark has 7 peculiarities , and 93 coincidences . St Matthew has 42 peculiarities , and 58 coincidences . St Luke has 59 peculiarities , and 41 coincidences . St John has 92 peculiarities , and 8 coincidences . Reuss has further calculated that the total number of verses common to all the Synoptists is about 350; that St Matthew has 350 verses peculiar to himself, St Mark 68, and St Luke 541. The coincidences are usually in the record of sayings: the peculiarities in the narrative portion. In St Matthew, the narrative occupies about one fourth; in St Mark one half; and in St Luke one third.

Another important fact is that when St Matthew and St Luke verbally agree, St Mark always agrees with them; that the resemblances between St Luke and St Mark are much closer than those between St Luke and St Matthew 3 3 Bp. Marsh, On Michaelis , v. 317. ; that where St Mark has additional touches St Luke usually has them also, but not when these additions are found only in St Matthew; and that where St Mark is silent, St Luke often differs from St Matthew 1 1 Reuss. To give the passages and details would occupy too much space. They are adduced in several critical editions, and are sometimes noticed in the notes. St Luke and St Matthew both give but few passages omitted by St Mark (e. g. the Lost Sheep, Matt. 18:12 14; Lk. 15:4 7, and compare Matt. 8:5 sq., 22:1 sq. with Lk. 7:1 sq., 14:15 sq.). .

The dates at which the four Gospels were published cannot be ascertained with certainty; but there are some reasons to believe that St Matthew’s was written first, possibly in Aramaic, and about a. d. 64; that St Mark’s and St Luke’s were published within a few years of this date 2 2 Some writers think that the Gospel of St Luke was written as early as a.d. 60, during St Paul’s imprisonment at Caesarea. The subject is not one on which positive certainty can be attained; but the absence of any direct reference to this Gospel in the Epistles of the Captivity and the Pastoral Epistles, and the comparatively late date at which it is authoritatively recognised by name as canonical, make it more probable that it was not published till after the death of St Paul. , and certainly before the destruction of Jerusalem in a. d. 70; and that St John’s was written in old age at Ephesus before the year a. d. 85. It is probable that most, if not all, of St Paul’s Epistles had been written before the earliest Gospel was published in its present form. To what extent the Synoptists were influenced by written records of previous oral teaching is a difficult and complicated question about which there have been multitudes of theories, as also respecting the question whether any of the three used the Gospel of either of the others. That previous attempts to narrate the Life of Christ were in existence when St Luke wrote we know from his own testimony; but it may be regarded as certain that among these “attempts” he did not class the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark. The inference that he was either unaware of the existence of those Gospels, or made no direct use of them, suggests itself with the utmost force when we place side by side any of the events which they narrate in common, and mark the minute and inexplicable differences which incessantly occur even amid general similarity.

The language employed by the Evangelists is that dialect of Greek which was in their day generally current the Macedonian or Hellenistic Greek. It was a stage of the Greek language less perfect than that of the classical period, but admirably plastic and forcible.

St Matthew and St John were Apostles and eyewitnesses of the ministry of our Lord from the baptism of John until the Ascension. The other two Evangelists were as St Jerome says not Apostles but “Apostolic men.” St Mark may have been a partial eyewitness of some of the later scenes of the life of Christ, and it is the unanimous tradition of the Early Church that his Gospel reflects for us the direct testimony of St Peter. St Luke expressly implies that he was not an eyewitness, but he made diligent use of all the records which he found in existence, and he derived his testimony from the most authentic sources. It may be regarded as certain that he sets before us that conception of the Life and Work of Christ which was the basis of the teaching of St Paul 1 1 Irenaeus, adv. Haer. iii. 1 and iii. 14. Tertullian, adv. Marc. iv. 2, 5. Origen apud Euseb. H. E. vi. 25, and id. iii. 4. Jerome, De Virr. Illustr. 7. A long list of words and phrases are common to St Luke and St Paul, which may be seen in Davidson’s Introd. to the New Test . ii. 12 19. The student may compare the following:

St Luke, 4:22. St Paul, Col. 4:6. 4:32. 1 Cor. 2:4. 6:36. 2 Cor. 1:3. 6:39. Rom. 2:19. 9:56. 2 Cor. 10:8. 10:8. 1 Cor. 10:27. 11:41. Tit. 1:15. 18:1. 2 Thess. 1:11. 21:36. Eph. 6:18. 22:19, 20. 1 Cor. 11:23 29. 24:46. Acts 17:3. 24:34. 1 Cor. 15:5.

. Thus we have the Gospel “according to” the view and teaching of four great Apostles, St Matthew, St Peter, St Paul, and St John.

The differences between the Synoptists and St John have been noticed from the earliest ages of the Church. They are mainly these. The Synoptists dwell almost exclusively on Christ’s Ministry in Galilee; St John on His Ministry in Judaea. The Synoptists dwell chiefly on the Miracles, Parables, and external incidents of His work; in St John the prominent feature is the high discourse and inmost spiritual meaning of His life. The Synoptists portrayed Him to the world; St John more specially for the Church. To use a common term they present a more objective, and St John a more subjective view of the Work of Christ. The complete portraiture of the Saviour “comprised the fulness of an outward presence, as well as the depth of a secret life. In this respect the records correspond to the subjects. The first record [that of the Synoptists] is manifold; the second is one: the first is based on the experience of a society, the second on the intuition of a loved disciple.” “The Synoptic Gospels contain the Gospel of the infant Church; that of St John the Gospel of its maturity. The first combine to give the wide experience of the many, the last embraces the deep mysteries treasured up by the one.” “The threefold portrait of Charles I. which Vandyke prepared for the sculptor is an emblem of the work of the first three Evangelists: the complete outward shape is fashioned, and then at last another kindles the figure with a spiritual life 1 1 Westcott, Introd . pp. 197, 234, 231. .” But the object of each and all of the Gospels is that expressed by St John “that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life through His name 2 2 John 20:31. .”

