the Fourth Week of Lent
International Critical Commentary NT International Critical
by S.R. Driver, A.A. Plummer and C.A. Briggs
A CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
REV. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
Late Master of University College, Durham
Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of Trinity College, Oxford
T & T CLARK INTERNATIONAL
LONDON ∙ NEW YORK
ISBN 0 567 05023 8
All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of T. & T. Clark Ltd.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
This volume has no such ambitious aim as that of being a final commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. The day is probably still far distant when any such commentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which the present commentator has had to contend is the impossibility of keeping abreast of all that is constantly appearing respecting the Synoptic Gospels as a whole and this or that detail in them. And the Third Gospel abounds in details which have elicited special treatment at the hands of a variety of scholars. Every quarter, indeed almost every month, brings its list of new books, some of which the writer wishes that he could have seen before his own words were printed. But to wait is but to prolong, if not to increase, one’s difficulties: it is waiting dum defluat amnis. Notes written and rewritten three or four times must be fixed in some form at last, if they are ever to be published. And these notes are now offered to those who care to use them, not as the last word on any one subject, but simply as one more stage in the long process of eliciting from the inexhaustible storehouse of the Gospel narrative some of those things which it is intended to convey to us. They will have done their work if they help someone who is far better equipped entirely to supersede them.
The writer of this volume is well aware of some of its shortcomings. There are omissions which have been knowingly tolerated for one or other of two adequate reasons. (1) This series is to include a Commentary on the Synopsis of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his distinguished pupil, the Rev. W. C. Allen, Fellow and Lecturer of Exeter College. Various questions, especially as regards the relations of the Third Gospel to the First and Second, which have been but slightly touched or entirely passed over in this volume, can be more suitably treated, and will be much more efficiently treated, by those who are to comment on the Synopsis. (2) Economy of space has had to be considered and rigorously enforced. It has been thought undesirable to allow more than one volume to any one book in the New Testament: and therefore subjects, which might with propriety be discussed at some length in a work on the Gospel of S. Luke, have of necessity been handled very briefly or left entirely untouched. Indeed, as editor of those New Testament volumes which are written by British scholars, the present writer has been obliged to strike out a good deal of what he had written as contributor to this series. And it has been with a view to economize space that the paraphrastic summaries, which are so very valuable a feature in the commentary on Romans, have been altogether omitted, as being a luxury rather than a necessity in a commentary on one of the Synoptic Gospels. For the same reason separate headings to sections and to special notes have been used very sparingly. The sub-sections have no separate headings, but are preceded by an introductory paragraph, the first sentence of which is equivalent to a heading.
The fact of the same person being both contributor and editor has, in the case of this volume, produced shortcomings of another kind. Two heads are better than one, and two pairs of eyes are better than one. Unintentional and unnecessary omissions might have been avoided, and questionable or erroneous statements might have been amended, if the writer had had the advantage of another’s supervision. Even in the humble but important work of detecting misprints the gain of having a different reviser is great. Only those who have had the experience know how easy it is for the same eye to pass the same mistakes again and again.
If this commentary has any special features, they will perhaps be found in the illustrations taken from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin Versions, and in the attention which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of S. Luke’s style.
The illustrations from Jewish writings have been supplied, not because the writer has made any special study of them, but because it is becoming recognized that the pseudepigraphical writings of the Jews and early Jewish Christians are now among the most promising helps towards understanding the New Testament; and because these writings have of late years become much more accessible than formerly, notably by the excellent editions of the Book of Enoch by Mr. Charles, of the Psalms of Solomon by Professor Ryle and Dr. James, and of the Fourth Book of Ezra by the late Professor Bensly and Dr. Jam_1
A very eminent scholar has said that the best commentary on the New Testament is a good Concordance; and another venerable scholar is reported to have said that the best commentary on the New Testament is the Vulgate. There is truth in both these sayings: and, with regard to the second of them, if the Vulgate by itself is helpful, à fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has been made to render those who use this commentary to a large extent independent of a Concordance, and to some extent independent of the invaluable edition of the Vulgate now being produced by the Bishop of Salisbury and Mr. White. Great trouble has been taken with the numerous references to the Septuagint, the books of the New Testament, and other writings. The large majority of them have been verified at least twice. But the difficulty of excluding error in such things is so great that the writer cannot suppose that he has succeeded in doing so. It is possible that a few references have accidentally escaped verification. A very few have been knowingly admitted without it, because the reference seemed to be of value, the source was trustworthy, and verification was not easy.
Reasons are stated in the Introduction for regarding a study of S. Luke’s style as a matter of great interest and importance; and it is hoped that the analysis given of it there will be found useful. A minute acquaintance with it tells us something about the writer of the Third Gospel. It proves to us that he is identical with the writer of the Acts, and that the whole of both these books comes from his hand. And it justifies us in accepting the unswerving tradition of the first eight or nine centuries, that the writer of these two books was Luke the beloved physician.
Dogma in the polemical sense is excluded from the plan of these commentaries. It is not the business of the commentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a commentary on any one of the Gospels. It is a primary duty of a commentator to ascertain the convictions of the writer whose statements he undertakes to explain. This is specially true of the Third Gospel, whose author tells us that he wrote for the very purpose of exhibiting the historical basis of the Christian faith (1:1-4). The Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully investigated evidence, that at a definite point in the history of the world, not far removed from his own time, a Prophet of God once more appeared in Israel to herald the coming of the Christ (3:1-6), and that his appearance was immediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (3:23, 4:14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resurrection he then narrates in detail. On all these points the student is again and again met by the question, What does the Evangelist mean? And, although about this or that word or sentence there may often be room for discussion, about the meaning of the Gospel as a whole there is no doubt. If we ask what were “the things wherein” Theophilus “was instructed” and of “the certainty” concerning which he is assured, the answer is not difficult. We may take the Old Roman Creed as a convenient summary of it.
Πιστεύω εἰς θεὸν πατέρα παντοκράτορα (1:37, 3:8, 11:2-4, 12:32, etc.). καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ (1:31, 2:21, 49, 9:35, 10:21, 22, 22:29, 70, 23: 46: comp. 4:41, 8:28), τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν (1:43, 2:11, 7:13, 10:1, 11:39, 12:42, 17:5, 6, 19:8, 31, 22:61, 24:3, 34) τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου (1:31-35, 43, 2:6, 7), τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα (22., 23.), τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ�
This position is so generally admitted by critics of all schools that not much time need be spent in discussing it. Both books are dedicated to Theophilus. The later book refers to the former. The language and style and arrangement of the two books are so similar, and this similarity is found to exist in such a multitude of details (many of which are very minute), that the hypothesis of careful imitation by a different writer is absolutely excluded. The idea of minute literary analysis with a view to discover peculiarities and preferences in language was an idea foreign to the writers of the first two centuries; and no known writer of that age gives evidence of the immense skill which would be necessary in order to employ the results of such an analysis for the production of an elaborate imitation. To suppose that the author of the Acts carefully imitated the Third Gospel, in order that his work might be attributed to the Evangelist, or that the Evangelist carefully imitated the Acts, in order that his Gospel might be attributed to the author of the Acts, is to postulate a literary miracle. Such an idea would not have occurred to any one; and if it had, he would not have been able to execute it with such triumphant success as is conspicuous here. Any one who will underline in a few chapters of the Third Gospel the phrases, words, and constructions which are specially frequent in the book, and then underline the same phrases, words, and constructions wherever they occur in the Acts, will soon have a strong conviction respecting the identity of authorship. The converse process will lead to a similar result. Moreover, the expressions which can be marked in this way by no means exhaust the points of similarity between the two books. There are parallels of description; e.g. about angelic appearances (comp. Luke 1:11 with Acts 12:7; Luke 1:38 with Acts 1:11 and 10:7 ; Luke 2:9 and 24:4 with Acts 1:10 and 10:30); and about other matters (comp. Luke 1:39 with Acts 1:15; Luke 2:39 with Acts 13:29; Luke 3:8 with Acts 26:20; Luke 20:1 with Acts 4:1; Luke 21:18 with Acts 27:34; Luke 21:35 with Acts 17:26; Luke 23:2 with Acts 24:2-5; Luke 23:5 with Acts 10:37; Luke 24:27 with Acts 8:35).1 And there are parallels of arrangement. The main portion of the Gospel has three marked divisions: The Ministry in Galilee (3:1-9:50), between Galilee and Jerusalem (9:51-19:28), and in Jerusalem (19:29-24:11). And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions: Hebraic (2-5), Transitional (6-12), and Gentile (13-28). In the one case the movement is from Galilee through Samaria, etc. to Jerusalem: in the other from Jerusalem through Samaria, etc. to Rome. And in both cases there is an introduction connecting the main narrative with what precedes.
(ii.) The Author of Acts was a Companion of S. Paul
A full discussion of this statement belongs to the commentary on the Acts rather than to the present volume: but the main points in the evidence must be noted here. It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more certain than this statement.
There are the “we” sections in which the writer uses the first person plural in describing journeys of S. Paul. This “we” is found in Codex Bezae as early as 11:28 at Antioch, and may represent a true tradition without being the original reading.2 It appears certainly 16:10 at Troas3 and continues to Philippi (16:17).4 Several years later it reappears at Philippi (20:5)5 and continues to Jerusalem (21:18).6 Finally, it reappears at the departure for Italy (27:1)7 and continues to Rome (28:16).8 The “we” necessarily implies companionship, and may possibly represent a diary kept at the time. That the “we” sections are by the same hand as the rest of the book is shown by the simple and natural way in which they fit into the narrative, by the references in them to other parts of the narrative, and by the marked identity of style. The expressions which are so characteristic of this writer run right through the whole book. They are as frequent inside as outside the “we” sections, and no change of style can be noted between them and the rest of the treatise. The change of person is intelligible and truthlike, distinguishing the times when the writer was with the Apostle from the times when he was not: but there is otherwise no change of language. To these points must be added the fact that the author of the Acts is evidently a person of considerable literary powers, and the probability that a companion of S. Paul who possessed such powers would employ them in producing such a narrative as the Acts. See Hastings, D.B. i. p. 29.
(iii.) The Companion of S. Paul who wrote the Acts and the Third Gospel was S. Luke
Of the companions of S. Paul whose names are known to us no one is so probable as S. Luke; and the voice of the first eight centuries pronounces strongly for him and for no one else as the author of these two writings.
If antiquity were silent on the subject, no more reasonable conjecture could be made than “Luke the beloved physician.” He fulfils the conditions. Luke was the Apostle’s companion during both the Roman imprisonments (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11), and may well have been his companion at other times. That he is not mentioned in the earlier groups of Epistles is no objection; for none of them coincide with the “we” sections in the Acts. Moreover, the argument from medical language, although sometimes exaggerated, is solid and helpful. Both in the Acts and in the Third Gospel there are expressions which are distinctly medical; and there is also a good deal of language which is perhaps more common in medical writers than elsewhere. This feature does not amount to proof that the author was a physician; still less can it prove that, if the author was a physician, he must have been Luke. The Apostle might have had another medical companion besides the beloved physician. But, seeing that there is abundance of evidence that Luke was the writer of these two documents, the medical colour which is discernible here and there in the language of each of them is a valuable confirmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both to Luke.
For the voice of antiquity is not silent on the subject; and we are not left to conjecture. There is no need to argue whether Timothy, or Titus, or Silas, or some unnamed companion of the Apostle is more likely than S. Luke to have written these two books. The evidence, which is both abundant and strong, is wholly in favour of Luke. Until we reach the blundering statement in Photius near the end of the ninth century, there is no hint that any one ever thought of any person but Luke as the author of either treatise. Photius has this statement: “Some say that the writer of the Acts was Clement of Rome, others Barnabas, and others again Luke the Evangelist; but Luke himself decides the question, for at the beginning of his preface he mentions that another treatise containing the acts of the Lord had been composed by him” (Amphil. Qu. 123). Here he seems to be transferring to the Acts conjectures which had been made respecting the Epistle to the Hebrews. But at any rate the statement shows that the Third Gospel was regarded as unquestionably by Luke.
The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now commonly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held to stultify himself. But is not the external evidence for the Lucan authorship of the Third Gospel and the Acts equally strong? If these are not named by any writer earlier than Irenæus, neither are those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respecting the Third Gospel and the Acts is even more intelligible than their silence respecting Galatians and Romans, because the two former, being addressed to Theophilus, were in the first instance of the nature of private writings, and because, as regards the Gospel narrative, the oral tradition still sufficed. But from Irenæus onwards the evidence in all these cases is full and unwavering, and it comes from all quarters of the Christian world. And in considering this third point, the first point must be kept steadily in view, viz. the certainty that the Third Gospel and the Acts were written by one and the same person. Consequently all the evidence for either book singly is available for the other book. Every writer who attributes the Third Gospel to Luke thereby attributes the Acts to Luke and vice versâ, whether he know anything about the second book or not. Thus in favour of Luke as the author of the Third Gospel we have three classes of witnesses viz. those who state that Luke wrote the Third Gospel, those who state that Luke wrote the Acts, and those who state that he wrote both treatises. Their combined testimony is very strong indeed; and there is nothing against it. At the opening of his commentary on the Acts, Chrysostom says that many in his day were ignorant of the authorship and even of the existence of the book (Migne, lx. 13). But that statement creates no difficulty. Many could be found at the present day, even among educated Christians, who could not name the author of the Acts. And we have seen that the late and confused statement in Photius, whatever it may mean respecting the Acts, testifies to the universal conviction that the Third Gospel was written by Luke.
But we obtain a very imperfect idea of the early evidence in favour of the Third Gospel when we content ourselves with the statement that it is not attributed to Luke by any one before Irenæus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little earlier than the work of Irenæus, but is probably a little later. We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel previous to Irenæus; and also the manner in which he himself and those who immediately follow him speak of it as the work of S. Luke.
That Justin Martyr used the Third Gospel (or an authority which was practically identical with it) cannot be doubted. He gives a variety of particulars which are found in that Gospel alone; e.g. Elizabeth as the mother f the Baptist, the sending of Gabriel to Mary, the census under Quirinius, there being no room in the inn, His ministry beginning when Jesus was thirty years old, His being sent by Pilate to Herod, His last cry, “Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit” (1 Apol. xxxiv.; Try. lxxviii., lxxxviii., c., ciii., cv., cvi.). Moreover, Justin uses expressions respecting the Agony, the Resurrection, and the Ascension which show that the Third Gospel is in his mind.
That his pupil Tatian possessed this Gospel is proved by the Diatessaron. See Hemphill, Diatessaron of Tatian, pp. 3 ff.
Celsus also knew the Third Gospel, for he knew that one of the genealogies made Jesus to be descended from the first man (Orig. Con. Cels. ii. 32).
The Clementine Homilies contain similarities which are proably allusions (iii. 63, 65, xi. 20, 23, xvii. 5, xviii. 16, xix. 2).
The Third Gospel was known to Basilides and Valentinus, and was commented upon by Heracleon (Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. 9, p. 596, ed. Potter).
Marcion adopted this Gospel as the basis for what he called the “Gospel of the Lord” or “Gospel of Christ.” He omitted a good deal as being inconsistent with his own teaching, but he does not appear to have added anything.1 See §7; also Wsctt., Int. to Gospels, App. D ; Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, App.
In the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne to the Churches in Asia there is a quotation of Luke 1:6 (Eus. H.E. v. 1. 9).
These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It remains to notice the way in which Irenæus and his later contemporaries speak of the book. Irenæus, who represents the traditions of Asia Minor and Rome and Gaul in the second half of the second century, quotes it many times and quotes from nearly every chapter, especially from those which are wholly or in the main peculiar to this Gospel, e.g. 1, 2, 9-19, 24. In a very remarkable passage he collects together many of the things which this Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke: “Now if any one reject Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will manifestly be casting out the Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple. For very many and specially necessary elements of the Gospel we know through him, as the generation of John, the history of Zacharias, the coming of the angel to Mary,” etc. etc. (3:14, 3. Comp. 3:10, 1, 22, 12, 14:4, 22 etc.). It will be observed that he does not contemplate the possibility of any one denying that Luke was the author. Those who may reject it will do so as thinking that Luke’s authority is inadequate; but the authorship is unquestioned.
Clement of Alexandria (a.d. 190-202) had had teachers from Greece, Egypt, Assyria, Palestine, and had received the tradition handed down from father to son from the Apostles (Strom. i. 1, p. 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. i. 21, p. 407, ed. Potter).
Tertullian (a.d. 190-220) speaks for the African Church. He not only quotes the Gospel frequently in his other works, but in his treatise against Marcion he works through the Gospel from ch. 4. to the end, often calling it Luke’s.
The Muratorian Fragment (a.d. 170-200) perhaps represents Rome. The first line of the mutilated Catalogue probably refers to S. Mark; but the next seven unquestionably refer to S. Luke, who is twice mentioned and is spoken of as medicus. (See Lft. on Supernatural Religion, p. 189.)
It would be waste of time to cite more evidence. It is manifest that in all parts of the Christian world the Third Gospel had been recognized as authoritative before the middle of the second century, and that it was universally believed to be the work of S. Luke. No one speaks doubtfully on the point. The possibility of questioning its value is mentioned; but not of questioning its authorship. In the literature of that period it would not be easy to find a stronger case. The authorship of the four great Epistles of S. Paul is scarcely more certain. In all these cases, as soon as we have sufficient material for arriving at a conclusion, the evidence is found to be all on one side and to be decisive. And exactly the same result is obtained when the question is examined as to the authorship of the Acts, as Bishop Lightfoot has shown (art. “Acts” in D. B.2). Both the direct and the indirect argument for the Lucan authorship is very strong.
With this large body of historical evidence in favour of S. Luke before us, confirmed as it is by the medical expressions in both books, it is idle to search for another companion of S. Paul who might have been the author. Timothy, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Tychicus, and Trophimus are all excluded by Acts 20:4, Acts 20:5. And it is not easy to make Silas fit into the “we” sections. Titus is possible: he can be included in the “we” and the “us” without contradiction or difficulty. But what is gained by this suggestion? Is a solution which is supported by no evidence to be preferred to an intrinsically more probable solution, which is supported by a great deal of evidence, and by evidence which is as early as we can reasonably expect?
Those who neglect this evidence are bound to explain its existence. Irenæus, Clement, and Tertullian, to say nothing of other authorities, treat the Lucan authorship as a certainty. So far as their knowledge extends, Luke is everywhere regarded as the writer. How did this belief grow up and spread, if it was not true? There is nothing in either treatise to suggest Luke, and he is not prominent enough in Scripture to make him universally acceptable as a conjecture. Those who wanted apostolic authority for their own views would have made their views more conspicuous in these books, and would have assigned the books to a person of higher position and influence than the beloved physician, e.g. to Timothy or Titus, if not to an Apostle. As Renan says, “There is no very strong reason for supposing that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name. Luke was not yet sufficiently famous for any one to make use of his name, to give authority to a book” (Les Évangiles, ch. 13. p. 252, Eng. tr. p. 132). “The placing of a celebrated name at the head of a work … was in no way repugnant to the custom of the times. But to place at the head of a document a false name and an obscure one withal, that is inconceivable. … Luke had no place in tradition, in legend, in history” (Les Apôtres, p. xvii., Eng. tr. p. 11).1 See Ramsay in the Expositor, Jan. 1898.
