Pel

The primary purpose of the Gospel (as well as of the Acts) is stated in the preface, namely, that Theophilus may have full knowledge in re- gard to the truth of the accounts given to him in the teaching which had been imparted orally—iva ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. What was intended for a single person was adapted for others in similar circumstances, and so St.

Luke may have sent out the Gospel in a second form (as Blass holds), though it has been said gbove that this is unlikely, and not required by the facts of The preface, in the word καθεξῆς. but the interpretation to be put upon the word is doubtful, and has to _ be gathered from the Gospel itself. (a) Purpose.—The first point which may be regarded as significant of St. Luke’s purpose is the way in which the facts are definitely brought into connexion with secular history.

He alone among the NT writers mentions a Roman emperor by name (21 31, Ac 1138 183). and in Ac other Roman officials, whose names would fix the dates, to some extent at any rate. Another point which would help to earry conviction (Zahn, 1.6. ii. 375, 391) is the relatively large number of personal names, not only of prominent actors, but also of those of secondary importance (e.g. 2? 31-2 7# 8% 19! 2415), Again, it is a noteworthy characteristic of St. Luke that, while St.

Matthew seems to collect our Lord’s teaching together, he keeps the sayings in what must have been their original setting, and emphasizes the circumstances which called them forth. This may best be illustrated from the way in which the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew is scattered over St. Luke’s Gospel. ‘This greater definiteness of circumstance could not fail to im- press Theophilus, and from the point of view of conviction is more important than definiteness of place or time, which St.

Luke, in the Gospel, as in the Acts, often cannot give. In these ways Theophilus would see the work of ‘the critic who has had diligent inquiry made in regard to the external facts of the history, and the historian who makes every effort to bring his figures out of the gloom of vague tradition into the clear light of reality.’ Another point which St. Luke em- phasizes is the impression which our Lord’s teach- ing and acts made on those who were present ; and just as St.

John, in order to instil ‘the belief that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God,’ is careful to record the impression made by our Lord’s work, so St. Luke lays stress on the way in which our Lord’s hearers were affected (e.g. 415 948 1849 1987 etc.), where these points are not mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark. Again, there can be no doubt that St.

Luke, all through the Gospel, has in mind the points on which a Gentile reader would want further information or would feel greater or LUKE, GOSPEL OF less interest, or would be more or less impressed, and so we meet with explanations, we find teaching of special Jewish interest ignored or curtailed, and methods of argument such as appeal to the OT dropped. These are all illustrated in the next section of this article.

We see, then, how the expressed purpose of the Gospel seems to be carried out as the narrative proceeds, and we may add that probably St. Luke endeavoured to make his work as complete as possible, and did not omit facts or sayings as irrelevant to his immediate object of convincing Theophilus. ἢ Other objects have been assigned to St.

Luke of a polemical or conciliatory character, but the features of the Gospel referred to below show that it will be difficult to make a completely consistent theory on these hypotheses. (6) In considering St. Luke’s arrangement of his Gospel, we may suppose him to have followed in the main the sources which he used, unless he had any occasion to think these were incorrect, or unless his special purpose required him to deviate from them for the sake of clearness.

And so we find that over large stretches of the narrative the order of events follows exactly that of St. Mark. (1) After the first two chapters comes the narra- tive of our Lord’s baptism and temptation. Here St. Luke’s independence of arrangement is seen in the way in which he finishes the history of John the Baptist before beginning the account of our Lord’s ministry.

The most important deviation at this period of the narrative is to be found in the previous journey through Galilee, implied in the word ὑπέστρεψεν, 44. The next point to notice is the visit to Nazareth, 41°, In this account the reference to miracles at Capernaum (4%) seems to indicate that it is inserted out of chronological order, unless we suppose these miracles to have happened on the circuit in Galilee just mentioned.

In 481 Capernaum is introduced as if it had not been mentioned before, which supports what has just been said. (2) 43!-619—St. Luke's order follows St. Mark’s (131-319) exactly, save for the section 5!-11 which records the call of the disciples and the miraculous draught of fishes. But there are marks of independence: thus St. Luke assigns no time or place to the healing of the paralytic (5'#-), unless the connexion with the call of Levi (57) fixes it. St. Mark and St.