Elaborate and repeated attempts have been made to settle the interrelation of the Synoptists with each other. All such attempts have hitherto failed. Each Gospel in turn has been assumed to be the earliest of the three; and the supposition that the other two worked on the existing narrative of a third has required for its support as many subordinate hypotheses of fresh recension, translation, &c., as the Ptolemaic system of Astronomy required epicycles to account for its theory of the motions of the heavenly bodies. The general conclusion to which all these enquiries seem to point is (1) That there existed in the Early Church a cycle of authoritative oral teaching, which being committed to memory 3 3 The Mishna was similarly transmitted by memory for at least two centuries, and the Jewish scribes of this age were on that account called Tanaim or “repeaters” (from tanah the Chaldee form of the Hebrew shanah ). They were succeeded about a.d. 220, by the Amoraim , or Recorders. tended to assume a fixed peculiarity of diction; (2) That this authoritative tradition would gradually be committed to writing by some of the disciples; (3) That these written memorials would naturally be utilized by those who “attempted” to set forth a continuous sketch of the ministry of Christ; and (4) that the most authentic and valuable of them would be to a considerable extent incorporated into the narratives of the Evangelists themselves. If some such theory as this be not adequate to account ( α ) for resemblances which extend even to the use of peculiar verbal forms ( ἀφέωνται , Luke 5:20 ), diminutives ( ὠτίον , Matthew 26:51 ), and the use of a double augment (Matthew 12:13 ); and ( β ) for differences which extend to the transposition of whole sections, and the omission of entire discourses, at least no more reasonable theory has yet been proposed 1 1 The force of these particular resemblances (which are noted by Archbishop Thomson in the Speaker’s Commentary , 1. p. ix), is a little weakened by the fact that in Mk. 2:9; Matt. 9:2, א , B, &c., read ἀφίενται. It may be doubted whether the other forms were not those generally current in the Hellenistic Greek of Palestine. .

Early Christian writers compared the four Gospels to that river, which, flowing out of Eden to water the garden of God, was parted into four heads compassing lands like that of Havilah of which “the gold is good” and where is “bdellium and the onyx stone.”

“Paradisi hic fluenta

Nova fluunt sacramenta

Quae descendunt coelitus:

His quadrigis deportatur

Mundo Deus, sublimatur

Istis arca vectibus.”

Adam de S. Victore.

A still more common symbol of the four Evangelists was derived from “the Chariot” as the chapter was called which describes the vision of Ezekiel by the river Chebar 2 2 Ezek. 1:5 26. . Each one of the living creatures combined in “the fourfold-visaged four” was taken as the emblem of one of the Evangelists. The applications differed, but the one which has been almost universally adopted, and of which there are traces in Christian Art as far back as the fifth century, assigns the Man or Angel to St Matthew, the Lion to St Mark, the Ox to St Luke, and the Eagle to St John 1 1 See Mrs Jameson’s Sacred and Legendary Art , i. 132 172. . The reasons offered for the adoption of these emblems also differed; but it was usually said that the Man is assigned to St Matthew because he brings out Christ’s human and Messianic character; the Lion to St Mark because he sets forth the awfulness (10:24, 32), energy, power and royal dignity (1:22, 27, 2:10, 5:30, 6:2, 5, &c.) of Christ; the Ox, the sacrificial victim, to St Luke, because he illustrates the Priestly office of Christ; and the Eagle to St John, because, as St Augustine says, “he soars to heaven as an eagle above the clouds of human infirmity, and reveals to us the mysteries of Christ’s Godhead, and of the Trinity in Unity, and the felicities of Life Eternal; and gazes on the light of Immutable Truth with a keen and steady ken 2 2 Aug. De Consens. Evang . i. .” Thus, to quote the eloquent language of Bishop Wordsworth, “The Christian Church, looking at the origin of the Four Gospels, and the attributes which God has in rich measure been pleased to bestow upon them by His Holy Spirit, found a Prophetic picture of them in the Four living Cherubim, named from heavenly knowledge, seen by the Prophet Ezekiel at the river of Chebar. Like them the Gospels are Four in number; like them they are the Chariot of God Who sitteth between the Cherubim; like them, they bear Him on a winged throne into all lands; like them they move wherever the Spirit guides them: like them they are marvellously joined together, intertwined with coincidences and differences; wing interwoven with wing, and wheel interwoven with wheel: like them they are full of eyes, and sparkle with heavenly light: like them they sweep from heaven to earth, and from earth to heaven, and fly with lightning speed and with the noise of many waters. Their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words to the end of the world 1 1 Greek Test ., The Four Gospels, p. xli. .”

But whatever may be the archaeological and artistic interest of these universal symbols, it must be admitted that they are fanciful and arbitrary; and this is rendered more obvious from the varying manner in which they used to be employed and justified. It is much more important to get some clear and unimaginative conception of the distinctive peculiarities of each Evangelist. And at this it is not difficult to arrive.

Combining the data furnished by early and unanimous tradition with the data furnished by the Gospels themselves we see generally that,

i. St Matthew wrote in Judaea, and wrote for Jews, possibly even in Aramaic, as was the general belief of the early Church. If so, however, the Aramaic original is hopelessly lost, and there is at least a possibility that there may have been a confusion between a supposed Hebrew Gospel of St Matthew and the “Gospel of the Hebrews,” which may have been chiefly based on it and which was in use among the Nazarenes and Ebionites. However that may be, the object which St Matthew had in view goes far to illustrate the specialities of his Gospel. It is the Gospel of the Hebrew nation; the Gospel of the Past, the Gospel of Jesus as the Messiah 2 2 It should be carefully borne in mind that these characteristics are merely general and relative . It is not meant that the Evangelists represent our Blessed Lord exclusively , but only predominantly , under the aspects here mentioned. It must not be supposed that any one of the Evangelists wrote with a deliberate subjective bias. They dealt with facts not theories, and in no way modified those facts in the interests of any special view. It is only from the grouping of those facts, and from the prominence given to particular incidents or expressions throughout the several Gospels, that we deduce the predominant conceptions of the inspired writers. . Thus it opens with the words “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham :” the son of David and therefore the heir of the Jewish kingdom: the son of Abraham and therefore the heir of the Jewish promise. That it is the Gospel which connects Christianity with Judaism and with the Past appears in the constantly recurrent formula “ that it might be fulfilled .” So completely is the work of Christ regarded as the accomplishment of Prophecy that in no less than five incidents narrated in the first two chapters, the Evangelist points to the verification of ancient predictions. Another marked peculiarity of the Gospel is its didactic character. It records with fulness five great discourses The sermon on the Mount 1 1 5, 6, 7 ; the address to the Apostles 2 2 10 ; the parables on the Kingdom of Heaven 3 3 13 ; the discourse on Offences and on Forgiveness 4 4 18 ; and the discourses and parables of Judgment 5 5 23, 24, 25. This predominance of discourses has however no bearing on the term logia (‘oracles’) applied by Papias to the Gospel of St Matthew. . These discourses, which all bear on the triple offices of our Lord as Lawgiver, King, and Judge of the New Kingdom, make the Gospel of St Matthew “as it were the ultimatum of Jehovah to His ancient people; Recognise Jesus as your Messiah, or accept Him as your Judge 6 6 Godet, Bibl. Studies , E. Tr. p. 23. But it must be remembered that St Matthew’s point of view is so little exclusive that he can admit passages which point to the evanescence of the Law (Matt. 9:16, 12:7, 8, &c.) and the spread of the Gospel (13:31 sq., 27:19); and he alone narrates the recognition of Christ by the heathen Magi (2:1 sq.). .”