§ 2. S. LUKE THE EVANGELIST
The name Lucas is probably an abbreviation of Lucanus, but possibly of Lucilius, or Lucius, or Lucianus. There is, however, no proof that Lucanus was shortened into Lucas.1 Nevertheless some of the oldest Latin MSS. (e.g. Corbeiensis and Vercellensis) have secundum Lucanum as the title of the Third Gospel. Lucas, like Apollos, Artemas, Demas, Hermas, and Nymphas, is a form not found in classical literature, whereas Lucanus is common in inscriptions. Lobeck has noticed that these contracted proper names in -ᾶς are common in the case of slaves (Patholog. Proleg. p. 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Cæsar, and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen.
That Lucas=Lucanus is probable.2 But that Lucanus = Silvanus, because lucus = silva, and that therefore Luke and Silas are the same person (Van Vloten), looks like a caricature of critical ingenuity. Equally grotesque is the idea that Luke is the Aristion of Papias (Eus. H. E. iii.39. 4, 6), because�
Only in three places is Lk. named in Scripture; and it is worth noting that in all three of them the other Evangelist who is not an Apostle is named with him (Colossians 4:10, Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24; 2 Timothy 4:11). These passages tell us that “the physician, the beloved one” (ὁ ἰατρὸς ὁ�Colossians 4:10 Aristarchus is called συναιχμάλωτος, and in Philemon 1:23 Epaphras is called such; but Lk. in neither place.
Almost all critics are agreed that in Colossians 4:14 Luke is separated from “those of the circumcision,” and therefore was a Gentile Christian.1 Hofmann, Tiele. and Wittichen have not succeeded in persuading many persons that the passage does not necessarily imply this. Whether he was a Jewish proselyte before he was a Christian must remain uncertain: his knowledge of Jewish affairs and his frequent Hebraisms are no proof. That he was originally a heathen may be regarded as certain. He is the only one of the Evangelists who was of Gentile origin; and, with the exception of his companion S. Paul, and possibly of Apollos, he was the only one among the first preachers of the Gospel who had had scientific training.
If Luke was a Gentile, he cannot be identified with Lucius, who sends a salutation from Corinth to Rome (Romans 16:21). This Lucius was Paul’s kinsman, and therefore a Jew. The identification of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts 13:1) is less impossible. But there is no evidence, and we do not even know that Lucas was ever used as an abbreviation of Lucius. In Apost. Const. vi.18, 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be identified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts 15:22). Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which seems to have been adopted by those who made Luke 10:1-7 the Gospel for S. Luke’s Day. The tradition probably is based solely on the fact that Luke alone records the Mission of the Seventy (Epiph. Hær. ii. 51, 11, Migne, xli.908). The same reason is fatal to Theophylact’s attractive guess, which still finds advocates, that Lk. was the unnamed companion of Cleopas in the walk to Emmaus (24:13), who was doubtless a Jew (vv. 27, 32). The conjecture that Luke was one of the Greek proselytes who applied to Philip to be introduced to Christ shortly before His Passion (John 12:20) is another conjecture which is less impossible, but is without evidence. In common with some of the preceding guesses it is open to the objection that Luke, in the preface to his Gospel, separates himself from those “who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” (1:2). The Seventy, these Greeks, and the companion of Cleopas were eye-witnesses, and Lk. was not. In the two latter cases it is possible to evade this objection by saying that Luke means that he was not an eye-witness from the beginning, although at the end of Christ’s ministry he became such. But this is not satisfactory. He claims to be believed because of the accuracy of his researches among the best authorities. Had he himself been an eye-witness of any portion, would he not have let us know this ? Why did he not use the first person, as in the “we” sections in the Acts? He belongs to the second generation of Christians, not to the first.
It is, however, possible that Chrysostom and the Collect for S. Luke’s Day are right in identifying “the brother whose praise in the Gospel is spread through all the Churches” (2 Corinthians 8:18) with S. Luke. But the conjectures respecting this unnamed brother are endless ; and no more can be affirmed than that Luke is a reasonable conjecture.
The attempt to show that the writer of the Third Gospel and the Acts is a Jew is a failure; and the suggestion that he is S. Paul is absurd. See below (§ 5) for evidence that our Evangelist is a Gentile writing for Gentiles.
Besides the three passages in the Pauline Epistles and the preface to the Gospel, there are three passages of Scripture which tell us something about S. Luke, viz. the “we” sections. The first of these (Acts 16:10-17) tells us that during the second missionary journey Luke accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (a.d. 51 or 52), and thus brings the physician to the Apostle about the time when his distressing malady (2 Corinthians 12:7) prostrated him in Galatia, and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Galatians 4:13-15). Even without this coincidence we might believe that the relation of doctor to patient had something to do with drawing Luke to the afflicted Apostle, and that in calling him “the physician, the beloved one,” the Apostle is not distinguishing him from some other Luke, but indicating the way in which the Evangelist earned his gratitude. The second section (20:5-21:18) tells us that about six years later (a.d. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke was again at Php_1 with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem to confer with James and the elders. And the third (27:1-28:16) shows that he was with him during the voyage and shipwreck until the arrival in Rome.
With these meagre notices of him in the N.T. our knowledge of Luke ends. We see him only when he is at the side of his magister and illuminator (Tertull. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2) S. Paul. That he was with the Apostle at other times also we can hardly doubt,—inseparabilis fuit a Paulo, says Irenæus : but how often he was with him, and in each case for how long a time, we have no means of knowing. Tertullian perhaps means us to understand that Luke was converted to the Gospel by Paul, and this is in itself probable enough. And it is not improbable that it was at Tarsus, where there was a school of philosophy and literature rivalling those of Alexandria and Athens (Strabo, xiv. 5. 13), that they first met. Luke may have studied medicine at Tarsus. Nowhere else in Asia Minor could he obtain so good an education: φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τ. ἄλλην παιδείαν ἐγκύκλιον ἅπασαν (l.c.). Our earliest authorities appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1, 1, 10.1, 14.1-14, 15.1, 22.3 ; Canon Murator. sub init. ; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 subfin. ; Tert. Adv. Marcion. 4:2). Nor can much that is very trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of Eusebius (H. E. iii. 4, 7) and of Jerome (De vir. ill. vii.), which may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Texte und Unters. viii. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts Λουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὦν τῶν�Luk_15 (Tent. De Pud. vii. and x.) : and both medieval and modern artists have been specially fond of representing those scenes which are described by S. Luke alone: the Annunciation, the Visit of Mary to Elizabeth, the Shepherds, the Manger, the Presentation in the Temple, Symeon and Anna, Christ with the Doctors, the Woman at the Supper of Simon the Pharisee, Christ weeping over Jerusalem, the Walk to Emmaus, the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son. Many other scenes which are favourites with painters might be added from the Acts. See below, § 6. 1. d.
The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Eze_1. and Rev. 4., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously explained by different writers from Irenæus (3:11, 8) downwards. But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to S. Luke. “This sacerdotal animal implies Atonement and Propitiation ; and this exactly corresponds with what is supposed to be the character of St. Luke’s Gospel, as one which more especially conveys mercy to the Penitent.… It begins with the Priest, dwelling on the Priestly family of the Baptist; and ends with the Victim, in our Lord’s death” (Isaac Williams, On the Study of the Gospels, Pt. I. sect. vi.).
§ 3. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL
The idea of a special revelation to the Evangelist is excluded by the prologue to the Gospel: his narrative is the result of careful enquiry in the best quarters. But (a) which “eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” were his principal informants, (b) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, (c) whether it was mostly in Aramaic or in Greek, are questions about which he is silent. Internal evidence, however, will carry us some way in finding an answer to them.
(a) During a large portion of the time in which he was being prepared, and was consciously preparing himself, for writing a Gospel, he was constantly with S. Paul; and we may be sure that it was among S. Paul’s companions and acquaintances that Luke obtained much of his information. It is probable that in this way he became acquainted with some of the Twelve, with other disciples of Christ, and with His Mother and brethren. He certainly was acquainted with S. Mark, who was perhaps already preparing material for his own Gospel when he and S. Luke were with the Apostle in Rome (Colossians 4:10, Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24). S. Paul himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Corinthians 15:3) ; but he could help him to first-hand information. While the Apostle was detained in custody at Cæsarea, Luke would be able to do a good deal of investigation, and as a physician he would perhaps have access to people of position who could help him.
(b) In discussing the question whether the information was given chiefly in an oral or a documentary form, we must remember that the difference between oral tradition and a document is not great, when the oral tradition has become stereotyped by frequent repetition. A document cannot have much influence on a writer who already knows its contents by heart. Luke tells us that many documents were already in existence, when he decided to write; and it is improbable that he made no use of these. Some of his sources were certainly documents, e.g. the genealogy (3:23-38): and we need not doubt that the first two chapters are made up of written narratives, of which we can see the conclusions at 1:80, 2:40, and 2:52. The early narrative (itself perhaps not primary), of which all three Synoptists make use, and which constitutes the main portion of S. Mark’s Gospel, was probably already in writing when Lk. made use of it. S. Luke may have had the Second Gospel itself, pretty nearly in the form in which we have it, and may include the author of it among the πολλοί (1:1). But some phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (6:5) “the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27). He omits the whole of Mark 6:45, which contains the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew (15:21-28). And all this would have been full of interest to Luke’s Gentile readers. That he had our First Gospel is much less probable. There is so much that he would have been likely to appropriate if he had known it, that the omission is most easily explained by assuming that he did not know it. He omits the visit of the Gentile Magi (Matthew 2:15). At 20:17 he omits “Therefore I say to you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof” (Matthew 21:43). At 21:12-16 he omits “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations” (Matthew 24:14 ; comp. Mark 13:10). Comp. the omission of Matthew 17:6, Matthew 17:7 at Luke 9:35, of Matthew 17:19, Matthew 17:20 at Luke 9:43, of Cæsarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13; Mark 8:27) at Luke 9:18; and see p. xli. Both to S. Luke and his readers such things would have been most significant. Again, would Luke have left the differences between his own Gospel and that of Matthew as they are, if he had been aware of them ? Contrast Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15 with Luke 2:39, Matthew 28:7, Matthew 28:10, Matthew 28:16 with Luke 24:49; and generally mark the differences between the narratives of the Nativity and of the Resurrection in these two Gospels, the divergences in the two genealogies, the “eight days” (Lk.) and the “six days” (Mt. and Mk.) at the Transfiguration, and the perplexing phenomena in the Sermon on the Mount. These points lead us to the conclusion that Lk. was not familiar with our First Gospel, even if he knew it at all. But, besides the early narrative, which seems to have been nearly coextensive with our Second Gospel, Matthew and Luke used the same collection, or two similar collections, of “Oracles” or “Sayings of the Lord”; and hence the large amount of matter, chiefly discourses, which is common to Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark. This collection, however, can hardly have been a single document, for the common material is used very differently by the two Evangelists, especially as regards arrangement.1 A Book of “Oracles” must not be hastily assumed.
In addition to these two main sources, (1) the narrative of events, which he shares with Matthew and Mark, and (2) the collection of discourses, which he shares with Matthew; and besides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself,—Luke evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. These are specially prominent in chapters 9 to 19 and in 24. But it must not be forgotten that the matter which S. Luke alone gives us extends over the whole range of Christ’s life, so far as we have any record of it. It is possible that some of these sources were oral, and it is probable that one of them was connected with the court of Herod (3:1, 19, 8:3, 9, 7-9, 13:31, 23:7-12 ; Acts 13:1). But we shall probably not be wrong if we conjecture that most of this material was in writing before Luke made use of it.
It is, however, begging the question to talk of an “Ebionitic source.” First, is there any Ebionism in S. Luke? And secondly, does what is called Ebionism in him come from a portion of his materials, or wholly from himself? That Luke is profoundly impressed by the contrasts between wealth and poverty, and that, like S. James, he has great sympathy with the suffering poor and a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich and to which many succumb, is true enough. But this is not Ebionism. He nowhere teaches that wealth is sinful, or that rich men must give away all their wealth, or that the wealthy may be spoiled by the poor. In the parable of Dives and Lazarus, which is supposed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the superfluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of positions. The strongest saying of Christ against wealth, “It is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God” is in Matthew (19:24) and Mark (10:25) as well as in Luke (18:25). So also is the story of Peter and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and following Christ (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11). So also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to follow Christ (Matthew 9:9; Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27, Luke 5:28). In both these cases Luke expressly states that they forsook all (v. 11, 28), which, however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the story about Zacchæus, which is peculiar to Luke, this head tax-collector retains half his great wealth, and there is no hint that he ought to have surrendered the whole of it. Elsewhere we find touches in the other Gospels which are not in Luke, but which would no doubt have been considered Ebionitic, if they had been found in Luke and not in the others. Thus, in the description of the Baptist, it is Matthew (3:4) and Mark (1:6) who tell us of John’s ascetic clothing and food, about which Luke is silent. In the parable of the Sower it is the others (Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:19) who speak of “the deceitfulness of riches,” while Luke (8:14) has simply “riches.” It is they who record (Matthew 19:29; Mark 10:29) that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and property �Mark 15:43) and wealth (Matthew 27:57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his goodness and rectitude (23:50, 51), which does not look like prejudice against the rich. And it is Luke alone who tells us of the women, presumably well-to-do, who “ministered unto them of their substance” (8:3). To which may perhaps be added the fact that in the quotation from Psalms 107:10 in Luke 1:79 those “fast bound in poverty” (πτωχείᾳ) are omitted. Throughout the Third Gospel there is a protest against worldliness; but there is no protest against wealth. And there is no evidence that the protest against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he drew, and from which the others did not draw. Rather it is something in the writer himself, being apparent in the Acts, as well as in the Gospel; and it shows itself, sometimes in what he selects from his materials, sometimes in the way in which he treats it. As Jülicher says, Man hat von dem ebionitischen charakter dieses Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einflussen oder Quellen gesucht: sehr mit Unrecht. … Yvon tendenziöser Ebionitisirung des Evangeliums kann bei ihm nicht die Rode sein (Einl. § 27, p. 206). Hastings, D.C.G. i. p. 506.
(c) Frequent Hebraisms indicate that a great deal of Luke’s material was originally in Aramaic. These features are specially common in the first two chapters. In translating Aramaic sources Luke would have ample opportunity for exhibiting his own predilection for certain words, phrases, and constructions. If the materials were already in Greek when Luke made use of them, then he could and did somewhat alter the wording in appropriating them. But it will generally be found that wherever the expressions which are characteristic of him are less frequent than usual, there we have come upon material which is common to him and the others, and which he has adopted without much alteration. Thus the parable of the Sower (8:4-15) has few marks of his style (ἐν μέσῳ, ver. 7; ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ver. 11; δέχονται and�Matthew 3:7-10, Matthew 3:12; Matthew 7:6-9 = Matthew 8:8-10; 9:57, 58 = Matthew 8:19, Matthew 8:20; Matthew 7:22-28 = Matthew 11:4-11; 7:31-35 = Matthew 11:16-19. This last passage is one of those which were excised by Marcion. As we might expect, there is much more variation between the Gospels in narrating the same facts than in reporting the same sayings; and the greater the variation, the greater the room for marks of individual style. But we cannot doubt that an immense amount of what Luke has in common with Matthew, or with both him and Mark, was already in a Greek form before he adopted it. It is incredible that two or three independent translations should agree quite or almost word for word.
It is very interesting to notice how, in narratives common to all three, individual characteristics appear: e.g. 8:22-56 = Mark 4:35-41, Mark 5:1-43 = Matthew 8:23-34, Matthew 9:18-25. These narratives swarm with marks of Luke’s style, although he keeps closely to the common material (see below, § 6. 2.). Thus he has εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐπιστάτα, δέομαι σου, ἐξελθεῖν�Mark 1:29-34 = Matthew 8:14-17; v. 5:12-16 = Mark 1:40-45 = Matthew 8:1-4 ; Matthew 5:17-26 = Mark 2:1-12 = Matthew 9:1-8; Matthew 9:10-17 = Mark 6:30-44 = Matthew 14:13-21; 9:38-40 = Mark 9:17, Mark 9:18 = Matthew 17:15, Matthew 17:16; and many others. It is quite evident that in appropriating material Luke works it over with his own touches, and sometimes almost works it up afresh; and this is specially true of the narrative portion of the Gospel.
It is impossible to reach any certain conclusion as to the amount of material which he had at his disposal. Some suppose that this was very large, and that he has given us only a small portion of it, selected according to the object which he is supposed to have had in view, polemical, apologetic, conciliatory, or historical. Others think that his aim at completeness is too conspicuous to allow us to suppose that he rejected anything which he believed to be authentic. Both these views are probably exaggerations. No doubt there are cases in which he deliberately omits what he knew well and did not question. And the reason for omission may have been either that he had recorded something very similar, or that the incident would be less likely to interest or edify Gentile readers. No doubt there are other cases in which the most natural explanation of the omission is ignorance: he does not record because he does not know. We know of a small amount which Mark alone records; of a considerable amount which Matthew alone records; of a very considerable amount which John alone records; and of an enormous amount (John 21:25) which no one records. To suppose that Luke knew the great part of this, and yet passed it over, is an improbable hypothesis. And to suppose that he knew scarcely any of it, is also improbable. But a definite estimate cannot be made.
The statement that Luke avoids duplicates on principle has been made and accepted too hastily. It is quite possible that he has deliberately omitted some things, because of their similarity to others which he has recorded. It is possible that he has omitted the feeding of the 4000, because he has recorded the feeding of the 5000; and the anointing by Mary of Bethany, because of the anointing by the sinner; and the healing of the Syrophenician’s daughter at a distance, because of the centurion’s servant at a distance; and the cursing of the barren fig-tree, because of the parable of the same; and the mocking by Pilate’s soldiers, because of the mocking by Herod’s soldiers. But in many, or even most, of these cases some other motive may have caused the omission. On the other hand, we must look at the doublets and triplets which he has admitted. If he made it a rule to exclude duplicates, the exceptions are more numerous than the examples, and they extend all through the Gospel.
The Mother of the Christ has a song (1:46 ff.), and the father of the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes the infant Christ in the temple (2:28), and so does the venerable Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus (v. 27 ff.), and Zacchæus the publican also (19:1 ff.). The mission of the Twelve (9:1) is followed by the mission of the Seventy (10:1). True disciples are equal to Christ’s relations (8:21), and to His Mother (11:28). Twice there is a dispute as to who is the greatest (9:46, 22:24). Not content with the doublets which he has in common with Mt. (8:19-22, 9:16, 17, 24:40, 41), he adds a third instance (9:61, 62, 5:39, 17:36?); or where Mt. has only one example (24:37-39), he gives two (17:26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow’s son raised (7:14), and also Jairus’ daughter (8:54), where no other Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances of cleansing lepers (5:13, 17:14); two of forgiving sins (5:20, 7:48); three healings on the sabbath (6:6, 13:10, 14:1); four castings out of demons (4:35, 8:29, 9:42, 11:14). Similar repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed by the Rash King (14:28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin (15:1-10); and the Friend at Midnight (11:5) does not involve the omission of the Unrighteous judge (18:1). The exceptions to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter sayings of Christ: 8:16 = 11:33; 8:17 = 12:2; 8:18 = 19:26; 9:23 = 14:27; 9:24 = 17:33; 9:26 = 12:9; 10:25 = 18:18; 11:43 = 20:46; 12:11, 12 = 21:14, 15; 14:11 = 18:14; 19:44 = 21:6; and comp. 17:31 with 21:21, and 21:23 with 23:29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suffice to show that the Evangelist cannot have had any very strong objection to recording duplicate instances of similar incidents and sayings. Could more duplicates be found in any other Gospel?