Matthew definitely fix it at Capernaum. Again, the two cases which touch Sabbath observance (6! and 66) St. Luke assigns definitely to two different Sabbaths, St. Mark apparently to the same. (3) 6%-8%—the record seems to agree generally with St. Matthew. Thus in both the discourse on the Mount (or Plain), 629 jis followed by, and in both definitely con- nected with, the healing of the centurion’s servant (omitted by St. Mark). St. Luke adds the incident at Nain on the next day (? ; var. lec.

7), and then in both St. Luke and St. Matthew the message of John the Baptist follows, but with no reference as to time. The incident at the house of Simon the Pharisee follows (7), but with no note of time. The section closes (8!) with a circuit of Galilee, ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς. (4) 8#-9'7—St. Luke and St. Mark (4!-64) agree, but St. Luke leaves out Mk 3%, and inserts later Mk 3°, Here St. Matthew seems to support St. Luke’s order. As to Mk 38%, the visit of our Lord’s mother, St. Matthew and St.

Luke put it on the same day as the parable of the Sower, but St. Matthew records it before, St. Luke after, the parable. ‘They all agree in insert- ing here the parable of the Sower, but St. Matthew records the ‘other parables’ and the private explanation to His disciples, which are only mentioned in St. Mark (4°). The narratives here diverge, because the crossing of the lake, the LUKE, GOSPEL OF 171 storm, the events in Gadara are put much earlier in St.

Matthew (815), in connexion perhaps with the jirst visit to Capernaum. St. Mark, however, connects these detinitely (4%) with the parable, while St. Luke, perhaps having St. Mark and also the order of St. Matthew before him, records this in the same place as St. Mark, but (8%) with a vague reference to ‘ one of the days.’ It is possible that St. Luke has acted in exactly the same way with regard to the events which follow in St.

Matthew (the healing of the paralytic, the call of Levi, the discourse on fasting, Mt 9!-!”) after the return from Gadara, but are in St. Luke and St. Mark given earlier. Here, again (517), St. Luke avoids the need of reconciling the accounts by taking refuge in the phrase ‘on one of the days.’ The narratives then proceed together (but St. Matthew 818 definitely adheres to his order, for he connects what follows with the call of Levi), but St.

Matthew adds to the healing of Jairus’ daughter and of the woman with the issue of blood two miracles, 9°-4, which he assigns to the same day. Then follows a departure from Capernaum (Mk 6!) to Nazareth, and a circular journey through Gali- lee mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark, though the reason for it is to be found in the miracle recorded only by St. Matthew (951) requir- ing his withdrawal. In this connexion (though St.

Luke does not state the time) occurs the mission of the Twelve, followed by Herod’s comments on the result of that mission. St. Luke omits the account of John’s death (which St. Matthew and St. Mark here insert). With the withdrawal to Bethsaida (which St. Matthew attributes to the news of John the Baptist’s death) and the feeding of the five thousand this section closes (9117). (5) Here St. Matthew and St. Mark give in general agreement a long section (Mt 1435- 1015.

Mk 61-88), narrating a return to Gennesaret, a visit to Phoeni- cia, a return through Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee, the feeding of the four thousand, a crossing by ship and back, and (Mk only) a visit to Beth- saida. All this is practically omitted by St. Luke, except for one or two sayings which he records in another connexion. (6) At 9! the three narra- tives proceed together in recording, exactly in the same order, the confession of St. Peter (the scene of which St.

Luke does not mention), the announce- ment of the Passion, the Transfiguration, the lunatic boy, another announcement of His death, and the dispute as to who should be greatest (the scene of which St. Luke again does not mention). With this St. Matthew and St. Mark connect a discussion as to offences which St. Luke puts much later, and distributes (171-3 14% 15*7). (7) The section beginning with 9° is independent of the other accounts, as far as 184. All the narratives (Mt 191, Mk 10!

, Lk 951) agree in making our Lord leave Galilee at this stage, and St. Matthew and St. Mark add ‘for Perea.’ St. Luke mentions a journeying to Jerusalem several times during the section, e.g. 95}. 8. 13.3174, and St. John (77 10” 117-4) tells us of visits to Jerusalem and its neigh- bourhood and withdrawals again ; and so some, δ... Wieseler and Ellicott, have supposed that St. Luke here gives us the narrative of three definite jour- neys to Jerusalem. But St.