ii. St Mark wrote in Rome for the Roman world, during the imprisonment and before the death of his teacher and spiritual father, St Peter (1 Peter 5:13 ). His Gospel is emphatically the Gospel of the Present; the Gospel of Jesus apart from retrospect or prophecy; of Jesus as the Lord of the World . The speech of St Peter to Cornelius has been called “the Gospel of St Mark in brief.” St Mark’s Gospel consists of “ Apostolic Memoirs ” marked by the graphic vividness which is due to the reminiscences of an eyewitness; it is the Gospel of which it was the one aim to describe our Lord as He lived and moved among men. The notion that St Mark was a mere compiler of St Matthew ( tamquam pedissequus et breviator ejus , Aug.) has long been exploded. He abounds in independent notices which have led many Germans to regard his Gospel, or some form of it, as the original Gospel ( Proto-Marcus, Ur-Marcus ); but this theory is now more or less abandoned.

iii. St Luke wrote in Greece for the Hellenic world 1 1 Hence he omits particulars (e. g. in the Sermon on the Mount) which would have been less intelligible to Greek readers, and substitutes Epistates or Didaskalos (‘Master’ or ‘Teacher’) for Rabbi; ‘lawyer’ for ‘scribe;’ ‘yea’ or ‘verily’ for Amen; the Greek phoros for the Latin census ; the Lake for the Sea of Galilee, &c. . In style this Gospel is the purest; in order the most artistic and historical. It forms the first half of a great narrative which traced the advance of Christianity from Jerusalem to Antioch, to Macedonia, to Achaia, to Ephesus, to Rome. Hence it neither leans to the yearnings of the past 2 2 Thus St Luke has only 24 Old Test. quotations as against 65 of St Matthew, and (except 4:18, 19) none which are peculiar to himself, except in the first two (1:17 25, 2:23, 24) and the 22nd and 23rd chapters (22:37, 23:31, 46). , nor is absorbed in the glories of the present, but is written with special reference to the aspirations of the future. It sets forth Jesus to us neither as the Messiah of the Jews only, nor as the Universal Ruler, but as the Saviour of sinners . It is a Gospel not national, but cosmopolitan; not regal, but human. It is the Gospel for the world; it connects Christianity with man. Hence the genealogy of Jesus is traced not only to David and to Abraham, but to Adam and to God 3 3 Yet St Luke never excludes passages which speak of the spiritual perpetuity of the Law (16:17) and obedience to it (2:22 sq., v. 14, &c.). See too 1:32, 2:49, 19:46, 22:30. This is of course due to the fact that the Evangelists were primarily faithful recorders, and were in no way actuated by party bias. .

iv. One more great sphere of existence remained Eternity. Beyond these records of dawning and expanding Christianity, there was needed some record of Christianity in its inmost life; something which should meet the wants of the spirit and of the reason: and St John dropped the great keystone into the soaring arch of Christian revelation, when, inspired by the Holy Ghost, he drew the picture of Christ, neither as Messiah only nor as King only, nor even only as the Saviour of mankind, but as the Incarnate Word ; not only as the Son of Man who ascended into heaven, but as the Son of God who came down from heaven; not only as the Divine Man but as the Incarnate God. The circle of Gospel revelation was, as it were, finally rounded into a perfect symbol of eternity when St John was inspired to write that “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.… And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”

To sum up these large generalizations in a form which has been recognised by all thoughtful students as giving us a true though not an exclusive or exhaustive aspect of the differences of the Four Gospels, we may say that

St Matthew’s is the Gospel for the Jews; the Gospel of the Past; the Gospel which sees in Christianity a fulfilment of Judaism; the Gospel of Discourses; the Didactic Gospel; the Gospel which represents Christ as the Messiah of the Jew.

St Mark’s is the Gospel for the Romans; the Gospel of the Present; the Gospel of incident; the anecdotical Gospel; the Gospel which represents Christ as the Son of God and Lord of the world.

St Luke’s is 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.

St John’s is pre-eminently the Gospel for the Church; the Gospel of Eternity; the Spiritual Gospel; the Gospel of Christ as the Eternal Son, and the Incarnate Word.

If we were to choose special mottoes as expressive of main characteristics of the Gospels, they might be as follows:

St Matthew: “ I am not come to destroy but to fulfil ,” 5:17.

St Mark: “ Jesus came.… preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God ,” 1:14.

St Luke: “ Who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil ,” Acts 10:38 (comp. Luke 4:18 ).

St John: “ The Word was made flesh ,” 1:14.

Chapter II

Life of St Luke

“Utilis ille labor, per quem vixere tot aegri;

Utilior, per quern tot didicere mori.”

“He was a physician: and so too all his words are medicines of the drooping soul.” S. Jer. Ep. ad Paulin .

If we sift what we know about St Luke from mere guesses and tradition, we shall find that our information respecting him is exceedingly scanty.

He does not once mention himself by name in the Gospel or in the Acts of the Apostles, though the absolutely unanimous voice of ancient tradition, coinciding as it does with many conspiring probabilities derived from other sources, can leave no shadow of doubt that he was the author of those books.

There are but three places in Scripture in which his name is mentioned. These are Colossians 4:14 , “Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you;” 2 Timothy 4:11 , “Only Luke is with me;” and Philemon 1:24 , where he is mentioned as one of Paul’s “fellow-labourers.” From these we see that St Luke was the faithful companion of St Paul, both in his first Roman imprisonment, when he still had friends about him, and in his second Roman imprisonment, when friend after friend deserted him, and was ‘ashamed of his chain.’ From the context of the first allusion we also learn that he was not “of the circumcision,” and indeed tradition has always declared that he was a Gentile, and a ‘proselyte of the gate 1 1 This also appears from Acts 1:19. (See my Life of St Paul , i. 480.) .’

