τῇ ree
hy
yay
<2%-
i es ih
ayes i / 75: i aes Sradetth
ὟΝ
ἜΘΗ nag Li = ls eh NLL ETT ταῦτ,
Ee ον TEE tent
ete ANSE RE THR ae ing OREG LT
at iy δ Ὁ ἀν. ἐν ὁ: iat " ον δ᾿ ye a: ΥΩ ὍΝ ΣΟ des ne.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE
Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED
FOR De (Ge 1: ΘΕΆ ΕΞ ΕΝ ΒΒ Ὁ ἘΠΕ ΕΙ
NEW YORK: CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
[The Rights of Translation and of Reproduction are Reserved)
The
Mnternational Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and Aeto Cestuments.
PLANNED AND FOR YEARS EDITED BY THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. ProFEssor SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER, D.D., D.LItTT. Proressor CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., D.Litt.
h; +e then
. ὩΣ: ey pts ΤῸ μάνα Ἢ Εν ΤῈ inant
᾿ ὴ ea : ere arse wc ΣΝ ὲ 5 δ a ῥ “is ch a io am ΠΡ τ, τ
ΕἸ : ᾿ ᾿ Ὁ" tional r ]
THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY
A
ΒΙΠΠΟΛΙ AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY
ON THE
vor el ACCORDING, TO 5. LUKE
BY THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A, D.D.
LATH MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COI,LEGE, DURHAM FORMERLY FELLOW AND SENIOR TUTOR OF TRiNITY COLLEGE, OXFORD
FIFTH EDITION
EDINBURGH T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
First Edition Second Edition . Third Edition Fourth Edition . Fifth Edition
Seventh Impression
1896 1898 I900 Igor 1922
960
Pebrack LOTTE 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 com- mentary can be written. One of the difficulties with which the present commentator has had to contend is the im- possibility 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 ammnis. 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 a i
u PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
the Synopsts of the Four Gospels by the Rev. Dr. Sanday, Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and his dis- tinguished 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 com- ment 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 sub- jects, 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 un- touched. 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 altogethe: 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 head- ings, 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 short: comings 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
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION ili
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 sup- plied, 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. James.!
A very eminent scholar has said that the best com- mentary 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, @ fortiori the Vulgate side by side with the Latin Versions which preceded it is likely to be helpful. An effort has
1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schiirer, West. 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. Winsche, Die jiudische Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, Trier : Part III. has just appeared.
iv PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
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 Testa- ment, 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 com- mentator to advocate this or that belief. But dogma in the historical sense must of necessity be conspicuous in a com- mentary 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 (i. 1-4). The Evangelist assures Theophilus, and with him all other Christians, that he knows, upon first-hand and carefully
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION v
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 (iii. 1-6), and that his appearance was im- mediately followed by that of the Christ Himself (iii. 23, iv. 14, 15), whose Ministry, Passion, Death, and Resur- rection 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 (i. 37, lil. 8, xi. 2-4, xii. 32, etc.). Καὶ εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ τ τ τ 70. ἰχ ἘΡΟΣ 2}. 22, ΧΧΙΙ 20; 79, ΧΧΙΙ [33] 46% comp. iv. 41, viii. 28), τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν (i. 43, il. 11, Vil. 13, X. I, τὸ X31. 42, ΧΥΪ: 5: 6, XIX. 5, 21, ΧΧΙ: ΟἹ, XXIV. 3; 34)! τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου (1.51--35, 43, ii. 6, 7), τὸν ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου σταυρωθέντα καὶ ταφέντα (xxXil., xxili.), τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ ἀναστάντα ἐκ νεκρῶν (xxiv. I-49), ἀναβάντα εἰς τοὺς οὐρανούς (XXIV. 50-53), καθήμενον ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρός (xxii. 69), ὅθεν ἔρχεται κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς (comp. ix. 26, xii. 35-48, xviii. 8). Καὶ εἰς πνεῦμα ἅγιον (i. 15, 35, 41, 67, il. 26, iv. 1, 14, Xi. 13, Xii, τὸ; 12)" ἁγίαν ἐκκλησίαν (comp. i. 74, 75» ix. 1-6, X. 1-16, Xxiv. 49)" ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (1. 77, ll. 3, XXIV. 47)" σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν (xiv. 14, XX. 27-40).
The Evangelist’s own convictions on most of these points are manifest; and we need not doubt that they include the principal things in which Theophilus had been instructed, and which the writer of the Gospel solemnly affirms to be well established. Whether in our eyes they
vi PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
are well established depends upon the estimate which we form of histestimony. Is he a truth-loving and competent witness? Does the picture which he draws agree with what can be known from other authorities? Could he or his informants have invented the words and works which he attributes to Jesus Christ? A patient and fair student of the Third Gospel will not be at a loss for an answer.
ALFRED PLUMMER
Oniversity College, Durham, Feast of S. Luke, 1806.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
THE correction of many misprints and other small errors has been greatly facilitated by the generous help of several correspondents, and by the invaluable Concordance to the Greek Testament, according to the texts of WH., Tischen- dorf, and R.V., by Moulton and Geden, an indispensable aid, which had not been published when the first edition of this volume appeared. But to no one is the writer more indebted than to the Rev. John Richard Pullan, who has bestowed upon the work of a stranger an amount of attention which one would not venture to solicit from an old friend.
This edition has also been improved by many small insertions, chiefly of references to books, which have either appeared, or have come to the writer’s knowledge, since the first edition was published. First amongst these in
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION vii
importance is vol. i. of the new Dictionary of the Buble, edited by Dr. Hastings, which should be in the hands of every Biblical student. Three articles in particular may be mentioned, both on account of their excellence, and also of their helpfulness to the student of the Third Gospel: these are the articies on “ Angels” (for this Gospel might be called the Gospel of the Angels, so often does it mention these glorious beings) ; on the “Chronology of the New Testament”; and on the “ Acts of the Apostles.” To this must be added the new edition of A. S. Lewis’ trans- lation of the Szaztic Syriac Palimpsest; the editions of The Assumption of Moses and The Apocalypse of Baruch, by Κα. H. Charles ; and of Te Book of the Secrets of Enoch, by Morfill and Charles; Das Kuindheitsevangelium, by A. Resch; Bibelstudien and Neue Bibelstudien, by G. A. Deissmann, both of which contain valuable illustrations of Biblical Greek from papyri; Grammatik des NT. Griechisch, by F. Blass; and the instructive but eccentric Historical Greek Grammar, by A. N.Jannaris. The inter- esting work on the Philology of the Gospels, by F. Blass, is chiefly occupied with the Gospel of S. Luke, and should be read side by side with the sections of the Introduction to this volume which treat of the same topics. The writer has only to add, that nothing which he has read since he wrote the Introduction has shaken his convictions as to the authorship, date, or integrity of this Gospei.
A, P,
University College, Durham, Whitsuntide, 1808
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
THIS edition is marked by the correction of some errcrs that had escaped notice, and by the addition of numerous references and short notes. Since the second edition was published, three volumes have appeared which the student of the Third Gospel cannot afford to neglect. These are the Horae Synopticae of the Rev. Sir John C. Hawkins, Zhe Gospel according to S. Luke in Greek, edited by the Rev. Arthur Wright, and vol. ii. of the Dzctzonary of the Bible, edited by Dr. Hastings. In the last of these, the article on “ Jesus Christ” is a masterpiece of critical acumen and lucidity combined with reverential treatment. The present writer desires to express his obligations to all three volumes. Mr. Wright suggests in his preface that his own work should be used in conjunction with this commentary ; and those who use the commentary will certainly profit greatly if they follow his suggestion.
A. P,
Oniversity College, Durham. Whitsuntide, san
ἘΠ Ο IE 5
INTRODUCTION . . . : . § 1. The Author : was the Author of ine Acts : a Companion of S. Paul Ε . S. Luke . ὃ § 2. 5. Luke the Evangelist 3 : § 3. The Sources of the Gospel : -
No Ebionite Source. : Supposed Dislike of Duplicate - : § 4. Time and Place. : : 5
§ 5. Object and Plan. : ° : : 5 Analysis of the Gospel . : . - § 6. Characteristics, Style, and Language : The Gospel! of 5. Paul . ὃ - - of Prayer . ; - : of Praise . 3 : . literary, historic, domestic : - S. Luke’s Command of Greek. : Expressions peculiar to 5. Luke . . to him and S. Paul . : ° . to both with Hebrews. . : to 5. Luke with Hebrews . Expressions frequent in 5. Luke . - possibly medical His Diction compared with that io 5. and S. Mark . ° § 7. The Integrity of the ας . : 5
§ 8. The Text . : Η τ = > § 9. Literary History - os Ε Clement of Rome. . . ° . The Didaché. 5 : . . . Gospel of Peter . ° . .
Testaments of XII. 7 1: - . ix
Matthew
PAGE xI-1Xxxv ΧΙ
ΧΙ
ΧΙ xill xviii XXIll XXV XXVIL1 ΧΧΙΧ XXXIll XXXVIli xli xliii xlv xlvi xl vi xlix hi
liv lvill lix
lix Ix
Ixvi
Ixvii
x CONTENTS
PAGE § 10. Commentaries . - . ᾿ 3 Ξ ἐ : Ixxx Abbreviations . 5 ° . ° . 2 oe bexxvi
COMMENTARY . . . - . . . . . I-569
SPECIAL NOTES
On the use of ἐγένετο . . 5 . Ξ ° . 45 The Decree of Augustus 5 ν . . ὃ 4ὃ The fifteenth yea: of Tiberius : ° oe - 82 The Genealogy . : : ° ᾿ : : . ΙΟΙ Demoniacal Possession . Ξ . ° ° . 136 The Miraculous Draught of Fishes Ξ 5 : 147 The title “Son of Man” : : . . 5 : 156 The word δευτεροπρώτῳ. - ‘ ' . 5 2 105 The Sermon ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ : 5 Ξ Ἁ 176 Christ’s Raising the Dead. 8 : . ° Ξ 201 The Journeyings towards Jerusalem . . . Ξ 260 The word dvdAnpyis : : ὃ : - Ε 262 The Mission of the Seventy . 5 ° : 269
The Idea of Hades or Sheol in the ©} T. : - Ῥ 307 The Blind Manat Jericho . . ° . . - 439 The Parable of the Pounds . ὃ . 5 Fi Ξ 437
The Question about Psalm cx. e = = - Ξ 472 The Apocalypse of Jesus 3 5 . ° . . 487 Readings in Chapters xxii. and xxiii, . : : 5 544 The Narratives of the Resurrection . ° e ° 546 Western Non-interpolations . - . . - . 566 Interpolations in the Sinaitic Syriac 2. «.« » - 569
INDEX TO THE NOTES I. General . A « Ξ : 5 8 6 II. Writers and Wrtir. gS. : = - : τ III. Greek Words. . eee IV. Eng lish and Latin Wrote Z ε - - 5
INTRODUCTION.
81. THE AUTHOR.
As in the case of the other Gospels, the author is not named in the book itself. But two things may be regarded as practically certain, and a third as highly probable in itself and much more probable than any other hypothesis. (i.) The author of the Third Gospel is the author of the Acts. (ii.) The author of the Acts was a companion of S. Paul. (ili.) This companion was S. Luke.
(i.) Zhe Author of the Third Gospel is the Author of the Acts.
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
xi
xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ὃ 1,
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. Lk. i. 11 with Acts xi. 7; Lk. 1. 38 with Acts i. 11 and x. 7; Lk. ii. g and xxiv. 4 with Acts i. ro and x. 30); and about other matters (comp. Lk. i. 39 with Acts 1. 15; Lk. ii. 39 with Acts xiii. 29; Lk. ui. 8 with Acts xxvi. 20; Lk. xx. 1 with Acts iv. τ; Lk. χχὶ. τὸ with Acts xxvii. 34; Lk. xxi, 35 with) Acts xvii. 26; Lk. xxiii. 2 with Acts xxiv. 2-5; Lk. xxili. 5 with Acts x. 37; Lk. xxiv. 27 with Acts viil. 35).! And there are parallels of arrangement. ‘She main portion of the Gospel has three marked divisions: The Ministry 7 Gadilee (ill. 1-1x. 50), between Galilee and Jerusalem (ix. 51—-xix. 28), and im Jerusalem (xix. 29--χχὶν. 11). And the main portion of the Acts has three marked divisions: Hebraic (ii.-v.), Transitional (vi.-xii.), and Gentile (xiii.—xxviii.). 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 con- necting the main narrative with what precedes.
(ii.) Zhe 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 xi. 28 at Antioch, and may represent a true tradition without being the original reading.? It appears certainly xvi. 10 at Troas* and continues to Philippi (xvi. 17).4 Several years later it reappears at Philippi (xx. 5)° and continues to Jerusalem (xxi. 18). Finally, it reappears at the departure for Italy (xxvii. 1)‘ and continues to Rome (xxviii. 16).§
1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben Verfassers, Walle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument asa whole stands ; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact.
2 For ἀναστὰς δὲ els ἐξ αὐτῶν D has συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη els ἐξ αὐτῶν, revertentibus autem nobis att unus ex ipsis, This reading is also found in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 57 [xvii. }).
8 ἐζητήσαμεν ἐξελθεῖν. 4 ἡμῖν ἔκραζεν. 5 ἔμενον ἡμᾶς.
© εἰσήει ὁ ἸΤαῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν. τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν ἡμᾶς. ὃ εἰσήλθαμεν εἰς Ῥώμην
$1.] THE AUTHOR xiii
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 refer- ences 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.Z. 1. p. 29.
(11.) Zhe 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 (Col. iv. 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 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 con- firmation of the evidence which assigns the authorship of both te Luke.
xiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 1.
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 state- ment 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” (AmpAz/. 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 un- questionably by Luke.
The Pauline authorship of Romans and Galatians is now com- monly regarded as certain, and the critic who questions it is held te 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 Irenzeus, neither are those Epistles. And the silence of the Apostolic Fathers respect- ing 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 Irenzeus 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. Con- sequently 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 wice versd, 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
81. THE AUTHOR xv
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 state ment 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 Irenzus and the Muratorian Fragment, which may be a little earlier than the work of Irenzus, but is probably a little later. We must consider the evidence of the existence of this Gospel previous to Irenzeus; 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 of 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 Afo/. xxxiv.; Zry. Ixxviii., IXXXVlll., €., Cill., 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 pro- ably 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. Svom. iv. 9, Ρ. 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.! See ὃ 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 Lk. i. 6 (Eus. HZ. v. 1. 9).
1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo οἱ what is known of Marcion.
xvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ($1
These instances, which are by no means exhaustive, may suffice as evidence for the early existence of the Third Gospel. It re- mains to notice the way in which Irenzeus and his later contem- poraries speak of the book. Irenzeus, 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. i., 11., ix.—xix., xxiv. In a very remark- able passage he collects together many of the things which this Gospel alone narrates and definitely assigns them to Luke: “ΝΟΥ͂ 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. (τ: 7. ¢ Comp.1ill. 10. 1,22. 4, 1212, 144-4,/ete!) atime 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 (S¢vom. i. 1, Ρ. 322, ed. Potter). He quotes the Gospel very frequently, and from many parts of it. He definitely assigns it to Luke (Strom. 1. 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. iv. to the end, often calling it Luke’s.
The Muratorian Fragment (A.p. 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 mani- fest 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
§1.) THE AUTHOR xvii
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.&.*). 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 xx. 4, 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 evi- dence 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. Irenzeus, 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 Evangiles, ch. xiii. 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 Afdtres, p. xvii., Eng. tr. p. 11).} See Ramsay in the Zxfosztor, Jan. 1898.
1 Even Jiilicher still talks of ‘‘ the silence of Papias” as an objection (2 2), wn 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 Lk. x. 18 is quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed from Papias. Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200. Hilgenfeld thinks
ὀ
xviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE {§ 2.
§ 4, Si LUKE) THE ΕΑΝ ΘΕ ΘΙ
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.!_ 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 -ἂς are common in the case of slaves (Patholog. Proleg. Ρ. 506). Slaves were sometimes physicians, and S. Luke may have been a freedman. Antistius, the surgeon of Julius Cesar, and Antonius Musa, the physician of Augustus, were freedmen.
That Lucas=Lucanus is probable.? But that Lucanus= Silvanus, because lucus=stlva, 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. 47. £. ili. 39. 4, 6), because ἀρισ- ταύειν = lucere (Lange).
Only in three places is Lk. zamed 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 (Col. iv. το, 14; Philem. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11). These passages tell us that ‘the physician, the beloved one” (6 ἰατρὸς 6 ἀγαπητός), was with 5. Paul during the first Roman imprisonment, when the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon were written, and also during the second imprisonment, when 2 Timothy was written. Besides telling us that Luke was a physician very dear to the Apostle, they also tell us that he was his “fellow-worker ” in spreading the Gospel. But apparently he was. not his “ fellow-prisoner.” In Col. iv. ro Aristarchus is called συναιχμάλωτος, and in Philem 23 Epaphras is called such ; but Lk. in neither place.
Almost all critics are agreed that in Col. iv. 14 Luke 15
that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (/z¢7. p. 90, ed. 5).
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 Aouk- begin to take the place of forms in Aevx-.
2Comp. Annas for Ananus; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Acts xviii. 24); Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit. iii. 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. xvi. 5, p. 127; Lft. on Col. iv. 15 ; Chandler, Grk. Accent. § 34.
3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an Evan-
elist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible as the human ar (Texte und Unters. viii. 4, Ὁ. 40)
§ 2.) 5. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xix
separated from ‘those of the circumcision,” and therefore was a Gentile Christian.!_ Hofmann, Tiele, and Wittichen have not suc- ceeded 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 (Rom. xvi. 21). This Lucius was Paul’s kinsman, and therefore a Jew. The identifica- tion of Luke with Lucius of Cyrene (Acts xiii. 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 Afost. Const. vi. 18. 5 Luke is distinguished from Lucius. Nor can he be iden- tified with Silas or Silvanus, who was evidently a Jew (Acts xv. 22). Nor can a Gentile have been one of the Seventy, a tradition which seems to have been adopted by those who made Lk. x. 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. “er. 11. 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 (xxiv. 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 (Jn. xii. 20) 1s 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” (i. 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
1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as ol ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, (2) as μόνοι συνεργοὶ els τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, z.¢. the only Jewish converts in Rome who loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not
bracketed together. In Philem. 23 Epaphras is συναιχμάλωτος, and Mark,
Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are οἱ συνεργοί μου, while Justus is not men- tioned.
ick THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [Β 8.