For recent (since 1885) discussions of the Synoptic problem see Badham, The Formation of the Gospels, 1891; Blair, The Apostolic Gospel, 1896; Jolley, The Synoptic Problem, 1893; Salmon, Historical Introduction to the Books of the N. T., 5th ed. 1891 ; Wright, The Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 1896; Holsten, Die synopt. Evang. nach Form thres Inhalts dargestellt, 1886; Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N. T. 1892; Jülicher, Einl. in das N. T. 1894; Nösgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, being Part I. of Gesch. der N. T. Offenbarung, 1891; H. H. Wendt. Die Lehre und das Leben Jesu, 1885-1890. Other literature is mentioned on p. 85.
See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, P. 345 ff ; in Dict. of the Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on “Gospels,” pp. 1217-1243; and in the Expositor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891.
§ 4. TIME AND PLACE
(i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lightfoot’s admirable article on the Acts (D. B.2 i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Date. The Bishop told the present writer that he regarded the question of date as the province of the writer of the article on S. Luke, an article which has not yet been rewritten. The want has, however, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 1893 (Lect. 6.), and we may safely accept this guidance.
The main theories respecting the date of the Third Gospel contend respectively for a time in or near the years a.d. 100, a.d. 80, and a.d. 63.
(a) The strongest argument used by those who advocate a date near the close of the first century or early in the second1 is the hypothesis that the author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts had read the Antiquities of Josephus, a work published about a.d. 94. But this hypothesis, if not absolutely untenable, is highly improbable. The coincidences between Luke and Josephus are not greater than might accidentally occur in persons writing independently about the same facts; while the divergences are so great as to render copying improbable. At any rate Josephus must not be used both ways. If the resemblances are made to prove that Luke copied Josephus, then the discrepancies should not be employed to prove that Luke’s statements are erroneous. If Luke had a correct narrative to guide him, why did he diverge from it only to make blunders? It is much more reasonable to suppose that where Luke differs from the Antiquities he had independent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke who is commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by Lft. D. B.2 p. 39; by Holtzmann, Einl. in d. N. T. p. 374, 1892, and by Schanz, Comm. über d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. 16, 1883.
The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed; on the one side by Clemen (Die Chronologie der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel (Josephus und Lukas; der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jüdischen Geschichtschreibers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Theol. Quartalschrift, Tübingen, 1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially of Krenkel.1 It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such words as�Luke 2:52) and ἐξίσταντο πάντες οἱ�Luke 4:38) with τεταρταίῳ πυρετῷ συσχεθείς (Ant. 13:15, 5); μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε (12:29) with Ant. xvi. 4. 6, sub fin. (where, however, νενωτέριστο is the more probable reading); ἄφαντος ἐγένετο�
In itself, the late date a.d. 100 is not incredible, even for those who are convinced that the writer is Luke, and that he never read Josephus. Luke may have been quite a young man, well under thirty, when he first joined S. Paul, a.d. 50-52; and he may have been living and writing at the beginning of the second century. But the late date has nothing to recommend it; and we may believe that both his writings would have assumed a different form, had they been written as late as this. Would not ὁ Χριστός, which is still a title and means “the Messiah” (2:26, 3:15, 4:41, 9:20, 20:41, 22:67, 23:35, 39, 24:26, 46), have become a proper name, as in the Epistles? Would not ὁ Κύριος, as a designation of Jesus Christ, have been still more frequent? It is not found in Matthew or Mark (excepting in the disputed appendix); but it is the invariable designation in the Gospel of Peter. In Luke (7:13, 10:1, 11:39, 12:42, 13:15, 17:5, 6, 18:6, 19:8, 22:61, 24:34) and in John this use is beginning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would 21:32 have stood as it does, at a date when “this generation” had “passed away” without seeing the Second Advent? Moreover, the historical atmosphere of the Acts is not that of a.d. 95-135. In the Acts the Jews are the persecutors of the Christians; at this late date the Jews were being persecuted themselves. Lastly, what would have induced a companion of S. Paul, whether Luke or not, to wait so long before publishing the results of his researches? Opportunities of contact with those who had been eye-witnesses would have been rapidly vanishing during the last twenty years.
(b) The intermediate date of a.d. 75-80 has very much more to recommend it.1 It avoids the difficulties just mentioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant use of ὁ Κύριος to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omission of the very significant hint, “let him that readeth understand” (Mark 13:14; Matthew 24:15). When the first two Gospels (or the materials common to both) were compiled, the predicted dangers had not yet come but were near; and each of these Evangelists warns his readers to be on the alert. When the Third Gospel was written, these dangers were past. It accounts for the greater definiteness of the prophecies respecting the destruction of Jerusalem as given by Luke (19:43, 44, 21:10-24), when compared with the records of them in Mark (13:14-19) and Matthew (24:15-22). After the destruction had taken place the tradition of the prediction might be influenced by what was known to have happened; and this without any conscious tampering with the report of the prophecy. The possibility of this influence must be admitted, and with it a possibility of a date subsequent to a.d. 70 for the Gospel and the Acts. Twice in the Gospel (8:51, 9:28), as in the Acts (1:13), Luke places John before his elder brother James, which Mt. and Mk. never do; and this may indicate that Luke wrote after John had become the better known of the two. Above all, such a date allows sufficient time for the “many” to, “draw up narratives” respecting the acts and sayings of Christ.
(c) The early date of about a.d. 63 still finds advocates;1 and no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the simplest explanation of the fact that S. Paul’s death is not recorded in the Acts is that it had not taken place. If that explanation is correct the Third Gospel cannot be placed much later than a.d. 63. Again, the writer of the Acts can hardly have been familiar with the Epistles to the Corinthians and the Galatians: otherwise he would have inserted some things and explained others (Salmon, Hist. Int. to N.T. p. 319, Exodus 5:0). How long might Luke have been without seeing these Epistles? Easily till a.d. 63; but less easily till a.d. 80. Once more, when Luke records the prophecy of Agabus respecting the famine, he mentions that it was fulfilled (Acts 11:28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting the destruction of Jerusalem (21:5-36), he does not mention that it was fulfilled. The simplest explanation is that the destruction had not yet taken place. And, if it be said that the prediction of it has been retouched in Luke’s record in order to make it more distinctly in accordance with facts, we must notice that the words, “Let them that are in Judæa flee to the mountains, ” are in all three reports. The actual flight seems to have been, not to the mountains, but to Pella in north Peræa; and yet “to the mountains” is still retained by Luke (11:21). Eusebius says that there was a “revelation” before the war, warning the Christians not only to leave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (H. E. iii. 5. 3). This “revelation” is evidently an adaptation of Christ’s prophecy; and here we reasonably suspect that the detail about Pella has been added after the event. But there is nothing of it in Luke’s report.
Nevertheless, the reasons stated above, and especially those derived from the prologue to the Gospel, make the intermediate date the most probable of the three. It combines the advantages of the other two dates and avoids the difficulties of both. It may be doubted whether any of the Gospels, as we have them, was written as early as a.d. 63; and if the Third Gospel is placed after the death of S. Paul, one main reason for placing it before a.d. 70 is gone.
(ii.) As to the Place in which Luke wrote his Gospel we have no evidence that is of much value. The Gospel itself gives no sure clue. The peculiarities of its diction point to a centre in which Hellenistic influences prevailed; and the way in which places in Palestine are mentioned have been thought to indicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (1:26, 2:4, 4:31, 8:26, 23:51, 24:13). The first of these considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the second has little or no weight. The fact that the Gospel was written for readers outside Palestine, who were not familiar with the country, accounts for all the topographical expressions. We do not know what evidence Jerome had for the statement which he makes in the preface to his commentary on S. Matthew: Tertius Lucas medicus, natione Syrus Antiochensis (cujus laus in Evangelio), qui et discipulus apostoli Pauli, in Achaiæ Bœotiæque partibus volumen condidit (2 Corinthians 8:0.), quædam altius repetens, et ut ipse in proæmio confitetur, audita magis, quam visa describens (Migne, 26:18), where some MSS. have Bithyniæ for Bæotiæ. Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of composition, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses vary much: Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lekebusch, Zeller), Cæsarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor (Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Köstlin), and Corinth (Godet). There is no evidence or against any of them.
§ 5. OBJECT AND PLAN
(i.) The immediate Object is told us in the preface. It was written to give Theophilus increased confidence in the faith which he had adopted, by supplying him with further information respecting its historical basis. That Theophilus is a real person, and not a symbolical personage representing devout Christians in general,1 is scarcely doubtful, although Bishop Lightfoot, with characteristic caution, has warned us not to be too confident of this. A real person is intrinsically more probable. The name was a very common one,—fairly frequent among Jews, and very frequent among Gentiles. It is thus quite unlike such obviously made up names as Sophron and Neologus in a modern book, or Philotheus, to whom Ken dedicates his Manual of Prayer for Winchester scholars. Moreover, the epithet κράτιστε is far more likely to have been given to a real person than to a fictitious one. It does not however necessarily imply high rank or authority (Acts 23:26, Acts 24:3, Acts 26:25), and we must be content to be in ignorance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gentile convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topographical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as “the feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover” (22:1), would not have been required for a Jewish convert.
But, although Theophilus was almost certainly an actual person well known to Luke, we need not suppose that the Evangelist had only this one reader in view when he wrote. It is evident that he writes for the instruction and encouragement of all Gentile converts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theophilus is to be the patron of the book with a view to its introduction to a larger circle of readers. Perhaps Luke hoped that Theophilus would have it copied and disseminated, as he probably did.
Among the many indications that the book is written by a Gentile for Gentiles are the substitution of Greek for Hebrew names, ὁ Ζηλωτής for ὁ Καναναῖος (6:15 ; Acts 1:13), and Κρανίον for Γολγοθᾶ (23:33); his never using Ῥαββεί as a form of address, but either διδάσκαλε or ἐπιστάτα;1 his comparatively sparing use of�Mark 9:2 ; Matthew 17:2) in his account of the Transfiguration (9:29), a word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen deities; his notice of the Roman Emperor (2:1), and using his reign as a date (3:1); his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (3:38). Although full honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (2:21, 27, 39, 5:14, 10:26, 16:17, 29-31, 17:14, 18:20), yet there is not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no parallels to Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:12:Matthew 5:5-7, Matthew 5:17-20, Matthew 5:15:Matthew 5:1-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings of Christ (4:4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, 6:4, 7:27, 8:10, 13:19, 28, 29, 35, 18:20, 19:46, 20:17, 37, 42, 43, 21:10, 24, 26, 27, 35, 22:37, 69, 23:30, 46) or of others (1:15, 17, 37, 46-55, 68-79, 2:30, 31, 32, 4:10, 11, 10:27, 20:28). Very little is said about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest Gentile readers (3:4, 4:21, 21:22, 22:37, 24:44); and of these five instances, all but the first occur in sayings of Christ addressed to Jews. Many of the quotations noted above are mere reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture; but the following are definitely given as citations: 2:23, 24, 3:4, 4:4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 7:27, 10:27, 18:20, 19:46, 20:17, 28, 37, 42, 43, 22:37 Excepting 7:27, they may all have come from LXX.1 And 7:27 does not agree with either the Hebrew or LXX of Malachi 3:1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist knew Hebrew. But, excepting ἐγώ, it agrees verbatim with Matthew 11:10, and we need not doubt that both Evangelists used the same source and copied it exactly. Add to these his command of the Greek language and his use of “Judæa” for the land of the Jews, i.e. the whole of Palestine (1:5, 4:44?, 7:17, 23:5 ; Acts 2:9, Acts 2:10:37, Acts 2:11:1, Acts 2:29). This combination of non-Jewish features would be extraordinary in a treatise written by a Jew or for Jews. It is thoroughly intelligible in one written by a Gentile for Gentiles.
In his desire to give further instruction to Theophilus and many others like him, it is evident that Luke aims at fulness. He desires to make his Gospel as complete as possible. This is clearly indicated in the prologue. He has “traced up the course of all things accurately from the first” (ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν), in order that Theophilus may “know in full detail” (ἐπιγνῷς) the historic foundations of the faith. And it is equally clearly seen in the Gospel itself. Luke begins at the very beginning, far earlier than any other Evangelist; not merely with the birth of the Christ, but with the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. And he goes on to the very end: not merely to the Resurrection but to the Ascension. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calculation, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (3/4), Matthew 114 (2/3), and Mark 84 (1/2); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to himself (2/7), Matthew has 22 (1/8), and Mark has 5 (1/37). According to another calculation, if the total be divided into 124 sections, of these Lk. has 93, Matthew 78 and Mark 67; and of these 124 Luke has 38 peculiar to himself, Matthew 17:0, and Mark 2:2 The portions of the Gospel narrative which Luke alone has preserved for us are among the most beautiful treasures which we possess, and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to make his collection as full as possible.
It is becoming more and more generally admitted that the old view of the purpose of Gospel and Acts is not far off the truth. It was Luke’s intention to write history, and not polemical or apologetic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especially Gentile Christians, on how firm a basis of fact their belief was founded. The Saviour had come, and He had come to save the whole human race. The work of the Christ and the work of His Apostles proved this conclusively. In the Gospel we see the Christ winning salvation for the whole world; in the Acts we see His Apostles carrying the good tidings of this salvation to the whole world. Luke did not write to depreciate the Twelve in the interests of S. Paul; nor to vindicate S. Paul against the attacks of Judaizing opponents; nor yet to reconcile the Judaizers with the disciples of S. Paul. A Gospel which omits the severe rebuke incurred by Peter (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33), the ambitious request of James and John (Matthew 20:21; Mark 10:37), the boastful declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31), and the subsequent flight of all (Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50); which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones (22:30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” (24:47), cannot be regarded as hostile to the Twelve. And why address a vindication of Paul to a representative Gentile? Lastly, how could Judaizers be conciliated by such stern judgments on Judaism as Luke has recorded? See, for instance, the following passages, all of them from what is peculiar to Luke: 4:28, 29, 10:10, 11, 31, 32, 11:39, 40, 12:47, 13:1-5, 15, 16:15, 17:18, 18:10-14, 23:28-31 ; Acts 2:23, Acts 5:30, Acts 7:51-53, etc. It is well that these theories as to the purpose of the Evangelist have been propounded: the examination of them is most instructive. But they do not stand the test of careful investigation. S. Luke remains unconvicted of the charge of writing party pamphlets under the cover of fictitious history.
(ii.) The Plan of the Gospel is probably not elaborated. In the preface Luke says that he means to write “in order” (καθεξῆς), and this most naturally means in chronological order. Omitting the first two chapters and the last chapter in each case, the main features of the First and Third Gospels agree; and in outline their structure agrees to a large extent with that of the Second.1 Luke perhaps took the tradition which underlies all three Gospels as his chief guide, and inserted into it what he had gathered from other sources. In arranging the additional material he followed chronology, where he had any chronological clue; and where he had none (which perhaps was often the case), he placed similar incidents or sayings in juxtaposition.
But a satisfactory solution of the perplexing phenomena has not yet been found: for what explains one portion of them with enticing clearness cannot be made to harmonize with another portion. We may assert with some confidence that Luke generally aims at chronological order, and that on the whole he attains it; but that he sometimes prefers a different order, and that he often, being ignorant himself, leaves us also in ignorance as to chronology. Perhaps also some of his chronological arrangements are not correct.
The chronological sequence of the Acts cannot be doubted; and this is strong confirmation of the view that the Gospel is meant to be chronological in arrangement. Comp. the use of καθεξῆς 8:1; Acts 3:24, Acts 9:4, Acts 18:23.
That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the impression which it everywhere gives of transparent simplicity. That there was connexion and development in the life and work of Christ need not be doubted and the narrative which reports that life and work in its true order will illustrate the connexion and development. But that is a very different thing from the supposition that Luke first formed a scheme, and then arranged his materials to illustrate it. So far as there is “organic structure and dogmatic connexion” in the Third Gospel, it is due to the materials rather than to the Evangelist. Attempts to trace this supposed dogmatic connexion are instructive in two ways. They suggest a certain number of connexions, which (whether intended or not) are illuminative. They also show, by their extraordinary divergences, how far we are from anything conclusive in this direction. The student who compares the schemes worked out by Ebrard (Gosp. Hist. I. 1:1, § 20, 21), McClellan (N.T. PP. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange’s Comm. Int. §4), and Westcott (Int. to Gospels, ch. viii. note G) will gather various suggestive ideas, but will also doubt whether anything like any one of them was in the mind of the Evangelist.
The analysis which follows is obtained by separating the different sections and grouping them under different heads. There is seldom any doubt as to where one section ends and another begins; and the grouping of the sections is avowedly tentative. But most analyses recognize a break between chapters 2 and 3, at or about 9:51 and 19:28, and between chapters 21 and 22. If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numerous sections may be assigned. In the two main central divisions, which together occupy nearly seventeen chapters, some subsidiary grouping has been attempted, but without confidence in its correctness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if nothing of the kind is intended by S. Luke 1:0 The mark § indicates that this portion is found in Luke alone; ° that it is common to Luke and Mark; †that it is common to Luke and Matthew; * that it is common to all three.
There is a presumption that what is peculiar to Luke comes from some source that was not used by Mark or Matthew; and this presumption is in some cases a strong one; e.g. the Examination of Christ before Herod, or the Walk to Emmaus; but all that we know is that Luke has preserved something which they have not. Again there is a presumption that what is given by Luke and Matthew, but omitted by Mark, comes from some source not employed by the latter; and this presumption is somewhat stronger when what is given by them, but omitted by him, is not narrative but discourse; e.g. the Parable of the Lost Sheep. Yet the book of “Oracles,” known to Matthew and Luke, but not known to Mark, is nothing more than a convenient hypothesis for which a good deal may be said. And it would be rash to affirm that the few (p. 24) sections which are found in Mark and Luke, but not in Matthew, such as the Widow’s Mite, come from some source unknown to Matthew. The frequency of the mark § gives some idea of what we should have lost had S. Luke not been moved to write. And it must be remembered that in the sections which are common to him and either or both of the others he often gives touches of his own which are of the greatest value. Attention is frequently called to these in the notes. They should be contrasted with the additions made to the Canonical Gospels in the apocryphal gospels.
I. 1:1-4. § The Preface. The Sources and Object of the Gospel.
II. 1:5-2:52. § The Gospel of the Infancy.
1. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25).
2. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38).
3. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of the Forerunner (39-56).
4. The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80)
5. The Birth of the Saviour (2:1-20).
6. The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour (21-40).
7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52).
III. 3:1-9:50. The Ministry, mainly in Galilee.
i. The External Preparation for the Ministry; The Preaching of the Baptist (3:1-22).
1. § The Date (1, 2).
2. * The New Prophet, his Preaching, Prophecy, and Death (3-20).
3. * He baptizes the Christ (21, 22).
§ The Genealogy of the Christ (23-38).
ii. The Internal Preparation for the Ministry; *The Temptation (4:1-13).
iii. The Ministry in Galilee (4:14-9:50).
1. Visit to Nazareth; °At Capernaum an unclean Demon cast out (4:14-44).
2. §* The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon, *Two Healings which provoke Controversy; *The Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which provoke Controversy (5:1-6, 11).
3. * The Nomination of the Twelve; †The Sermon “on the Level Place”; †The Centurion’s Servant §The Widow’s Son at Nain : †The Message from the Baptist; §The Anointing by the Sinner; §The Ministering Women; *The Parable of the Sower; *The Relations of Jesus ; *The Stilling of the Tempest; *The Gerasene Demoniac; *The Woman with the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (6:12-8:56)
4. * The Mission of the Twelve; *The Feeding of the Five Thousand; *Peter’s Confession and the First Prediction of the Passion; *The Transfiguration; *The Demoniac Boy; *The Second Prediction of the Passion; *Who is the greatest? *Not against us is for us (9:1-50).
IV. 9:51-19:28. The Journeyings Towards Jerusalem: Ministry outside Galilee.
i. The departure from Galilee and First Period of the Journey (9:51-13:35).
1. § The Samaritan Village; †§Three Aspirants to Discipleship; §The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions and §the Good Samaritan; §Mary and Martha (9:51-10:42).
2. § Prayer; *Casting out Demons by Beelzebub; §True Blessedness; *The Demand for a Sign: §Denunciation of Pharisaism ; †Exhortation to Sincerity; §The Avaricious Brother; §The Rich Fool; God’s Providential Care; § The Signs of the Times (9:1-12:59).
3. § Three Exhortations to Repentance; §The Woman with a Spirit of Infirmity; *The Mustard Seed; †The Leaven; The Number of the Saved; §The Message to Antipas and †the Lament over Jerusalem (13:1-35).
ii. The Second Period of the Journey (14:1-17:10).
1. § The Dropsical Man; §Guests and Hosts; §The Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship; †The Lost Sheep; §The Lost Coin; §The Lost Son (14:1-15:32).
2. § The Unrighteous Steward; §†Short Sayings; §The Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on *Offences, §Forgiveness, †Faith, §Works (16:1-17:10).
iii. The Third Period of the Journey (17:2-19:28).
1. § The Ten Lepers; §*The coming of the Kingdom; §The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the Publican (17:2-18:14).
2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; *The Third Prediction of the Passion; *The Blind Man at Jericho ; §Zacchæus; §The Pounds (18:15-19:28).
V. 19:29-21:38. Last Days of Public Teaching: Ministry in Jerusalem.
1. * The Triumphal Procession and §Predictive Lamentation; *The Cleansing of the Temple (19:29-48).
2. The Day of Questions. *Christ’s Authority and John’s Baptism; *The Wicked Husbandmen; *Tribute; *The Woman with Seven Husbands; *David’s Son and Lord; *The Scribes; °The Widow’s Mite; *§Apocalyptic Discourse (20:1-21:38).
VI. 22-24. The Passion and the Resurrection.
i. The Passion (22:1-23:56).
1. * The Treachery of Judas (22:1-6).
2. * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist; *The Strife about Priority; §The New Conditions (22:7-38).
3. * *§The Agony; *The Arrest; *Peter’s Denials; The Ecclesiastical Trial; *The Civil Trial; §Jesus sent to Herod; *Sentence; *Simon of Cyrene; §The Daughters of Jerusalem; *The Crucifixion; §The Two Robbers; *The Death (22:39-23:49).
4. * The Burial (23:50-56).
ii. The Resurrection and the Ascension (24.).
1. *§ The Women at the Tomb (1-11).
2. § [Peter at the Tomb (12).]
3. § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32).
4. § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43)
5. § Christ’s Farewell Instructions (44-49).
6. § The Departure (50-53).
Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins with scenes which are typical of Christ’s rejection by His people: the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth(4:28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of Samaritans to entertain Him (9:51-56); and that in Jerusalem with the Lament over the city (19:41-44). In the first and last case the tragic rejection is heightened by being preceded by a momentary welcome.
It will be useful to collect for separate consideration the Miracles and the Parables which are recorded by S. Luke.
* Unclean Demon east out. §Two Debtors.
* Peter’s Wife’s Mother healed. * Sower.
§ Miraculous Draught of Fish. § Good Samaritan.
* Leper cleansed. § Friend at midnight.
* Palsied healed. § Rich Fool.
* Withered Hand restored. § Watchful Servants.
† Centurion’s Servant healed. § Barren Fig-tree.
§ Widow’s Son raised. * Mustard Seed.
* Tempest stilled. † Leaven.
* Gerasene Demoniac. § Chief Seats.
* Woman with the Issue. § Great Supper.
* Jairus’ Daughter raised. § Rash Builder.
* Five Thousand fed. § Rash King.
* Demoniac Boy. † Lost Sheep.
† Dumb Demon cast out. § Lost Coin.
§ Spirit of Infirmity. § Lost Son.
§ Dropsical Man. § Unrighteous Steward.
§ Ten Lepers cleansed. § Dives and Lazarus.
* Blind Man at Jericho. § Unprofitable Servants.
§ Malchus’ ear. § Unrighteous Judge.
§ Pharisee and Publican.
* Wicked Husbandmen.
Thus, out of twenty miracles recorded by Luke, six are peculiar to him; while, out of twenty-three parables, all but five are peculiar to him. And he omits only eleven, ten peculiar to Matthew, and one peculiar to Mark (4:26-29). Whence did Luke obtain the eighteen parables which he alone records? And whence did Matthew obtain the ten parables which he alone records? If the “Oracles” contained them all, why does each Evangelist omit so many?If S. Luke knew our Matthew, why does he omit all these ten, especially the Two Sons (Matthew 21:28-32), which points to the obedience of the Gentiles (see p. xxiv). In illustration of the fact that the material common to all three Gospels consists mainly of narratives rather than discourses, it should be noticed that most of the twenty miracles in Luke are in the other two also, whereas only three of the twenty-three parables in Luke are also in Matthew and Mark. It is specially worthy of note that the eleven miracles recorded by all three occur in the same order in each of the Gospels; and the same is true of the three parables which are common to all three. Moreover, if we add to these the three miraculous occurrences which attest the Divinity of Christ, these also are in the same order in each. The Descent of the Spirit with the Voice from Heaven at the Baptism precedes all. The Transfiguration is placed between the feeding of the 5000 and the healing of the demoniac boy. The Resurrection closes all. Evidently the order had already been fixed in the material which all three Evangelists employ.
§ 6. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE
(i.) It has already been pointed out (p. xxxv) that Luke aims at fulness and completeness. (a) Comprehensiveness is a characteristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography; and his object seems to have been to give his readers as full a picture as he could of the life of Jesus Christ, in all the portions of it—infancy, boyhood, manhood—respecting which he had information.
But there is a comprehensiveness of a more important kind which is equally characteristic of him: and for the sake of a different epithet we may say that the Gospel of S. Luke is in a special sense the universal Gospel. All four Evangelists tell us that the good tidings are sent to “all the nations” (Matthew 28:19; Mark 13:10; Luke 24:47) independently of birth (John 1:12, John 1:13). But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as S. Luke. He gives us, not so much the Messiah of the O.T., as the Saviour of all mankind and the Satisfier of all human needs. Again and again he shows us that forgiveness and salvation are offered to all, and offered freely, independently of privileges of birth or legal observances. Righteousness of heart is the passport to the Kingdom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan (9:51-56, 10:30-37, 17:11-19) and the Gentile (2:32, 3:6, 38, 4:25-27, 7:9, 10:1, 13:29, 21:24, 24:47) as well as to the Jew (1:33, 54, 68-79, 2:10); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts (3:12, 13, 5:27-32, 7:37-50, 15:1, 2, 11-32, 18:9-14, 19:2-10, 23:43) as well as to the respectable (7:36, 11:37, 14:1); to the poor (1:53, 2:7, 8, 24, 4:18, 6:20, 21, 7:22, 14:13, 21, 16:20, 23) as well as to the rich (19:2, 23:50). And hence Dante calls S. Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ,” scriba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchiâ, i. 16 , ed. Witte, 1874, p. 33; Church, p. 210). It cannot be mere accident that the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, the Great Supper, the Pharisee and the Publican, the rebukes to intolerance, and the incidents of the sinner in the house of Simon, and of the penitent robber are peculiar to this Gospel. Nor yet that it omits Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:10:5, .Matthew 7:6, Matthew 7:20:16, Matthew 7:22:14, which might be regarded as hostile to the Gentiles. S. Luke at the opening of the ministry shows this universal character of it by continuing the great prophecy from Isaiah 40:3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) till he reaches the words “All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:6). And at the close of it he alone records the gracious declaration that “the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (19:10; interpolated Matthew 18:11).1
It is a detail, but an important one, in the universality of the Third Gospel, that it is in an especial sense the Gospel for women Jew and Gentile alike looked down on women.2 But all through this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types of womanhood are placed before us: Elizabeth, the Virgin Mary, the prophetess Anna, the widow at Nain, the nameless sinner in the house of Simon, Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Susanna, the woman with the issue, Martha and Mary, the widow with the two mites, the “daughters of Jerusalem,” and the women at the tomb. A Gospel with this marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intolerance appropriately carries the pedigree of the Saviour past David and Abraham to the parent of the whole human race (3:38). It is possible that Luke simply copied the genealogy as he found it, or that his extending it to Adam is part of his love of completeness; but the thought of the father of all mankind is likely to have been present also.
It is this all-embracing love and forgiveness, as proclaimed in the Third Gospel, which is meant, or ought to be meant, when it is spoken of as the “Gospel of S. Paul.” The tone of the Gospel is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Christianity. It advocates faith and repentance apart from the works of the Law, and tells abundantly of God’s grace and mercy and the work of the Holy Spirit. In the Pauline Epistles these topics and expressions are constant.
The word πίστις, which occurs eight times in Mt., five in Mk., and not at all in Jn., is found eleven times in Lk. and sixteen in the Acts: μετάνοια, twice in Mt., once in Mk., not in Jn., occurs five times in Lk. and six in Acts: χάρις, thrice in Jn., not Mt. or Mk., is frequent both in Lk. and Acts: ἔλεος, thrice in Mt., not in Mk. or Jn., occurs six times in Lk. but not in Acts: ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, once in Mt., twice in Mk., not in Jn., is found thrice in Lk. and five times in Acts; and the expression “Holy Spirit,” which is found five times in Mt., four in Mk., four in Jn., occurs twelve times in Lk. and forty-one in Acts. See on 1:15.
It is characteristic that τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε (Matthew 5:46) becomes ποία ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστιν (Luke 6:32); and ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειὸ̓ς ἐστιν (Matthew 5:48) becomes γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστιν (Luke 6:36). Note also the incidents recorded 4:25-27 and 10:1-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated 1:15, 35, 41, 67, 2:25, 26, 27, 4:1, 10:21, 11:13, all of which are peculiar to Lk.
But it is misleading in this respect to compare the Second Gospel with the Third. From very early times the one has been called the Petrine Gospel, and the other the Pauline. S. Mark is said to give us the teaching of S. Peter, S. Luke the teaching of S. Paul. The statements are true, but in very different senses. Mark derived his materials from Peter. Luke exhibits the spirit of Paul: and no doubt to a large extent he derived this spirit from the Apostle. But he got his material from eye-witnesses. Mark was the interpreter of Peter, as Irenæus (3:1, 1, 10:6) and Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. 4:5) aptly call him: he made known to others what Peter had said. Paul was the illuminator of Luke (Tert. 4:2): he enlightened him as to the essential character of the Gospel. Luke, as his “fellow-worker,” would teach what the Apostle taught, and would learn to give prominence to those elements in the Gospel narrative of which he made most frequent use. Then at last “Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him” (Iren. 3:1, 1).
Jülicher sums up the case justly when he says that Luke has adopted from Paul no more than the whole Catholic Church has adopted, viz. the universality of salvation and the boundlessness of Divine grace: and it is precisely in these two points that Paul has been a clear-sighted and logical interpreter of Jesus Christ (Einl. § 27, p. 204). See also Knowling, The Witness of the Epistles, P. 328, and the authorities there quoted.
Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (Introd. to N. T. ii. p. 17) and Schaff (Apostolic Christianity, 2. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism between the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of Holtzmann’s examples, adds others; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon doubtful readings. The following are worth considering:—
S. Luke. S. Paul.
4:32. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἦν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ. 1 Corinthians 2:4. ὁ λόγος μου … ἐν�
6:36. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν. 2 Corinthians 1:3. ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν.
6:39. μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν; Romans 2:19. πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν.
6:48. ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον. 1 Corinthians 3:10. θεμέλιον ἔθηκα.
7:8. ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος. Romans 13:1. ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω.
8:12. πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν. 1 Corinthians 1:21. σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας.
Romans 1:16. εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τ. πιστεύοντι.
8:13. μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τ. λόγον. 1 Thessalonians 1:6. δεξάμενοι τ. λόγον … μετὰ χαρᾶς.
10:7. ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. 1 Timothy 5:18. ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
10:8. ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν. 1 Corinthians 10:27. πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε.
10:16. ὁ�1 Thessalonians 4:8. ὁ�
10:20. τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐνγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς. Philippians 4:3. ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς.(Psalms 69:28)
11:7. μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε. Galatians 6:17. κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρεχέτω.
11:29. ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη … σημεῖον ζητεῖ. 1 Corinthians 1:22. Ἰουδαῖοι σημεῖα αἰτοῦσιν.
11:41. καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστίν. Titus 1:15. πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθαροῖς.
12:35. ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι. Ephesians 6:14. στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν (Isaiah 11:5).
12:42. τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς οἰκονόμος; 1 Corinthians 4:2. ζητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ.
13:27.�Psalms 6:8). 2 Timothy 2:19.�
18:1. δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς. Colossians 1:3. πάντοτε προσευχόμενοι.
2 Thessalonians 1:11. προσευχόμεθα πάντοτε.
καὶ μὴ ἐνκακεῖν. Galatians 6:9. μὴ ἐνκακῶμεν.
20:16. μὴ γένοιτο. Romans 9:14, Romans 9:11:11; Galatians 3:21
20:22, 25. ἔξεστιν ἡμᾶς Καίσαρι φόρον δοῦναι ἢ οὔ;�Romans 13:7.�
20:35. οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν. 2 Thessalonians 1:5. εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ.
20:38. πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν. Romans 6:11. ζῶντας τῷ θεῷ.
Galatians 2:19. ἴνα θεῷ ζήσω.
21:23. ἔσται γὰρ … ὀργὴ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ. 1 Thessalonians 2:16. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπʼ αὐτοὑς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.
21:24. ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν. Romans 11:25. ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ.
21:34. μή ποτε βαρηθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι ὑμῶν ἐν κρεπάλῃ καὶ μέθῃ … καὶ ἐπιστῇ ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς ἐφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ὡς παγίς. 1 Thessalonians 5:3-5. τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐπίσταται ὄλεθρος … ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης [κλέπτας] καταλάβῃ.
21:36.�Ephesians 6:18. προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ καιρ·ῷ … καὶ�
22:53. ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. Colossians 1:13. ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους.
It is not creditable to modern scholarship that the foolish opinion, quoted by Eusebius with a φασὶ δέ (H. E. 3:4, 8) and by Jerome with quidam suspicantur (De vir. illus. 7.), that wherever S. Paul speaks of “my Gospel” (Romans 2:16, Romans 2:16:25; 2 Timothy 2:8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted 1 Timothy 5:18 is incredible. The words λέγει ἡ γραφή refer to the first sentence only, which comes from Deuteronomy 25:4. What follows, “the labourer is worthy of his hire,” is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Luke 10:7; Matthew 10:10) and then by S. Paul. Had S. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, he would not have said λέγει ἡ γραφή. He would have used some such expression as μνημονεύειν τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ ὅτι αὐτὸς λέγει (Acts 20:35), or παραγγέλλει ὁ κύριος (1 Corinthians 7:10, 1 Corinthians 7:12), or μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, οὓς ἐλάλησεν (Clem. Rom. Cor. 13:1 ; comp. 46:7), or simply εἶπεν ὁ κύριος (Polyc. 7:2). Comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:15; 1 Corinthians 9:14, 1 Corinthians 11:23.
(b) More than any of the other Evangelists S. Luke brings before his readers the subject of Prayer; and that in two ways, (1) by the example of Christ, and (2) by direct instruction. All three Synoptists record that Christ prayed in Gethsemane (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:35; Luke 22:41); Mark (1:35) mentions His retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where Luke (4:42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew (14:23) and Mark (6:46) relate His retirement for prayer after the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (9:17) relates neither. But on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed: at His Baptism (3:21); before His first collision with the hierarchy (v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (6:12); before the first prediction of the Passion (9:18); at the Transfiguration (9:29); before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (11:1); and on the Cross (23:, 46). Moreover, Luke alone relates the declaration of Jesus that He had made supplication for Peter, and His charge to the Twelve, “Pray that ye enter not into temptation” (22:32, 40) It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you” (11:9). Again, Luke alone records the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend at Midnight (11:5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (18:1-8); and to the charge to “watch” (Matthew 25:13 ; Mark 13:33) he adds “at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail,” etc. (21:36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the difference between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (18:11-13).
(c) The Third Gospel is also remarkable for the prominence which it gives to Praise and Thanksgiving. It begins and ends with worship in the temple (1:9, 24:53). Luke alone has preserved for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Gloria in Excelsis, or Song of the Angels (2:14); the Magnificat, or Song of the blessed Virgin Mary (1:46-55); the Benedictus, or Song of Zacharias (1:68-79); and the Nunc Dimittis, or Song of Symeon (2:29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told that those who received special benefits “glorified God” (δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν) for them (2:20, 5:25, 26, 7:16, 13:13, 17:15, 18:43). Comp. Matthew 9:8, Matthew 9:15:31; Mark 2:12. The expression “praising God” (αἰνεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke in N.T. (2:13, 20, 19:37, 24:53?; Acts 2:47, Acts 2:3:8, Acts 2:9). “Blessing God” (εὐλογεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke (1:64, 2:28, 24:53?): elsewhere only James 3:9. “Give praise (αἶνον διδόναι) to God” occurs Luke 18:43 only. So also χαίρειν, which occurs eight times in Matthew and Mark, occurs nineteen times in Luke and Acts; χαρά seven times in Matthew and Mark, thirteen times in Luke and Acts.