Luke in this section impresses upon us so often his uncertainty as to time and place, that a chronological sequence seems out of the question; and in certain chapters it is obvious that the subject of prayer, or riches, or something similar, is the link which holds the narrative together. ‘The proposal of Mr. Haleombe (The Displaced Section of St.

Luke, Cambridge, | 1886) to remove bodily a small part of this section, | namely 1144-1321, and to insert it after 8%, involves an impossible act of violence to textual evidence with a very slight improvement from the point of —— 172 LUKE, GOSPEL OF LUKE, GOSPEL OF view of harmonizing the narratives. (8) At 17% the narratives unite again, and go on to the end of 18%; but St. Matthew and St. Mark are inde- pendent in details, and St.

Luke adds the incident of Zaccheus, and the parable of the Pounds (191-55), (9) At 1029 the account of the triumphal entry begins, and from here on to the end of the Gospel the question of arrangement does not need to be considered, though even in the events of the last week we may notice (e.g. 201) the same indefinite- ness as to time, and resort to summaries (e.g. 1957 2187). The main facts recorded are the same in all, though there are, of course, additions and omissions in St.

Luke’s account as in the others. Blass (Philology of the Gospels) and Reuss assume that a different source has been used here also, and certainly St. Luke is independent of St. Matthew and St. Mark in the form in which he gives the eschatological discourses. The general order of events is, however, the same, as must necessarily have been the case. Here and there St. Luke seems to have intentionally put together events separate in time and place. Thus St.

Peter’s denials are placed together in order ‘to add force to the episode’ (Lightfoot), and in the account of the appearances after the resurrection St. Luke seems to have summarized and put them all on the day of the resurrection, though he cannot from his acquaintance with St. Paul have been ignorant of the events of 1 Co 15>’. We have seen that in the main St. Luke follows the order of the framework found in St. Mark. Are we in a position now to say, looking back over the Gospel, what St.

Luke meant when he purposed to write καθεξῆς Ὁ Various theories as to St. Luke’s principle of arrangement have been put forward. Plummer (J.c. p. xxxvi ff.) says, ‘we may assert with some confidence that Luke generally aims at chronological order.’ Weiss (1.6. p. 301) says the evangelist ‘has attempted to divide Jesus’ public ministry into work in Galilee, outside Galilee, and in Jerusalem.’ Another aspect is represented by Godet and Westcott.

The former (Biblical Studies, p- 43) regards the Gospel as giving an account of the ‘organic growth of the person and of the work,’ and Westcott (Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, ch. vii. note G) gives an elaborate analysis based on a general development of ideas such as ‘marks of the future Church,’ ‘the universal Church,’ ete. Zahn (1.0. ii.

366) thinks that ‘the chronological exactness is not a clearly marked principle in the representation,’ but that, ‘in con- trast with the disconnected narratives of single incidents,’ St. Luke’s object is to give Theophilus ‘a continuous representation of the history, in which the earlier prepares the way for the later, and makes it intelligible.’ 11. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.

—These must depend in thus, as in any other work, partly on the nature and extent of the sources to which the writer alludes in his preface and the use he makes of them, partly on his consideration of the readers for whom the Gospel was intended, partly on his own personality. It is not always easy to say to which of these causes the different characteristics are to be assigned: thus the selec- tion of particular incidents may be due to the personal interest of St.

Luke, or to considera- tion for the readers he wished to interest, or it may be explained by the fact of his finding them in the sources he used. The following are among the most important characteristics which have attracted attention in the Gospel. Some of them have been alluded to already. That St. Luke wrote for Gentiles is clear. <A number of technical terms are explained. Thus we find νομικός (189 10% etc.) instead of γραμματεύς.

ἐπιστάτης Where the other evangelists have some ἘΞ, -, "»- other word (e.g. 833). Hebrew names are trans- lated : e.g. Τολγοθά (2888) and Kavavatos (6). The position of places, especially in Palestine, is often defined, e.g. 451 82° 23°1. Expressions which might be misunderstood by Gentile readers are modified or added to: thus (9°) in the account of the Trans- figuration μετεμορφώθη (Mt, Mk) becomes ἐγένετο... ἕτερον.