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 Cor. viii. 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 5. 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 xvi. 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 Cor. xii. 7) prostrated him in Galatia, and thereby led to the conversion of the Galatians (Gal. iv. 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 (xx. 5—xxi. 18) tells us that about six years later (A.p. 58), during the third missionary journey, Luke was again at Philippi! with Paul, and went with him to Jerusalem ᾿ to confer with James and the elders. And the third (xxvii. 1- XxVill. 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,—znseparabilis fuit a Paulo, says Irenzeus: 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,
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 xvi. 9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas (S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202).
§ 2.) 5. LUKE THE EVANGELIST xxi
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 (/.c.). Our earliest authori- ties appear to know little or nothing beyond what can be found in Scripture or inferred from it (Iren. i. 1. 1, ΤΟΙ I, 14. I-4, 15. 1, 22. 3; Canon Murator. sub init.; Clem. Alex. Strom. v. 12 sud fin.; Tert. Adv. Marcion. iv. 2). Nor can much that is very trustworthy be gleaned from later writers. The statement of Eusebius (//. 45. ili. 4. 7) and of Jerome (De wir. il. vii.), which may possibly be derived from Julius Africanus (Harnack, Zex/e und Unters. vil. 4, p. 39), and is followed by Theophylact, Euthy- mius Zigabenus, and Nicephorus, that Luke was by family of Antioch in Syria, is perhaps only an inference from the Acts. Δουκᾶς δὲ τὸ μὲν γένος ὧν τῶν ἀπ᾽ ᾿Αντιοχείας (Eus.) need not mean more than that Luke had a family connexion with Antioch ; but it hardly “amounts to an assertion that Luke was not an Antiochian.” Jerome says expressly Lucas medicus Antiochensis. This is probable in itself and is confirmed by the Acts. Of only one of the deacons are we told to which locality he belonged, ‘‘ Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch” (vi. 5)1: and we see elsewhere that the writer was well acquainted with Antioch and took an interest in it (xi. 19-27, Mill, χὶν ΤΌ; 21, 26, XV. 22, 22, 30, 35, xvill. 22).
Epiphanius states that Luke ‘‘ preached in Dalmatia and Gallia, in Italy and Macedonia, but first in Gallia, as Paul says of some of his companions, in his Epistles, Crescens in Gallia, for we are not to read zz Galatia, as some errone- ously think, but 22: Gallia” (Her. ii. 51. 11, Migne, xli. 908) ; and Oecumenius says that Luke went from Rome to preach in Africa. Jerome believes that his bones were translated to Constantinople,” and others give Achaia or Bithynia as the place of his death. Gregory Nazianzen, in giving an off-hand list of primi- tive martyrs—Stephen, Peter, Andrew, etc.—places Luke among them (Oraz. adv. Jul. i. 79). None of these statements are of any value.
The legend which makes Luke a painter is much more ancient than is sometimes represented. Nicephorus Callistus (4. Z. ii. 43) in the fourteenth century is by no means the earliest authority for it. Omitting Simeon Metaphrastes (¢. a.D. 1100) as doubtful, the Menology of the Emperor Basil 11., drawn up a.D. 980, represents
1It 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.
? His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopolé [vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens] ad guam urbem wicesimo Constantiz anno ossa jus cum religuizs Andrex apostol: 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. iil. vii.
xxii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [3.2
S. Luke as painting the portrait of the Virgin. ‘The oldest witness, however, is Theodorus Lector, reader in the Church of Constantin- ople in the sixth century. Some place him as late as the eighth century ; but the name is common, and between a.pD. 500 and 800 there may have been many readers of that name at Constantinople. He says that the Empress Eudoxia found at Jerusalem a picture of the Θεομήτωρ painted by Luke ¢he Apost/e, and sent it to Constantin- ople as a present to her daughter Pulcheria, wife of Theodosius 11. (Collectan. i. 7, Migne, Patr. Gr. Ixxxvi. 165). In 1204 this picture was brought to Venice. In the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome, in the Capella Paolina, is a very ancient picture of the Virgin ascribed to S. Luke. It can be traced back to A.D. 847, and may be still older.!_ But although no such legend seems to be known to Augustine, for he says, neque novimus faciem virginis Marie (De Trin. vill. 5. 7), yet it is many centuries older than Nicephorus (Kraus, Real-LEnc. d. Christ. Alt. i. p. 344, which quotes Glukselig, Christus-Archdol. 101; Grimouard de 5. Laurent, Guide de Part chrét. iii. 15-20). And the legend has a strong ele- ment of truth. It points to the great influence which Luke has had upon Christian art, of which in a real sense he may be called the founder. The Shepherd with the Lost Sheep on His shoulders, one of the earliest representations of Christ, comes from Lk. xv (Tert. De “μά. 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 Jeru- salem, 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. i. d.
The four symbolical creatures mentioned in Ezek. i. and Rev. iv., the Man, the Lion, the Ox, and the Eagle, are variously ex- plained by different writers from Irenzeus (iii. 11. 8) downwards. But all agree in assigning the Ox or Calf to 5. 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. 1. sect. vi.).
1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed to the Evangelist, see Zhe Jadonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 1895.
§ 38.) THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL xxiii
§ 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 care- ful enquiry in the best quarters. But (4) which “eye-witnesses and ministers of the word” were his principal informants, (4) whether their information was mostly oral or documentary, (ὦ 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 (Col. iv. 10, 14; Philem. 24). S, Paul himself could tell Luke only that which he himself received (1 Cor. xv. 3); but he could help him to first-hand information. While the Apostle was detained in custody at Czesarea, 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.
(ὁ) 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, ¢.g. the genealogy (111. 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 i. 80, ii. 40, and ii. 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 (i. 1). But some phenomena are rather against this. Luke omits (vi. 5) ‘the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath” (Mk. il. 27). He omits the whole of Mk. vi. 45-viii. 9, which contains
χχῖν THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 3.
the digression into the borders of Tyre and Sidon and the incident with the Syrophenician woman, which is also in Matthew (xv. 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 (Mt. ii. 1-15). At xx. 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” (Mt. xxi. 43). At xxi. 12-16 he omits “‘ And this gospel of the kingdom shad/ be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto αὐ the nations” (Mt. xxiv. 14; comp. Mk. xiii. 10). Comp. the omission of Mt. xvii. 6, 7 at Lk. ix. 35, of Mt. xvii. 19, 20 at Lk. ix. 43, of Caesarea Philippi (Mt. xvi. 13; Mk. viii. 27) at Lk. 1x. 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 Mt. ii. 14, 15 with Lk. il. 39, Mt. xxviii. 7, το, 16 with Lk. xxiv. 49; and gener- ally 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 arrange- ment.1 A Sook 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 be- sides (3) the smaller documents about the Infancy incorporated in the first two chapters, which are peculiar to himself,—Luke
1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28 = Lk. iv. 33-37); the Journey in Galilee (Mk. 1. 35-39 = Lk. iv. 42-44); the Request of the Demoniac (Mk. v. 18 = Lk. viil. 38); the Complaint of John against the Caster out of Demons (Mk. ix. 38 = Lk. ix. 49); the Spices brought to the
Tomb (Mk. xvi. I = Lk. xxiv. 1). Are these the result of the time when S. Mark and 8. Luke were together (Col. iv. το, 14; Philem. 24)?
§ 3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XXV
evidently had (4) large sources of information respecting the Ministry, which are also peculiar to himself. ‘These are specially prominent in chapters ix. to xix. and in xxiv. 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 (iii. 1, 19, viii. 3, ix 7-9, xiii. 31, xxiii, 7-12; Acts xiii. 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 “ £dconttic 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 im- pressed 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 sup- posed to be specially Ebionitic, the rich Abraham is in bliss with the beggar, and Lazarus neither denounces on earth the super- fluity of Dives, nor triumphs in Hades over the reversal of posi- tions. 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 (xix. 24) and Mark (x. 25) as well as in Luke (xvili. 25). So also is the story of Peter and Andrew, James and John leaving their means of life and following Christ (Mt. iv. 18-22; Mk. i. 16-20; Lk. v. 1-11). So also is the story of Matthew or Levi leaving his lucrative calling to follow Christ (Mt. ix.9; Mk. ii. 14; Lk. v. 27, 28). In both these cases Luke expressly states that they forsook ad// (v. 11, 28), which, however, is sufficiently clear from the other narratives. In the story about Zacchzus, 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 (iii. 4) and Mark (i. 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 (Mt. xiii. 22 ; Mk. iv. 19) who speak of “ the deceitfulness of riches,” while Luke (vili. 14) has simply “riches.” It is they who record (Mt. xix. 29; Mk. x. 29) that Christ spoke of the blessedness of leaving relations and 270"
ΧΧΥῚ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [8. 3
perty (ἀγρούς) for His sake, where Luke (xviii. 29) omits ἀγρούς. He alone preserves Christ’s declaration that he who sits at meat is superior to him who serves (xxl. 27), and there is no hint that to have servants is wrong. While the others tell us that Joseph of Arimathza was a man of rank (Mk. xv. 43) and wealth (Mt. xxvii. 57), Luke is much more explicit than they are about his goodness and rectitude (xxiii. 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” (will: 33) Ὁ 1 Ὸ which may perhaps be added the fact that in the quotation from Ps. cvii. ro in Lk. 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 Jilicher says, JZan hat von dem ebionitischen charakter dieses Evang. gesprochen und nach den judischen Einflussen oder Quellen gesucht: sehr mit Unrecht.... Von tendensidser Ebionitistrung des Evangeliums kann bet thm nicht die Rede sein (Lind. § 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 pre- dilection 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 appropriat- ing them. But it will generally be found that wherever the ex- pressions 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 (viii. 4-15) has few marks of his style (ἐν μέσῳ, ver. 7; ὃ λόγος Tod Θεοῦ, ver. 11; δέχονται and ἀφίστανται, ver. 13) which are not also in Mt. (rod σπεῖραι, ver. 5) or in both (ἐν τῷ σπείρειν, ver. 5). But absence or scarcity of Luke’s characteristics is most common in those reports of dis- courses which are common to him and Matthew: e.g. lll. 7-9, 17 = Mt. ill. 7-10, 12; vil. 6-9 = Mt. viii. 8-10 ; ix. 57 58=Mt. viii. τὸ; 20; Vii. 22-28 = Mt. ΧΙ. 4-11; vii. 31-35 = Mt. xi. 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 ;
§ 3.] THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL XxVii
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: ¢.g. viii. 22-56 = Mk. iv. 35-41, V. 1-43 = Mt. vill. 23-34, ix. 18-25. These narratives swarm with marks of Luke’s style, although he keeps closely to the common material (see below, ὃ 6. ii.). Thus he has εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς, ἐπιστάτα, δέομαι σου, ἐξελθεῖν ἀπό, ἱκανός, ἐδεῖτο αὐτοῦ, σύν, ὑπόστρεφε, παρὰ τοὺς πόδας, παραχρῆμα, etc., where Mark has λέγει αὐτοῖς, διδάσκαλε, ὁρκίζω σε, ἐξελθεῖν ἐκ, μέγας, παρεκάλει αὐτόν, μετά, ὕπαγε, πρὸς τοὺς πόδας, εὐθύς, etc. Moreover Luke has ἐν τῷ ¢. infin., καὶ οὗτος, καὶ αὐτός, ὑπάρχειν, πᾶς OF ἅπας, μονογενής, etc., where the others have nothing. The following examples will repay examination : iv. 38-41 = Mk. i. 29-34 = Mt. vili. 14-173 v. 12-16 = ΜΚ. i. 40-45 = Mt. vill. 1-4; v. 17-26=Mk. ii. 1-12 = Mt. ix. 1-8 ; ix. 10-17 = Mk. vi. 30-44 = Mt. xiv. 13-21; ix. 38-40= Mk. ix. 17, 18= Mt. xvil. 15, 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 sup- posed 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 de/iberate/y 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 7gnorance: 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 (Jn. xxi. 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.
EXVIii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [38 3.
The statement that Zuke 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 (i. 46 ff.), and the father of the Baptist has a song (68 ff.). The venerable Simeon welcomes the infant Christ in the temple (ii. 28), and so does the venerable Anna (38). Levi the publican is converted and entertains Jesus (v. 27 ff.), and Zacchzus the publican also (xix. 1 ff.). The mission of the Twelve (ix. 1) is followed by the mission of the Seventy (x. 1). True disciples are equal to Christ’s relations (viii. 21), and to His Mother (xi. 28). Twice there is a dispute as to who is the greatest (ix. 46, xxii. 24). Not content with the doublets which he has in common with Mt. (vili. 19-22, ix. 16, 17, Xxiv. 40, 41), he adds a third instance (ix. 61, 62, v. 39, xVil. 36?) ; or where Mt. has only one example (xxiv. 37-39), he gives two (xvil. 26-29). So also in the miracles. We have the widow’s son raised (vii. 14), and also Jairus’ daughter (vili. 54), where no other Evangelist gives more than one example. There are two instances of cleansing lepers (v. 13, xvii. 14); two of forgiving sins (v. 20, vii. 48); three healings on the sabbath (vi. 6, ΧΙ]. το, xiv. 1); four castings out of demons (iv. 35, vill. 29, ix. 42, xi. 14). Similar repetition is found in the parables. The Rash Builder is followed by the Rash King (xiv. 28-32), the Lost Sheep by the Lost Coin (xv. 1-10); and the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5) does not involve the omission of the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1). The exceptions to the supposed principle are still more numerous in the shorter sayings of Christ: viii, 16=xi. 33; vill. 17 Ξε ΧΙ]. 2; vill. 18 =xix. 26. 1Σ. 22 ΞΞ xiv. 27; ἸΧ. 24 =XVil. 33; ix. 26= ΧΙΙ. 9;Χ. 25= XVill. 18; ΧΙ; 49=xX. 465 xii. ΤΊ, 12=Xxi,° 14, 155) xiv PDS meee xix. 44=xxi. 6; and comp. xvii. 31 with xxi. 21, and xxi. 23 with xxill. 29. These instances, which are not exhaustive, suf- fice to show that the Evangelist cannot have had any very strong objection to recording duplicate instances of simila incl-
§ 41 TIME AND PLACE ΧΧΙΧ
dents 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, Zhe Composition of the Gospels, 1890; Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, 1896; Holsten, Die synopt. Evang. nach Form thres Inhalts dargestellt, 1886 ; Holtzmann, Zvilectung in das N.T. 1892; Jiilicher, Zvi. in das N.7. 1894; Nosgen, 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. Ixxxv.
See especially Sanday in Book by Book, 1893, p. 345 ff.; in Dect. of the Bible, 2nd ed. 1893, supplement to the article on ‘‘ Gospels,” pp. 1217-1243; and in the Axfosztor, 4th series, Feb. to June, 1891.
8 4. TIME AND PLACE.
(i.) It is a disappointment that Bishop Lighttoot’s admirable article on the Acts (D.4.? i. pp. 25-43) does not discuss the Daze. 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, how- ever, been to a large extent supplied in the Bampton Lectures for 1893 (Lect. vi.), 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 second? 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 in- dependently 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 Amtiguities he had in- dependent knowledge, and that he had never read Josephus. Moreover, where the statements of either can be tested, it is Luke who 15 commonly found to be accurate, whereas Josephus is often
1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Over-
beck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsacker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The more moderate of these suggest A.D. 95-105, the more extreme A.D. 120-135.
xxx THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [8 4.
convicted of exaggeration and error. See the authorities cited by Lft. D.5.? p. 39; by Holtzmann, ind. in ὦ. N.T. p. 374, 1892, and by Schanz, Comm. iber d. Evang. d. h. Lukas, p. τό, 1883.
The relation of Luke to Josephus has recently been rediscussed ; on the one side by Clemen (Dze Chronologie der paulin. Briefe, Halle, 1893) and Krenkel (Josephus und Lukas ; der schriftstellerische Einfluss des jiidischen Geschicht- schreibers auf den christlichen, Leipzig, 1894), who regard the use of Josephus by Luke as certain; on the other by Belser (Zheol. Quartalschrift, Tiibingen, 1895, 1896), who justly criticizes the arguments of these writers and especially of Krenkel.! It is childish to point out that Luke, like Josephus, uses such words as ἀποστέλλειν, ἀφικνεῖσθαι, αὐξάνειν, παιδίον, πέμπειν, πύλη, K.T.A., in their usual sense: and such phrases as προέκοπτεν τῇ σοφίᾳ καὶ ἠλικίᾳ (Lk. ii. 52) and ἐξίσταντο πάντες ol ἀκούοντες αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῇ σύνεσει Kal ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (ii. 47) are not strikingly similar to εἰς μεγάλην παιδείας προὔκοπτον ἐπίδοσιν, μνήμῃ Te καὶ συνέσει δοκῶν διαφέρειν (Jos. Vita, 2) and θαύμασας τὴν ἀπόκρισιν αὐτοῦ σοφὴν οὕτω γενομένην (Ant. xii. 4. 9). Far more striking resemblances may be found in writings which are indisputably independent. Luke alone in N.T. calls the Sea of Galilee ἡ λίμνη Γεννησαρέτ. Could he not call it a Jake without being prompted? Josephus also calls it a λίμνη, but his designations all differ from Luke’s: Γεννησὰρ ἡ λίμνη, ἡ A. Γεννησάρ, X. ἡ Γεννησαρῖτις, ἢ Γεννησαρῖτις Δ. (8. 1 ii. 20. 6, ili. 10. 7; Ant, xviii. 2. 1; Vita, 65), and other variations. Luke has προσέπεσεν τοῖς γόνασιν ᾿Ιησοῦ (v. 8), and Josephus has τοῖς γόνασιν αὐτοῦ προσπέσοντες (Anz, xix. 3. 4). But Josephus more often writes προσπίπτειν τινι πρὸς τὰ γόνατα, and the more frequent phrase would more probably have been borrowed. Comp. συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (Lk. iv. 38) with τεταρταίῳ πυρετῷ συσχεθείς (Ant, xiii. 15. 5); μὴ μετεωρίζεσθε (xii. 29) with Azz. xvi. 4. 6, sub _ fin. (where, however, vevewrépioro is the more probable reading) ; ἄφαντος ἐγένετο am’ αὐτῶν (xxiv. 31) with ἀφανὴς ἐγένετο (Ant. xx. 8. 6). In these and many other cases the hypothesis of copying is wholly uncalled for. The expressions are not very uncommon. Some of them perhaps are the result of both Luke and Josephus being familiar with LXX. Others are words or constructions which are the common material of various Greek writers. Indeed, as Belser has shown, a fair case may be made out to show the influence of Thucydides on Luke. In a word, the theory that Luke had read Josephus ‘‘ rests on little more than the fact that both writers relate or allude to the same events, though the differences between them are really more marked than the resemblances” (Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 278). As Schiirer and Salmon put it, if Luke had read Josephus, he must very quickly have forgotten all that he read in him. See Hastings, D. 4.1. p. 30.