(d) The Gospel of S. Luke is rightly styled “the most literary of the Gospels” (Renan, Les Évangiles, ch. 13.). “S. Luke has more literary ambition than his fellows” (Sanday, Book by Book, p. 401). He possesses the art of composition. He knows not only how to tell a tale truthfully, but how to tell it with effect. He can feel contrasts and harmonies, and reproduce them for his readers. The way in which he tells the stories of the widow’s son at Nain, the sinner in Simon’s house, Martha and Mary at Bethany, and the walk to Emmaus, is quite exquisite. And one might go on giving other illustrations of his power, until one had mentioned nearly the whole Gospel. The sixth century was not far from the truth when it called him a painter, and said that he had painted the portrait of the Virgin. There is no picture of her so complete as his. How lifelike are his sketches of Zacharias, Anna, Zacchæus, Herod Antipas! And with how few touches is each done! As a rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire and food (Mark 1:6 ; Matthew 3:4). In the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mark 1:31 ; Matthew 8:15). In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mark 2:2). And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have an illuminating addition which is all his own (3:15, 21, 4:13, 15, 40, 42, 5:1, 12, 15, 16, 6:12, 8:47, etc.). His contrasts are not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and the believing maiden (1:18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the self-satisfied Pharisee (7:37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thankful Samaritan (17:17), the practical Martha and the contemplative Mary (10:38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people (19:47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between Christ’s work and Satan’s1 (4:13, 10:17-20, 13:16, 22:3, 31, 53), often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to His work (11:52, 12:1, 13:14, 31, 15:2, 16:14, 19:39, 47, 20:20), is brought out with special clearness. The development of the hostility of the Pharisees is one of the main threads in the narrative. It is this rare combination of descriptive power with simplicity and dignity, this insight into the lights and shadows of character and the conflict between spiritual forces, which makes this Gospel much more than a fulfilment of its original purpose (1:4). There is no rhetoric, no polemics, no sectarian bitterness. It is by turns joyous and sad; but even where it is most tragic it is almost always serene.2 As the fine literary taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world.
(e) S. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes history as distinct from memoirs. He aims at writing “in order,” which probably means in chronological order (1:5, 26, 36, 56, 59, 2:42, 3:23, 9:28, 37, 51, 22:1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (2:1, 3:1). The sixfold date (3:1) is specially remarkable: and it is possible that both it and 2:1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narrative. The words ἔτος (26/23) and μήν (10/8) occur more often in his writings than in the rest of N.T.: and this fact points to a special fondness for exactitude as regards time. Where he gives no date,—probably because he found none in his authorities,—he frequently lets us know what incidents are connected together although he does not know in what year or time of year to place the group (4:1, 38, 40, 7:1, 18, 24, 8:1, 10:1, 21, 11:37, 12:1, 13:1, 31, 19:11, 28, 41, 22:66, 24:13). He is very much less definite than Josephus or Tacitus; but that is only what we ought to expect. He had not their opportunities of consulting public records, and he was much less interested in chronology than they were. Yet it has been noticed that the Agricola of Tacitus contains no chronology until the last chapter is reached. The value of Christ’s words and works was quite independent of dates. Such remarks as he makes 16:14, 18:1, 9, 19:11 throw far more light upon what follows than an exact note of time would have done. Here and there he seems to be giving us his own estimate of the situation, as an historian or biographer might do (2:50, 3:15, 8:30, 20:20, 22:3, 23:12): and the notes, whether they come from himself or his sources, are helpful. If chronology even in his Gospel is meagre, yet there is a continuity and development which may be taken as evidence of the true historic spirit.1 He follows the Saviour through the stages, not only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (2:40, 42, 51, 52, 3:23, 4:13, 22:28, 53). He traces the course of the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Peræa, from Peræa to Jerusalem, just as in the Acts he marks the progress of the Gospel, as represented successively by Stephen, Philip, Peter, and Paul, from Jerusalem to Antioch, from Antioch to Ephesus and Greece, and finally to Rome.
(f) But along with these literary and historical features it has a marked domestic tone. In this Gospel we see most about Christ in His social intercourse with men. The meal in the house of Simon, in that of Martha and Mary, in that of a Pharisee, when the Pharisees were denounced, in that of a leading Pharisee on a sabbath, when the dropsical man was healed, His sojourn with Zacchæus, His walk to Emmaus and the supper there, are all peculiar to Luke’s narrative, together with a number of parables, which have the same quiet and homely setting. The Good Samaritan in the inn, the Friend at Midnight, the Woman with the Leaven, the Master of the house rising and shutting the door, the Woman sweeping for the Lost Coin, the Father welcoming the Lost Son, all have this touch of familiar domesticity. And perhaps it is to this love of homely scenes that we may trace the fact that whereas Mk. (4:31) has the mustard-seed sown “on the earth,” and Mt. (13:31) makes a man sow it “in his field,” Lk. (13:19) tells us that a man sowed it “in his own garden.” Birks, Hor. Ev.
(ii.) When we consider the style and language of S. Luke, we are struck by two apparently opposite features,—his great command of Greek and his very un-Greek use of Hebrew phrases and constructions. These two features produce a result which is so peculiar, that any one acquainted with them in detail would at once recognize as his any page torn out of either of his writings. This peculiarity impresses us less than that which distinguishes the writings of S. John, and which is felt even in a translation; but it is much more easily analysed. It lies in the diction rather than in the manner, and its elements can readily be tabulated. But for this very reason a good deal of it is lost in translation, in which peculiarities of construction cannot always be reproduced. In any version the difference between S. Mark and S. John is felt by the ordinary reader. The most careful version would fail to show to an attentive student more than a good portion of the differences between S. Mark and S. Luke.
The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile of all the N.T. writers. He can be as Hebraistic as the LXX, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. And, in the main, whether intentionally or not, he is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society, and Greek in describing Greek society. It is impossible to determine how much of the Hebraistic style is due to the sources which he is employing, how much is voluntarily adopted by himself as suitable to the subject which he is treating. That Aramaic materials which he translated, or Greek materials which had come from an Aramaic source, influenced his language considerably, need not be doubted; for it is where he had no such materials that his Greek shows least sign of such influences. In the second half of the Acts, where he writes of his own experiences, and is independent of information that has come from an Aramaic source, he writes in good late Greek. But then it is precisely here that he is describing scenes far away from Jerusalem in an Hellenistic or Gentile atmosphere. So that it is quite possible that to some extent he is a free agent in this matter, and is not merely exhibiting the influence under which he is writing at the moment. No doubt it is true that, where he has used materials which directly or indirectly are Aramaic, there his style is Hebraistic; but it may also be true that he has there allowed his style to be Hebraistic, because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject-matter.
He has enabled us to judge of the two styles by placing two highly characteristic specimens of each in immediate juxtaposition. In the Acts the change from the more Hebrew portion to the more Greek portion takes place gradually, just as in the narrative there is a change from a Hebrew period (1-5), through a transitional period (6-12), to a Gentile period (13-28).1 But in the Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the opening narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon to a chapter in the LXX.1 And he never returns to the style of the Preface. In the Gospel itself it is simply a question of more or less Hebrew elements. They are strongest in the first two chapters, but they never entirely cease; and they are specially common at the beginning of narratives, e.g. 5:1, 12, 17, 6:1, 6, 12, 8:22, 9:18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construction, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. Comp. Luke 9:28, Luke 9:29, Luke 9:33, Luke 9:38, Luke 9:39 with Matthew 17:1, Matthew 17:2, Matthew 17:4, Matthew 17:15; Luke 13:30 with Matthew 19:30; Luke 18:35 with Matthew 20:29; Luke 20:1 with Matthew 21:23.
From this strong Hebraistic tinge in his language some (Tiele, Hofmann, Hahn) have drawn the unnecessary and improbable conclusion that the Evangelist was a Jew; while others, from the fact that some of the Hebraisms and many other expressions which occur in the Third Gospel and the Acts are found also in the Pauline Epistles, have drawn the quite impossible conclusion that this hypothetical Jew was none other than S. Paul himself. To mention nothing else, the “we” sections in the Acts are fatal to the latter theory. In writing of himself and his companions, what could induce the Apostle to change backwards and forwards between “they” and “we”? As to the former theory, good reasons have been given above for attributing both books to a Gentile and to S. Luke, who (as S. Paul clearly implies in Colossians 4:11-14) was a Gentile. The Hebraistic colour in the Evangelist’s language, and the elements common to his diction and that of the Pauline Epistles, can be easily explained, and more satisfactorily explained, without an hypothesis which imports more difficulties than it solves. The Hebraisms in Luke come partly from his sources, partly from his knowledge of the LXX, and partly from his intercourse with S. Paul, who often in his presence discussed the O.T. with Jews in language which must often have been charged with Hebraisms. The expressions which are common to the two Lucan documents and the Pauline Epistles are partly mere accidents of language, and partly the result of companionship between the two writers. Two such men could not have been together so often without influencing one another’s language.
S. Luke’s command of Greek is abundantly shown both in the freedom of his constructions and also in the richness of his vocabulary.
(a) The freedom of his constructions is seen not infrequently even in his Hebraisms. Two instances will suffice. (1) His frequent use of ἐγένετο is often purely Hebraistic (1:8, 9), sometimes less so (6:1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all (Acts 9:3, Acts 21:1). This will be found worked out in detail in a detached note at the end of ch. 1 (2) His frequent use of periphrastic tenses, i.e. the substantive verb with a present or perfect participle instead of the simple tense, exhibits a similar variety.
The use of ἦν with pres. or perf. part. as a periphrasis for imperf. or pluperf. indic. is of Aramaic origin in many cases and is frequent in the Gospels,—most frequent in Luke; but it is not always easy to say whether it is a Hebraism or a use that might very well stand in classical Greek. For ἦν with pres. part. see 1:10, 21, 22, 2:33, 51, 4:20, 31, 38, 44, 5:16, 17, 29, 6:12, 8:40, 9:53, 11:14, 13:10, 11, 14:1, 15:1, 19:47, [21:37], 23:8, 24:13, 32. Most of these are probably due to Hebrew or Aramaic influence; but many would be admissible in classical Greek, and may be used to imply continuance of the action. In 1:21, 22, 2:51, 4:31, 15:1, 19:47, 23:8, 24:13, 32 the simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such cases as 2:33, 4:20, 9:53, 11-14, 13:10, 11, 14:1 are Hebraistic need hardly be doubted. So also where ἦν with perf. part. is used for the pluperf. (1:7, 2:26, 4:16, 17, 5:17, 9:32, 45, 18:34), 1:7 and 9:32 with most of the others are probably Hebraistic, but 5:17 almost certainly is not. Anyhow, Luke shows that he is able to give an Hellenic turn to his Hebraisms, so that they would less offend a Greek ear. Much the same might be said of his use of καί to introduce the apodosis, which may be quite classical (2:21), but may also be Hebraistic, especially where ἰδού is added (7:12, 24:4), or αὐτός (5:1, 17, 8:1, 22, 9:51, etc.): or of his frequent use of ἐν τῷ with the infinitive (1:8, 21, 2:6, 43, 5:1, etc.).
Simcox, Lang. of N. T. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of penphrastic imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke’s Hebraisms, Writers of N. T. pp. 19-22.
But Luke’s freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects. Although he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with a simple καί (1:13, 14, 31-33, 16:19, etc.), yet he is able to vary his sentences with relatives, participles, dependent clauses, genitive absolutes, and the like, almost to any extent. We find this even in the most Hebraistic parts of the Gospel (1:20, 26, 27, 2:4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43); but still more in other parts: see especially 7:36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the optative in indirect questions, both without ἄν (1:29, 3:15, 8:9, 22:23; Acts 17:11, Acts 21:33, Acts 25:20) and with it (6:11, 15:26; Acts 5:24, Acts 10:17), sometimes preceded by the article (1:62, 9:46). In 18:36 the ἄν is doubtful. The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke (1:4, 5:9, 9:36, 12:46, 15:16, 23:41; Acts 1:22, Acts 1:2:22, Acts 1:3:21, Acts 1:25, etc.), especially after πᾶς (2:20, 3:19, 9:43, 19:37, 24:25; Acts 1:1, Acts 10:39, Acts 13:39, Acts 22:10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (18:19, 24:50) and once in Mark (7:13). His more frequent use of τε is another instance of more idiomatic Greek (2:16, 12:45, 15:2, 21:11 (bis), 22:66, 23:12, 24:20): only once in Mark and four times in Matthew. Sometimes we find the harsh Greek of Matthew or Mark improved in the parallel passage in Luke: e.g. τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν καὶ�Mark 12:38) has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting φιλούντων before�Mark 11:32) is smoothed in more details than one in Luke: ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν Ἐξ�Mark 1:35), with γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας (Luke 4:42). In the verses which follow, Luke’s diction is smoother than Mark’s. Compare also Luke 5:29, Luke 5:30 with Mark 2:15, Mark 2:16 and Matthew 9:10, Matthew 9:11 ; Luke 5:36 with Mark 2:21 and Matthew 9:16; Luke 6:11 with Mark 3:6 and Matthew 12:14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke’s narrative of the message of the Baptist (7:18-21), as compared with that of Matthew (11:2, 3), is very marked.
(b) But Luke’s command of Greek is seen also in the richness of his vocabulary. The number of words which occur in his two writings and nowhere else in N.T. is estimated at 750 or (including doubtful1 cases) 851; of which 26 occur in quotations from LXX. In the Gospel the words peculiar to Luke are 312; of which 52 are doubtful, and 11 occur in quotations. Some of these are found nowhere else in Greek literature. He is very fond of compound verbs, especially with διά or ἐπί, or with two prepositions, as ἐπανάγειν, ἐπεισέρχεσθαι,�
Thirty times in G. and A. ἐγένετο δέ (not John 10:22).
Nine times in G. and A. ἡμέρα γίνεται : nine in G. μνᾶ.
Eight times in G. ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ (ἡμέρᾳ, ὥρᾳ, οἰκίᾳ).
Seven times in G. and A.�
ἀνθʼ ὧν 3 12:23 2 Thessalonians 2:10
ἀπολογεῖσθαι 2 6 2
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν 5 18:6 2 Corinthians 5:16
*ἄτοπος 23:41 2 2 Thessalonians 3:2
διαπορεύεσθαι? 3 16:4 Romans 15:24
ἐγκαλεῖν 6 Romans 8:33
τὸ εἰρημένον 2:24 2 Romans 4:18
ἐξαποστέλλειν 4 7 2
ἐργασία 12:58 4 Ephesians 4:19
ἐφιστάναι 7 11 1 Thessalonians 5:3 1 Thessalonians 5:2
*ἡσυχάζειν 2 2 1 Thessalonians 4:11
ἰδού γάρ 5 9:11 2 Corinthians 7:11
κακοῦργος 3 2 Timothy 2:9
καταγγέλλειν 11 7
κατάγειν 5:11 7 Romans 10:6
καταντᾷν 9 4
καταξιωθῆναι 20:35 5:41 2 Thessalonians 1:5
ὁ λόγος τ. κυρίου 6 1 Thessalonians 1:8
οἰκονομία 3 5 ?1 Timothy 1:4
τὰ περί 3 11 5
συνειδέναι, -ιδεῖν 3 1 Corinthians 4:4
ψαλμός 2 2 3
All the above are proportionately common in S. Luke’s writings; but there are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers; e.g.
S. Luke. S. Paul.
Gosp. Acts. Main. Past.
ἄδηλος 11:44 1 Corinthians 14:8
αἰφνίδιος 21:34 1 Thessalonians 5:3
αἰχμαλωτίζειν 21:24 2 2 Timothy 3:6
ἀνάγνωσις 13:15 2 Corinthians 3:14 1 Timothy 4:13
ἀνάθεμα 13:14 5
ἀνακρίνειν 23:14 5 10
ἀναλίσκειν 9:54 2?