The attempt to identify him with “Lucius of Cyrene” in Acts 13:1 is a mere error, since his name Lucas is an abbreviation not of Lucius but of Lucanus, as Annas for Ananus, Zenas for Zenodorus, Apollos for Apollonius, &c. The guess that he was one of the Seventy disciples is refuted by his own words, nor is there any probability that he was one of the Greeks who desired to see Jesus (John 12:20 ) or one of the two disciples at Emmaus (Luke 24:13 ). Eusebius and Jerome say that he was a Syrian of Antioch, and this agrees with the intimate knowledge which he shews about the condition and the teachers of that Church. If in Acts 11:28 we could accept the isolated reading of the Codex Bezae (a reading known also to St Augustine), which there adds συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν , ‘but while we were assembled together,’ it would prove that St Luke had been acquainted with the Apostle shortly after his arrival from Tarsus to assist the work of Barnabas. In that case he may well have been one of the earliest Gentile converts whom St Paul admitted into the full rights of Christian brotherhood, and with whom St Peter was afterwards, for one weak moment, ashamed to eat. We cannot however trace his connexion with St Paul with any certainty till the sudden appearance of the first personal pronoun in the plural in Acts 16:10 , from which we infer that he joined the Apostle at Troas, and accompanied him to Macedonia, becoming thereby one of the earliest Evangelists in Europe. It is no unreasonable conjecture that his companionship was the more necessary because St Paul had been recently suffering from an acute visitation of the malady which he calls “the stake, or cross, in the flesh.” Since the “ we ” is replaced by “ they ” after the departure of Paul and Silas from Philippi (Acts 17:1 ), we infer that St Luke was left at that town in charge of the infant Macedonian Church. A physician could find means of livelihood anywhere, and he seems to have stayed at Philippi for some seven years, for we find him in that Roman colony when the Apostle spent an Easter there on his last visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20:5 ). There is however every reason to believe that during this period he was not idle, for if he were “the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel” (i. e. in preaching the good tidings) “throughout all the churches” (2 Corinthians 8:18 ), we find him acting with Titus as one of the delegates for the collection and custody of the contributions for the poor saints at Jerusalem. The identification of St Luke with this brother no doubt originated in a mistaken notion that “the Gospel” here means the written Gospel 1 1 Jer. De Virr. Ill. 7. ; but it is probable on other grounds, and is supported by the tradition embodied in the superscription, which tells us that the Second Epistle to the Corinthians was conveyed from Philippi by Titus and Luke.

From Philippi St Luke accompanied his friend and teacher to Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ), and there we again lose all record of his movements. Since, however, he was with St Paul at Caesarea when he was sent as a prisoner to Rome, it is probable that he was the constant companion of his imprisonment in that town. If the great design of writing the Gospel was already in his mind, the long and otherwise unoccupied stay of two years in Caesarea would not only give him ample leisure, but would also furnish him with easy access to those sources of information which he tells us he so diligently used. It would also enable him to glean some particulars of the ministry of Jesus from survivors amid the actual scenes where He had lived. From Caesarea he accompanied St Paul in the disastrous voyage which ended in shipwreck at Malta, and proceeding with him to Rome he remained by his side until his liberation, and probably never left him until the great Apostle received his martyr’s crown. To him to his allegiance, his ability, and his accurate preservation of facts we are alone indebted for the greater part of what we know of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

We finally lose sight of St Luke at the abrupt close of the Acts of the Apostles. Although we know from the Pastoral Epistles 2 2 2 Tim. 4:11. that he must have lived with St Paul for some two years beyond the point which his narrative has there reached, he may not have arranged his book until after Paul was dead, and the course of the narrative may have been suddenly cut short either by accident or even by his own death. Irenaeus ( adv. Haer . iii. 1) expressly tells us that even his Gospel was written after the death of Peter and Paul. The most trustworthy tradition says that he died in Greece; and it was believed that Constantine transferred his remains to the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople from Patrae in Achaia. Gregory of Nazianzus tells us in a vague way that he was martyred, but it is idle to repeat such worthless legends as that he was crucified on an olive-tree at Elaea in the Peloponnesus, &c., which rest on the sole authority of Nicephorus, a writer who died after the middle of the 15th century. The fancy that he was a painter, often as it has been embodied in art, owes its origin to the same source, and seems only to have arisen from the discovery of a rude painting of the Virgin in the Catacombs with an inscription stating that it was “one of seven painted by Luca.” It is not impossible that there may have been a confusion between the name of the Evangelist and that of a Greek painter in one of the monasteries of Mount Athos.

But leaving ‘the shifting quagmire of baseless traditions’ we see from St Luke’s own writings, and from authentic notices of him, that he was master of a good Greek style; an accomplished writer, a close observer, an unassuming historian, a well-instructed physician, and a most faithful friend 1 1 Dr Plumptre, in the Expositor (No. xx. 1876), has collected many traces of St Luke’s medical knowledge (cf. Acts 3:7, 9:18, 10:9, 10, 12:23, 20:31, 26:7, 28:8; Lk. 4:23, 22:44, &c.), and even of its possible influence on the language of St Paul. . If the Theophilus to whom he dedicates both his works was the Theophilus mentioned in the Clementines as a wealthy Antiochene, who gave up his house to the preaching of St Peter, then St Luke may have been his freedman. Physicians frequently held no higher rank than that of slaves, and Lobeck, one of the most erudite of modern Greek scholars, has noticed that contractions in as like Lucas from Lucanus, were peculiarly common in the names of slaves. One more conjecture may be mentioned. St Luke’s allusions to nautical matters, especially in Acts 27:0 , are at once remarkably accurate and yet unprofessional in tone. Now the ships of the ancients were huge constructions, holding sometimes upwards of 300 people, and in the uncertain length of the voyages of those days, we may assume that the presence of a physician amid such multitudes was a matter of necessity. Mr Smith of Jordanhill, in his admirable monograph on the voyage of St Paul, has hence been led to the inference that St Luke must have sometimes exercised his art in the crowded merchantmen which were incessantly coasting from point to point of the Mediterranean. However this may be, the naval experience of St Luke as well as his medical knowledge would have rendered him a most valuable companion to the suffering Apostle in his constant voyages.

Chapter III

Authenticity of the Gospel

Supposed allusions to St Luke’s Gospel may be adduced from Polycarp († a. d. 167), Papias, and Clement of Rome (a. d. 95); but passing over these as not absolutely decisive, it is certain that the Gospel was known to Justin Martyr († a. d. 168), who, though he does not name the authors of the Gospels, makes distinct reference to them, and has frequent allusions to, and citations from, the Gospel of St Luke. Thus he refers to the Annunciation and the Enrolment in the days of Quirinius; the sending of Jesus bound to Herod, the last words on the cross, &c.; and uses in various instances language only found in this Gospel.

Hegesippus has at least two passages which appear to be verbal quotations from Luke 20:21 , Luke 23:24 .

The Gospel is mentioned as the work of St Luke in the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon, of which the date is not later than a. d. 170.