In itself, the late date A.p. 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 5. 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 ” (ii. 26, ii. 15, iv. 41, ix. 20, XX. 41, XXil. 67, xxiii. 35, 39, xxiv. 26, 46), have become a
1¥F, Bole, Flavius Josephus tiber Christus und die Christen in den Jiuidischen
Alterthiimern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (xviii. 3. 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke.
§ 4.) TIME AND PLACE xxxi
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 Gosfe/ of meer ine Luker(vil.113, XM, ΧΙ 320; Xi. 425. ΧΙ. τ; xvil.,'s, 6, xvili. 6, xix. 8, xxii. 61, xxiv. 34) and in John this use is begin- ning, but it is still exceptional. Above all, would xxi. 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. Inthe 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.
(ὁ) The intermediate date of a.p. 75-80 has very much more to recommend [1.1 It avoids the difficulties just men- tioned. It accounts for the occasional but not yet constant use of ὁ Κύριος to designate Jesus. It accounts for the omis- sion of the very significant hint, “let him that readeth under- stand” (Mk. xiii. 14; Mt. xxiv. 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 (xix. 43, 44, xxl. 10-24), when com- pared with the records of them in Mark (xiii. 14-19) and Matthew (xxiv. 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 (viii. 51, ix. 28), as in the Acts (i. 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.
1 Some year between A.D. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Giider, Holtzmann?, Jiilicher, Keim?, Kostlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, Schenkel, Trip, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, ¢.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make A.D. 80 the latest date that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts-
XXXx11 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [§4
(ὦ The early date of about a.p. 63 still finds advocates ;! and no doubt there is something to be said for it. Quite the szmplest 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 Α.Ὁ. 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, /zs¢. Lnt. to N.T. p. 319, ed. 5). How long might Luke have been without seeing these Epistles? Easily till a.p. 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 xi. 28). When he records the prophecy of Christ respecting the destruction of Jerusalem (xxi. 5-36), he does not mention that it was fulfilled. The szm/est 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 Judzea flee to the mountains,” are in all three reports. The actual flight seems to have been, not to the moun- tains, but to Pella in north Persea; and yet “το the mountains ” is still retained by Luke (xxi. 21). Eusebius says that there was a “revelation” before the war, warning the Christians not only to eave the city, but to dwell in a town called Pella (7 Z. 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 15 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 in- dicate that the Gospel was written outside Palestine (i. 26, li. 4. ἵν. 31, Vill. 26; xxilin’ 51, xxiv. 13). +The ‘first, @fotmese considerations does not lead to anything very definite, and the
1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, Bahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Noésgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Richm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and now Blass. Harnack has changed from (6) to (c).
§ 5.] OBJECT AND PLAN XXxxili
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 apostolt Pauli, in Achaiz Bceotizque partibus volumen condidit (2 Cor. viii.), guedam a/tius repetens, et ut ipse in proemio confitetur, audita magis, quam visa describens (Migne, xxvi. 18), where some MSS. have Azthynie# for Lwotie. Some MSS. of the Peshitto give Alexandria as the place of com- position, which looks like confusion with Mark. Modern guesses vary much: Rome (Holtzmann, Hug, Keim, Lekebusch, Zeller), Czesarea (Michaelis, Schott, Thiersch, Tholuck), Asia Minor (Hilgenfeld, Overbeck), Ephesus (Kostlin), and Corinth (Godet). There is no evidence for or against any of them.
§ 5. OBJECT AND PLAN.
(i.) The immediate Odject 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,! 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 AZanual 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 Xxlii. 26, xxiv. 3, xxvi. 25), and we must be content to be in ignor- ance as to who Theophilus was and where he lived. But the tone of the Gospel leads us to regard him as a representative Gen/ile convert, who was anxious to know a good deal more than the few fundamental facts which were taught to catechumens. The topo- graphical statements mentioned above, and such remarks as “the
1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as Origen (Hom. i. in Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose: scrzptum est evangelium ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i. 3). Efiphanius regards the name’s denoting πᾶς ἄνθρωπος Θεὸν ἀγαπῶν asa possible alternative (Her. ii. 1. 51, Migne, xli. 900).
ε
XXXIV THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [8 5.
feast of unleavened bread which is called the passover ” (xxii. 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 con- verts, and possibly Greek-speaking converts in particular. Theo- philus 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 Kavavatos (vi. 15; Acts i. 13), and Κρανίον for Γολγοθᾶ (xxiii. 33); his never using Ῥαββεί as a form of address, but either διδάσκαλε or ἐπιστάτα ;1 his comparatively sparing use of ἀμήν (seven times as against thirty in Matthew), for which he sometimes substitutes ἀληθῶς (ix. 27, xll. 44, xxi. 3) ΟΥ ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας (iv. 25, Xxil. 59); his use of νομικός for γραμματεύς (Vil. 30, X. 25, xl. 45, 46, 52, xiv. 3); his adding ἀκάθαρτον as an epithet to δαιμόνιον (iv. 33), for Gentiles believed in good δαιμόνια, whereas to a Jew all δαιμόνια were evil; his avoiding μετεμορφώθη (Mk. ix. 2 ; Mt. xvil. 2) in his account of the Transfiguration (ix. 29), a word which might have suggested the metamorphoses of heathen deities ; his notice of the Roman Emperor (ii. 1), and using his reign as a date (iii. 1) ; his tracing the Saviour’s descent to Adam, the parent of Gentile as well as Jew (ili. 38). Although full honour is shown to the Mosaic Law as binding on Jews (ii. 21, 27, 39, V. 14, x. 26, xvi. 17, 29-31, ΧΨΠ 14, xvill. 20), yet there is _ not much appeal to it as of interest to his readers. Luke has no parallels to Mt. v. 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, 31, 33, ΧΠ 5-7, 17320, xv. 1-20. The quotations from the Old Testament are few as compared with Matthew, and they are found mostly in the sayings of Christ (iv. 4, 8, 12, 18, 19, 26, Vi. 4, Vil. 27,-Vili. 10, ΧΠῚ 10, 28, 29, 355 ΧΡ]. 20, ΧΙΧ. 46, XX. 17, 37, 42, 43) ΧΧΙ. 10. 2 ΘΟ ΣΙ, 35, XXIl. 37, 69, XXill. 30, 46) or of others.(i, τῶν ΤΠ 46-55, 68-79, ii. 30, 31, 32, iv. 10, ΤΙ, x. 27, xx. 28). Very little is said about the fulfilment of prophecy, which would not greatly interest Gentile readers (iii. 4, iv. 21, xxi. 22, xxii. 37, xxiv. 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
1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, are not found in Luke: ᾿Αββᾶ (Mk.), Boaynpyés (Mk.), Γαββαθᾶ (Jn.), "EBpaiorl (Jn.), "Eupavounr (Mt.), ἐφφαθά (Mk.), Κορβᾶν (Mk.), KopBavds (Mt.), Μεσσίας (Jn.), ὡσαννά (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, ταλειθὰ κοῦμι (Mk.) and éAwt, ἐλωΐ. x.7.A. (Mt. Mk.).
§ 6., OBJECT AND PLAN XXXV
reproductions, more or less conscious, of the words of Scripture ; but the following are definitely given as citations: 11. 23, 24, ill. 4, Ἰ 4 ..Χ5. 10. 11,12, 1S, 10, νἱ]- 27, X..27,, XVille/20, Xix. 46, XX. 17, 28, 37, 42, 43, Xxll. 37. Excepting vii. 27, they may all have come from LXX.' And vil. 27 does not agree with either ihe Hebrew or LXX of Mal. ii. 1, and is no evidence that the Evangelist knew Hebrew. But, excepting ἐγώ, it agrees verbatim with Mt. ΧΙ. 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 “ Judza” for the land of the Jews, 1:6. the whole of Palestine (i. 5, iv. 44 ὃ, vii. 17, xxiii. 5; Acts ii. 9, X. 37, xi. 1, 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 fw/ness. He desires to make his Gospel as comf/ete as possible. This is clearly indicated in the prologue. He has “traced up the course of a// things accurately from the first” (ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν), in order that Theophilus may “know iz 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 Ascen- sion. Moreover his Gospel contains an immense proportion of material which is peculiar to himself. According to one calcula- tion, if the contents of the Synoptic Gospels are divided into 172 sections, of these 172 Luke has 127 (3), Matthew 114 (3), and Mark 84 (4); and of these 172 Luke has 48 which are peculiar to himself (7), Matthew has 22 (3), and Mark has 5 (3!,). 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, 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.
1 Jerome (Comm. in Is. vi. 9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres Ecclesiw tractatores medicine artis fuisse sctentissimum, et magis Grecas litteras scisse quam Hebrexas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evan- gelto quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est in utroque volumine comptior est, et vecularem redolet eloguentiam, magisque testimonits Greets utitur quam Hebreis.
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. xli. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the Synoptists see Westcott, Jntr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff.
XXXVl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE iS δ.
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 apolo- getic treatises. It was his aim to show all Christians, and especi- ally 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 (Mt. xvi. 23; Mk. viii. 33), the ambitious request of James and John (Mt. xx. 21; Mk. x. 37), the boastful declaration of loyalty made by all the Twelve (Mt. xxvi. 35; Mk. xiv. 31), and the subsequent flight of all (Mt. xxvi. 56; Mk. xiv. 50); which promises to the Twelve their judgment-thrones (xxil. 30), and trusts them with the conversion of “all the nations” (xxiv. 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: iv. 28, 29, ΧΙ FO, TT, 21, 32, xi. 39, 40, ΧΙ 47, XII τό δ, 15, xvi oy eee XVill, 10-14, xxill. 28-31; Acts ii. 23, v. 30, vil. 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.! 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
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 com- monly 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.
bit aiendletiaics Cry ----- = > ee
Ke Se
eee
§ 5.) OBJECT AND PLAN XXXVii
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 vili. 1; Acts ili. 24, xi. 4, xvill. 23.
That the whole Gospel is elaborately arranged to illustrate the development and connexion of certain theological ideas does not harmonize with the im- pression 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 (CGosp. H7st. I. i. 1, § 20, 21), McClellan (4. 7. pp. 427 ff.), Oosterzee (Lange's Comm. Int. § 4), and West- cout (/nt, to Gospels, ch. vii. 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 11. and ii1., at or about ix. 51 and xix. 28, and between chapters xxi. and xxii. If we add the preface, we have six divisions to which the numer- Ous 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 cor- rectness. It may, however, be conducive to clearness, even if nothing of the kind is intended by 5. Luke.!_ The mark ὃ 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.
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: 492-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be found very helpful.
XXXVI1i THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [3. 5
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. xxiv) 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. i. 1-4. § THE PReFacE. THE SOURCES AND OBJECT OF THE GOSPEL.
11. 1. 5-ii. 52. ὃ THE GospeL OF THE INFANCY.
. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Forerunner (5-25).
. The Annunciation of the Birth of the Saviour (26-38).
. The Visit of the Mother of the Saviour to the Mother of the Forerunner (39-56).
The Birth of the Forerunner (57-80)
The Birth of the Saviour (ii. 1-20).
The Circumcision and Presentation of the Saviour (21-40).
7. The Boyhood of the Saviour (41-52).
Anup Oro
III. iii. r-ix. 50. THE MINISTRY, MAINLY IN GALILEE, i. Zhe External Preparation for the Ministry ; The Preach- ing of the Baptist (111. 1-22). τ She Date (a, 72): 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. Zhe Internal Preparation for the Ministry ; * The Tempta- tion (iv. I-13). iti. Zhe Ministry in Galilee (iv. τ4--ἰχ. 50). 1. Visit to Nazareth; “Αἴ Capernaum an unclean Demon cast out (iv. 14-44). a. §*The Miraculous Draught and the Call of Simon, * Two Healings which provoke Controversy ; * The Call of Levi; *Two Sabbath Incidents which provoke Controversy (y. I-vi 11).
§ 5.) OBJECT AND PLAN Xxxix
3. * The Nomination of the Twelve; + The Sermon “on the Level Place”; t+ The Centurion’s Servant; §The Widow’s Son at Nain: 7 The Message fron: the Baptist; §The Anointing by the Sinner; § The Ministering Women; * The Parable of the Sower; * The Relations of Jesus ; * The Stilling of the Tem- pest ; * The Gerasene Demoniac ; * The Woman with the Issue and the Daughter of Jairus (vi. 12—-vill. 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 (ix. I-50).
IV. ix. 51-xix. 28. THE JOURNEYINGS TOWARDS JERUSALEM: MINISTRY OUTSIDE GALILEE.
i. The Jsparture from Galilee and First Period of the Journey (ix. 51—Xill. 35).
1. §The Samaritan Village; t§$Three Aspirants to Dis- cipleship ; § The Seventy: The Lawyer’s Questions and §the Good Samaritan; § Mary and Martha (ix. 51-x. 42).
2. §Prayer; * Casting out Demons by Beelzebub ; § True Blesseaness ; * The Demand for a Sign: ὃ Denuncia- tion of Pharisaism; ἱ Exhortation to Sincerity ; § The Avaricious Brother; § The Rich Fool; God’s Providential Care ; δ Πα Signs of the Times (ΧΙ. 1- Xll. 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 7 the Lament over Jeru- salem (xill. 1-35).
ii. Zhe Second Period of the Journey (xiv. 1-xvii. 10).
1. §The Dropsical Man; $Guests and Hosts; § The Great Supper; §The Conditions of Discipleship ; t+ The Lost Sheep; § The Lost Coin; § The Lost Son (xiv. 1-xv. 32).
2. §The Unrighteous Steward; 81 Short Sayings; § The Rich Man and Lazarus ; Four Sayings on * Offences, § Forgiveness, ἵ Faith, § Works (xvi. 1-xvil. 10).
ili. Zhe Third Period of the Journey (xvii. 11-xix. 28). 1. §The Ten Lepers; §* The coming of the Kingdom; .§The Unrighteous Judge; §The Pharisee and the Publican (xvii. 11—xvili. 14),
xl THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [8 5.
2. * Little Children; *The Rich Young Ruler; * The Third Prediction of the Passion; * The Blind Man at Jericho; ὃ Zaccheus; §The Pounds (xvill. 15- xix. 28).
V. xix. 29-xxl. 38. Last Days or PuBLic TEACHING: MINISTRY IN JERUSALEM.
1. * The Triumphal Procession and ὃ Predictive Lament- ation; * The Cleansing of the Temple (xix. 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; ἊΣ Apocalyptic Discourse (xx. 1-xxi. 38).
VI. xxii.-xxiv. THE PASSION AND THE RESURRECTION. i, Zhe Passion (xxii. 1-xxili. 56).
1. * The Treachery of Judas (xxii. 1-6).
2. * The Paschal Supper and Institution of the Eucharist ; * The Strife about Priority ; § The New Conditions (xxii. 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 (xxii. 29-- XXlll. 49).
4. * The Burial (xxiii. 50-56).
ii. Zhe Resurrection and the Ascension (xxiv.). . *§The Women at the Tomb (1-11). . §[Peter at the Tomb (12).] . § The Walk to Emmaus (13-32). § The Appearance to the Eleven (33-43) § Christ’s Farewell Instructions (44-49). . § The Departure (50-53).
Note that each of the three divisions of the Ministry begins with scenes which are typical of Christ’s reiection by His people: the Ministry in Galilee with the attempt on His life at Nazareth (iv. 28-30); the Ministry outside Galilee with the refusal of Samaritans to entertain Him (ix. 51-56); and that in Jerusalem with the Lament over the city (xix. 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.
§6.] | CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xli
MIRACLES, PARABLES. * Unclean Demon cast 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, ἡ 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. 8 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. § Pounds.
* Wicked Husbandmen.
Thus, out cf 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 (iv. 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 (Mt. xxi. 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 charac teristic of his Gospel. His Gospel is the nearest approach to a biography ; and his object seems to have been to give his readers
xii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE (§ 6.