ἀναλύειν 12:36 Philippians 1:23
ἀναστατοῦν 2 Galatians 5:12
ἀνατίθεσθαι 25:14 Galatians 2:2
*ἄνεσις 24:23 4
ἀνόητος 24:25 3 2
ἄνοια 6:11 2 Timothy 3:9
ἀνταπόδομα 14:12 Romans 11:9
ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι 14:6 Romans 9:20
ἀντικεῖσθαι 2 4 2
ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι 1:54 20:35 1 Timothy 6:2
ἀπειθής 1:17 26:19 Romans 1:30 Romans 1:3
ἀπειλή 2 Ephesians 6:9
ἀποδεικνύναι 2 2
ἀποβολή 27:22 Romans 11:15
�1 Corinthians 6:11
ἀποστολή 1:25 3
ἀπρόσκοπος 24:16 2
ἀπωθεῖσθαι 3 2 1 Timothy 1:19
ἇρα; or ἄρα; 18:8 8:30 Galatians 2:17
ἀροτριᾷν 17:7 1 Corinthians 9:10
�1 Thessalonians 5:3
*ἄτοπος 23:41 2 2 Thessalonians 3:2
ἀχάριστος 6:35 2 Timothy 3:2
βάρβαρος 2 4
βιωτικός 21:34 2
βυθίζειν 5:7 1 Timothy 6:9
δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι 5:31 Philippians 1:4 1 Timothy 2:1
δεκτός 2 10:35 2
διαγγέλλειν 9:60 21:26 Romans 9:17
διαιρεῖν 15:12 1 Corinthians 12:11
διαταγή 7:53 Romans 13:2
διερμηνεύειν 24:27 9:36 4
δόγμα 2:1 2 2
δρόμος 2 2 Timothy 4:7
δυνάστης 1:52 8:27 1 Timothy 6:15
εἰ δὲ καί 11:18 4
ἐμφανής 10:40 Romans 10:20
ἔνδοξος 2 2
ἐνδύεσθαι 24:49 14
ἐνκακεῖν 18:1 5
ἔννομος 19:39 1 Corinthians 9:21
ἐξαρτίζειν 21:5 2 Timothy 3:17
ἐξουθενεὶν 2 4:11 8
ἐξουσία τ. σκότους 22:53 Colossians 1:13
ἐξουσιάζειν 22:25 3
ἐπαινεῖν 16:8 4
ἐπαναπαύεσθαι 10:6 Romans 2:17
ἐπέχειν 14:7 2 Philippians 2:16 1 Timothy 4:16
ἐπιείκεια 24:4 2 Corinthians 10:1
ἐπιμελεῖσθαι 2 1 Timothy 3:5
ἐπίστασις 24:12 2 Corinthians 11:28
ἐπιφαίνειν 1:79 27:20 2
εὐαγγελιστής 21:8 Ephesians 4:11 2 Timothy 4:5
εὐγενής 19:12 17:11 1 Corinthians 1:26
εὐσεβεῖν 17:23 1 Timothy 5:4
ζέειν τ. πνεύματι 18:25 Romans 12:11
ζημία 2 2
ζωγρεῖν 5:10 2 Timothy 2:26
*ζωογονεῖν 17:33 7:19 1 Timothy 6:13
θέατρον 2 1 Corinthians 4:9
καθήκειν 22:22 Romans 1:28
κατευθύνειν 1:79 2
κινδευνεύειν 8:23 2 1 Corinthians 15:30
κραταιοῦσθαι 2 2
κυριεύειν 22:25 5 1 Timothy 6:15
λείπειν = fail 18:22 2
μαρτύρεσθαι 2 3
μεθιστάναι -ειν 16:4 2 2
μεθύσκεσθαι 12:45 2
μερίς 10:42 2 2
μεταδιδόναι 3:11 4
νομοδιδάσκαλος 5:17 5:34 1 Timothy 1:7
νοσφίζεσθαι 2 Titus 2:10
νουθετεῖν 20:31 7
ξενία 28:23 Philemon 1:22
ξυρᾶσθαι 21:24 2
ὁμοθυμαδόν 10 Romans 15:6
ὁπτασία 2 26:19 2 Corinthians 12:1
ὁσιότης 1:75 Ephesians 4:24
ὀψώνιον 3:14 3
παγίς 21:34 Romans 11:9 Romans 11:3
πανοπλία 11:22 2
πανουργία 20:23 4
πάντως 4:23 3 5
παραγγελία 2 1 Thessalonians 4:2 1 Thessalonians 4:2
παρασκευάζειν 10:10 3
παραχειμάζειν 2 1 Corinthians 16:6 Titus 3:12
*παροξύνεσθαι 17:16 1 Corinthians 13:5
παρρησιάζεσθαι 7 2
πατριά 2:4 3:25 Ephesians 3:15
πειθαρχεῖν 3 Titus 3:1
περίεργος 19:19 1 Timothy 5:13
περιποιε͂σθαι 17:33 20:28 1 Timothy 3:13
ἐπὶ πλεῖον 3 2
πληροφορεῖν 1:1 3 2
πολιτεία 22:28 Ephesians 2:12
πολιτεύεσθαι 23:1 Philippians 1:27
πορθεῖν 9:21 2
πρεσβυτέριον 22:66 22:5 1 Timothy 4:14
πρεσβύτης 1:18 Philemon 1:9 Titus 2:2
προδότης 6:16 7:52 2 Timothy 3:4
προειπεῖν 1:16 2
προθυμία 17:11 4
προιδεῖν 2:31 Galatians 3:8
προκόπτειν 2:52 2 3
πρόνοια 24:2 Romans 13:14
προορίζειν 4:28 5
προπετής 19:36 2 Timothy 3:4
κατὰ πρόσωπον 2:31 2 2
π̔αβδίζειν 16:22 2 Corinthians 11:25
σέβασμα 17:23 2 Thessalonians 2:4
σκοπεῖν 11:35 5
στοιχεῖν 21:24 4
συγκαθίζειν 22:55 Ephesians 2:6
συγκλείειν 5:6 3
συγχαίρειν 3 4
συμβιβάζειν 3 4
συναντιλαμβάνειν 10:40 Romans 8:26
σύνδεσμος 8:23 3
συνέκδημος 19:29 2 Corinthians 8:19
συνεσθίειν 15:2 2 2
συνευδοκεῖν 11:48 2 3
συνοχή 21:25 2 Corinthians 2:4
συστέλλειν 5:6 1 Corinthians 7:29
σωματικός 3:22 1 Timothy 4:8
τὸ σωτήριον 2 28:28 Ephesians 6:17
σωφροσύνη 26:25 2
τετράποδα 2 Romans 1:23
*τήρσις 2 1 Corinthians 7:19
δοῦναι τόπον 14:9 2
ὕβρις 2 2 Corinthians 12:10
ὑπήκοος 7:39 2
ὑπωπιάζειν 18:5 1 Corinthians 9:27
ὑστέρημα 21:4 8
φάσκειν 2 Romans 1:22
φιλανθρωπία 28:2 Titus 3:4
φιλάργυρος 16:14 2 Timothy 3:2
φόρος 2 2
φρόνησις 1:17 Ephesians 1:8
χαρίζεσθαι 3 4 15
χαριτοῦν 1:28 Ephesians 1:6
χειροτονεῖν 14:23 2 Corinthians 8:19
χρῆσθαι 2 7 2
(2) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews
Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. Heb.
ἄμεμπτος 1:6 3 8:7
ἀναγκαῖος 2 4 Titus 3:14 Titus 3:8:3
ἀνάμνησις [22:19] 2 10:3
ἀνταποδιδόναι 2 4 10:30
ἀξιοῦν 7:7 2 2 Thessalonians 1:11 1 Timothy 5:17 1 Timothy 5:2
ἀποκεῖσθαι 19:20 Colossians 1:5 2 Timothy 4:8 2 Timothy 4:9:27
ἀπολύτρωσις 21:28 7 2
ἀσφαλής 3 Philippians 3:1 Philippians 3:6:19
ἀφιστάν 4 6 2 Corinthians 12:8 2 Corinthians 12:2 2 Corinthians 12:3:12
βουλή 2 7 2 6:17
διαμαρτύρεσθαι 16:28 9 1 Thessalonians 4:6 1 Thessalonians 4:3 1 Thessalonians 4:2:6
διʼ ἥν αἰτίαν 8:47 3 3 2:11
ἐκφέρειν? 15:22 4 1 Timothy 6:7 1 Timothy 6:6:8
ἐκφεύγειν 21:36 2 3 2
ἐνδυναμοῦν 9:22 3 3 ?11:34
ἐντυγχάνειν 25:24 3 7:25
ἐπίθεσις 8:18 2 6:2
καταργεῖν 13:7 24 2 Timothy 1:10 2 Timothy 1:2:14
λειτουργεῖν 13:2 Romans 15:27 Romans 15:10:11
λειτουργία 1:23 3 2
μεταλαμβάνειν 4 2 Timothy 2:6 2 Timothy 2:2
νυνί 2 18? 2?
*ὁρίζειν 22:22 5 Romans 1:4 Romans 1:4:7
παραιτεῖσθαι? 3 25:11 4 3
παράκλησις 2 4 19 1 Timothy 4:13 1 Timothy 4:3
περιαιρεῖν 2 2 Corinthians 3:16 2 Corinthians 3:10:11
περιέρχεσθαι 2 1 Timothy 5:13 1 Timothy 5:11:37
σκληρύνειν 19:9 Romans 9:18 Romans 9:4
τάξις 1:8 2 6
τυγχάνειν 20:35 5 3 2 Timothy 2:10 2 Timothy 2:2
*ὑποστέλλειν 2 Galatians 2:12 Galatians 2:10:38
χρίειν 4:18 2 2 Corinthians 1:21 2 Corinthians 1:1:9
(3) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke’s Writings and to the Epistle to the Hebrews
The expression παῖς αὐτοῦ or σου in the sense of “God’s servant” is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (1:54, 69; Acts 3:13, Acts 3:26, Acts 3:4:25, 27, 30), with the exception of Matthew 12:18, which is a quotation from Isaiah 42:1.
(6) Expressions frequent in S. Luke’s Writings and probably due to Hebrew Influence
The frequent use of ἐγένετο is discussed at the end of ch. 1. Add to this Luke’s fondness for ἐνώπιον, which does not occur in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (20:30). It is found more than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially in the phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (1:19, 75, 12:6, 16:15) or κυρίου (1:15). With this compare πρὸπροσώπου τινός (7:27, 9:52, 10:1) and κατὰπρόσωπόν τινος (2:31). The frequent use of ἰδού (1:38, 2:34, 48, 7:25, 27, 34, etc.) and καὶ ἰδού (1:20, 31; 36, 2:25, 5:12, 7:12, 37, etc; of ῥῆμα for the matter of what is spoken (1:65, 2:15, 19, 51); of οἶκος in the sense of “family” (1:27, 33, 69, 2:4, 10:5, 19:9); of εἷς in the sense of τις (5:12, 17, 8:22, 13:10, 20:1) or of πρῶτος (24:1); of ὕψιστος for “the Most High” (1:32, 35, 76, 6:35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So also do such expressions as ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά (1:72, 10:37) and μεγαλύνειν ἔλεος μετά (1:58); ποιεῖν κράτος (1:51); ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (1:15); combinations with ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ or ἐν ταῖς κ., such as διαλογίζεσθαι (3:15, 5:22; comp. 24:38), διατηρεῖν (2:51), θέσθαι (1:66, 21:14), συνβάλλειν (2:19); ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις (1:5, 39, 2:1, 4:2, 25, 5:35, etc.); τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου (13:14, 16, 14:5); with perhaps διὰ στόματος (1:70), where both the expression and the omission of the article seem to be Hebraistic: in LXX we commonly have, however, ἐν τῷ στόματι or ἐκ τοῦ στόματος. Nearly all these expressions are found in the Acts also, in some cases very often. The frequent use of periphrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. 51
) as being due in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common in Luke (4:22, 16:8, 9, 18:6; comp. 10:6, 20:34, 36); and of the frequent use of καὶ αὐτός (2:28, 5:1, 17, 8:1, 22, 17:11, 19:2). καὶ αὐτή (2:37), and καὶ αὐτοί (14:1, 24:14) after ἐγέντο, καὶ ἰδού, and the like. Phrases like δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν (5:25, 26, 7:16, 13:13, 17:15, 18:43, 23:47), ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (5:1, 7:11, 21, 11:28), and ἐπαίρειν τὴν φωνήν (11:27) may be placed under the same head; and they all of them occur several times in the Acts.
In common with other N.T. writers S. Luke uses several Hebrew words, which may be mentioned here, although they are not specially common in his writings:�
In the case of certain verbs he has a preference for special constructions. After verbs of speaking, answering, and the like he very often has πρός and the accusative instead of the simple dative. Thus, we have εἰπεῖν πρός (1:13, 18, 28, 34, 61, 2:34, 48, 49, etc.), λαλεῖν πρός (1:19, 55, 2:15, 18, 20, 12:3, etc.), λέγειν πρός (4:21, 5:36, 7:24, 8:25, 9:23, etc.),�Matthew 9:11; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30). Whereas others prefer ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ, he has ἐξέρχεσθαι�
Participles with the article often take the place of substantives (2:27, 4:16, 8:34, 22:22, 24:14). They are frequently added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner:�
In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining δέ with καί, a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (2:4, 3:9, 12, 4:41, 5:10, 36, 6:6, 9:61, etc.) and seven in the Acts. It is rare in the other Gospels. His Hebraistic use of καὶ αὐτός αὐτή or αὐτοί, and of καὶ ἰδού, to introduce the apodosis to ἐγένετο and the like, has been pointed out above (p. 61). But Luke is also fond of καὶ αὐτός at the beginning of sentences or independent clauses (1:17, 22, 3:23, 4:15, 5:37, 6:20, 15:14, etc.), and of καὶ οὗτος, which is peculiar to him (1:36, 8:41 ?, 16:1, 20:28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses δέ, and εἶπεν δέ occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts. It is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. (12:6 [8:11], 9:37 ?): they prefer ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, or καὶ λέγει, κ.τ.λ. Luke also has ἔλεγεν δέ nine times in the Gospel; it occurs twice in Mk., once in Jn., and never in Mt. Five times he begins a sentence with καὶ ὡς (temporal), which is not found elsewhere in N.T. (15:25, 19:41, 22:66, 23:26; Acts 1:10). The interrogative εἰ is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (6:7, 9, 13:23, 14:28, 31, 22:49, 67, etc.), εἰ δὲ μήγε five times, and εἰ ἄρα twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere.
The idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in both books (1:4, 2:20, 3:19, 5:9, 9:36, 43, 12:46, 15:16, 19:37, etc.): it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn.
After τοῦτο he has ὅτι in Gospel and Acts (10:11, 12:39, etc.); Mt. and Mk. never; Jn. only after διὰ τοῦτο.
He is fond of combinations of cognate words, e.g. φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς (2:8), ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν (2:9), βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπτισμα (7:29, ), ἡ�
It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the emstence of medical phraseology in the writings of S. Luke. In the Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1841 a paper appeared on the subject, and the words�Acts 13:11), κραιπάλη (Luke 21:34), παραλελυμένος (5:18, 24; Acts 8:7, Acts 9:33), παροξυσμός (Acts 15:39), συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (Luke 4:38), and ὑδρωπικός (14:2) were given as instances of technical medical language. Since then Dr. Plumptre and others have touched on the subject; and in 1882 Dr. Hobart published his work on The Medical Language of St. Luke, Dublin and London. He has collected over 400 words from the Gospel and the Acts, which in the main are either peculiar to Luke or are used by him more often than by other N.T. writers, and which are also used (and often very frequently) by Greek medical writers. He gives abundant quotations from such writers, that we may see for ourselves; and the work was well worth doing. But there can be no doubt that the number of words in the Gospel and the Acts which are due to the Evangelist’s professional training is something very much less than this. It may be doubted whether there are a hundred such words. But even if there are twenty-five, the fact is a considerable confirmation of the ancient and universal tradition that “Luke the beloved physician” is the author of both these books. Of Dr Hobart’s long list of words more than eighty per cent. are found in LXX, mostly in books known to S. Luke, and sometimes occurring very frequently in them. In all such cases it is more reasonable to suppose that Luke’s use of the word is due to his knowledge of LXX, rather than to his professional training. In the case of some words, both of these causes may have been at work. In the case of others, the medical training, and not familiarity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the probability is the other way. Unless the expression is known to be distinctly a medical one, if it occurs in books of LXX which were known to Luke, it is probable that his acquaintance with the expression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. If the expression is also found in profane authors, the chances that medical training had anything to do with Lk.’s use of it become very remote. It is unreasonable to class as in any sense medical such words as�
Nevertheless, when Dr. Hobart’s list has been well sifted, there still remains a considerable number of words, the occurrence or frequency of which in S. Luke’s writings may very possibly be due to the fact of his being a physician. The argument is a cumulative one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences: but the large number of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory for all of them; especially where the word is either rare in LXX, or not found there at all.
The instances given in the Gentleman’s Magazine require a word of comment. Galen in treating of the diseases of the eye gives�Luke 21:34 only, is a similar instance. It occurs more than once in Aristophanes, but is frequent in medical writers of the nausea which follows excess. In παραλελυμένος we have a stronger instance. Whereas the other Evangelists use παραλυτικός, Luke in harmony with medical usage has παραλελυμένος, as also has Aristotle, a physician’s son (Eth. Nit. i:13, 15). But this use may come from LXX, as in Hebrews 12:12. That παοζυσμός is a medical term is indisputable; but as early as Demosthenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX (Deuteronomy 29:28; Jeremiah 39:0:  37). The instance in Luke 4:38 is perhaps a double one: for σύεχομένη is possibly, and πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and Mk. have merely πυρέσσουσα, and in Acts 28:8 we have the parallel πυρετοῖς καὶ δυσεντερίῳ συνεχόμενον. In ὑδρωπικός we have a word peculiar to Luke in bibl. Grk. and perhaps of purely medical origin.
By adopting doubtful or erroneous readings Hobart makes other instances double, e.g. ἐπέπεσεν for ἔπεσεν (Acts 13:11), βαραύθωθῶσιν for βαρηθῶσιν (Luke 21:34). Again, whether or no�Luke 4:17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is�
To the examples given in the Gentleman’s Magazine may perhaps be added such instances as δακτύλῳ προσφαύειν (11:46), where Mt. has δακτύλῳ κινῆσαι: διὰ τρήματος βελόνης (18:25), where Mk. has διὰ τρυμαλιᾶς π̔αφίδος: ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος (8:44), where Mk. has ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τ. αἵματος: ἐστερεεώθησαν αἱ βάσεις αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σφυδρά (Acts 3:7); and more doubtfully ὀθόνην τέσσασιν�Acts 10:11) and�Acts 9:40).
Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of the healing of Malchus’ ear (22:51). And perhaps the marked way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease (6:18, 13:32 ; Acts 19:12) may be put down to medical training. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been afflicted (13:11; Acts 9:33) and the age of the person healed (8:42; Acts 4:22) is a feature of the same kind. For other possible instances see notes on 4:35, 5:12, 7:10.
The coincidences between the preface of the Gospel and the opening words of some medical treatises are remarkable (see small print, pp. 5, 6). And it is worth noting that Luke alone records Christ’s quotation of the proverb, Ἀτρέ, θεράπενσον σεαυτόν (4:23) ; and that almost the last words that he records in the Acts are S. Paul’s quotation from Is. 6., which ends καὶ ἰάσομαι αὐτούς (28:26, 27).
The following table will illustrate some characteristics of S. Luke’s diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists:—
S. Mathew. S. Mark. S.Luke.
3:10. ἤδη δέ. 3:9. ἤδη δὲ καί.
3:16. πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. 1:10. τὸ πνεῦμα. 3:22. τὸ πν. τὸ ἅγιον.
3:17. φωνἡ ἐκ τ. οὐρανῶν. 1:11. φωνὴ ἐκ τ. οὐρανῶν. 3:22. φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι.
The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from different sources, of which Tischendorf’s Nov. Test. Græc. vol. 1.Exodus 8:0, Lipsiæ, 1889, and Sanday’s App. ad Nov. Test. Steph., Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in many cases verified Gregory’s Prolegomena to Tischendorf, Lipsiæ, 1884-94, and Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of N.T., Bell, 1894, must be consulted by those who desire more complete information respecting the authorities.
(1) Greek Manuscripts
א Cod. Sinaiticus, sæc. iv. Brought byTischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg.Contains the whole Gospel complete.
Its correctors are
אa contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second MS. of high value;
אb attributed by Tischendorf to sæc. vi.;
אc attributed to the beginning of sæc. 7. Two hands of about this date are sometimes distinguished as אca and אcb.
A. Cod. Alexandrinus, sæc. v. Once in the Patriarchal Library at Alexandria; sent by Cyril Lucar as a present to Charles 1. in 1628, and now in the British Museum. Complete.
B. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul iii, etc., p. 86).
The corrector B2 is nearly of the same date and used a good copy, though not quite so good as the original. Some six centuries later the faded characters were retraced, and a few new readings introduced by B3.
C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sæc. v. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2-2:5, 2:42-3:21, 4:25-6:4, 6:37-7:16, or 17, 8:28-12:3, 19:42-20:27, 21:21-22:19, 23:25-24:7, 24:46-53.
These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.
D. Cod. Bezae, sæc. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sæc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sæc. viii. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1-13, 1:69-2:4, 16-27, 4:38-5:5, 5:25-6:8, 18-36, 39, 6:49-7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5-15, 8:25-9:1, 12-43, 10:3-16, 11:5-27, 12:4-15, 40-52, 13:26-14:1, 14:12-15:1, 15:13-16:16, 17:21-18:10, 18:22-20:20, 20:33-47, 21:12-22:15, 42-56, 22:71-23:11, 38-51. By a second hand 15:19-21.
T Cod. Borgianus, sæc. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains 22:20-23:20.
Χ. Cod. Monacensis, sæc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains 1:1-37, 2:19-3:38, 4:21-10:37, 11:1-18:43, 20:46-24:53.