Among heretics it was known to, and used by, the Ophites; by the Gnostics, Basilides and Valentinus; by Heracleon (about a. d. 180), who wrote a comment on it; by the author of the Pistis Sophia ; and by Marcion (about a. d. 140), who not only knew the Gospel, but adopted it as the basis of his own Gospel with such mutilations as suited his peculiar heresies. This fact is not only asserted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, &c., but may now be regarded as conclusively proved by Volkmar, and accepted by modern criticism. Marcion omitted chapters 1, 2. and joined 3:1 with 4:31.

It is alluded to in the Clementine Homilies (about a. d. 175) and Recognitions; and in the Epistle of the Churches of Vienne and Lyons, a. d. 177.

Celsus refers to the genealogy of Christ as traced upwards to Adam.

Theophilus of Antioch (a. d. 170) makes direct allusions to it.

Irenaeus (about a. d. 180) expressly attributes it to St Luke; Tertullian († a. d. 220) and Clemens of Alexandria († about a. d. 216) also quoted it as St Luke’s. Origen († a. d. 254) speaks of the ‘Four Gospels admitted by all the Churches under heaven;’ and Eusebius ranks it among the homologoumena , i. e. those works of whose genuineness and authenticity there was no doubt in the Church.

It is found in the Peshito Syriac (3rd or 4th century), and the Vetus Itala.

Chapter IV

Characteristics of the Gospel

“God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.”

Romans 8:3 .

“The Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Luke 19:10 .

“Whose joy is, to the wandering sheep

To tell of the great shepherd’s love;

To learn of mourners while they weep

The music that makes mirth above;

Who makes the Gospel all his theme,

The Gospel all his pride and praise.”

Keble, St Luke’s Day .

This rich and precious Gospel is marked, as are the others, by special characteristics.

Thus:

(i) St Luke must be ranked as the first Christian hymnologist . It is to his inspired care that we owe the preservation of three sacred hymns, besides the Ave Maria (1:28 33) and the Gloria in Excelsis (2:14), which have been used for ages in the worship of the Church: the Benedictus, or Song of Zacharias (1:68 79), used in our Morning Service; the Magnificat, or Song of the Blessed Virgin (1:46 55); and the Nunc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon (2:29 32), used in our Evening Service 1 1 “Thou hast an ear for angel songs,

A breath the Gospel trump to fill,

And taught by thee the Church prolongs

Her hymns of high thanksgiving still.” Keble. . In these Canticles the New Aeon is represented not merely as the fulfilment of the Old, but also as a kingdom of the Spirit; as a spring of life and joy opened to the world; as a mystery, prophesied of indeed because it is eternal, but now in the appointed time revealed to men 2 2 See Maurice, Unity of the New Testament , p. 236. .

(ii) In this Gospel thanksgiving is also prominent. “The Gospel of the Saviour begins with hymns, and ends with praises; and as the thanksgivings of the meek are recorded in the first chapter, so in the last we listen to the gratitude of the faithful 3 3 Westcott, Introd. to Gospels , p. 354. .” Mention is made no less than seven times of ‘glorifying God’ by the utterance of gratitude and praise (2:20, 5:25, 7:16, 13:13, 17:15, 18:43, 23:47).

(iii) It also gives special prominence to Prayer . It not only records (as Matthew 6:0 ) the Lord’s Prayer, but alone preserves to us the fact that our Lord prayed on six distinct and memorable occasions. (1) At His baptism. (2) After cleansing the leper. (3) Before calling the Twelve Apostles. (4) At His Transfiguration. (5) On the Cross for His murderers, and (6) with His last breath 4 4 See p. 92. . St Luke too, like St Paul, insists on the duty of unceasing Prayer as taught by Christ (18:1, 11:8, 21:36, Romans 12:12 , &c.); and emphasizes this instruction by alone recording the two Parables which encourage us to a persistent energy, a holy importunity, a storming of the kingdom of Heaven by violence in our prayers the parables of the Friend at Midnight (11:5 13) and of the Unjust Judge (18:1 8).

(iv) But the Gospel is marked mainly by its presentation of the Good Tidings in their universality and gratuitousness . It is pre-eminently the Gospel of pardon and of pity. “By grace ye are saved through faith 1 1 15:11, 17:10, 18:11, &c. ,” and “the second man is the Lord from heaven” (1 Corinthians 15:47 ) 2 2 Κύριος, ‘Lord,’ as a substitute for ‘Jesus,’ occurs 14 times in St Luke, and elsewhere only in Mk. 16:19, 20 of the Synoptists. The combination “the Lord Jesus” (if genuine) occurs only in Lk. 24:3, though common in the Epistles. See note on that verse. , might stand as the motto of St Luke as of St Paul. Thus the word ‘grace’ ( charis , eight times), ‘saviour’ and ‘salvation’ (only once each in St John), and ‘tell glad tidings of’ (ten times), occur in it far more frequently than in the other Gospels; and these are applied neither to Jews mainly, nor to Gentiles mainly, but universally 3 3 Sections of St Luke which are in peculiar accordance with those views which marked the Gospel of St Paul (Rom. 2:16) are 4:16 30, 7:36 50, 18:14, 19:1 10, 23:39 43. See Van Oosterzee in Lange’s Commentary , Introd. p. 3, and above, p. 10. . It is the Gospel of “a Saviour” and of “good will towards men ;” the Gospel of Jesus, not only as the heir of David’s throne, and of Abraham’s promise, but as the Federal Head and Representative of Humanity “the son of Adam, which was the Son of God.” And what a picture does this great ideal painter set forth to us of Christ! He comes with angel carols; He departs with priestly benediction. We catch our first glimpse of Him in the manger-cradle at Bethlehem, our last as from the slopes of Olivet He vanishes “into the cloud” with pierced hands upraised to bless! The Jewish religion of that day had degenerated into a religion of hatreds. The then ‘religious world,’ clothing its own egotism under the guise of zeal for God, had for the most part lost itself in a frenzy of detestations. The typical Pharisee hated the Gentiles; hated the Samaritans; hated the tax-gatherers. He despised poverty and despised womanhood. In St Luke, towards every age, towards either sex, towards all nations, towards all professions, towards men of every opinion and every shade of character, our Blessed Lord appears as Christus Consolator; the good Physician of bodies and of souls; the Gospeller of the poor; the Brother who loves all His brethren in the great family of man; the unwearied healer and ennobler of sick and suffering humanity; the Desire of all nations; the Saviour of the world, who “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38 ). In accordance with this conception,

(v) St Luke reveals especially the sacredness of infancy . He alone tells us of the birth and infancy of the Baptist; the Annunciation; the meeting of Mary and Elizabeth; the songs of the herald Angels; the Circumcision; the Presentation in the Temple; the growth in universal favour and sweet submission. And he alone preserves the one anecdote of the Confirmation of Jesus at twelve years old which is the solitary flower gathered from the silence of thirty years. Hence this Gospel is preeminently anti-docetic 1 1 See Van Oosterzee, Introd . p. 4. The Docetae were an ancient heretical sect who denied the true humanity of Christ. . St Luke alludes to the human existence of our Lord before birth (1:42); as a babe (2:16); as a little child (2:27); as a boy (2:40); and as a man (3:22).