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 umversal Gospel. All four Evangelists tell us that the good tidings are sent to “‘all the nations” (Mt. xxvill. 19; Mk. xiii. 10; Lk. xxiv. 47) independently of birth (Jn. i. 12, 13). But no one teaches this so fully and persistently as 5. 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 King- dom of God, and this is open to everyone; to the Samaritan (ix. 51-56, x. 30-37, xvil. 11-19) and the Gentile (ii. 32, iii. 6, 38, iv. 25-27, Vil. 9, X. I, XIll. 29, XXl. 24, xxiv. 47) as well as to the Jew (i. 33, 54, 68-79, 11. 10); to publicans, sinners, and outcasts (ili. 12, 13, V. 27-32, Vii. 37-50, XV. I, 2, 11-32, Xvili. 9-14, xix. 2-10, XXiil. 43) as well as to the respectable (vii. 36, xi. 37, xiv. 1); to the poor. (i. 53, 11.°7,/8,\24) Iv./18, vi. 20, 27, ΜΠ 22, ΣΙΝ 2 21 XVl. 20, 23) as well as to the rich (xix. 2: xxiii, 50). And hence Dante calls 5. Luke “the writer of the story of the gentleness of Christ,” scriba mansuetudinis Christi (De Monarchia, i. 16 [18], 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 Mt. vil. 6, x. 5, 6, xx. 16, xxil. 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 Is. xl. 3 ff. (which all four Evangelists quote) till he reaches the words “‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (iii. 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” (xix. 10; interpolated Mt. xviii. 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.? But all through this Gospel they are allowed a prominent place, and many types
1 Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. xxvili, 28; and the πᾶς (Lk. xvi. 16), which is not in Mt. (xi. 12).
*In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made women.
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xii
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 (ili. 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 fone of the Gospel is Pauline. It exhibits the liberal and spiritual nature of Chris- tianity. It advocates fai/h and refentance apart from the works of the Law, and tells abundantly of God’s grace and mercy and the work of the Ho/y 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 oni. 15.
It is characteristic that τίνα μισθὸν ἔχετε (Mt. v. 46) becomes mola ὑμῖν χάρις ἐστιν (Lk. vi. 32); and ἔσεσθε ὑμεῖς τέλειοι, Ws ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὁ οὐράνιος τέλειός ἐστιν (Mt. v. 48) becomes γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες, καθὼς ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστιν (Lk. vi. 36). Note also the incidents recorded iv. 25-27 and x. I-16, and the office of the Holy Spirit as indicated i. 15, 35, 41, 67, ii. 25, 26, 27, iv. I, x. 21, xi. 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 Irenzeus (111. 1. 1, 10. 6) and Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. iv. 5) aptly call him: he made known to others what Peter had'said. Paul was the 2//uminator of Luke (Tert. iv. 2): he enlightened him as to the essential characte: of the Gospel.
xliv ΓΗΒ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [8 6.
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. iii. 1. 1).
Jiilicher 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 (Zin/. § 27, p. 204). See also Knowling, 7he Witness of the Epistles, p. 328, and the authorities there quoted.
Holtzmann, followed by Davidson (/xtrod. to N.T. ii. p. 17) and Schaft (Apostolic Christianity, li. p. 667), gives various instances of parallelism be- tween the Third Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Resch (Aussercanonische Paralleliexte, p. 121, Leipzig, 1893), while ignoring some of Holtzmann’s ex- amples, adds others; but some of his are not very convincing, or depend upon
doubtful readings.
S. LUKE.
iv. 32. ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ ἣν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ.
vi. 36. ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν.
vi. 39. μήτι δύναται τυφλὸς τυφλὸν ὁδηγεῖν ;
vi. 48. ἔθηκεν θεμέλιον.
vil. 8. ἄνθρωπός εἰμι ὑπὸ ἐξουσίαν τασσόμενος.
Vill, 12. πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν.
vill. 13. μετὰ χαρᾶς δέχονται τ. λόγον.
x. 7. ἄξιος yap ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. x. 8. ἐσθίετε τὰ παρατιθέμενα ὑμῖν.
x. 16. ὁ ἀθετῶν ὑμᾶς ἐμὲ ἀθετεῖ" ὁ δὲ ἐμὲ ἀθετῶν ἀθετεῖ τὸν ἀποστείλαντά με.
x. 20. τὰ ὀνόματα ὑμῶν ἐνγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.
xi. 7. μή μοι κόπους πάρεχε.
xi. 29. ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη. .. σημεῖον ζητεῖ.
ΧΙ, 41. καὶ ἰδοὺ πάντα καθαρὰ ὑμῖν ἐστίν.
ΧΙ, 35. ἔστωσαν ὑμῶν αἱ ὀσφύες περιεζωσμέναι.
ὙΠῸ 42. τίς οἰκονόμος ;
xiii. 27. ἀπόστητε ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ πάντες ἐργάται ἀδικίας (Ps. vi. 8).
XVill. I. δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι αὐτοὺς
ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς
The following are worth considering :—
S. PAUL,
1 Cor. ii. 4. ὁ λόγος pou... ἐν ἀποδείξει πνεύματος καὶ δυνάμεως.
2 Cor. 1. 3. ὁ πατὴρ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν.
Rom. ii. 19, πέποιθας σεαυτὸν ὁδηγὸν εἶναι τυφλῶν.
I Cor. ill. 10. θεμέλιον ἔθηκα.
Rom, xill. 1. ἐξουσίαις ὑπερεχούσαις ὑποτασσέσθω.
I Cor, i. 21. σῶσαι τοὺς πιστεύοντας.
Rom. i. 16. εἰς σωτηρίαν παντὶ τ. κιστεύοντι.
1 Thes. i. 6. δεξάμενοι τ. λόγον . . . μετὰ χαρᾶς.
1 Tim. ν. 18. ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.
1 Cor. x. 27. πᾶν τὸ παρατιθέμενον ὑμῖν ἐσθίετε.
1 Thes. iv. 8, ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρω- πον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν Θεόν.
Phil. iv. 3. ὧν τὰ ὀνόματα ἐν βίβλῳ ζωῆς (Ps. lxix. 28).
Gal. vi. 17. κόπους μοι μηδεὶς παρε- χέτω.
1 Cor. i. 22. ᾿Τουδαῖοι σημεῖα αἰτοῦσιν.
Tit. i. 15. πάντα καθαρὰ τοῖς καθα- ροῖς.
Eph. vi. 14. στῆτε οὖν περιζωσάμενοι τὴν ὀσφὺν ὑμῶν (Is. xi. 5).
1 Cor. iv. 2. ξητεῖται ἐν τοῖς οἰκονό- μοις ἵνα πιστός τις εὑρεθῇ.
2 Tim. il. 19. ἀποστήτω ἀπὸ ἀδικία πᾶς ὁ ὀνομάζων τὸ 61 ομα κυρίου.
Col. i. 3. πάντοτε προσευχόμενοι.
2 Thes, i, 11. προσευχόμεθα πάντοτῳ.
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlv
καὶ μὴ ἐνκακεῖν.
xx. 16. μὴ γένοιτο.
xx. 22, 25. ἔξεστιν ἡμᾶς Καίσαρι φόρον δοῦναι ἣ οὔ; ἀπόδοτε τὰ Καίσα- ρος Καίσαρι.
XX. 35. οἱ δὲ καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν.
xx. 38, πάντες γὰρ αὐτῷ ζῶσιν.
xxi. 23. ἔσται γὰῪρ . . . ὀργὴ τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ.
xxl. 24. ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν.
ΧΧΙ, 34. μή ποτε βαρηθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι ὑμῶν ἐν κρεπάλῃ καὶ μέθῃ. .. καὶ ἐπιστῇ ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς ἐφνίδιος ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη ὡς παγίς.
xxi, 36. ἀγρυπνεῖτε δέ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ
Gal. vi. 9. μὴ ἐνκακῶμεν.
Roms 1x: 14, xi. 11;) Gal. 11. 21
Rom. xiii. 7. ἀπόδοτε πᾶσιν Tas ὀφειλάς, τῷ τὸν φόρον τὸν φόρον.
2 Thes. i. 5. εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Kom. vi. 11. ζῶντας τῷ Θεῷ.
Gal. il. 19. ἵνα Θεῴ ζήσω.
1 Thes. il. 16. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺφ ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος.
Rom. xi. 25. ἄχρι οὗ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ.
I Thes. ν. 3-5. τότε αἰφνίδιος αὐτοῖς ἐπίσταται ὄλεθρος. .. ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐστὲ ἐν σκότει, ἵνα ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμᾶς ὡς κλέπτης [κλέπτας] καταλάβῃ.
Eph. vi. 18. προσευχόμενοι ἐν παντὶ
δεόμενοι. καιρῷ . . . καὶ ἀγρυπνοῦντες. ΧΧΙΪ, 53. ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. (ο]. 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 (47. Z£. iii. 4. 8) and by Jerome with guzdam sus- picantur (De vir. tllus. vii.), that wherever 5. Paul speaks of ‘‘my Gospel” (Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8) he means the Gospel of S. Luke, still finds advocates. And the supposition that the Third Gospel is actually quoted 1 Tim. v. 18 is incredible. The words λέγει ἡ γραφή refer to the first sentence only, which comes from Deut. xxv. 4. What follows, ‘‘ the labourer is worthy of his hire,” is a popular saying, adopted first by Christ (Lk. x. 7; Mt. x. 10) and then by S. Paul. Ilad 5. Paul quoted the saying as an utterance of Christ, he would not have said λέγει 7 γραφή. He would have used some such expres- sion as μνημονεύειν τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου ᾿Ιησοῦ ὅτι αὐτὸς λέγει (Acts xx. 35), oF παραγγέλλει ὁ κύριος (I Cor. vil. 10, 12), or μεμνημένοι τῶν λόγων τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ, ods ἐλάλησεν (Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii. 1; comp. xlvi. 7), or simply εἶπεν ὁ κύριος (Polyc. vii. 2). Comp. 1 Thes. iv. 15; 1 Cor. ix. 14, xi. 23.
(ὁ) More than any of the other Evangelists 5. 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 (Mt. xxvi. 39; Mk. xiv. 35; Lk. xxii. 41); Mark (i. 35) mentions His retirement for prayer after healing multitudes at Capernaum, where Luke (iv. 42) merely mentions the retirement: and Matthew (xiv. 23) and Mark (vi. 46) relate His retirement for prayer after the feeding of the 5000, where Luke (ix. 17) relates neither. But on seven occasions Luke is alone in recording that Jesus prayed: at His Baptism (iii. 21) ; before His first collision with the hierarchy (v. 16); before choosing the Twelve (vi. 12); before the first prediction of the Passion (ix. 18); at the Transfiguration (ix. 29) ; before teaching the Lord’s Prayer (xi. 1); and on the Cross (xxill. [34], 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” (xxii. 32, 40)
xlvi THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE ἰδ 6.
It was out of the fulness of His own experience that Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you” (xi. 9). Again, Luke alone re- cords the parables which enjoin persistence in prayer, the Friend at Midnight (xi. 5-13) and the Unrighteous Judge (xviii. 1-8); and to the charge to “watch” (Mt. xxv. 13; Mk. xili. 33) he adds “at every season, making supplication, that ye may prevail,” etc. (xxi. 36). In the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican the difference between real and unreal prayer is illustrated (xviii 11--ἰ 3).
(ῶ 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 (i. 9, xxiv. 53). Luke alone has pre- served for us those hymns which centuries ago passed from his Gospel into the daily worship of the Church: the Gloria in Fxcelsis, or Song of the Angels (ii. 14); the A/agnificat, or Song of the blessed Virgin Mary (i. 46-55); the Gevedictus, or Song of Zacharias (i. 68-79) ; and the Vunce Dimittis, or Song of Symeon (11. 29-32). Far more often than in any other Gospel are we told that those who received special benefits “glorified God” (δοξάζειν tov @eov) for them (ii. 20, v. 25, 26, vil. 16, xiii. 13, xvii. 15, xvili. 43). Comp. Mt. ix. 8, xv. 31; Mk. ii. 12. The expression “praising God” (αἰνεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke in NSD. {π| 13, 20, XIX. 37, XXIV. 53° 5 Acts Ji) ay iit. oO. Oar ecseeeee ing God” (εὐλογεῖν τὸν Θεόν) is almost peculiar to Luke (i. 64, 11. 28, xxiv. 53?): elsewhere only Jas. iii. 9. ‘Give praise (αἶνον διδόναι) to God” occurs Luke xviii. 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.
(4) The Gospel of 5. Luke is rightly styled “the most /izerary of the Gospels” (Renan, Les Evangiles, ch. xiii.). “85. Luke has more literary ambition than his fellows” (Sanday, Book dy 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, Zaccheus, Herod Antipas! And with how few touches 15 each done! Asa rule Luke puts in fewer descriptive details than Mark. In his description of the Baptist he omits the strange attire
§ 6.; CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE xlvii
and food (Mk. i. 6; Mt. iii. 4). In the healing of Simon’s wife’s mother he omits the taking of her hand (Mk. 1. 31; Mt. viii. 15). In that of the palsied he omits the crowding at the door (Mk. ii. 2). And there are plenty of such cases. But at other times we have an illuminating addition which is all his own (iii. 15, 21, iv. 13, 15, 40, 42, Vv. I, 12, 15, 16, Vi. 12, vill. 47, etc.). His contrasts are not confined to personal traits, such as the unbelieving priest and the believing maiden (i. 18, 38), the self-abasing woman and the self-satisfied Pharisee (vii. 37 ff.), the thankless Jews and the thank- ful Samaritan (xvii. 17), the practical Martha and the contemplative Mary (x. 38-42), the hostile hierarchy and the attentive people (xix. 47, 48), and the like; the fundamental antithesis between Christ’s work and Satan’s! (iv. 13, x. 17-20, ΧΙ]: 16, xxii. 3, 31, 53), often exhibited in the opposition of the scribes and Pharisees to His-work (xi. 52, ΧΙ: I, ΧΙ 34, 31, XV: 2, Xvi. 14, XIX. 39, 47, Xx. 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 (i. 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.? As the fine literary taste of Renan affirms, it is the most beautiful book in the world. (e) 5. Luke is the only Evangelist who writes Azs¢ory as distinct from memoirs. He aims at writing ‘in order,” which probably means in chronological order (i. 5, 26, 36, 56, 59, il. 42, 111. 23, ix, 28, 37, 51, xxii. 1, 7), and he alone connects his narrative with the history of Syria and of the Roman Empire (ii. 1, 11. 1). The sixfold date (ili. 1) is specially remarkable: and it is possible that both it and ii. 1 were inserted as finishing touches to the narra- tive. The words ἔτος (33) and μήν (12) 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 fre- quently lets us know what incidents are connected together although he does not know in what year or time of year to place the group (iv. 1, 38, 40, vil. 1, 18, 24, Vill. 1, X. 1, 21, Xi. 37, Xil. 1, Mill; τ τι Xix. 11, 28,41, XXii 66, Xxlv. 13). He i is very much ? Both in Mark (i. 21-28) and in Luke (iv. 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 ” (xiii. 10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone
records. * A marked exception is the violent scene so graphically described xi. 53, 54
ΧΙν THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 58. LUKE [§ 6.
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 xvi. 14, xXvill. 1, 9, xix. 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 (ii) 50}, dil. ΤῈ; νὴ: 30) Xx. 20, ΧΧΙ 3; xxl, 422) > and the ΠΟ ΕΒ, 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! He follows the Saviour through the stages, not only of His ministry, but of His physical and moral growth (ii. 40, 42, 51, 52, lll. 23, ἵν. 13, xxi. 28, 53). ‘He traces the course of the ministry from Nazareth to Capernaum and other towns of Galilee, from Galilee to Samaria and Perzea, from Perzea to Jeru- salem, 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.
(7) 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 Zacchzeus, 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. (iv. 31) has the mustard-seed sown ‘on the earth,” and Mt. (xiii. 31) makes a man sow it “in his field,” Lk. (xiii. 19) tells us that a man sowed it “in his own garden.” Birks, Hor. Ev.
(ii.) When we consider the s¢y/e and danguage of 8. Luke, we are struck by two apparently opposite features,—his great com-
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” (5, Paz! the Traveller, pp. 2, 3, 20, 21, Hodder, 1895).
ee
4 6. CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE κχίϊχ
mand 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 5. 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 pecu- liarities 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 con- siderably, 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 Hellen- istic 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 a//owed 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 (i.-v.), through a transitional period (vi.-xii.), to a Gentile period (xili.-xxviil.).1_ But in the
1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (xxiii. 26-30) and the speech
of Tertullus (xxiv. 2-9) with the speeches of Peter (ii. 14-39, ill. 12-26). d
᾿ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 6.
Gospel the remarkably elegant and idiomatic Greek of the Preface is suddenly changed to the intensely Hebraistic Greek of the open- ing narrative. It is like going from a chapter in Xenophon toa chapter in the LXX.! 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, ¢.g. v. 1, 12, 17, Vi. 1, 6, 12, Vill. 22, ix, 18, 51, etc. It will generally be found that the parallel passages are, in the opening words, less Hebraistic than Luke. In construc- tion, even Matthew, a Jew writing for Jews, sometimes exhibits fewer Hebraisms than this versatile Gentile, who writes for Gentiles. Comp. ΠΣ: a 28; 29, 33, 38, 39 with) Mt.) XVilsw 52, ἀν τ: ale xii, 30 with Mt. xix. 30; Lk. xvii. 35 with Mt. xx. 29; Lk. xx. 1 with Mt. xxi. 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 Col. iv. 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 companion- ship 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.
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.
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE li
(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 (i. 8, 9), sometimes less so (vi. 1), sometimes hardly Hebraistic at all (Acts ix. 3, xxi. 1). This will be found worked out in detail in a detached note at the end of ch. i. (2) His frequent use of periphrastic tenses, ze. 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 i. 10, 21, 22, ii. 33, 51, iv. 20, 31, 38, 44, v. 16, 17, 29, vi. 12, viii. 40, ix. 53, Xi, 14,)Xili. 10,11, xiv. 1, xv. 1, xix. 47, [xxi. 37], xxiii. 8, xxiv. 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. Ini. 21, 22, ii. 51, iv. 31, xv. 1, xix. 47, ΧΧΙ 8, xxiv. 13, 32 the simple imperf. follows immediately in the next clause or sentence. That such cases as ll. 33, lv. 20, ix. 53, xi. 14, xiii. 10, II, xiv. I are Hebraistic need hardly be doubted. So also where ἦν with perf. part. is used for the pluperf. (i. 7, li. 26, iv. 16, 17, v. 17, ix. 32, 45, xviii. 34), 1. 7 and ix. 32 with most of the others are probably Hebraistic, but v. 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 (ii. 21), but may also be Hebraistic, especially where ἰδού is added (vii. 12, xxiv. 4), or αὐτός (v. I, 17, vili. I, 22, ix. 51, etc.): or of his frequent use of ἐν τῷ with the infinitive (i. 8, 21, ii. 6, 43, v. I, etc.).