Δ. Cod. Sangallensis, sæc. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
Ξ. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sæc. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains 1:1-9, 19-23, 27, 28, 30-32, 36-66, 1:77-2:19, 21, 22, 33-39, 3:5-8, 11-20, 4:1, 2, 6-20, 32-43, 5:17-36, 6:21-7:6, 11-37, 39-47, 8:4-21, 25-35, 43-50, 9:1-28, 32, 33, 35, 9:41-10:18, 21-40, 11:1, 2, 3, 4, 24-30, 31, 32, 33.
If these uncials were placed in order of merit for the textual criticism of the Gospel, we should have as facile princeps B, with א as equally easily second. Then T, Ξ, L, C R. The Western element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely absent from the Gospels.
E. Cod. Basileensis, sæc. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains the whole Gospel, except 3:4-15 and 24:47-53.
F. Cod. Boreeli, sæc. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.
G. Cod. Harleianus, sæc. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.
K. Cod. Cyprius, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
M. Cod. Campianus, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
S. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.
U. Cod. Nanianus, sæc. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.
Only six uncial MSS., א B K M S U, afford complete copies of all four Gospels.
The Versions quoted are the following:
The Latin (Latt.).
The Vetus Latina (Lat. Vet.).
The Vulgate (Vulg.).
The Egyptian (Aegyptt.).
The Bohairic (Boh.).
The Sahidic (Sah.).
The Syriac (Syrr.).
The Curetonian (Cur.).
The Sinaitic (Sin.).
The Peshitto (Pesh.).
The Harclean (Harcl.).
The Palestinian (Hier.).
The Armenian (Arm.).
The Ethiopic (Aeth.).
The Gothic (Goth.).
We are not yet in a position to determine the relation of the recently discovered Sinaitic Syriac (Syr-Sin.) to the other Syriac Versions and to other representatives of primitive texts: and it would be rash for one who is ignorant of Syriac to attempt a solution of this problem. But the readings of Syr-Sin., as given in the translation by Mrs. Lewis, are frequently quoted in the notes, so that the reader may judge to what extent they support the text adopted in this commentary.
It should be noticed that four of the seven instances of Conflate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this Gospel (9:10, 11:54, 12:18, 24:53). Mr. Miller, in his new edition of Scrivener’s Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T. (Bell, 1894), denies the cogency of the proof; but the only case with which he attempts to deal, and that inadequately (ii. pp. 292, 293), is Luke 24:53. See the Classical Review, June 1896, p. 264.
§ 9. LITERARY HISTORY
It is not easy to determine where the literary history of the Third Gospel begins. The existence of the oral tradition side by side with it during the first century of its existence, and the existence of many other documents (1:1) previous to it, which may have resembled it, or portions of it, very closely, are facts which render certainty impossible as to quotations which bear considerable resemblance to our Gospel. They may come from this Gospel; but they may also have another source. Again, there are possibilities or probabilities which have to be taken into account. We do not know how soon Harmonies of two, or three, or four Gospels were constructed. The Third Gospel itself is a combination of documents; and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that before Tatian constructed his Diatessaron others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, p. 302). Some early quotations of the Gospel narrative look as if they may have come either from material which the Evangelists used, or from a compound of their works, rather than from any one of them as they have come down to us. On the other hand the difficulty of exact quotation must be remembered. MSS. were not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a difficulty in “verifying their references,” when rolls were used and not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were numbered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of different Gospels would easily become mixed; all the more so, if the writers who quote were in the habit of giving oral instruction in the Gospel narrative; for in giving such instruction they would be in the habit of constructing a compound text out of the words which they chanced to remember from any two or three Gospels. What they wanted to convey was the substance of “the Gospel,” and not the exact wording of the Gospel according to Matthew, or Mark, or Luke.
There is nothing in the Epistle of Barnabas which warrants us in believing that the writer knew the Third Gospel: and the coincidence of κοινωνήσεις ἐν πᾶσιν τῷ πλησίον σου, καὶ οὐκ ἐρεῖς ἴδια εἶναι (19:8) with Acts 4:32 is too slight to be relied upon. Comp. Didaché 4:8. Indeed it is not impossible that this Epistle was written before our Gospel (a.d. 70-80). In the Epistle of Clement, which doubtless is later than the Gospel (a.d. 95, 96), we have the perplexing phenomena alluded to above.
Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:7:1, Matthew 5:2. Clem. Rom. Cor. 13:2.Luke 6:36-38.
μακάριοι οἱ ἐλεήμονες, ὅτι αὐτοὶ ἐλεηθήσονται.
μὴ κρίνετε, ἴνα μὴ κριθῆτε· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι κρίνετε κριθήσεσθε, καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε μετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν. οὔτως γὰρ εἶπεν· ἐλεᾶτε, ἵνα ἐλεηθῆτὲ�
Matthew 18:6, Matthew 18:7, Matthew 18:26:24. Clem Rom. Cor. 46:8. Luke 17:1, Luke 17:2, Luke 17:22:2.
ὃς δʼ ἃν σκανο͂αλίσῃ ἔνα τῶν μικρῶν τούτων, τῶν πιστευόντων εἰς ἐμέ, συμφέρει αὐτῷ ἵνα κρεμασθῇ μύλος ὀνικὸς περὶ τ. τράχηλον αὐτοῦ καὶ καταποντισθῇ ἐν τῷ πελάγει τῆς θαλάσσης. οὐαὶ τῷ κόσμῳ. …
οὐαὶ δὲ τῷ�
Here again Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 18, p. 561) quotes exactly as Clement of Rome, with the exception of μή for οὐκ after εἰ, and the omission of τήν before θαλάσσαν. In Clem. Rom. Cor. 59:3 we have a composite quotation (Isaiah 13:11; Psalms 33:10; Job 5:11, etc.), which may possibly have been influenced by Luke 1:52, Luke 1:53, Luke 1:14:11, Luke 1:18:14; but nothing can be built on this possibility. We must be content to leave it doubtful whether Clement of Rome knew our Gospel according to Luke; and the same must be said of Polycarp (see above) and of Ignatius. In Eph. 14. we have φανερὸν τὸ δένδρον�Matthew 12:33) and ἕκαστον γὰρ δένδρον ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου καρποῦ γινώσκεται (Luke 6:44). Smyr. iii. we have the very remarkable passage which perplexed Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome as to its source: ὅτε πρὸς τοὺς περὶ Πέτρον ἦλθεν, ἔφη αὐτοῖς· Λάβετε, ψηλαφήσατέ με, καὶ ἴδετε ὅτι οὐκ εἰμὶ δαιμόνιον�Luke 24:36-39, or may come from oral tradition or a lost document. Of other possibilities, τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον (Eph. 16.) recalls Mark 9:43 rather than Luke 3:17: καλοὺς μαθητὰς ἐὰν φιλῇς, χάρις σοι οὐκ ἔστιν (Polyc. 2.) is not very close to Luke 6:32: ἡδοναὶ τοῦ βίου (Romans 7:0.) is found Luke 8:14, but is a common phrase: and other slight resemblances (e.g. Magn. 10.) may as easily come from other Gospels or from tradition.
We are on surer ground when we come to the Didaché and the Gospel of Peter, the dates of which remain to be determined, but which may be placed between a.d. 75 and 125. In the former we find further evidence of a combination of passages from Matthew and Luke, of which we have seen traces in Clement of Rome, and which suggests the possibility of a primitive Harmony of these two documents.
Matthew 25:13. Didaché 16:1.Luke 12:35.
ὅτι οὐκ οἵδατε τὴν ὴμέραν οὐδὲ τὴν ὤραν. γρηγορεῖτε ὑπὲρ τῆς ζωῆς ὑμῶν· οἰ λύχνοι ὑμῶν μὴ σβεσθήσωσαν, καὶ αἰ ὁσφύες ὑμῶν μὴ ἐκλυέσθωσαν,�
Mt. 7., Matthew 7:5. Didaché 1:2-5.Luke 6:0.
12 πάντα οὖν ὅσα ἐὰν δέλητε ἵνα ποιῶσιν ὺμῖν οἱ ἄνθρωποι, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς ποιεῖτε αὐτοῖς.
Expressions which are peculiar to each form of the Sermon are here so abundant that we conclude that this doctrine of the Two Ways has been influenced by both forms. But the order in which the several precepts are put together is so different from both Gospels, that the editor can scarcely have had either Gospel before him. Very possibly the order and wording have been disturbed by oral instruction in Christian morality given to catechumens (Sanday, Bamptons, p. 302). But the evidence of acquaintance with the Third Gospel is strong; and it is somewhat strengthened by the fact that in the Didaché Christ is called the “Servant (παῖς) of God” (9:2, 3, 10:2, 3), a use of παιʼς which in N.T. is almost confined to Luke (Acts 3:13, Acts 3:26, Acts 3:4:27, 30; Comp. 4:25 ; Luke 1:54, Luke 1:69). But this use is common in LXX, and may easily be derived from Isaiah or the Psalms rather than from the Acts. Nevertheless there is other evidence of the influence of the Acts on the Didaché, and scarcely any evidence of the influence of Isaiah or of the Psalms: indeed the references to the O.T. are remarkably few. And this not only makes it quite possible that the use of ὀ παῖς comes from the Acts, but also still further strengthens the conviction that the Didaché is indebted to the writings of S. Luke. Comp. συγκοινωνήσεις δὲ πάντα τῷ�Acts 4:32). Bryennios and Wünsche see traces of Luke 9:1-l6 and 10:4-21 in Did. 11; but this chapter might easily have stood as it does if Luke had never written. Yet there is enough in what has been quoted above to establish the fact of the influence of Luke on the Didaché.
It is generally admitted that the fragment of the Gospel of Peter suffices to show that the writer of that apocryphal narrative was acquainted with all four of the Canonical Gospels. But it will be worth while to quote some of the expressions and statements which have a marked resemblance to Luke in particular.
Gospel of Peter. Luke 23:24.
4. Πειλᾶτος πέμψας πρὸς Ἡρώδην. 7. Πειλᾶτος …�
These resemblances, which are too close and too numerous to be accidental, are further emphasized when the parallel narratives are compared. S. Luke alone mentions the sending to Herod. He alone uses the expression σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν (contrast Matthew 28:1). He alone calls the two robbers κακοῦργοι. He alone tells us that one of the robbers reviled, and that one contrasted the justice of their fate with the innocence of Jesus. He alone mentions the sun in connexion with the darkness. He alone speaks of all the multitudes of spectators, and of their beating their breasts. He alone calls the two Angels at the tomb ἄνδρες (Mt. and Mk. mention only one), and calls the tomb μνῆμα ; and he alone uses φέρειν of the women bringing the spices. There are other passages in which the Gospel of Peter resembles Luke with one or more of the other Gospels ; but what has been quoted above is sufficient to show that the writer of the apocryphal gospel was influenced by S. Luke’s narrative. It must be remembered that these ten coincidences are found within the compass of fifty five verses, and that they are not exhaustive. The inscription on the cross, Θὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραήλ (11), is closer to that given by S. Luke, ὁ β. τῶν Ἰουδαίων οὗτος (23:38), than to any of the other forms; and perhaps the words of the robber, σωτὴρ γενόμενος (see above, 13), are suggested by σῶσον σεαυτὸν καὶ ἡμᾶς (23:39). The use of μεσημβρία for “midday” (15) is found in N.T. nowhere but Acts 22:6. The cry of the Jews Christ’s death, ἴδετε ὅτι πόσον δίκαιός ἐστιν (28), looks like an adaptation of the centurion’s confession, ὄντως ὁ ἄνθρωπος αὖτος δίκαιος ἦν (23:47) ; and perhaps ἐξηγήσαντο πάντα ἅπερ εἶδον (45) is an echo of ἐξηγοῦντο τὰ ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (24:35). And, as already pointed out (§ 1), Pseudo-Peter always speaks of Jesus Christ as ὁ κύριος, a use which begins to be common in the Third Gospel.
The evidence of another interesting document of about the same date is worth quoting. The Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs is a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. It was gradually Christianized, and reached its present form c. A. D. 70-135. It shows marked traces of a knowledge of the Synoptic traditions and of S. Luke’s Gospel in particular. Some of the coincidences given below are probably the result of independent citation of the O.T. But the citation may have been suggested to the later writer by acquaintance with it in the Gospel narrative.
Test. 12 Patr. S. Luke.
οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὺκ ἔπιον (Reuben 1.). οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐ μὴ πίῃ (1:15; Numbers 6:3).
ἔγνων ὅτι δικαίως πάδξω (Sim. 4.). καὶ ἡμεῖς μὲν δικαίως (23:41).
ἔσεσθε εὺρίσκοντες χάριν ὲνώπιον Θεοῦ καὶ�1 Samuel 2:26).
ὀ Θεὸς σῶμα λαβὼν καὶ συνεσθίων ὰνθρώποις ἔσωσεν αύτούς (Sim. 6.). συνεσθίει αύτοῖς (15:2). comp. συνεφάγομεν καὶ συνεπίομεν αύτῳ (Acts 10:41).
ἀνεῴχθῃσαν οἱ ούρανοί (Levi 2:18.).�Isaiah 64:1).
περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ισραήλ (Ibid.). αύτός ἐστιν ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ἰσραήλ (24:21).
ἔως ἐπισκέψηται Κύριος πάντα τὰ ἔθνη έν σπλάγχνοις υἰοῦ αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος (Leviticus 4:0.). διὰ σπλάγχνα ὲλέους Θεο͂ ἡμῶν ὲν οἶς έπισκέψεται ἡμᾶς�
συνετήρουν τοὺς λόγους τούτους έν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου (Leviticus 6:0.) συνετήρει τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα … ὲν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτῇς (2:19; comp. 2:51).
καίγε ἔκρυψα τοῦτο ὲν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου, καὶ οὐκ άνήγγειλα αὐτὸ παντὶ ὰνθρώπῳ (Leviticus 8:0). καὶ αὐτοὶ ὲσίγησαν καὶ ούδενὶ ὰπήγγειλαν ὲν ὲκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις οὺδὲν ὧν ὲώρακαν (9:36).
δύναμις Υ̓ψίστου (Leviticus 16:0). δύναμις Υ̓ψίστου (1:35).
έπέπεσεν ὲπʼ αὐτοὺς τρόμος (Judah 3). φόβος ὲπέπεσεν ὲπʼ αὐτόν (1:12; comp. Acts 19:17).
ποιεῖν πάντ τὰ δικαιώματα Κυρίου καὶ ὑπακούειν ὲντολὰς Θεοῦ (Judah 13). πορεύομενοι ὲν πάσαις ταῖς ὲντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου (1:6).
ἀνοιγήσονται ὲπʼ αὐτὸν οὶ οὐρανοί, ἐκχέαι πνεῦμα, εὐλογίαν Πατρὸς ἁγίου (Judah 24).�
οἱ ὲν πτωχείᾳ διὰ κύριον πλουτισθήσονται, καὶ οἱ ὲν πενίᾳ χορτασθήσονται, καὶ οἱ ὲν ἁσθενείᾳ ἰσχύσουσι (Judah 25). μακάριοι οἱ πτωχοί, ὅτι ὐμετέρα ἐστὶν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. μακάριοι οἱ πεινῶντες νῦν, ὅτι χορτασθήσεσθε (6:20, 21; Matthew 5:3-6).
ἐπιστρέψει καρδίας�Daniel 5:0). ἐπιστρέψαι καρδίας πατέρων ἐπὶ τέκνα· καὶ�Malachi 4:5).
καὶ ἐὰν ὁμολογήσας μετανοήσῃ ἄφες αὐτῷ (Gad 6.). καὶ ἐὰν μετανοήσῃ, ἄφες αὐτῷ (17:3).
καὶ αὐτὸς ἑλθὼν ὡς ἄνθρωτπος, ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων μετὰ τῶν ἁνθρώπων (Asher 7.). see above, Sim. 6. έλήλυθεν ὀ υἱὸς τοῦ�Matthew 9:19).
Besides these verbal coincidences there are many coincidences in thought, especially respecting the admission of the Gentiles to the Kingdom through the Messiah, who is the Saviour of all, Jew and. Gentile alike. “The Lord shall raise up from Levi a Priest, and from Judah a King, God and man. He shall save all the nations and the race of Israel” (Simeon 7.). “A King shall rise from Judah and shall make a new priesthood … unto all the nations” (Leviticus 8:0). Comp. Judah 24. ; Zebulon 9.; Daniel 6:0.; Naphtali 4., 8. ; Asher 7. ; Benjamin 9. Moreover, there are passages which are very similar in meaning, although not in wording, to passages in Luke: comp. the end of Joseph 17. with Luke 17:27, and the beginning of Joseph 18. with Luke 6:28.
It is hardly necessary to trace the history of the Third Gospel in detail any further. It has been shown already (pp. 15-17) that Justin Martyr, Tatian, Celsus, the writer of the Clementine Homilies, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, and the Churches of Lyons and Vienne, knew the Third Gospel, and that Irenæus, the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and others definitely assign it to S. Luke. In the second half of the second century this Gospel is recognized as authentic and authoritative; and it is impossible to show that it had not been thus recognized at a very much earlier date.
The order of the Gospels has not always been the same. But, just as in the interpretation of the four symbolical creatures, the calf has uniformly been taken as indicating S. Luke, so in the arrangement of the Gospels his has almost invariably been placed third. The order with which we are familiar is the common order in most MSS. and Versions : but in D 594, a b cd e f ff 2 i q r and the Gothic Version, and in the Apostolic Constitutions, what is called the Western order (Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) prevails. The obvious reason for it is to have the two Apostles together and before the other two Evangelists. In a few authorities other arrangements are found. X and the Latin k have John, Luke, Mark, Matthew, while 90 has John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, and 399 John, Luke, Matthew. The Curetonian Syriac has Matthew, Mark, John, Luke.
§ 10. COMMENTARIES
A good and full list of commentaries on the Gospels is given by Dr. W. P. Dickson in the English translation of Meyer’s Commentary on S. Matthew, 1. pp. 23-43 and of commentaries on S. Mark and S. Luke in that of Meyer’s Commentary on S. Mark and S. Luke, 1. pp. 13-16. It will suffice to name a few of the chief works mentioned by him, especially those which have been in constant use during the writing of this commentary, and to add a few others which have appeared since Dr. Dickson published his lists (1877, 1880), or for other reasons were omitted by him,1 Of necessity the selection here given in many cases corresponds with that in the volume on Romans by Dr. Sanday and Mr. Headlam; and the reader is referred to that (pp. 99-109) for excellent remarks on the characteristics of the different commentaries, which need not be repeated here.
1. Greek Writers
Origen (Orig.); † 253. Homiliæ in Lucam in Origenis Opp. ed. Delarue, 3:932; Lommatzsch, 5:85; Migne, 13:1801, 1902. These thirty-nine short Homilies are an early work, and have been preserved in the Latin translation made by Jerome. A few fragments of the original Greek survive in the Philocalia (ed. J. A. Robinson, Camb. 1893) and elsewhere. The genuineness of these Homilies has been disputed, but is not doubtful. A summary of the contents of each is given in Westcott’s article Origenes, D. Chr. Biog. iv:113. The first twenty are on Lk. 1., Luke 1:2., and the next thirteen on Lk. 3., Luke 3:4., leaving the main portion of the Gospel almost untouched. Besides these there are fragments of notes in the original Greek, which have been preserved in Venice MS. (28, 394); Migne, xviii:311-370. They extend over chapters 1-20.