(vi) He dwells especially on Christ’s ministry to the world ; that He was to be a Light to lighten the Gentiles, as well as the glory of His people Israel. He alone adds to the quotation from Isaiah respecting the mission of the Baptist the words “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” He alone introduces the parallels of Elijah sent to the heathen Sarepta, and Elisha healing the heathen Naaman; as well as full details of that mission of the Seventy who by their number typified a mission to the supposed number of the nations of the world. St Luke’s Gospel might stand as a comment on the words of St Paul at Athens, that God “hath made of one blood all nations of men … that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from every one of us” (Acts 17:27 ).

(vii) St Luke’s is specially the Gospel of Womanhood , and he prominently records the graciousness and tenderness of Christ towards many women. He tells us how Jesus raised the dead boy at Nain, being touched with compassion because “he was the only son of his mother, and she was a widow.” He alone tells us the remarkable fact that Jesus in his earlier mission journeys was accompanied not by warriors like David, not by elders like Moses, not by nobles and kings like the Herods, but by a most humble band of ministering women (8:1 3). His narrative in the first two chapters must have been derived from the Virgin Mary, and has been thought to shew in every line the pure and tender colouring of a woman’s thoughts. He alone mentions the widow Anna (2:36), and tells us about eager Martha cumbered with serving, and Mary choosing the better part (10:38 42); he alone how our Lord once addressed to a poor, crushed, trembling, humiliated woman the tender name of “daughter” (8:48), and how He spoke of another as a daughter of Abraham (13:16); he alone how He at once consoled and warned the “daughters of Jerusalem” who followed Him weeping to Calvary (23:28). The Scribes and Pharisees gathered up their robes in the streets and synagogues lest they should touch a woman, and held it a crime to look on an unveiled woman in public; our Lord suffered a woman to minister to Him out of whom He had cast seven devils

(viii) He seems to delight in all the records which told of the mercy of the Saviour towards the poor, the humble, the despised (2:24, 6:20 25, 30, 8:2, 3, 12:16 21, 33, 16:13, 19 25, 14:12 15, &c.). Hence his Gospel has even been called (though very erroneously) the Gospel of the Ebionites. He narrates the Angel Visit to the humble maiden of Nazareth; the Angel Vision to the humble shepherds; the recognition of Jesus in the Temple by the unknown worshipper, and the aged widow. He records the beatitudes to the poor and the hungry, the parables of Dives and Lazarus and of the Rich Fool; the invitation of “the poor, the maimed, the halt, the blind” to the Great Supper; the exaltation of the humble who choose the lowest seats; the counsel to the disciples to “sell what they have,” and to the Pharisees to “give alms.” He does not denounce riches, but only the wealth that is not “rich towards God;” nor does he pronounce a beatitude upon poverty in the abstract, but only on the poverty which is patient and submissive. He had learnt from his Lord to ‘measure wisdom by simplicity, strength by suffering, dignity by lowliness.’

(ix) Further, it is specially the Gospel of the outcast , of the Samaritan (9:52 56, 17:11 19), the Publican, the harlot, and the Prodigal. Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost (19:10). See instances in Zacchæus (19:1 10); the Prodigal Son; Mary of Magdala (7:36 50); the woman with the issue of blood (8:43 48); the dying robber (23:39 43). This peculiarity is doubtless due to that intense spirit of sympathy which led St Luke alone of the Evangelists to record that the boy of Nain was the only son of his mother (7:12); and the ‘little maid’ of Jairus his only daughter (8:42); and the lunatic boy his father’s only son (9:38).

(x) Lastly, it is the Gospel of tolerance . There was a deadly blood-feud between the Jews and the Samaritans, and St Luke is careful to record how Jesus praised the one grateful Samaritan leper, and chose the good Samaritan rather than the indifferent Priest and icy-hearted Levite as the type of love to our neighbour. He also records two special and pointed rebukes of the Saviour against the spirit of intolerance: one when the Sons of Thunder wanted to call down fire from heaven on the churlish Samaritan village Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them : the other when he rebuked the narrowness which said “We forbad him, because he followeth not us,” with the words Forbid him not; for he that is not against us is for us 1 1 Lk. 9:49 56. .

We may notice lastly that St Luke’s Gospel is characterised by

(xi) Its careful chronological order (1:3);

(xii) Its very important preface; and

(xiii) Its command of the Greek language 2 2 “Lucam tradunt veteres … magis Graecas literas scisse quam Hebraeas. Unde et sermo ejus … comptior est, et saecularem redolet elo-quentiam.” Jer. ad Damas. Ep . 20. Where the style is less pure, and abounds in Hebraisms, we find internal evidence that St Luke is closely following some Aramaic document in which the oral tradition had been reduced to writing. .

Although there is an Hebraic tinge in the hymns and speeches which St Luke merely records, his own style abounds in isolated phrases and words chiefly classical, and his style is more flowing than that of St Matthew and St Mark. His peculiar skill as a writer lies rather in ‘psychologic comments 1 1 3:15, 6:11, 7:29, 30, 39, 14:14, &c. Bp Ellicott, Hist. Lect. p. 28. ,’ and the reproduction of conversations with their incidents, than in such graphic and vivid touches as those of St Mark. He is also a great master of light and shade, i. e. he shews remarkable skill in the presentation of profoundly instructive contrasts e. g. Zacharias and Mary; Simon and the Sinful Woman; Martha and Mary; the Pharisee and the Publican; the Good Samaritan, Priest, and Levite; Dives and Lazarus; beatitudes and woes; tears and Hosannas; and the penitent and impenitent robber.

It is the presence of these characteristics that has earned for this Gospel the praise of being “the most beautiful book that has ever been written 2 2 This praise is the more striking because of the source from which it comes. The writer adds that it shews “un admirable sentiment populaire, une fine et touchante poésie, le son clair et pur d’une âme tout argentine.” “C’est surtout dans les récits de l’Enfance et de la Passion que l’on trouve un art divin.… Le parti qu’il a tiré de Marthe et de Marie sa sœur est chose merveilleuse; aucune plume n’a laissé tomber dix lignes plus charmantes. L’épisode des disciples d’Emmaus est un des récits les plus fins, les plus nuancés qu’il y ait dans aucune langue.” .”