Simcox, Lang. of N.7. pp. 131-134, has tabulated the use of periphrastic imperf. and pluperf. See also his remarks on Luke’s Hebraisms, Writers of N.7. pp. 19-22.
But Luke’s freedom of construction is conspicuous in other respects. Al- though he sometimes co-ordinates clauses, joining them, Hebrew fashion, with a simple καί (i. 13, 14, 31-33, xvi. 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 (i. 20, 26, 27, ii. 4, 21, 22, 26, 36, 37, 42, 43); but still more in other parts: see especially vii. 36-50. He is the only N.T. writer who uses the optative in indirect questions, both without ἄν (i. 29, iii. 15, vill. 9, xxil. 23; Acts Xvil. ΤΙ, xxi. 33, xxv. 20) and with it (vi. 11, xv. 26; Acts v. 24, x. 17), some- times preceded by the article (i. 62, ix. 46). In xviii. 36 the ἄν is doubtful. The elegant and idiomatic attraction of the relative is very common in Luke (i. 4, v. 9, ix. 36, xii. 46, xv. 16, xxiil. 41; Acts 1. 22, 11. 22, 11. 21, 25, etc.), especially after πᾶς (ii, 20, 111. 19, ix. 43, xix. 37, XXIV. 25; Acts 1. I, X. 39, xili, 39, xxii. 10), whereas it occurs only twice in Matthew (xviil. 19, xxiv. 50) and once in Mark (vii. 13). His more frequent use of τε is another instance of more idiomatic Greek (ii. 16, xii. 45, xv. 2, xxi. 11 (25), xxii. 66, xxiii, 12, xxiv. 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 : ¢.g. τῶν θελόντων ἐν στολαῖς περιπατεῖν Kal ἀσπασποὺς ἐν ταῖς ἀγοραῖς (Mk. xii, 38) has an awkwardness which Luke avoids by inserting φιλούντων before ἀσπασ- μούς (xx. 46). Or again, ἀλλὰ εἴπωμεν Ἔξ ἀνθρώπων--ἐφοβοῦντο τὸν ὄχλον" ἅπαντες γὰρ εἶχον τὸν ᾿Ιωάνην ὄντως ὅτι προφήτης ἣν (Mk. xi. 32) is smoothed
lii THE GOSPEL acCCORDING TO 8. LUKE {§ 6.
in more details than one in Luke: ἐὰν δὲ εἴπωμεν "LE ἀνθρώπων, ὁ λαὸς ἅπας καταλιθάσει ἡμᾶς: πεπεισμένος yap ἐστιν ᾿Ιωάνην προφήτην εἶναι (xx. 6). Com- pare καὶ πρωὶ ἔννυχα λίαν, which perhaps is a provincialism (Mk. i, 35), with γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας (Lk. iv. 42). In the verses which follow, Luke’s diction is smoother than Mark’s. Compare also Lk. v. 29, 30 with Mk. ii. 15, 16 and Mt. ix. 10, 11; Lk. v. 36 with Mk. ii. 21 and Mt. ix. 16; Lk. vi. 11 with Mk. ili. 6 and Mt. xii. 14. The superior freedom and fulness of Luke’s narrative of the message of the Baptist (vii. 18-21), as compared with that of Matthew (xi. 2, 3), is very marked.
(ὁ) 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 (includ- ing doubtful! 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 preposi- tions, as ἐπανάγειν, ἐπεισέρχεσθαι, ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, συγκατατιθέναι, προσαναβαίνειν. He may have coined some of them for himself. The following are among the most remarkable words and expres sions which occur either in both his writings and nowhere else in N.T., or in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. No account 1s here taken of the large number, which are peculiar to the Acts.
Those in thick type are found in LXX. Those with an asterisk are shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers. Many of these might be frequent in any writers. But the number of less common words, which are peculiar to Luke in N.T., and are fairly common in medical writers, is remarkable ; and those of them which are not found in LXX are specially to be noted.
Thirty times in G. and A. ἐγένετο δέ (not Jn. x. 22).
Nine times in G. and A. ἡμέρα γίνεται : nine in G. μνᾶ,
Fight times in G, ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ (ἡμέρᾳ, ὥρᾳ, οἰκίᾳ).
Seven times in G. and A. ἀποδέχεσθαι, ᾿ συνβάλλειν, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις.
52... times in G. and A. καθότι, πονηρός as an epithet of πνεῦμα : six in α. ἐπιστάτα, λέγειν παράβολήν.
Five times in G. and A, ἑξῆς, καθεξῆς, καθ᾽ ὁλῆς τῆς, προσέχετε ἑαυτοῖς, ὁ στρατηγός or οἱ στρ. τοῦ ἱεροῦ, 6 ὕψιστος or ὕψιστος (of God): five in G. ἀνακρίνειν (in the legal sense), καὶ οὗτος, kal ds, λίμνη, ἐν μιᾷ τῶν.
Four times in G. and A, ἅπτειν, διαπορεῖν, ἐπαίρειν τὴν φωνήν, ἐπιφωνεῖν, καθιέναι, "ὀδυνᾶσθαι, "ὁμιλεῖν, "συναρπάζειν, αἴτιον, ἐναντίον, εὐλαβής, κράτιστος, “παραλελυμένος (in the medical sense of ““ palsied”’): four in ἃ. "κατακλίνειν, βαλλάντιον, φάτνη, ὡς ἤγγισεν.
Three times in α. and A, ἀναζητεῖν, ἀξιουν c. 7/in., διελθεῖν ἕως, διιστά- ναι, ἐπιβιβάζειν, "ἐπιχειρεῖν, συμπληροῦν, αὐτῇ τῇ ὥρᾳ, ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, τὰ δέσμα, δούλη, ἔναντι, ἑσπέρα, θάμβος, βουλὴ τοῦ Θεοῦ, "ἴασις, πολίτης, τῇ ἡμέρα τῶν σαββάτων, "συγγένεια, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα αὐτῷ, χεὶρ κυρίον : three in G. θεραπεύειν ἀπό, σκάπτειν, σκιρτᾷν, κατὰ τὸ ἔθος, σιτευτός, TY ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαββάτου, ἐν μιᾳ τῶν ἡμερῶν.
1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the word is used by 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
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE liii
Twice in G. and A. ἀναδεικνύναι, ἀνακαθίζειν, " ἀνασπᾷν, avadaiverv, “ ἀνευρίσκειν, ἀντειπεῖν, ἀπογραφή, " ἀποτινάσσειν, * διατηρεῖν, * διισχυρί- ζεσθαι, * διοδεύειν, * ἐνεδρεύειν, ἐπιδεῖν, * εὐτόνως, τῇ ἐχομένῃ, ἄχρι καιροῦ, κατακλείειν, κατακολουθεῖν, κλάσις, κλίνει 4 ἡμέρα, * κλινίδιον, ὀρινός, * παραβιάζεσθαι, περιλάμπειν, πορεύου εἰς εἰρήνην, * προβάλλειν, προπορεύ- εσθαι, “προσδοκία, * προυπάρχειν, στρατιά, συνεῖναι, τραυματίζειν, τραχύς, Χρεοφιλέτης : twice in ἃ. ἄγρα, " ἀνάπειρος, ᾿ ἀντιπαρέρχεσθαι, ὁ ἀστράπτειν, ἄτερ, "αὐστηρός, βουνός, γελᾷν, διαγογγύζειν, διαλαλεῖν, * δοχή, ἐκμυκτηρί- Lewy, ἐκτελεῖν, € ἐπαιτεῖν, * ἐπανέρχεσθαι, ἐφημερία, ζεῦγος, ἡγεμονεύειν, οὐσία, ἣ παῖς, πράκτωρ, πρεσβεία, προφέρειν, * σπαργανοῦν, συκοφαντεῖν, * ὑπο- χωρεῖν.
It is not worth while to make a complete list of the words (over 200 in number) which occur once in the Third Gospel and nowhere else in N.T. The following will give a good idea of their character :—
ἀγραυλεῖν, ἀθροίζειν, ἀλλογενής, ἀμπελουργός, ἀνάδειξις, * ἀνάλημψις, " ἀναφωνεῖν, " ἀντιβάλλειν, ἀπαρτισμός, ἀπελπίζειν, * ἀποκλείειν, ἀποστομα- τίζειν, * ἀποψύχειν, ἀρχιτελώνης, " αὐτόπτης, * ἀφρός, * βελόνη, * βολή, βρώσι- μος, " γῆρας, * διαβάλλειν, διαγρηγορεῖν, * διαλείπειν, διαμερισμός, διανεύειν,
ιανόημα, ἢ διανυκτερεύειν, * διαπραγματεύεσθαι, * διασείειν, * διαχωρίζειν, " διήγησις, * ἔγκυος, * ἐθίζειν, * ἐκκρέμασθαι, * ἐκχωρεῖν, * ἑλκοῦν, * ἐμβάλ- λειν, ἐνδέχεται, ἐπαθροίζειν, ἐπειδήπερ, ἐπεισέρχεσθαι, τὸ ἐπιβάλλον, * tmpedas, ἐπιπορεύεσθαι, ἐπισιτισμός, ᾿" ἐπισχύειν, * ἐπιχεῖν, * εὐφορεῖν, * ἡμιθανής, "θεωρία, * θυμιᾷν, * ἰκμάς, ἰσάγγελος, " κατάβασις, * καταδεῖν, καταλιθάζειν, καταπλεῖν, * καταψύχειν, κεράτιον, κλισία, κρεπάλη, κρυπτή, λαμπρῶς, *Xxpos, " λυσιτελεῖ, * μετεωρίζειν, μεριστής, * ὁδεύειν, ὄμβρος, * ὀπτός, * ὀφρύς, παμπληθεί, πανδοχεῖον, πανδοχεύς, * “παράδοξος, παρακαλύπτειν, * παρατήρησις, περικρύπτειν, περιοικεῖν, περισπᾷν, πήγανον, * πιέζειν, " πινακίδιον, * πλημμύρα, "πραγματεύεσθαι, προμελετᾷν, "προσαναβαίνειν, προσδαπανᾷν, προσεργαζέσθαι, " προσψαύειν, * πτύσσειν, * ῥῆγμα, * σάλος, σίκερα, σινιάζειν, σιτομέτριον, " συκάμινος, συκομορέα, συνκατατιθέναι, "᾿ συνκυρία, " συνπίπτειν, * συν- φύειν, “᾿ τελεσφορεῖν, τετραπλόος, “τραῦμα, * ὑγρός, “" ὑδρωπικός, * ὕπο- στρωννύναι, " φόβηθρον, φρονίμως, * χᾶσμα, * ὠόν.
*
But the words which are peculiar to Luke in N.T. are by no means even the chief of the marks of his style. Still more striking are those expressions and constructions which he uses frequently, or more frequently than any other writer. Many of these occur more often in S. Luke’s writings than in all the rest of N.T. Acollection of them is rendered much more useful by being to some extent classified ; and the following lists have been made with a view to illustrating the affinities between the diction of S. Luke and of S. Paul and that of the Epistle to the Hebrews both jointly with the Pauline Epistles and also by itself. In this survey the Pastoral Epistles have been kept distinct from the main groups of the Pauline Epistles, in order to show their harmony with the diction of the Apostle’s beloved companion. Words peculiar to Luke and to the Pastoral Epistles are not improbably Pauline. Words which are found in other Pauline Epistles as well as in the Pastoral Epistles and in Luke’s writings are still more safely regarded as Pauline.
Eight classes have been made; and in them the very great variety of the words included,—many of them quite classical or of
liv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [δ 6. classical formation,—illustrate the richness of S. Luke’s vocabulary and his command of the Greek language. (1) Expressions peculiar to.S. Luke and S. Paul in N.T. (2) Peculiar to 5. Luke and S. Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (3) Peculiar to S. Luke and the Epistle to the Hebrews. (4) Not found in any other Gospel and more frequent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (5) Found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more fre- quent in S. Luke than in the rest of N.T. (6) Due to Hebrew influence. (7) Miscellaneous expressions and constructions which are specially frequent in his writings. (8) Expressions probably or possibly medical. In the first of these classes the second list con- tains expressions peculiar to the writers in question, although not frequent in Luke. ‘The figures state the number of times which the word occurs in that book or group; and in fractions the upper figures indicates the number of times that the word occurs in the writings of Luke, the lower figure the number of times which it occurs elsewhere: ¢.g. in class 3 the fraction ? means twice in Luke’s writings and once in Hebrews; and in classes 4 and 5 the fraction } means seven times in Luke’s writings and four times in the other books of N.T. Where various readings render the exact proportions doubtful a “‘c.” is placed in front of the fraction; e.g. ¢. ζ. In classes 1 and 2, when a reference to chapter and verse is given, this is the only instance of the use of the word in that book or group.
(1) Lxpressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paulin N.T.
S. LUKE 5. PauL. Gosp Acts Main. Past,
ἀνθ᾽ ὧν : ᾿ 3 xii. 23 2 Th. ii. 10 ἀπολογεῖσθαι A 5 2 6 2
ἀπὸ τοῦ viv. 3 ὃ 5 xviii. 6 | 2 Cor. v. 16
"ἀτενίζειν > δ 2 10 2
"ἄτοπος 2 - | Xxili, 41 2 2 ΤῊ 10 διαπορεύεσθαι . 5 3 χνὶ. 4 Rom. xv. 24
ἐγκαλεῖν 5 ζ 6 Rom. viii. 33
τὸ εἰρημένον Ξ το} 11: 24 2 Rom. iv. 18 ἐξαποστέλλειν Ε τ 4 7 2
ἐργασία . eS oO 4 Eph. iv. 19
ἐφιστάναι ἃ 5 7; 11 1 Th. v. 3 2 "ἡσυχάζειν Ξ - 2 2 1 Obs ΝΣ
ἰδοὺ γάρ - . 5 ies 11 2 Cor. vii. II
κακοῦργος : Ξ 3 2 Tim. ii. 9 καταγγέλλειν ἕ 5 II
κατάγειν ° - |v. UI πὴ Rom, x. 6
κατανταν . . . | 9 4
ξ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE ly ᾿ | 5. LUKE. S. PAUL. | Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. καταξιωθῆναι . «χα: 35 ν. 41 2 Th. i. 5 ὁ λόγος τ. κυρίου. ° 6 I Th. i. 8 ane οἰκονομία. 5 ° 3 5 ?1 Tim. i. 4 τὰ περί . . 3 I! 5 συνειδέναι, -ἰδεῖν , δ 3 1 Cor. iv. 4 ψαλμός . . . 2 2 3
All the above are proportionately common in 5. Luke’s writings ; but there are many more which illustrate the affinities between the two writers ; e.g.
ἄδηλος . αἰφνίδιος . αἰχμαλωτίζειν ἀνάγνωσις » ἀνάθεμα. ἀνακρίνειν 6 ἀναλίσκειν .
| ἀναλύεν .
"ἀναπέμπειν. | ἀναστατοῦν.. ἀνατίθεσθαι. Κἄνεσις . . ἀνόητος A ἄνοια. . ἀνταπόδομα
ἀνταποκρίνεσθαι
ἀντικεῖσθαι.
ἀντιλαμβάνεσθαι
ἀπειθής . ἀπειλή ‘ ἀποδεικνύναι ἀποβολή . "ἀπολούεσθαι ἀποστολή - ἀπρόσκοπος.- ἀπωθεῖσθαι. ἄρα; or ἄρα; ἀροτριᾶν. "ἀσφάλεια ς "ἄτοπος : ἀχάριστος ὁ βάρβαρος . βιωτικός βυθίζειν -
δέησιν ποιεῖσθαι
δεκτός. 5
ee eeeeeeeee#e#8e#eteee-e . . ς.υν ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ ὁ ef ὁΚὁ © 9 @ @
ΧΙ. 44 xxl. 34 xxl. 24
Xxill, 14
ix. 54
xii. 36 3
Xxiv. 25 vi. II xiv. 12 xiv. 6
2 i. 54 i. 17
vi. 35
xiii, 15 xxill. 14
5
? XXv. 21 2 XXV. 14 Xxlv. 23
xx. 35 Xxvi. 19 2 2 XXVii. 22 xxii, 16
i, 25 xxiv. 16
3
viii, 30
Vv. 23 2
2
1 Cor, xiv. 8 Te heavens
2 2 Cor. iii. 14
5
10
2? ΒΗ 1 22 Philem. 12 Gal. v. 12 Gal Suit 2
4
3
Rom. xi. 9 Kom, ix. 20
4
Rom. i. 30 Eph. vi. 9
2 Rom, xi. 15 1 Cor, vi. 11
3
2
2 Gal. ii. 17 I Cor. ix. 10 Te heavens AAV 11...
4
2 Phil. i. 4
2
2 Tim. ili. 6 I Tim. iv. 13
2 2 Tim. iii. 9
2 1 Tim. vi. 2
3
1 Tim. i. 19
2 Tim. iii. 2
1 Tim. vi. 9 1 Tim. ii. 1
lvi TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [δ 6. | 5. LUKE. S. PAUL. | Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. διαγγέλλειν. 4 ix. 60 xxi. 2617) Ἔπι. 15: 17 διαιρεῖν P 5 Xv. 12 1 Cor. xii. 11 διαταγή : 5 vii. 53 Rom, xiii. 2 διερμηνεύειν ἦ Xxiv. 27 | ix. 36 4 δόγμα. A : il. I 2 2 δρόμος 5 : 2 2) ΤΙ νον δυνάστης - ὃ Ἷ: 52 viii, 27 1 Tim. vi. 15 εἰ δὲ καί : 5 xi, 18 4 ἐμφανής : : X. 40 Rom, x. 20 ἔνδοξος Ε a 2 2 ἐνδύεσθαι . 5 XXxiv. 49 14 évKakew ς ὦ Xviil. I ἔννομος Ξ : xix. 39 | I Cor. ix. 21 ἐξαρτίζειν . : ΧΧΙ. δ 2 Tim. iii. 17 ἐξουθενεὶν : 2 iv. II 8 ἐξουσία τ. σκότους xxii. 53 Col. i. 13 ἐξουσιάζειν. Ὁ XX 25 3 ἐπαινεῖν , 6 xvi. 8 ἐπαναπαύεσθαι. χ. 6 Rom. ii. 17 ἐπέχειν i δ xiv. 7 2 Phil. ii. 16 1 Tim. iv. 16; ἐπιείκεια ὁ. : XKIV. 4.-}} 2 (ΘΟΥ. ΣΙ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι : 2 1 Tim. iii. 5 ἐπίστασις. : xxiv. 12 | 2 Cor. xi. 28 ἐπιφαίνειν A i. 79 XXvil. 20 2 εὐαγγελιστής A xxl. 8 Eph. iv. 11 2 Tim. iv. 5 εὐγενής ὃ ΧΙΧ 12 1 ΣΠΊΠ ΤΟΣ 1 26 εὐσεβεῖν . Ξ XVii. 23 1 Tim. v. 4 ζέειν τ. πνεύματι. xviii, 25 | Rom. xii. 11 ζημία. . : 2 2 ζωγρεῖν : : v. 10 2 Tim. ii. 26 *twoyovety . ° XVii. 33 | vii. 19 1 Tim. vi. 13 θέατρον : ὃ 2 1 Cor. iv. 9 KadjKew . : Xxii. 22 | Rom. i. 28 κατευθύνειν. 5 i. 79 2 κινδευνεύειν. - Vili. 23 2 1 Cor. xv. 30 κραταιοῦσθαι - 2 2 κυριεύεν . 5 Xxil. 25 5 1 Tim. vi. 15 λείπειν = fail : XVill. 22 2 μαρτύρεσθαι. ° 2 3 μεθιστάναι -ew Xvi. 4 2 2 μεθύσκεσθαι Ὁ ΧΙ, 45 2 μερίς. . . x. 42 2 2 μεταδιδόναι. - iii. II 4 νομοδιδάσκαλος. ν. 17 ν. 34 1: πη 7 γνοσφίζεσθαι. 3 2 Tit. ii, 10 νουθετεῖν . ° ΧΧ. 31 ξενία. : 2 Xxvill. 23} Philem. 22 ξυρᾶσθαι . ° xxl. 24 2
§ 6.}
ὁμοθυμαδόν.