Eusebius of Cæsarea (Eus.); † before 341. Εἰς τὸ κατὰ Δουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον in Migne, xxiv:529. Only fragments remain on Luke 1:5, Luke 1:18, Luke 1:19, Luke 1:32, Luke 1:35, Luke 1:38, Luke 1:2:32, Luke 1:4:18, Luke 1:6:18, Luke 1:20, Luke 1:7:29, Luke 1:30, Luke 1:8:31, Luke 1:43, Luke 1:9:1, Luke 1:3, Luke 1:4, Luke 1:7, Luke 1:26, Luke 1:28, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:10:6, Luke 1:8, Luke 1:9:21, Luke 1:12:11, Luke 1:22, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:36, Luke 1:37, Luke 1:42, Luke 1:45, Luke 1:13:20, Luke 1:35, Luke 1:14:18, Luke 1:17:3, Luke 1:23, Luke 1:25-31, Luke 1:34, Luke 1:37, Luke 1:18:2, Luke 1:19:12, Luke 1:13, Luke 1:17, Luke 1:20:2, Luke 1:3, Luke 1:21:25, Luke 1:26, Luke 1:28-32, Luke 1:36, Luke 1:22:30, Luke 1:57, Luke 1:24:4.
Cyril of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.); † 444. Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον in Migne, lxxii:475. Only portions of the original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this version into English (Oxford, 1859). The Syriac version shows that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the commentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation. The commentary is homiletic in form.
Theophylact (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); † after 1118. Migne, 123.
Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym.) ; † after 1118. Migne, cxxix, 853.
These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but do not follow slavishly, and are far superior to mediæval Latin commentaries. The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of Bengel.
2. Latin Writers
Ambrose (Ambr.) ; †397. Expositio Evang. sec. Lucam; Migne, xv. 1525. Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched: in verbis ludlt, in sententiis dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Hom. Orig. in Luc.).
Eucherius ; †449 or 450. Liber instructionum in Lucas Evang.; Migne, 1. 799.
Arnobius Junior; † after 460. Annotationes ad quædam Evangeliorum loca; Migne, liii. 570, 578.
Paterius of Brescia ; friend of Gregory the Great. He colected from the writings of Gregory an Expositio vet. et Nov. Test., of which Book III. is a Catena of Passages on S. Luke; Migne, lxxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk Alulf made a similar collection; Migne, lxxix. 1199.
None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. The extracts from Gregory are mainly from the Moralia or commentary on Job, full of allegorical interpretation.
Bede, the Venerable; †735. In Lucam Exp. Libri vi.; Migne, xcii. 307; Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, 5:217. The character of the work may be given in his own words: “I have made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to compile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to interpret according to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these following pieces”—and he gives a list of his writings (H. E.sub fin. See also the Prol. in Marc.). This commentary is far superior is to those just mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert.
Sedulius Scotus; † c. 830. A mere compiler, often from Origen ; Migne, ciii. 27. Walafrid Strabus of Reichenau; † 849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter; Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous. We may pass over with bare mention Christianus Druthmarus; c. 850; Migne, cvi. 1503: Bruno Astensis; C. 1125; Migne, clxv. 33: and Petrus Comestor; c. 1180; Migne, cxcviii. 1537.
Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus ; †1274. Expositio continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary of patristic theological teaching. opp. ed. Venet. iv. 5; translated Oxford, 1845.
Albertus Magnus of Ratisbon; † 1280.
3. Reformation And Post-Reformation Writers
Erasmus, Desiderius; †1536. Adnotationes in N.T., 1516; Paraphrases, 1522.
Butzer Or Bucer, Martin; † 1551 In sacra quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes, 1551.
Calvin, John; † 1564. In harmoniam ex Matt. Mare. et Luc. compositam Commentarii, 1553; Brunsvigæ, 1868; translated by the. Calvin Trans. Society, 1842; strong and independent.
Beza, Theodore; † 1605. Adnotationes in N.T., 1565, 1594.
Grotius (Huig van Groot); † 1645. Adnotationes in N.T., 1644. Arminian ; an early attempt to apply philological principles (learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible; still useful.
Hammond, Henry; † 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; “the Father of English Commentators.” Paraphrase and Annotations of the N.T., 1653, 1845 ; “reveals genuine exegetical tact and learning.” Biblical paraphrase is of English origin.
One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period require mention.
Cajetan, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio) ; † 1534; a Dominican. In quatuor Evang. et Acta Apost. Commenarii, 1543. Under pressure from Luther (1518) he became considerably emancipated from patristic and scholastic influence.
Maldonatus, Joannes (Maldon.); † 1583 ; a Spanish Jesuit. Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. K. Martin (condensed) 1850. Admirable of its kind: he rarely shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by Hodges.
Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein); † 1637 ; a Jesuit. Comm. in quatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the whole Bible. A voluminous compilation, including much allegory and legend; devout and ’often edifying, but sometimes puerile. English translation of the Comm. on S. Luke, Hodges, 1887.
Escobar y Mendosa, Antonio; † 1669 ; a Spanish Jesuit, whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. In Evangelia sanctorum et temporis commentarii, 1637.
Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the present age.
Bengel, Johann Albrecht (Beng.); †1751. Gnomon N.T., 1742. A masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, Clark, 1857.
Wetstein, Johann Jacob (Wetst.), †1754. Nov. Test. Græcum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest service to all subsequent students of N.T.
4. Modern Writers
Schleiermacher, Fried. Dan. Ernst ; †1834; Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, 1817. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 1825.
Bornemann, Fried. August.; †1850. Scholia in Lucæ Evangelium, 1830
De Wette, Wilh. Mart. L. ; †1849. Kurze Erklä1rung der Evangelien des Lukas und Markus, 1839. Free, precise, and compact.
Meyer, Hein. Aug. Wilh. ; †1873. Kritisch exegetischer Kommentar uber das N.T. Markus and Lukas, 1846. Excellent A good English translation of the fifth edition was published by T. & T. Clark, 1880. Grammar is sometimes ridden to death; but this is still one of the best commentaries for English readers. The German revisions of Meyer by Bernhard and Johannes Weisa, 1885, etc., are superior, especially as regards the text.
Oosterzee, Jan Jacob van; †1882. In Lange’s Theologisehehomiletisches Bibelwerk, 1857-1876, he commented on S. Luke. English translation published by T.& T. Clark, 1864. The notes are in three sections throughout; critical, doctrinal, and homiletic.
Hahn, G. L., Professor of Theology at Breslau. Das Évangelium des Lukas, 1892, 1894. Two substantial volumes, full of useful material, but grievously perverse in questions of textual criticism.
Schanz, Paul. Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, 1883. Probably much the best Roman Catholic commentary.
Lasserre, Henri. Les Saints Évangiles, 1886, 1887. A French translation of the Gospels with brief notes. Uncritical, but interesting. It received the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Paris and the praise of Leo xIII., ran through twenty-five editions in two years, and then through the influence of the Jesuits was suppressed.
Godet, Fréderic, Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur l’Évangile de S. Luc, 1871, 1872, 1888. Equal to Meyer in exegesis, but weak in textual criticism. The edition of 1888 is greatly to be preferred. An English translation of the second edition was published by T.&T. Clark, 1879.
Alford, Henry; †1871. Greek Testament, vol. i. 1849, 5th ed. 1863. Sensible and clear.
Wordsworth, Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; † 1885. Greek Testament, vol. i:1856, 5th ed. 1866. Scholarly and devout, supplying the patristic element wanting in Alford, but otherwise inferior; weak in textual criticism.
McClellan, John Brown. The New Testament, a new translation, from a revised text, with analyses, copious references and illustrations, chronological and analytical harmony, notes and dissertations, vol. i:1875 ; unfortunately the only one published. Contains some grotesque renderings and perverse arguments, with a great deal of valuable matter.
Plumptre, Edward Hayes ; †1891. The Synoptic Gospels in Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Cassell, 1878. Popular and suggestive, with a tendency to excessive ingenuity.
Jones, William Basil, Bishop of St. David’s, and Cook, Frederic Charles, Canon of Exeter; St. Luke in the Speaker’s Commentary, 1878. Inadequate.
Carr, Arthur, Notes on the Greek Testament, St. Luke, 1875. A scholarly handbook.
Farrar, Fred. William, Dean of Canterbury. St. Luke in the Cambridge Greek Testament, 1884 and later. More full, but less precise, than Carr.
Sadler, Michael Ferrebee : †1895. Gospel arc. to St. Luke, 1886. Dogmatic and practical rather than critical: somewhat capricious in textual criticism.
Bond, John. WH. text of St. Luke with introduction and notes, 1890. Brief to a fault, but useful.
Campbell, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke’s Gospel, 1890. Fails to establish a special demonology and Ebionite tendency, but contains many useful remarks.
Bernard, Thomas Dehany. The Songs of the Holy Nativity, 1895. Did not come to the knowledge of the present writer until the commentary on chapters 1. and 2. was in print.1
Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Synoptic Gospels in the Expositor’s Greek Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1897. T. R. with introduction and notes; modelled on Alford.
Blass, Fredericus. Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucæ ad Theophilum Liber Prior, seeundam Formam quæ videtur Romanam, Trubner, 1897. Western text with introduction and critical notes.
Index II contains the names of many other writers whose works are of great use to the student of this Gospel.
Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria.
Clem. Hom. Clementine Homilies.
Clem. Recogn. Clementine Recognitions
Clem. Rom. Clement of Rome.
Cyr. Alex. Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyr. Hier. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Dion.Alex. Dionysius of Alexandria.
Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.
Greg. Naz. Gregory of Nazianzum.
Greg. Nys. Gregory of Nyssa.
Iren. lat. Latin Version of Irenæus.
Jer. Hieron. Jerome.
Just. M. Justin Martyr.
Orig-lat. Latin Version of Origen.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Cod. Am. Codex Amiatinus.
Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).
AV. Authorized Version.
RV. Revised Version.
TR. Textus Receptus.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
De W. De Wette.
Wordsw. Wordsworth (Chr.)
Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.
C. I. G. Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum.
Didon, J. C. Père Didon, Jésus Christ
L. J. Leben Jesu.
V. de J. Vie de Jésus.
Lft. Epp. J. B. Lightfoot,1 Notes on Epistles of S. Paul.
Edersh. L. & T. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Hist. of J. N. History of the Jewish Nation.
Rob. Res. in Pal. Robinson, Researches in Palestine.
Schürer, J. P. in T. of J. C. Schürer, Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ.
Scriv. Int. Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Stanley, Sin. & Pal. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine
Trench, Mir. Trench, Miracles.
Par. Trench, Parables.
Syn. Trench, New Testament Synonyms.
Tristram, Nat. Hist. of B. Tristram, Natural History of the Bible.
D. B.1 or D. B.2 Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1st or 2nd edition.
D. Chr. Ant. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
Kraus, Real-En d. Chr. Alt.. Kraus, Real - Encyklopädie der Christlichen Alterthümer.
Herzog, Proverbs 1:0 or Proverbs 2:0 Herzog’s Protestantische Real-Encyklopädie, 1st or 2nd edition.
Crem. Lex. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek.
L. & S. Lex. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon.
Greg. Proleg. Gregory, Prolegomena ad Tischendorfii ed. N. T.
Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moulton’s edition).
N.B.—The text commented upon is that of Westott and Hort. The very few instances in which the editor is inclined to dissent from this text are noted as they occur.
1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol. iii.; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A. Wünsche, Die Jüdische Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, Trier : Part III. has just appeared.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben verfassers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a whole stands; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact.
1 Even Jülicher still talks of “the silence of Papias” as an objection (Einl. in das N.T. § 27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in the much larger portions which have perished? The probabilities, in the absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite without evidence. In the “Hexaemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai is a passage in which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Luke 10:18 is quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed from Papias. Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. Hilgenfeld thinks that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (Intr. p. 90, Exodus 5:0).
1 The argument from the Greek form (that Λευκανός, not Λουκανός, is the equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about a.d. 50 forms in Λουκ- begin to take the place of forms in Λευκ-.
2 Comp. Annas for Ananus ; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts 18:24) ; Artemas for Artemidorus (Titus 3:12; Mart. v. 40) ; Cleopas for Cleopatros ; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus. For other examples see Win. 16:5, p. 127; Lft. on Colossians 4:15; Chandler, Grk. Accent. § 34.
3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evangelist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible as the human body (Texte und Unters. 18:4, p. 40)
1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as of οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, (2) as μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not bracketed together. In Philemon 1:23 Epaphras is συναιχμάλωτος, and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are οἱ συνεργοί μου, while Justus is not mentioned.
1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsay takes the same view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Acts 16:9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas (S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202).
1 It has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 1812, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch extraction.
2 His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopoli [vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens] ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andress apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first insertion is made in more than one place in De vir. ill. vii.
1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed to the Evangelist, see The Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 1895.
1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mark 1:23-28 = Luke 4:33-37); the Journey in Galilee (Mark 1:35-39 = Luke 4:42-44); the Request of the Demoniac (Mark 5:18 = Luke 8:38) ; the Complaint of John against the Caster out of Demons (Mark 9:38 = Luke 9:49); the Spices brought to the Tomb (Mark 16:1 = Luke 24:1). Are these the result of the time when S. Mark and S. Luke were together (Colossians 4:10, Colossians 4:14; Philemon 1:24)?
1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Overbeck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsäcker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The more moderate of these suggest a.d. 95-105, the more extreme a.d. 120-135.
1 F. Bole, Flavius Josephus über Christus und die Christen in den jüdischen Alterthümern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (18:3, 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke.
1 Some year between a.d. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Güder, Holtzmann?, Jülicher, Keim?, Köstlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, Schenkel, Trig, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, e.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make a.d. 80 the latest data that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts.
1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, Hahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nösgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Riehm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and now Blass Harnack has changed from (b) to (c).
1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as Origen (Hom. i. in Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose: scriptum est evangelium ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i.3). Epiphanius regards the name’s denoting πᾶς ἄνθρωπος θεὸν�
1 Jerome (Comm. in Isaiah 6:9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres Ecclesiæ tractatores medicinæ artis fuisse scientissimum, et magis Græcas litteras scisse quam Hebræas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evangelio quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiant, magisque testimoniis Græcis utitur quam Hebræis.
2 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark. Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark. See p. 41. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the Synoptists see Westcott, Intr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff.
1 As regards order, in the first half the Second and Third Gospels commonly agree, while the First varies. In the second half the First and Second commonly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew’s additions to the common material are mostly in the first half; Luke’s are mostly in the second.
1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of WH. are most instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not. The analysis of the Gospel by Sanday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be found very helpful.
§ Found in Luke alone.
* Common to Luke, Mark, and Matthew.
° Common to Luke and Mark.
† Common to Luke and Matthew.
1 Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. 28:28; and the πᾶς (Luke 16:16), which is not in Mt. (11:12).
2 In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made women.
1 Both in Mark (1:21-28) and in Luke (4:31-37) the miracle of healing the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being typical of Christ’s whole work. But there is no evidence of any special “demonology” in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the “spirit of Infirmity” (13:10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone record.
2 A marked exception is the violent scene so graphically described 11:53, 54.
1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one who “commands excellent means of knowledge … and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight” ’S. Paul the Traveller, Philippians 2:3, Philippians 2:20, Philippians 2:21, Hodder, 1895).
1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (23:26-30) and the speech of Tertullus (24:2-9) with the speeches of Peter (2:14-39, 3:12-26).
1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the influence of Aramaic sources.
1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the word is used Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. In the lists on pp. lii, liii, the lower number has generally been preferred in doubtful cases.
* Shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers.
1 An exception must be made of the author of The Four Gospels as Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and rakes together criticisms and positions which have been rendered impotent and untenable. One is tempted to apply to it the author’s own words (respecting a volume of very real merit and ability, which has rendered signal service to the cause of truth), that it “may be said, without much injustice, to beg every question with which it deals” (p. 491).
אԠא Cod. Sinaiticus, sæc. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Petersburg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.
אԠאa contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second MS. of high value;
אԠאb attributed by Tischendorf to sæc. vi.;
אԠאc attributed to the beginning of sæc. 7. Two hands of about this date are sometimes distinguished as אca and אcb
T T. Cod. Borgianus, sæc. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains 22:20–23:20.
Ξ̠Ξ. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sæc. viii. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains 1:1–9, 19–23, 27, 28, 30–32, 36–66, 1:77–2:19, 21, 22, 33–39, 3:5–8, 11–20, 4:1, 2, 6–20, 32–43, 5:17–36, 6:21–7:6, 11–37, 39–47, 8:4–21, 25–35, 43–50, 9:1–28, 32, 33, 35, 9:41–10:18, 21–40, 11:1, 2, 3, 4, 24–30, 31, 32, 33.
L L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, sæc. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sæc. 5. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: 1:2–2:5, 2:42–3:21, 4:25–6:4, 6:37–7:16, or 17, 8:28–12:3, 19:42–20:27, 21:21–22:19, 23:25–24:7, 24:46–53.
These four MSS. are parts of what were once complete Bibles, and are designated by the same letter throughout the LXX and N.T.
R R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sæc. 8. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains 1:1–13, 1:69–2:4, 16–27, 4:38–5:5, 5:25–6:8, 18–36, 39, 6:49–7:22, 44, 46, 47, 8:5–15, 8:25–9:1, 12–43, 10:3–16, 11:5–27, 12:4–15, 40–52, 13:26–14:1, 14:12–15:1, 15:13–16:16, 17:21–18:10, 18:22–20:20, 20:33–47, 21:12–22:15, 42–56, 22:71–23:11, 38–51. By a second hand 15:19–21.
B B. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. 4. In the Vatican Library certainly since 15331 (Batiffol, La Vaticane de Paul 3, etc., p. 86).
K K. Cod. Cyprius, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
M M. Cod. Campianus, sæc. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
S S. Cod. Vaticanus, sæc. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel.
U U. Cod. Nanianus, sæc. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.
Lat. Vetus Latina.
Hier. Palestinian (Jerusalem).
WH. Westcott and Hort.
1 See also Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels by Dr. P. J. Gloag, T. & T, Clark, 1895, and the literature quoted p. 209.
Eus. Eusebius of Cæsarea
Cyr. Cyril of Alexandria.
Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.
1 A similar fact caused the omission at p. 29 of some recent discussions of the Synoptic problem; e.g. The Abbeá; Loisy, Essays in L’Enseignement Riblique, 1892, Revue des Religions, 1894, and Revue Biblique, 1896 (see the Guardian, August 1896, p. 1317); W. Arnold Stevens and E. De Witt Burton A Harmony of the Gospels for Historical Study, Boston, 1896
1 The name of John Lightfoot is not abbreviated in this volume.