The Miracles peculiar to St Luke are

1. The miraculous draught of fishes. 5:4 11.

2. The raising of the widow’s son at Nain. 7:11 18.

3. The woman with the spirit of infirmity. 13:11 17.

4. The man with the dropsy. 14:1 6.

5. The ten lepers. 17:11 19.

6. The healing of Malchus. 22:50, 51.

The Parables peculiar to St Luke are

1. The two debtors. 7:41 43.

2. The good Samaritan. 10:25 37.

3. The importunate friend. 11:5 8.

4. The rich fool. 12:16 21.

5. The barren fig-tree. 13:6 9.

6. The lost piece of silver. 15:8 10.

7. The prodigal son. 15:11 32.

8. The unjust steward. 16:1 13.

9. Dives and Lazarus. 16:19 31.

10. The unjust Judges 18:1-8 .

11. The Pharisee and the publican. 18:10 14.

The two first chapters and the great section, 9:51 18:14, are mainly peculiar to St Luke.

And in addition to those already noted above, other remarkable incidents or utterances peculiar to him are John the Baptist’s answers to the people (3:10 14); the weeping over Jerusalem (19:41 44); the conversation with Moses and Elias (9:28 36); the bloody sweat (22:44); the sending of Jesus to Herod (23:7 12); the address to the Daughters of Jerusalem (27 31); the prayer, “Father, forgive them” (23:34); the penitent robber (40 43); the disciples at Emmaus (24:13 31); particulars of the Ascension (24:50 53). Additional touches which are sometimes of great importance may be found in 3:22 (“in a bodily shape”), 4:13 (“for a season”), 4:1 6, 5:17, 29, 39, 6:11, 7:2, &c.

Chapter V

Analysis of the Gospel

Many writers have endeavoured to arrange the contents of this and the other Gospels in schemes illustrative of the dogmatic connexions in accordance with which the various sections are supposed to be woven together and subordinated to each other. Without here giving any opinion about the other Gospels, I must state my conviction that, as far as St Luke is concerned, such hypothetic arrangements have not been successful No two writers have agreed in their special schemes, and the fact that each writer who has attempted such an analysis has seized on very different points of connexion, shews that all such attempts have been more or less arbitrary, however ingenious. It seems to me that if the Gospels had been arranged on these purely subjective methods the clue to such arrangement would have been more obvious, and also that we should, in that case, lose something of that transparent and childlike simplicity of motive which adds such immense weight to the testimony of the Evangelists as the narrators of simple facts. Nor is it probable that the existence of this subjective symmetry of composition would have escaped the notice of so many centuries of Christian students and Fathers. When St Luke tells Theophilus that he had decided to set forth in order the accepted facts of the Christian faith, I believe that the order he had in view was mainly chronological , and that the actual sequence of events, so far as it was recoverable from the narratives ( διηγήσεις ) or the oral sources which he consulted, was his chief guide in the arrangement of his Gospel 1 1 The subordinate notes of time in the great section, 9:51 18:14, are vague. . Various lessons may be observed or imagined in the order in which one event is placed after another, but these lessons lie deep in the chronological facts themselves, not in the method of the writer. The sort of analysis attempted by modern writers has hitherto only furnished each subsequent analyst with an opportunity for commenting on the supposed failures of his predecessors. For those however who disagree with these views, able and thoughtful endeavours to set forth the narrative in accordance with such a predetermined plan may be found in Van Oosterzee’s Introduction , § 5, in Westcott’s Introduction to the Gospels , pp. 364 366, and M c Clellan’s New Testament , 427 438.

The Gospel falls quite simply and naturally into the following sections:

I. Introduction. 1:1 4.

II. The Preparation for the Nativity. 1:5 80.

i. Announcement of the Forerunner. 1:5 25.

ii. Announcement of the Saviour. 26 38.

iii. Hymns of thanksgiving of Mary and Elizabeth. 39 56.

iv. Birth and Circumcision of the Forerunner. 57 66.

The Benedictus. 67 79.

v. Growth of the Forerunner. 80.

III. Nativity of the Saviour. 2:1 20.

i. The Birth in the Manger. 2:1 7.

Songs and thanksgivings of the Angels and the Shepherds. 8 20.

IV. The Infancy of the Saviour. 2:21 38.

i. The Circumcision. 2:21.

ii. The Presentation in the Temple. 22 24.

Songs and thanksgivings of Simeon and Anna. 25 38.

V. The Boyhood of the Saviour. 2:39 52.

i. His growth. 39, 40.

ii. His first visit to Jerusalem. 41 48.

iii. His first recorded words. 49, 50.

iv. His development from boyhood to manhood. 51, 52.

VI. The Manifestation of the Saviour (3:1 4:13), by

i. The preaching of John the Baptist. 3:1 14, and

His prophecy of the coming Messiah. 16 18.

(Parenthetic anticipation of John’s imprisonment. 19, 20.)

ii. By the descent of the Spirit and the Voice at the Baptism. 21, 22.

The Son of Adam and the Son of God. 23 38.

iii. By victory over the Tempter. 4:1 13.

VII. Life and Early Ministry of the Saviour. 4:14 7:50.

i. His teaching in Galilee. 4:14, 15.

ii. His first recorded Sermon, and rejection by the Nazarenes. 16 30.

iii. His Work in Capernaum and the Plain of Gennesareth. 4:31 7:50.

iv. A great Sabbath at Capernaum. 4:31 44.

α . Healing of a Demoniac. 33 37.

β . Healing of Peter’s wife’s mother. 38, 39.

γ . Healing of a multitude of the sick. 40 44.

v. The miraculous draught of fishes. 5:1 11.

vi. Work amid the sick, suffering, and sinful. 5:12 32.

α . Healing of a leper and other works of mercy. 12 17.

β . Healing the paralytic. 18 26.

γ . The Call and feast of Matthew. 27 32.

vii. The Saviour teaching and doing good. 5:33 7:50.

α . The new and the old. 5:33 39.

β . The Sabbath. 6:1 12.

γ . Choosing of the Apostles. 13 16.

δ . The Sermon on the Mount. 17 49.

ε . The centurion’s servant. 7:1 10.

ζ . The widow’s son raised from the dead. 11 17.

η . His witness to John the Baptist. 18 30.

θ . His complaint against that generation. 31 35.

ι . The woman that was a sinner. 36 50.

VIII. Later Ministry in Galilee and its neighbourhood. 8.

i. The first Christian sisterhood. 8:1 3.

ii. Incidents of two great days. 4 56.