ὀπτασία . ὁσιότης . ὀψώνιον ° παγίς. . πανοπλία. πανουργία. πάντως . παραγγελία. παρασκευάζειν παραχειμάζειν παροξύνεσθαι παρρησιάζεσθαι πατριά . πειθαρχεῖν. περίεργος . περιποιεῖσθαι ἐπὶ πλεῖον. πληροφορεῖν πολιτεία. πολιτεύεσθαι πορθεῖν ° πρεσβυτέριον πρεσβύτης. προδότης - προειπεῖν ς προθυμίας προιδεῖν : προκόπτειν. πρόνοια a mpooplfev , προπετής κατὰ πρόσωπον ῥαβδίξειν , σέβασμα. σκοπεῖν ὃ στοιχεῖν τ συγκαθίζειν. σνυγκλείειν ς συγχαίρειν. συμβιβάζειν. συναντιλαμβάνειν σύνδεσμος. συνέκδημος . συνεσθίειν . συνευδοκεῖν . συνοχή = συστέλλειν,
5. LUKE. Gosp. Acts. Io 2 Xxvi. I9 1. 75 iil, 14 xxi. 34 xi, 22 xx, 23 iv. 23 3 2 x. 10 2 XVii. 16 "᾿ wee 7 ii. 4 iii. 25 xix. 19 Xvil, 33 | xx. 28 3 1 1 xxii. 28 Xxlil. I ix. 21 xxii. 66 | xxii. 5 i, 18 vi. 16 vil. 52 i. 16 Xvii. 1] ii, 32 ii, 52 Xxlv. 2 iv. 28 xix. 36 ii. 31 2 xvi. 22 XVli. 23 xi. 35 xxl. 24 xxii. 55 v. 6 3 3 X. 40 vill. 23 xix. 29 xv. 2 2 xi. 48 2 xxi. 25 v. 6
CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE
lvii
S: PAur:
Main.
Past.
Rom. xv. 6 2)\Cor: xia Eph. iv. 24
Rom. xi. 9
un Ρ-
1 Th. iv. 2
1 Cor. xvi. 6 I Cor. xiii. 5
2 Eph, iii, 15
3 Eph. ii. 12 Phil. i. 27
2
Philem. 9 2
4 Gal. iii. 8
2 Rom. xiii. 14
5
2 2 Cox. xi. 25 2 Th. ii. 4
5
4 Eph. ii. 6
3 4
Rom. viii. 26
2
3 2 Cor. viii. 19
2
2
ΕΞ 2 Cor. ii. 4
1 Cor. vii. 29
2
Tit. iii. 12
Tit. iii, 1 I Tim. v. 13 1 Tim. iii. 13
XN
1 Tim. iv. 14 Mite 1-2 2 Tim. iii. 4
2 Tim. iii. 4
viii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [ξ 6.
owuatikds . τὸ σωτήριον, σωφροσύνη. τετράποδα. Ἀτήρησις . δοῦναι τόπον ὕβρις . . ὑπήκοος 3 ὑπωπιάζειν. ὑστέρημα. φάσκειν 3 φιλανθρωπία φιλάργυρος. φόρος. . φρόνησις. . χαρίζεσθαι. χαριτοῦν ς χειροτονεῖν . χρῆσθαι .
5. Luks. S. PAUL. Gosp Acts. Main Past | ὦ eels 22 1 Tim. iv. 8 . . 2 Xxviil. 28 Eph. vi. 17 . . XXVi. 25 ? δ ° 2 Rom. i. 23 : . 2 I Cor. vii. 19 . . Xiv. 9 2 . 5 2 2 Cor. xii. 10 4 5 vii. 39 2 . τ SVL. 5 I Goraixee27 . . Xxl. 4 8 5 ° 2 Rom, i. 22 A ξ XXVili. 2 Tit. iii. 4 ° τ ΧΥ! a4 2 Tim. iii, 2 . : 2 2 . See Sy Eph. i. 8 . Oui Ὁ 4 15 . - | 1. 25 Eph. 1. 6 . ° xiv. 23 | 2 Cor. viii. 19 e e 2 7 2
(2) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke and S. Paul and the
ἄμεμπτος . ἀναγκαῖος . ἀνάμνησιι. .
ἀνταποδιδόναι ἀξιοῦν, . ἀποκεῖσθαι
ἀπολύτρωσις.. ἀσφαλής . ἀφιστάν.. ὁ βουλή. Ξ διαμαρτύρεσθαι
δι’ ἣν αἰτίαν, ἐκφέρειν . ἐκφεύγεν . ἐνδυναμοῦν ς ἐντυγχάνειν. ἐπίθεσις
καταργεν . λειτουργεῖν.
Lpistle to the “ἰεόγοτυς.
Gosp. | Acts. Main. Past.
i. 6 3 2 4 Tit. iil, 14 [xxil. 19] 2 2 4 vii. 7 2 200 hs ΕΣ 11 1 1ηλο ν Τ xix. 20 Col. i. 5 2 Tim. iv. 8 xxi, 28 3. | Phil. iii. 4 6 2) Cor.gxilas 2 2 7 2 xvi, 28 Q 1 Thy ν δ 3 Vili. 47 3 B XV, 22 4 © Dim) view xxl. 36 2 3 ix. 22 3 3 XXV. 24 3 vill. 18 2 xiii. 7 24 2 Tim. i. 10
xiii. 2 | Rom. xv. 27
88.) CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE lix
Gosp. Acts. Main. Past. Heb.
λειτουργία . -| 1. 23 3 2 μεταλαμβάνειν 4 2 Tim. ii. 6 2 νυνί A : 2 18? 2? "ὁρίζειν. Sal xxiine2 2 5 Rom. i. 4 iv. 7 παραιτεῖσθαιν 5 XXV. II 4 | 3 παράκλησις. 2 4 19 1 Tim. iv. 13 | 3 περιαιρεῖν ς. 2 2 Cor. ili. 16 ΣΟ ΤΙ περιέρχεσθαι. 2 ΤΩΣ veut sh) xi 37, σκληρύνειν . xix. 9 | Rom. ix. 18 4 Tags ao Bess 2 6 τυγχάνειν . | XX. 35 5 3 2 Tim. ii. 10 2 ὑποστέλλειν. 2 Gal. il. 12 x. 38 χρίειν. . | iv. 18 2 2A Corte 25 i. 9
(3) Expressions peculiar to S. Luke’s Writings and to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
ἀναδέχεσθαι3, ἀναθεωρεῖν ξ, ἀναστάσεως τυγχάνειν ἢ, "ἀνορθοῦνξ, ἀνώτερον }, "ἀπαλλάσσεινξ, ἀπογράφεσθαιξ, ἀρχηγόςξ, ἀσάλευτος!, ἀστεῖος!, ἄστρονΐ, 5 Sopdet, διατίθεσθαι ὃ, μετ᾽ εἰρήνης ἢ, εἰσιέναι ξ, ἐκλείπειν ὃ, ἦ ἐνοχλεῖν ξ, ἔντρο- μοςξ, ἐπιστέλλειν ξ, eowrepos}, " εὔθετος ᾿, lepatelat, ἱλάσκεσθαι}, καταπαύειν κα, καταφεύγειν ξ, κεφάλαιον ξ, λύτρωσιςξ, μέτοχοιξ, ὀρθός}, παλαιοῦν, εἰς τὸ παντελές !, "παραλύεσθαι ξ, παροικεῖν Σ, " παροξυσμόςξ, πατριάρχης ἵ, περικεῖσθαί τιξ, πόρρωθεν ἢ, συναντᾷν $, σχεδόν FZ, τελείωσις 3, ὕπαρξις 8. Excepting ἀναθεωρεῖν, ἀναστάσεως τυγχάνειν, ἀνώτερον, ἐσώτερος, and εἰς τὸ παντελές, all the above are
in LXX.
(4) EZxpressions not found in the other Gospels and more frequent in S. Lukes Writings than in all the rest of N.T.
ἀγαλλίασις ὃ, αἰνεῖν ἃ, “ἀναπέμπειν ἑ, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἢ, ἀπολογεῖσθαιβ, dopddeca FZ, 5 ἀτενίζειν 32, * ἄτοπος ἵ, ἀφιστάναι 49, βουλή ὃ, βρέφος 8, διαμαρτύρεσθαι ᾿', διαπορ- εὐεσθαιξ, ἐγκαλεῖν %, ἔμφοβος §, ἐξαποστέλλειν 1,9, ἐπέρχεσθαι, "ἐργασία ᾧ, ἐσθής, εὐαγγελίζεσθαι ξ ἢ, ἐφιστάναι "", "ἡσυχάζειν t, κατάγειν ᾿, καταντᾷν ὃ, “κατέρχεσθαι ε. 4, ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου ξ, μεθιστάναι, μερίς ὃ, μήν 'ῷ, ἀπὸ τοῦ viv}, ὀπτασία ΐ, *opivew $, παύεσθαιϑ,, τὰ περί ts, πρεσβυτέριον Z, προέρχεσθαι c. $, "προσάγειν ε. ἣ, πυκνόςξ, σιγᾷν ἃ, σπεύδειν ἢ, "στεῖρα Ξἕ, συναντᾷν ἑ, ὑπάρχειν (excluding τὰ ὑπάρ- χοντα) 22, ᾿δὑποδέχεσθαιξ, "ὑπολαμβάνειν ὃ, ὑποστρέφειν 53 : and several others which occur twice in Luke and once elsewhere. All of these occur in LXX, except ἀναπέμπειν.
(5) Expressions found in one or more of the other Gospels, but more Jrequent in S. Luke’s Writings than in all the rest of N.T. ἄγειν ¢.44, *axpiBas, -έστερον 8, ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας 8, ἀμφότεροι 8,
ἀνάγειν 7, * ἀναιρεῖν 2, ἀνιστάναι «. $9, ἀντιλέγειν 5, ἀπαγγέλλειν «. 35,
ἀποτάσσειν ἑ, αὔριονξ, καὶ αὐτός, ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν 8, βοᾷν εξ,
ae φωνή ὦ. ὃ, δεῖσθαι 1,7, διαμερίζειν 8, διανοίγειν 1, διαστρέφειν ὃ,
ἰασώζειν δ, διατάσσειν 5, διέρχεσθαι ς«. 53, διηγεῖσθαι, δοῦναι 1,
ix THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [8 6.
fav $, ἐγγίζειν ᾿ξ, ἔθος τ 10 εἰ δὲ μήγεϑβ, εἷς eS τ εἰσάγειν ὃ, εἰσ- φέρειν 5. SEG τὴς UT, ἔκστασις ὃ, ἐλεημοσύνη Ὁ, a ae ἐμπλήθειν ὃ 3s evade §, ἐξάγειν 5 8, ἐξαίφνης 4 ty ee 5 pie i ἐξιστάναι "τ᾽ δ᾿» ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι" 7 ee .§, ἐπισκέπτεσθαιΐ, ἔτος 38, ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις 12, καθ᾽ ἡμέραν 93 2, θαυμάζειν ἐπίξ, Ἔἰᾶσθαι3 3, ἰδοὺ γάρξ, ἱκανός ¢. Fh, ἵματεσ μὸν ἢ, καθαιρεῖν ἢ, SERIE τῆ κατανοεῖν 8, καταφιλεῖν ὁ 3» κολλᾶσθαι 4 τ᾽ που τορτος τ, Wade 8». Se ὃ, kwAvewi2, πᾶς ὃ λαός ‘if, μεγαλύνειν ξ §, * μεσονύκτιον 3, μνῆμα 4 νομίζειν ὃ, νομι- KOS 8, ἡ SIT 5, ὀνόματι 48, ὀρθῶς 8, πανταχοῦ 3, εἰπεῖν ὧν λέγειν SEIS πὶ it ἐποππηγένεαθαι Cotes "παρατηρεῖν, ταΡ ΧΘΏΝ Fa » περί- χωρος ἢ, πήρα δ, πληθεῖν ᾿ξ, " πλῆθος ᾿ξ, πλήν 18, * πλήρης ξ΄, προσ- δοκᾷν 5.) peas 13, Ee ee 4, ῥύμη, σαλεύειν 8, Ἔν διὰ σπυματος 7 8, Oupepeauals ἢ, Sea 7, συλλαλεῖνξ, *ovdAdXap- Bavev;, paar ean ἕξ, σύν «. τὰ; συνέρχεσθαι 1 3, Ni εἰ συντιθέναι ἵ, τάσσειν τ τετράρχης 5, τίς εξ ὑμῶν, ὃ ὃν oe ὑβρίζειν 8, τὰ ὑπάρχοντα 2, ὑποδεικνύναι eS ro χαλᾷν $ 3 ὡσεί 38. Excepting 4 ἄκριβ )έστερον, ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, ἐξαυτῆς, ὀνόματι, τετράρχης, and τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν, all the above are found in LXX.
To these may be added a few which are specially frequent in Luke’s writings, although not ne excess of the rest of N.T. taken together : ἄρχεσθαι: 3, ἄχρι 6.29, δέχεσθαιξ 8, ἐπιτάσσειν $s, ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ δ, λύχνοςς, παραγγέλλειν τὲ, προσπίπτειν +, προσδέχεσθαι τ, σχίζειν 3, τρέφειν $, τροφή ξ, χάρις twenty-five times in Lk. and Acts, not in Mt. or Mk., and only thrice in Jn.
Phrases which indicate the expression of emotion are unusually common, and belong to the picturesqueness of Luke’s style; e.g. φόβος μέγας ξ, χαρὰ μεγάλη Or πολλή, φωνὴ μεγάλη $3.
Equally remarkable is his fondness for ἀνήρ, where others have ἄνθρωπος or εἷς or nothing. Thus, vi. 8 τῷ ἀνδρί, Mt. and Mk. τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ; Vill. 27 ἀνήρ τις, ΜΚ. ἄνθρωπος ; ix. 28 ἀνήρ, Mt. ἄνθρωπος. Mk. εἷς ; XXII. 50 ἀνήρ, Mt. ἄνθρωπος, Mk. nothing. Comp. v. 8, 12, 18, vill. 38, 1x. 30, xxii. 63: and the word is very much more frequent i in Lk. than in all the other Gospels together.