The appeals to the OT are very few, and the quotations from it are found for the most part in the sayings of our Lord (e.g. 44:8 777 etc.), which are reproduced by St. Luke from his authori- ties, or are reminiscences of the LXX, with which, as we have seen, he was very familiar. ‘There are only five references to prophecy, and of these only one (54) occurs in the narrative of St. Luke.

Points in our Lord’s teaching which would have no in- terest for Gentile readers are altogether passed over or curtailed. Thus the teaching, in the Ser- mon on the Mount, as to the relation of the new to the old Law is omitted; so also is the denunciation of the Jews for observing the ‘tradition’ at the expense of the Law (Mt 151, Mk 7!) ; the rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23!) is very much shortened.

The frequent allusions to the universality of the Gospel are to be explained by the same reference to Gentile readers. St. Luke alone quotes in full (3° ®) the prophecy of Is 403— ‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God’—a prophecy which all the evangelists connect with John the Baptist.

Our Lord’s first recorded teaching (4%) emphasizes the admission of Gentiles to privileges at the hands of Elijah and Elisha, while His last explanation of the Scriptures at Emmaus (2447) showed that ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins were to be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’ Between these limits a number of passages and incidents might be quoted to estab- lish this characteristic of the Gospel, e.g. 10: 1329 ete.

In accordance with this, we find a ‘marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intoler- ance’ (Plummer), and stress laid on those quali- fications for entrance to the kingdom, which it is open to all without distinction of birth to attain. On the other hand, the Gospel is not anti-Jewish, though the Jews are strongly condemned directly or indirectly, and that in parts of the Gospel peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. 1081-82 1616 ete.

Jewish expressions are often kept in parables or teaching found only in St. Luke, and the regard for temple worship and observance of the law is not depreci- ated. All the rites of the law are fulfilled in our Lord’s case (231 etc.): He is the ‘Son of David’ (18% etc.): The commands of the Jewish law are to be observed (514 1714 etc.), and are of lasting importance (1629 1839 etc.) In all these and similar cases St.

Luke may have been preserving only the language of his sources, but, if his purpose had been to depreciate Judaism, he would no doubt have acted as Marcion did towards the allusions to the OT which he found in St. Luke’s Gospel, and removed them. In regard to the way in which he uses his sources, it has been suggested that St. Luke ‘ avoids dupli- cates on principle’ (Weiss, Introduction, Eng. tr. ii.

300), and thus gives no account of the cursing of the barren fig tree (Mk 111%, Mt 2118) because he has already narrated a similar event in 136, does not mention the anointing of Mk 14%, Mt 26% because of the narrative of 7°, and so on. But this supposed characteristic of ‘Sparsamkeit’ (as Storr calls it), which may be illustrated by many other omissions of St. Luke (such as the passing over of the miracle of the 4000), has to be taken in connexion with the numerous cases where St.

Luke does not show this tendency. Thus we have a twofold dispute as to who should be the greatest 9#° 2274; in regard to the miracles and parables we find similar cases of repetition; LUKE, GOSPEL OF and the so-called ‘ doublets ’(e.g. 84°5=11%; 144. =181) show that not only in the narratives, but in our Lord’s words, the same characteristic of repetition is found. Other instances may be found in Plummer, 1.6. p. xxviii, and Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, pp. 64 ff.

Another characteristic of the Gospel is a vagueness as to time and place, even in cases where the other narratives are more definite. This vague- ness may be illustrated from 15. 17 ete., is perhaps most marked in the section 9518, and extends even to the account of the passion, e.g. 301, On the other hand, it must be noted that St.

Luke very frequently connects sayings of our Lord with the occasion which called them forth, which in the other Gospels are collected together with no such reference, as for instance in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. 127% 14>. Mention has already been made of the stress St. Luke lays on the effect of our Lord’s words, of his preference for more literary (Greek, of his fondness for medical expressions, of his close connexion in thought, and often in language, with St. Paul.

In the account of Jesus’ life and teaching the symbol of the ox (with which this Gospel is almost universally associated )may perhaps, as the sacrificial animal, represent St. Luke’s Gospel as especially that which emphasizes owr Lord’s ‘ gentleness’ to the sin- ner and the outcast. This may be illustrated from the parables peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. the Prodigal Son ; or from such incidents as that of the sinner in the house of Simon (7%), or that of the peni- tent robber (23%).