α . The first Parable. 4 15.

β . The similitude of the lamp. 16 18.

γ . Who are His mother and His brethren. 19 21.

δ . Stilling the storm. 22 25.

ε . The Gadarene demoniac. 26 40.

ζ . The daughter of Jairus and the woman with the issue of blood. 41 56.

IX. Latest Phases of the Galilean Ministry, and journey Northwards. 9:1 50.

i. Mission of the Twelve. 9:1 6.

ii. Alarm of Herod. 7 9.

iii. Feeding the five thousand at Bethsaida Julias. 10 17.

iv. Culmination of the training of the Apostles. 18 50.

α . The Confession of St Peter. 18 22.

β . Warning of the coming end. 23 27.

γ . The Transfiguration on Mount Hermon. 28 36.

δ . The Lunatic Boy. 37 42.

ε . Nearer warnings of the coming end. 43 45.

ζ . Lesson of Humility. 46 48.

η . Lesson of Tolerance. 49, 50.

X. Incidents of the great final phase of the Saviour’s Ministry after leaving Galilee. 9:51 19:27 1 1 The whole section is sometimes, but inadequately, called the Gnomology , or “collection of moral teaching.” .

i. Tolerance to the Samaritans. The spirit of Elijah and the spirit of the Saviour. 51 56.

ii. The sacrifices of true discipleship. 57 62.

iii. The Mission of the Seventy. 10:1 20.

iv. The Saviour’s joy at its success and blessedness. 21 24.

v. Love to our neighbour. The Good Samaritan. 25 37.

vi. The one thing needful. Martha and Mary. 38 42.

vii. Lessons of Prayer. 11:1 13.

viii. Open rupture with the Pharisees, and connected incidents and warnings. 11:14 12:59.

ix. Teachings, Warnings, Parables, and Miracles, of the Journey in preparation for the coming end. 13:1 18:30.

α . Parables:

The Great Supper. 14:15 24.

Shorter similitudes:

The Unfinished Tower. 25 30.

The Prudent King. 31 33.

Savourless Salt. 34, 35.

The Lost Sheep. 15:1 7.

The Lost piece of Silver. 8 10.

The Prodigal Son. 11 32.

The Unjust Steward. 16:1 12.

Warnings against avarice; Rich Man and Lazarus. 13 31.

β . Shorter sayings:

Offences, 17:1, 2. Forgiveness, 3, 4. Faith, 5, 6. Service, 7 10. Gratitude (the Ten Lepers), 11 19. Coming of the kingdom of God, 20 37. Prayer (the Importunate Widow), 18:1 8. The Pharisee and the Publican, 9 14. Children, 15 17. Sacrifice for Christ’s sake. The Great Refusal, 18 30.

XI. Last stage of the Journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. 18:31 19:46.

i. Prediction of the approaching end. 18:31 34.

ii. The healing of Blind Bartimaeus. 18:35 43.

iii. The Repentant Publican, Zacchaeus. 19:1 10.

iv. The Parable of the Pounds. 10 27.

v. The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. 28 40.

vi. The Saviour weeping over Jerusalem. 41 44.

vii. The Cleansing of the Temple. 45, 46.

XII. The Last Days of the Saviour’s Life. 19:47 21:38.

i The day of Questions. 20.

α . Question of the Priests and Elders. 1 8.

Parable of the Vineyard. 9 18.

β . Question about the tribute-money. 19 26.

γ . Question of the Sadducees. 27 39.

δ . Question of Christ. 39 44.

Last denunciation of the Scribes. 45 47.

ii. Farewell to the Temple, and last warnings. 21.

α . The widow’s mite. 1 4.

β . Prophecy against the Temple. 5, 6.

γ . Signs and warnings of the last times. 7 38.

XIII. Last Hours of the Saviour on Earth. 22:1 23:49.

i. The plots of enemies. 22:1 6.

ii. The Last Supper. Warnings and farewells. 7 38.

iii. The Agony in the Garden. 39 46.

iv. The Betrayal. 47 49.

v. The Arrest. 50 53.

vi. Trial before the Priests, and Peter’s denials. 54 62.

First derision. 63 65.

vii. Trial before the Sanhedrim. 66 71.

viii. Trial before Pilate, and first acquittal. 23:1 4.

ix. Trial before Herod. Second derision, and acquittal. 5 12.

x. Pilate’s endeavours to release Him. The Jews choose Barabbas. Condemnation to Death. 13 26.

xi. The Daughters of Jerusalem. 27 31.

xii. The Crucifixion. 32 38.

xiii. The Penitent Robber. 39 45.

xiv. The Saviour’s Death. 46 49.

XIV. The Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension. 23:50 24:53.

i. The Entombment. 23:50 56.

ii. The Resurrection. 24:1 12.

iii. The Disciples at Emmaus. 13 32.

iv. Appearance to the Twelve, and last teachings of the Risen Saviour. 33 49.

XV. The Ascension. 50 53.

chief uncial manuscripts of the gospels

Sign. Name. Codex Date. Remarks. א Sinaiticus. 4th century. Found by Tischendorf at the monastery of St Catharine, 1859. Now at St Petersburg. A Alexandrinus. 5th century. Now in British Museum. Presented to Charles I. by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1628. B Vaticanus. 4th century. Now in the Vatican Library at Rome. C Ephraemi. 5th century. Now in Paris. A palimpsest traceable under copy of the works of Ephraem the Syrian. D Bezae. 6th century. Greek and Latin. Contains remarkable interpolations. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge in 1581. E Basiliensis. 8th century. An Evangelistarium or Service book. Now at Basle. F Boreeli. 9th century. Now at Utrecht. G Wolfii A. 10th century. At British Museum, and fragment at Trinity Coll., Cambridge. L Regius. 8th or 9th. Now at Tours. M Campianus. 9th century. At Paris. The most important Ancient Versions are

The Peshito Syriac (made in the 3rd century).

The Curetonian Syriac, possibly representing an older form of the Peshito (2nd century). A 5th century MS. of this version was found by Canon Cureton in the British Museum.

The Philoxenian Syriac (made in the 6th century).

The Jerusalem Syriac (5th or 6th century).

The Vetus Itala is the oldest existing form of a Latin Version made in the 2nd century.

The Vulgate is mainly St Jerome’s revision of the Vetus Itala, a. d. 383 5.

The Sahidic or Thebaic and the Memphitic (2nd or 3rd century).

The Gothic Version of Bp Ulfilas (4th century).

THE HERODS ( as mentioned in the Gospels and the Acts )

HEROD THE GREAT (Matthew 2:1 )