The expression παῖς αὐτοῦ or σου in the sense of “God's servant” is peculiar to Lk. in N.T. (i. 54, 69 ; Acts 1.12.2 1... 28,27. 30} with the exception of Mt. xi. 18, which is a quotation from Is. xlil. 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. i. Add to this Luke’s fondness for ἐνώπιον, which does not occur in Mt. or Mk. and only once in Jn. (xx. 30). It is found more than thirty times in Lk. and Acts, especially in the phrase ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ (i. 19, 75, ΧΙ]. 6, XVI. 15) Or κυρίου (i. 15). With this com-
§6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE 1xi
pare πρὸ προσώπου τινός (Vil. 27, ix. 52, x. 1) and cane πρόσω- tov τινος (il. 31). The frequent use of ἰδού (1. 38, 11. 34, 48, ΠῚ 25;.27,.34; etc.) and καὶ idov (1. 20, 31, 36, 1]. 25, V. 12, ΝΣ 12: 7, ete); of ῥῆμα for the matter of what is spoken (i. 65, il. 15, 19, 51); of οἶκος in the sense of “family” (i. 27, 33, 69, 1]. 4, X. 5, xIx. 9); of εἰς in the sense of τις (v. 12, 17, Vill. 22, Xill. 10, xx. I) or Of πρῶτος (xxiv. 1); Of ὕψιστος for “the Most High ᾽ (i. 32, 35, 76, Vi. 35), illustrates the same kind of influence. So also do such expressions as ποιεῖν ἔλεος μετά (i. 72, X. 37) and μεγαλύνειν ἔλεος μετά (1. 58); ποιεῖν κράτος (i. 51); ἐκ κοιλίας μητρός (i. 15); combinations with ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ or ἐν ταῖς κι, such as διαλογίζεσθαι (iil. 15, ν. 22; Comp. xxiv. 38), διατη- ρεῖν (ii. 51), θέσθαι (1. 66, xxi. 14), συνβάλλειν (11. 19); ἐν ταῖς πέρας (i: 5, 39, 1-1, Iv. 2, 25; Vv. 35, etc) 5 Τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τοῦ σαβ- βάτον (xili. 14, 16, xiv. 5); with perhaps διὰ στόματος (i. 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 peri- phrastic tenses has been pointed out above (p. li) as being due in many cases to Hebraistic influence. The same may be said of the attributive or characterizing genitive, which is specially common invicuke(iv.'22;) xvi. 8, 9, xvii. 6; comp. x. 6, xx. 34, 36); and of the frequent use of καὶ αὐτός (ii. 28, v. 1, 17, Vili. 1, 22, ΣΙΝ II, X1x. 2), Kal αὐτῇ (ii. 37), and καὶ αὐτοί (xiv. 1, xxiv. 14) after ἐγένετο, καὶ ἰδού, and the like. Phrases like δοξάζειν τὸν Θεόν (ν. 25, 26, vil. 16, ΧΙ]. 13, XVil, 15, XVill. 43, xxiii. 47), ὃ λόγος τοῦ @cos (v. I, Vili. 11, 21, ΧΙ. 28), and ἐπαίρειν τὴν φωνήν (xi. 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: ἀμήν (iv. 24, xii. 37, Xvill. 17, etc.), βεεζεβούλ (xi. 15, 18, 19), γέεννα a 5), πάσχα ie 4I, Sei αν 75:8) 11, 13; 15), σάββατον (IV. 16," Savile, i285 G78 'o) etc.), σατανᾶς (s BARES. ΧΙ 1.8... ΧΙ ΤΟ; etc. ). Three others occur once in his Gospel and nowhere else in N.T.; Baros (xvi. 6), κόρος (xvi. 7), σίκερα (i. 15). Other words, although Greek in origin, are used by him, as by other N.T. writers, in a sense which is due to Hebrew influence ; ἄγγελος (i. 11, 13, 18, etc.), ypap- ματεύς (V. 21, 30, Vi. 7, 1x. 22, etc.), διάβολος (iv. 2-13, vill. 12), ἔθνη (ii. 32, XVill. 32, ΧΧΙ. 24 bis, etc.), εἰρήνη (1. 79, 11. 29, Vil. 50, etc.), κύριος (i. 6, 9, 11, 15, etc.) ; and ἐφημερία (i. 5, 8) is a Greek word specially formed to express a Hebrew idea.
Ixti THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. LUKE [8 8.
(7) Miscellaneous Expressions and Constructions which are specially frequent in S. Luke's Writings.
In his use of the article he has several favourite constructions. He is very fond of ἐν τῷ followed by a present infinitive to express time during which (i. 8, 21, il. 6, 43, Vv. I, 12, vill. 5, 42, etc.) or by an aorist infinitive to express time a/fer which (11. 27, iil. 21, ix. 34, 36, xi. 37, etc.); also of rod with an infinitive to express purpose or result (i. 73, 11: 27, ν. 7, ΧΙ. 42, etc.). He frequently employs τό to introduce a whole clause, especially interrogations, much as we use inverted commas (i. 62, ix. 46, xix. 48, xxii. 2, 4, 23, 24, 37).
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 (i. 13, 18, 28, 34, 61, ii. 34, 48, 49, etc.), λαλεῖν πρός (1. 19, 55, ll. 15, 18, 20, ΧΙ]. 3, etc.), λέγειν πρός (iv. 21, ν. 36, Vil. 24, Vill. 25, ix 22. etc.), ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρός (iv. 4, vi. 3, Χχῖν. 5 ?), γογγύζειν πρός (Vv. 30), συνζητεῖν πρός (xxii. 23), συνλαλεῖν πρός (iv. 36). It often happens that where Mt. or Mk. has the dative, Luke has the accusative with πρός (Mt. ix. 11; Mk. i. 16; Lk. v. 30). Whereas others prefer ἐξέρχεσθαι ἐκ, he has ἐξέρχεσθαι ἀπό (iv. 35, 41, V. 8, vill. 2, 29, 33, 35, 38, IX. 5, etc.), and for θαυμάζειν τι he prefers θαυμάζειν ἐπί τινι (11. 33, iv. 22, IX. 43, Xx. 26). For θεραπεύειν νόσους he sometimes has θεραπεύειν ἀπὸ νόσων (V. 15, Vil. 21, vill. 2). He is fond of the infinitive after διὰ τὸ (ii. 4, Vill. 6, ix. 7, xi. 8, xvili. 5, etc.), μετὰ τὸ (xii. 5, xxi. 20), and πρὸ τοῦ (ii. 21, xxil. 15). The quite classical ἔχειν τι is common (vii. 42, 1x. 58, xi. 6, ΧΙ]. 17, 50, xiv. 14). His use of the optative has been mentioned above (p. li).
Farticiples with the article often take the place of substantives (ii. 27, iv. 16, Vill. 34, ΧΧΙΪ. 22, xxiv. 14). They are frequently added to verbs in a picturesque and classical manner: ἀναστάντες ἐξέβαλον (iv. 29), καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν (Vv. 3), σταθεὶς ἐκέλευσεν (xviii. 40), στραφεὶς ἐπετίμησεν (ix. 55), etc. They are sometimes strung together without a conjunction (11. 36, iv. 35, v. 11, 19, 25, etc.).
S. Luke is very fond of πᾶς, and especially of the stronger form ἅπας. It is not always easy to determine which is the right reading ; but ἅπας is certainly very common (ili. 21, iv. 6, v. 26, Vill. 37, 1X. 15, xix. 37, 48, xxlli. 1; also in Acts). Elsewhere in N.T. ἅπας is rare. Not unfrequently Luke has πᾶς or ἅπας where the others have nothing (iti, ΤΕ 10, 21, ἵν. 37 Vv. τι, 28, vi. 10, 17, 19, 30, Vil. 35, etc.). πᾶς ὁ λαός and ἅπας 6 A. are very freq.
In the use of certain prepositions he has some characteristic expressions : eis Ta ὦτα (i. 44, ix. 44) and εἰς τὰς ἀκοάς (vii. I), ἐν rots ὠσίν (iv. 21) and ἐν μέσῳ (11. 46, Vill. 7, X. 3, ΧΧΙ. 21, ΧΧΙΪ, 27, 55,
6] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE [χιη
XXIV. 36); κατὰ τὸ ἔθος (1. 9, 11. 42, Xxil. 39) τὸ εἰθισμένον (1. 27)s τὸ εἰωθός (iv. 16), τὸ εἰρημένον (ii. 24), and τὸ ὡρισμένον (xxii. 22); παρὰ τοὺς πόδας (vil. 38, Vill. 35, 41, xvil. 16), whereas Mark has πρὸς τ. πόδας (V. 22, Vil. 25). Luke is very fond of σύν, which is rather rare in the other Gospels but is very frequent in both of Luke’s writings. Sometimes he has ovv where the others have μετά (Vili. 38, 51, xxii. 14, 56) or καί (xx. 1) or nothing (v. 19).
The pronouns αὐτός (see below) and οὗτος are specially common. The latter is added to a numeral, τρίτην ταύτην ἡμέραν (xxiv. 21), to make it more definite. τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ; is almost peculiar to him (xi. 5, ΧΙ]. 25, xiv. 28, xv. 4, xvil. 7), and so also is tis ἐστιν οὗτος os; (ν. 21, vil. 49). ‘Lhe indefinite τὰς with nouns is freq.
In using conjunctions he is very fond of combining δέ with καί, a combination which occurs twenty-six times in his Gospel (ii. 4, lil. 9, 12, iv. 41, V. 10, 36, vi. 6, ix. 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. lxi). But Luke is also fond of καὶ αὐτός at the beginning of sentences or independent Clauses) (1.617, 22:1} 11s). 23, Iv. 15, γὼ 37, Vl. 20, XV. 14,,ete.),.and of καὶ οὗτος, which is peculiar to him (i. 36, vill. 41?, xvi. 1, xx. 28). In quoting sayings he most frequently uses δέ, and εἶπεν δέ occurs forty-six times in the Gospel and fourteen in the Acts.
t is not found in Mt. or Mk., and perhaps only once in Jn. (xii, 6 [viil. 1 1,] ix. 37°): they prefer ὁ δὲ εἶπεν, or καὶ λέγει, κιτιλ. Luke also has ἐλεγεν 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. (xv. 25, xix. 41, xxii. 66, xxili. 26; Actsi. 10). The inter- rogative εἰ is found eighteen times in Gospel and Acts (vi. 7, 9, ΧΙ. 23, xiv. 28, 31, xxil. 49, 67, etc.), εἰ δὲ μήγε five times, and ei ἄρα twice. All of these are comparatively rare elsewhere.
The idiomatic attraction of the re/ative is very common in both Deeks) (1: 4. 11. 20,111.19, v.9, 1x, 36, 43, xu. 46, xv. 16, xix. 37, etc.): it is rare in Mt. and Mk., and is not common in Jn.
After τοῦτο he has ὅτι in Gospel and Acts (x. 11, xil. 39, etc.) ; Mt. and Mk. never; Jn. only after διὰ τοῦτο.
He is fond of combinations of cognate words, 6... φυλάσσοντες φυλακάς (ii. 8), ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον μέγαν (il. 9), βαπτισθέντες τὸ βάπ- τισμα (Vil. 29), ἣ ἀστραπὴ ἀστράπτουσα (xvil. 24). Some of these are Hebraistic, especially such as ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύμησα (xxii. 15).
(8) Expressions probably or possibly medical,
It was perhaps not until 1841 that attention was called to the existence of medical phraseology in the writings of S. Luke. In the
ixiy THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE (§ 6.
Gentleman’s Magazine for June 1841 a paper appeared on the subject, and the words ἀχλύς (Acts ΧΙ. 11), κραιπάλη (Lk. xxi. 34), παραλελυμένος (v. 18, 24; Acts viil. 7, 1x. 33), παροξυσμός (Acts XV. 39), συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ (Lk. iv. 38), and ὑδρωπικός (xiv. 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 Zhe Aledical 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 quota- tions 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 I) 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 famili- arity with LXX, may be the cause. But in most cases the prob- ability 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 ex- pression in LXX is the explanation of his use of it. If the expres- sion 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 ἀθροίζειν, ἀκοή, ἀναιρεῖν, ἀναλαμβάνειν, ἀνορθοῦν, ἀπαιτεῖν, ἀπαλλάσσειν, ἀπολύειν, ἀπορεῖν, ἀσφάλεια, ἄφεσις. εἴς. etc. All of these are frequent in LXX, and some of them in profane authors also.
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 cumulat- ive one. Any two or three instances of coincidence with medical writers may be explained. as mere coincidences: but the large qumber of coincidences renders this explanation unsatisfactory fort
§ 6.] CHARACTERISTICS, STYLE, AND LANGUAGE Ixv
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 axAvs as one of them, and repeatedly uses the word, which occurs nowhere else in N.T. or LXX. Perhaps κραιπάλη, which in bibl. Grk. is found Lk. xxi. 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 παραλελυ- μένος, as also has Aristotle, a physician’s son (Z7¢h, (Vic. 1. 13. 15). But this use may come from LXX, as in Heb. xii. 12. That zapo- ξυσμός is a medical term is indisputable; but as early as Demos- thenes it is found in the sense of exasperation, as also in LXX (Deut. xxix. 28 ; Jer. xxxix. [xxxii.] 37). The instance in Lk. iv. 38 is perhaps a double one: for συνεχομένη is possibly, and πυρετῷ μεγάλῳ probably, a medical expression. Moreover, here Mt. and Mk. have merely πυρέσσουσα, and in Acts xxviii. 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, ¢.g. ἐπέπεσεν for ἔπεσεν (Acts ΧΙ]. 11), βαρυνθῶσιν for βαρηθῶσιν (Lk. xxi. 34). Again, whether or no ἀναπτύσσειν has any medical flavour, Lk. iv. 17 must not be quoted in connexion with it, for there the true reading is ἀνοίξας.
To the examples given in the Gen/leman’s Magazine may per- haps be added such instances as δακτύλῳ προσψαύειν (xi. 46), where Mt. has δακτύλῳ κινῆσαι: διὰ τρήματος βελόνης (xvill. 25), where Mk. has διὰ τρυμαλιὰς ῥαφίδος : ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος (vil. 44), where Mk. has ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγὴ τ. αἵματος : ἐστερεώθησαν ai βάσεις αὐτοῦ
᾿ καὶ τὰ σφυδρά (Acts ill. 7); and more doubtfully ὀθόνην τέσσαρσιν
ἀρχαῖς καθιέμενον (Acts x. 11) and ἀνεκάθισεν (vil. 15 ; Acts ix. 40).
Luke alone relates what may be called the surgical miracle of the healing of Malchus’ ear (xxii. 51). And perhaps the marked way in which he distinguishes demoniacal possession from disease (vi 18, xili. 32; Acts xix. 12) may be put down to medical train- ing. His exactness in stating how long the person healed had been afflicted (xiii. 11 ; Acts ix. 33) and the age of the person healed (vill. 42; Acts iv. 22) is a feature of the same kind. For other possible instances see notes on iv. 35, V. 12, Vil. 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, Ἰατρέ, θεράπευσον σεαυτόν é
Ixvi
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE
[δ 6.
(iv. 23); and that almost the last words that he records in the Acts are S. Paul’s quotation from Is. vi., which ends καὶ ἰάσομαι
αὐτούς (xxvili. 26, 27).
The following table will illustrate some characteristics of S. Luke’s diction as compared with that of the other Synoptists :—
S. MATTHEW. iii, 10. ἤδη δέ. iii, 16. πνεῦμα Θεοῦ. ili. 17. φωνὴ ἐκ τ. ovp- ανῶν.
iv. I. ἀνήχθη. iv. 5, 8. παραλαμβάνει.
iv. 12. ἀνεχώρησεν.
iv. 18. τὴν θάλασσαν.
iv. 20. ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα.
viii. 2. λεπρὸς προσελθὼν προσεκύνει αὐτῷ.
vill. 4. καὶ λέγει ὁ Ἰησοῦς.
ix. 2. προσέφερον αὐτῷ παραλυτεκόν. 1χ. 7. ἐγερθείς.
ix. 8. ἐφοβήθησαν.
ix. 9. Μαθθαῖον λεγόμενον.
xii, 50. τὸ θέλημα τ. πατ- ρός μου,
xiii. 7. ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκάνθας.
xiii, 19. 7. λόγον τ. Ba- σιλείας.
xiii. 20, λαμβάνων.
xiii. 21. σκανδαλίζεται.
v. 15. Kalovow λύχνον.
viii. 21. κύριε.
vill, 30. ἀγέλη χοίρων πολλῶν,
ix. 18. ἰδοὺ ἄρχων [els] προσελθὼν προσκύνει αὐτῷ.
ix. 18. ἐτελεύτησεν.
x. 14. ἐξερχόμενοι ἔξω,
xvi. 15. λέγει.
S. MARK.
i. 10. τὸ πνεῦμα. i, 11. φωνὴ ἐκ τ. ovpa-
i. 12. τὸ πν. αὐτὸν ἐκβάλ-
i. 14. ἦλθεν.
i. 16. τὴν θάλασσαν.
i, 18, ἀφέντες τὰ δίκτυα.
i. 40. λεπρὸς παρακαλῶν αὐτὸν καὶ γονυπετῶν.
i. 44. καὶ λέγει.
ii. 3. φέροντες πρὸς αὐτὸν παραλυτικόν. li, 12. ἠγέρθη καὶ εὐθύς.
li. 12. ἐξίστασθαι.
ii. 14. Aevely.
iii. 35. τὸ θέλημα τ. Θεοῦ.
iv. 7. εἰς τὰς ἀκάνθας.
iv. 14. τὸν λόγον.
iv. 16. λαμβάνουσιν. iv. 17. σκανδαλίζονται.
iv. 38. διδάσκαλε.
v. 7. ὁρκίζω σε.
v. 11. ἀγέλη χοίρων μεγ- ἀλη.
v. 22. ἔρχεται εἷς τῶν ἀρ- χισυναγώγων καὶ πίπτει πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ.
Vv. 23. ἐσχάτως ἔχει.
v. 29. εὐθὺς ἐξηράνθη ἡ πηγή.
vi. 11. ἐκπορευόμενοι ἐκεῖ- θεν.
viii. 29. ἐπηρώτα.
S. LUKE.
iii. 9. ἤδη δὲ καί.
lil, 22. τὸ wv. τὸ ἅγιο».
iii. 22. φωνὴν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γενέσθαι.
iv. i. ὑπέστοεψ εν.
ἷν. 5, 9. ἤγαγεν, ἀνα- γαγών.
iv. 14. ὑπέστρεψεν.
v. I. τὴν λίμνην.
Vv. Il. ἀφέντες πάντα.
v. 12. ἀνὴρ πλήρη! λέπρας πεσὼν ἐπὶ πρόσ- wrov ἐδεήθη αὐτοῦ.
v. 14. καὶ αὐτὸς παρ- ἠγγειλεν.
v. 18. ἄνδρες φέρεντες .“.«- παραλελυμένο:,
ν. 25. παραχρῆμα ἀν- αστὰς ἐνώπιον αὐτῶν.
ν. 26. ἐπλήσθησαν φό- βου.
ν. 27. ὀνόματι Λευείν,
Vili. 21. τὸν λόγον 7. Θεοῦ.
viii. 7. ἐν μέσῳ τ. ἀκαν- θῶν.
viii. 11. ὁ λόγος τ. Θεοῦ. δέχονται. ἀφίστανται. λύχνον das. ἐπιστάτα. δέομαί σου.
ἀγέλη χοίρων
Vili.
Vili. 13.
vill. 16.