Most marked, again, are the repeated references to prayer, both in the narrative of our Lord’s life—in which he records many in- stances of our Lord praying which are not found in the other narratives (e.g. 371 5! 612 etc.)—and also in parables which he alone records (e.g. 11° 184), Again, it is noticeable how much of the teaching preserved for us only by St. Luke deals with the use of riches.

‘This is to be regarded rather as proclaiming him as the ‘ Evangelist of Philanthropy’ (Herder), than as proving that St. Luke made use of an Ebionitic source. This char- acteristic appears in much of our Lord’s teaching as recorded by St. Luke, as well as in a large number of the parables peculiar to him, e.g. those of Dives and Lazarus, the Rich Fool, the Unjust Steward. It may have had a special appropriate- ness for a rich man like Theophilus (Zahn, 1.6. ii.

379), or may have been the outcome of St. Luke’s ‘great sympathy with the suffering poor, and a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich.’ It does not (as Weiss, Introd., Eng. tr. ii. 309) ‘rest on the idea that wealth is pernicious in itself and poverty salutary in itself.” There is no sufficient evidence of St.

Luke’s use of an Ebionitic source or sympathy with Ebionitism, for many of the expressions on which this theory is based are found in the other Gospels; and the latter con- tain many things not found in St. Luke which have as good a claim to be regarded as Ebionitic : thus they (Mt 18%, Mk 41%), and they alone, speak of ‘the deceitfulness of riches,’ where St. Luke simply says ‘riches.

’ ‘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’ (Plummer). For a discussion of many difficulties connected with special points in St. Luke, such as the Gene- alogy, Census, ete., readers are referred to the articles GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, JESUS Curist, vol. ii. p. 645 ἔν, and Qurrintus.

The present article has aimed at dealing with the main headings of the general topics connected with the Gospel, and giving sufficient illustrations to explain the allusions. The literature given below will enable students to follow out the points more in detail. LUST 5 Literature.— Besides general books of Introduction to the New Testament, and works on the Canon, the following may be mentioned; (A) Commentaries.

—A list of these, complete for all practical purposes, may be found in Plummer'’s volume on the Gospel in the International Critical Commentary. This muy itself be recommended as the best English Commentary, Ey on the linguistic side, in regard to which it is very full and scholarly. Besides these, reference may be made to Schanz, Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas; Godet, Commen- taire sur UEvangile de St.

Luc; Knabenbauer (in the Cursus Scriptura Sacre); Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar (last edition of St. Luke by B. and J. Weiss). (B) St. Luke and Josephus.—Clemen, Die Chronologie der Paul. Briefe, p. 66ff., discusses the literature of the question, etc. ; see also Zahn, Kind. ii. 394, 414. A connexion between St. Luke and Josephus is maintained by Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas), Keim (Aus dem Urchristenthum), and others, and is denied by Nésgen (SK, 1879), Belser (Theol.

Quartalachrist, 1895, 1896), ete. (0 St. Luke’s Style.—Besides grammars of the NT, like Winer, Schmiedel, and Blass, books on NT writers like that of Simcox, and lexicons like that of Thayer (in which a list of words peculiar to St. Luke is given), may be mentioned espe- cially Plummer, Holtzmann, Gersdorf (Beitrdge eur Sprachk- characteristik, etc.), Vogel (Zur Characteristik des Lucas nach Sprache und Stil). (D) St. Luke and Marcion.

—The most recent discussion of Marcion’s Gospel is in Zahn, Geschichte des Kanons, i. 630 δὶς ii. 411 ff.; see also Sanday, Gospels in the Second Century, ch. viii. ; Westcott, Ze Canon, p. 814 ff. (5) The Text of St. Luke’s Gospel, with reference to the readings in the later chapters, has been examined by Graefe in articles in SK; 1888, 1896, 1898. ‘The theory of a double edition is stated by Blass in his edition of St. Luke’s Gospel, and also in his Philology of the Gospels.

Amongst other more recent literature of importance for the study of points connected with St. Luke may also be included Hawkins, Hore Synoptica; Resch, Das Kindheits-ecangelium nach Lucasund Matthius(* Texte und Untersuchungen,’ x. 5); and Ramsay, Was Christ born at Bethlehem? Li. J. M. BEBB.