Vili. 24.
viii. 28.
viii. 32. ἱκανῶν.
vili. 41. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ καὶ οὗτος ἄρχων τῆς συναγωγῆς ὑπῆρχεν" καὶ πεσὼν παρὰ τοὺς πόδας Ἰησοῦ.
viii. 42. καὶ αὐτὴ ἀπέ- θνησκεν.
viii. 44. παραχρῆμα ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις.
ix. 5. ἐξερχόμενοι awd,
13.
ix. 20. εἶπεν δέ
| | i
817. 5. MATTHEW. Xvi. 20. ἐπετίμησεν. xvi. 28. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν.
xvii. 4. κύριε.
xvii. 16. προσήνεγκα.
xvii. 18, ἐθεραπεύθη ὁ παῖς.
xix. 13. παιδία.
xxii, 18. γνοὺς τὴν πον- nplav.
XXV1. 20, μετὰ τ. δώδεκα μαθητῶν.
Xxvi. 27. λαβών.
ΧΧΥΪ. 29. οὐ μὴ ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι.
ΧΧΥΪ. 41. γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε.
xxvi. 64. ἀπ ἄρτι.
XXVll. 2. ἀπήγαγον καὶ παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ.
XXVii, 13. λέγει.
Xxvil. 57. ἄνθρωπος πλού- σιος, τοὔνομα ᾿Ιωσήφ.
xxvill. 8. ἀπελθοῦσαι. .. ἔδραμον ἀπαγγεῖλαι τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ.
THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL
S. MARK. Vili. 30. ἐπετίμησεν.
ix. I. ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. ix. 5. Ῥαββεῖ.
ix. 18. εἶπα.
ix. 27. ἀνέστη.
x. 13. παιδία.
xii. 15. εἰδὼς τὴν ὑπό- χρισιν.
xiv. 17. μετὰ τῶν δώδεκα.
xiv. 23. λαβών. xiv. 25. οὐκέτι od μή.
xiv. 38. γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε.
xv, I. ἀπήνεγκαν καὶ
παρέδωκαν Πειλάτῳ. XV. 4. ἐπηρώτα.
xv. 43. Ἰωσὴφ εὐσχήμων βουλευτής.
xvi. 8. ἐξελθοῦσαι . .. οὐδενὶ οὐδὲν εἶπαν.
᾿Ιχν!] S. LUKE.
ix. 21. ἐπιτιμήσας ἠγγειλεν.
ix. 27. λέγω ὑμῖν ἀλη- θῶς.
ix. 33. ἐπιστάτα.
ix. 40. ἐδεήθην.
ix. 42. ἰάσατο παῖδα.
xviii. 15. τὰ βρέφη.
XX. 23. κατανοήσας τὴν πανουργίαν.
xxli. 14. οἱ ἀπόστολοι σὺν αὐτῷ.
xxii. 17. δεξάμενος.
xxii. 18, οὐ μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν.
χχὶ. 46. ἀναστάντες προσεύχεσθε.
xxii. 69. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν.
XXxlil. I. ἀναστὰν ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν ἤγαγον αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τ. ἸΠειλᾶτον,
Xxlii. 9. ἐπηρώτα ἐν λὸό- yous ἱκανοῖς.
Xxili. 50. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἀνὴρ ὀνόματι ἼἼ., βουλευτὴς ὑπάρχων.
xxiv. 9. ὑποστρέψασαι “ν΄. ἀπήγγειλαν ταῦτα πάντα τοῖς ἕνδεκα καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς λοιποῖς.
παρ:
τὸ»
These are only specimens taken from a large number of
instances, and selected for their brevity and they admit of comparison.
the ease with which
The student who has mastered the
main features of Luke’s style will be able to find many more for
himself.
§ 7. THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL.
This question may be regarded as naturally following the dis-
cussion of S. Luke’s peculiarities and characteristics, for it is by a knowledge of these that we are able to solve it. The question has been keenly debated during the last forty years, and may now be said to be settled, mainly through the exertions of Volkmar, Hilgenfeld, and Sanday. Dr. Sanday’s article in the fortnightly Review, June 1875, in answer to Supernatural Religion, was pro- nounced by Bishop Lightfoot to be “‘able and (as it seems to me) unanswerable” (On Sup. Rel. p. 186). This article was incor-
Ixviii THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. LUKE [3 7.
porated in Zhe Gospels in the Second Century, Macmillan, 1876, now unfortunately out of print, and it remains unanswered. It is now conceded on all sides! that Marcion’s Gospel does not represent the original S. Luke, and that our Third Gospel has not been largely augmented and interpolated, especially by the addition of the first three chapters and the last seven verses ; but that Marcion’s Gospel is an abridgment of our S. Luke, which therefore was current before Marcion began to teach in Rome in or before A.D. 140. The statements of early Christian writers (not to be accepted as conclusive without examination) have been strongly confirmed, and it is right to speak of Marcion’s Gospel as a “mutilated” or “amputated” edition of S. Luke.
Irenzus says of Marcion: #d@ guod est secundum Lucam evangelium ctrcumcidens (i. 27. 2, ill, 12. 7); and again: A/arcion et qui ab eo sunt, ad intercidendas converst sunt Scripturas, quasdam quidem in totum non cog- noscentes, secundum Lucam autem evangelium et epistolas Pauli decurtantes, hee sola legitima esse dicunt, que tpst minoraverunt (111. 12. 12). Similarly Tertullian: Quzs tam comesor mus Ponticus quam quit evangelia corrosit? (Adv. Marcion. i. 1). Marcton evangelio suo nullum adscrebit auctorem. - . . ex 22s commentatoribus quos habemus Lucam videtur Marcion elegisse quem cxderet (tbzd. iv. 2). Epiphanius also: ὁ μὲν yap χαρακτὴρ τοῦ κατὰ Λουκᾶν σημαίνει τὸ εὐαγγέλιον" ws δὲ ἠκρωτηρίασται μήτε ἀρχὴν ἔχων, μήτε μέσα, μήτε τέλος, ἱματίου βεβρωμένου ὑπὸ πολλῶν σητῶν ἐπέχει τὸν τρόπον (Her. i. 3. 11, Migne, xli. 709). Epiphanius speaks of additions, τὰ δὲ προστίθησιν : but these were very trifling, perhaps only some two or three dozen words.
The evidence of Tertullian and Epiphanius as to the contents of Marcion’s Gospel is quite independent, and it can be checked to some extent by that of Irenzeus. Their agreement is remark- able, and we can determine with something like certainty and exactness the parts of the Third Gospel which Marcion omitted ;
not at all because he doubted their authenticity, but because he-
disliked their contents. They contradicted his doctrine, or did not harmonize well with it, or in some other way displeased him. In this arbitrary manner he discarded i. ii. and iii. excepting 111. 1, with which his Gospel began. Omitting iii. 2-ἰνγ. 13, 17-20, 24, he went on continuously to xi. 28. His subsequent omissions were Xi. 29-32, 49-51, ΧΙ]. I-9, 29-35, XV. II-32, XVIl. 5—I0, XVill. 31-34, xix. 29-48, xx. 9-18, 37, 38, xxi. 1-4, 18, 21, 22, xxii. 16-18, 28-30, 35-38, 49-51, xxiv. 47-53. Perhaps he also omitted vii. 29-35 ; and he transposed iv. 27 to xvii. 18.
It should be observed that not only does Marcion’s Gospel
1 An exception must be made of the author of Zhe 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 everv question with which it deals” (p. 491).
__aeeeeidieliaieeen ee eee eo ‘ ᾿ ὦ
§ 7.] THE INTEGRITY OF THE THIRD GOSPEL Ixix
contain nearly all the sections which are peculiar to Luke, but it contains them in the same order. Where Luke inserts something into the common tradition, Marcion has the insertion ; where Luke omits, Marcion omits also. This applies in particular to “the great intercalation” (ix. 51—xvili. 14) as well as to smaller insertions ; and this minute agreement, step by step, between Marcion and Luke renders the hypothesis of their independence incredible. ‘The only possible alternatives are that Marcion has expurgated our Third Gospel, or that our Third Gospel is an expansion of Marcion’s; and it can be demonstrated that the second of these is untenable.
(1) In most cases we can see why Marcion omitted what his Gospel did not contain. He denied Christ’s human birth; therefore the whole narrative of the Nativity and the genealogy must be struck out. The Baptism, Temptation, and Ascension involved anthropomorphic views which he would dislike. ΑἹ] allusions to the O.T. as savouring of the kingdom of the Demiurge must be struck out. And so on. In this way most of the omissions are quite intelligible. The announcement of the Passion (xviii. 31-34) and the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, etc. (xix. 29-48), were probably disliked as being fulfilments of O.T. prophecy. It is less easy to see Marcion’s objection to the Prodigal Son (xv. 11-32) and the massacre of Galileans, etc. (xili. 1-9); but our knowledge of his strange tenets is imperfect, and these passages probably conflicted with some of them. But such changes as “‘all the righteous” for ‘‘ Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets” (xiii. 28), or “the Lord’s words” for “the law” (xvi. 17), or “those whom the god of that world shall account worthy” for ‘‘they that are accounted worthy to attain to that world” (xx. 35), are thoroughly intelligible. Others which his critics supposed to be wilful depravations of the text are mere differences of reading found in other authorities ; e.g. the omission of αἰώνιον (x. 25) and of ἢ μεριστήν (xii. 14) ; and the insertion of καὶ καταλύοντα τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας (XXili. 2).
(2) But the chief evidence (in itself amounting to something like demonstration) that Marcion abridged our S. Luke, rather than the Evangelist expanded Marcion, is found in the peculiarities and characteristics of Luke’s style and diction. These run through our Gospel from end to end, and on the average are as frequent in the portions which Marcion omitted as in the rest. In the first two chapters they are perhaps somewhat more frequent than else- where. It is quite incredible that the supposed interpolator made a minute analysis of the style and diction of Marcion’s Gospel, practised himself in it, and then added those portions of our Gospel which Marcion did not include in his Gospel: and that he accomplished this feat without raising a suspicion. Such a feat in
Ιχχ THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 8
that age would have been a literary miracle. Only those who have worked through the passages expunged by Marcion, carefully marking what is peculiar to Luke or characteristic of him, can estimate the full force of this argument. But the analysis of a few verses will be instructive.
The dotted lines indicate that the expression is found more often in Luke’s writings than in the rest of N.T., and the fraction indicates the proportion: eg. the $ with καθεῖλεν means that καθαιρεῖν occurs six times in Lk. and Acts, and three elsewhere in the rest of N.T. The plain lines indicate that the expression is peculiar to Luke in N. T., and the figure states the number of times in which it occurs in his writings: e.g. κατὰ τὸ ἔθος occurs thrice in Lk. and Acts, and nowhere else in N.T.
Καθεῖλεν $ δυνάστας ἀπὸ θρόνων, καὶ ὕψωσεν eerie ὍΣ πεινῶντας
, ἐνέπλησεν Ὁ a2 Eee Te nk καὶ πλουτοῦντας ἐζαπεστειλεν α iy κενούς. ἀντελά-
πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας ἍΝ τῷ tae Kal TO ἀπέρμαποα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. pee δὲ Μαριὰμ σὺν 158. αὐτῇ ὡς μῆνας 19 τρεῖς, καὶ
ὕπεστι εν ἢ ἜΣ ΤῊ οἶκον Bees (i 52-56).
ἑορτῇ τοῦ πάσχα. καὶ ὅτε aoe ἐτῶν 88 sae προ τ
αὐτῶν κατὰ τὸ ἔθος 5 τῆς ἑορτῆς, καὶ τελειωσάντων τὰς ἡμέρας,
/ 3 A ε a » Ὁ ἘΞ ἐν τῷ Recor aie 53 anos) ὑπέμεινεν Inia: ὁγτοῖσηο Ὑβερουσαλ "ἢ
εἶναι ἦλθον ἡμέρας ὁδόν, καὶ ἘΠΕ ΠΟ 4 αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς συγγενέσι καὶ
τοῖς 2 γνωστοῖς" ἘΝ καὶ μὴ ἘΠΕ ὑξεεηπεύανον 53
> A 3 Pia ess Lana 11 δὲ ΄, ε« » ΄ δ may Πα παν, ἐπερωτωντὰα GUTOVS ECLOTAVTO “δ € πᾶαντες οἱ AKOVOVTES αὐτου ἐπι
ἢ συνέσει καὶ ταῖς ἀποκρίσεσιν αὐτοῦ (il. 41-47). ™ ρ
§ 8. THE TEXT.
The authorities quoted for the various readings are taken from different sources, of which Tischendorf’s δου. Zest. Gree. vol. i. ed. 8, Lipsiz, 1869, and Sanday’s “422. ad Nov. Test. Steph., Oxonii, 1889, are the chief. The Patristic evidence has been in many cases verified. Gregory’s /rolegomena to Tischendorf, Lipsiz, 1884-94, and Miller’s edition of Scrivener’s Jntroduction to the Criticism of ΔΜ, Τ᾽, Bell, 1894, must be consulted by those who desire more complete information respecting the authorities.
cae ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ,
Se ΟΝ
§ 8.] THE TEXT Ixxi
(1) GREEK MANUSCRIPTS, Primary uncials.
᾿ς Cod. Sinaiticus, sec. iv. Brought by Tischendorf from the Convent of St. Catherine on Mt. Sinai; now at St. Peters- burg. Contains the whole Gospel complete.
Its correctors are
δ" contemporary, or nearly so, and representing a second MS. of high value ;
x” attributed by Tischendorf to szec. vi. ;
N° attributed to the beginning of sec. vii. Two hands of about this date are sometimes distinguished as x and xe.
A. Cod. Alexandrinus, szc. 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, szc. iv. In the Vatican Library certainly since 1533! (Batiffol, Za Vaticane de Paul itt, etc., p. 86). Complete.
The corrector B? 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 B?,
C. Cod. Ephraemi Rescriptus, sec. v. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the following portions of the Gospel: i. 2-ἰ1. 5, li. 42-lil. 21, Iv. 25—-vi. 4, Vl. 37-vil. 16 or 17, viii. 28—xii. 3, xix. 42-XX. 27, ΧΧΙ. 2I-Xxil. 19, xxill, 25- XXIV. 7, Xxlv. 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, sec. vi. Given by Beza to the University Library at Cambridge 1581. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
L. Cod. Regius Parisiensis, szec. viii. National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
R. Cod. Nitriensis Rescriptus, sec. villi. Brought from a convent in the Nitrian desert about 1847, and now in the British Museum. Contains i. 1-13, i. 69-11. 4, 16-27, Iv. 38-v. 5, v. 25-vi. 8, 18-36, 39, Vi. 49-Vil. 22, 44, 46, 47, Vill. 5-15, Vill. 25-ἶχ. 1, 12-43, Χ. 3-16, ΧΙ. 5-27, ΧΙ]. 4-15, 40-52, xiii. 26-XiV. 1, XIV. I2-XV. I, XV. I3-XVi. 16, XVil. 2I-XVill. 10, XVili, 22--ΧΧ. 20, XX. 33-47, ΧΧΙ. I2-XXil. 15, 42-56, xxii. 71- XI EE, 38-sI. By a second hand xv. 19--21.
T Cod. Borgianus, sec. v. In the Library of the Propaganda at Rome. Greek and Egyptian. Contains xxii. 20—-xxiil. 29,
ἰχχιΐ TIE GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. LUKE [8 8.
X. Cod. Monacensis, szc. ix. In the University Library at Munich. Contains i. 1-37, li. 1I9-iii. 38, iv. 21-x. 37, Xl. I-XVill. 43, XX. 46—-XXiV. 53.
A. Cod. Sangallensis, seec. ix. In the monastery of St. Gall in Switzerland. Greek and Latin. Contains the whole Gospel.
Ξ. Cod. Zacynthius Rescriptus, sec. vill. In the Library of the Brit. and For. Bible Soc. in London. Contains i. 1-9, De 23, 27, 28, 390-92; 36- —66, 1. pliant 19, 21, 22, δῶν, 39) lil. (56,91 1-20, 1opall yay boa 32-43, V. 17- is vi. 21- vil. 6, 11-37, 39-47, Vill. 4-21, 25-35, 43-50, 1-28, 32, 33) 35, 1X. 41-x. 18, 21-40, xi. τοῖν 3x45 PH gr 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 δὲ as equally easily second. Then T, 2, L, C, R. The Western element which sometimes disturbs the text of B is almost entirely absent from the Gospels.
Secondary Uncials.
E. Cod. Basileensis, sec. viii. In the Public Library at Basle. Contains the whole Gospel, except ili. q-15 and xxiv. 47-53.
F. Cod. Boreeli, sec. ix. In the Public Library at Utrecht. Contains considerable portions of the Gospel.
G. Cod. Harleianus, sec. ix. In the British Museum. Contains considerable portions.
K. Cod. Cyprius, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
M. Cod. Campianus, sec. ix. In the National Library at Paris. Contains the whole Gospel.
5. Cod. Vaticanus, sec. x. In the Vatican. The earliest dated MS. of the Greek Testament. Contains the whole Gospel. ;
U. Cod. Nanianus, sec. x. In the Library of St. Mark’s, Venice. Contains the whole Gospel.
Only six uncial MSS., αὶ BK MS U, afford complete copies of all four Gospels.
(2) VERSIONS.
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.).
§ 9.] LITERARY HISTORY Lxxiil
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 Con- fiate Readings, cited by WH. (ii. pp. 99-104) as proof of the comparative lateness of the traditional text, are found in this Gospel (ix. 10, xi. 54, xii. 18, xxiv. 53). Mr. Miller, in his new edition of Scriveier’s /utroduction 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 Lk. xxiv. 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 (i. 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 Déavessaron others had made combinations of Matthew and Luke, or of all three Synoptic Gospels (Sanday, Lampton 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
Ixxiv THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. LUKE [§ 9.
not abundant, and even those who possessed them found a diffi- culty in “verifying their references,” when rolls were used and not pages, and when neither verses nor even chapters were num- bered or divided. In quoting from memory similar passages of different Gospels would easily become mixed ; all the more so, if