LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

Samaritan, the Importunate Friend, tlie Kioli Fool, ttie Barren Fig-tree, tlieLost Slieep, tlie Lost Piece of Money, the Prodigal Son, the Unjust Steward, the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Ten Lepers, the Unjust Judge, the Pharisee and the Publican), and also several incidents and sajrings pecuUar to Lk., e.g. the Mission of the Seventy; this section also has portions of the Sermon on the Mount and some parables and sayings common to Mt. and Lk., a few also which are found in other parts of Mk. From 18" to the end the Markan narrative is followed (from 19<' to 22" very closely) with few omissions, but with some insertions, e.g. the parable of the Pounds, the narrative of Zacchffius, of the Penitent Robber, of the two disciples on the Emmaus road, and other incidents peculiar to Lk. In the Passion and Resurrection narrative Luke has treated Mk. very freely, adding to it largely, and in several cases following other sources in preference.

Viewing the Third Gospel as a whole, we may with Dr. Hummer divide it thus: Preface, l'-<; Gospel of the Infancy, V-2^; Ministry, mainly in Galilee, 3'-9™; Journeyings towards Jerusalem, and the Ministry outside Galilee, Q'l-IQ^S; the Ministry in Jerusalem in the last days, 192'-2128; the Passion and Resurrection, 22-24.

3. The Sources. — The preface (1'-*), the only con-temporary evidence of the manner in which Gospels were written, tells us that the Evangelist knew of written EvangeUc narratives, and had access to eye-witnesses, though. he himself had not seen the events which he chronicles. Of the former sources (documents), the preceding section will lead us to name two (see also art. Gospels), namely the 'Petrine tradition' (see art. Mahk [Gospel acc. to]), which is our Mk. or else some-thing very like it, and which the First Evangehst also used; and another, which is often called the 'Logia,' but which it is safer to call the 'non-Markan document,' which is a common source of Mt. and Lk., but which is now lost (see art. Matthew [Gospel acc. to]). In the use of the latter the order of Lk. differs greatly from that of Mt., and the question arises which of the two Evangelists has followed this source the more closely. Now we have seen (§ 2) that Luke has followed the order of his Markan source very closely; it is therefore probable that he did the same with the 'non-Markan document.' We may then presume that the order of the latter is more faithfully reproduced in Lk. than in Mt. — With regard to the sections pecuUar to Lk. we must probably separate 16-2M from the rest. This section has a strong Aramaic tinge; it is an 'episode of family history of the most private character ' (Ramsay) ; it is told from the point of view of a woman, and is full of womanly touches; it represents the Mary side of the story, while the narrative in Mt. represents the Joseph side. It is therefore highly probable that the ultimate, if not the immediate, source was the Virgin Mother, and that the story had not passed through many hands. Some postulate an Aramaic written source for this section (Plummer). But it is by no means certain that Luke the Gentile understood Aramaic; and the character of the narrative rather points to an oral source (Ramsay). The introduction of the Aramaic style (which begins abruptly at 1^ after the very Greek preface) may probably be an intentional change on the author's part, and be due to a diUgent study of the LXX. For the rest of the matter peculiar to Lk., it is usual, perhaps rightly, to assume a special source, oral or written; but it must be observed that the silence of Mt. does not negative the supposition that much or most of this matter was con-tained in the 'non-Markan document.' Silence does not necessarily mean ignorance.

Assuming now (see § 6) that the author was Luke, Paul's companion, we can see at once that he was in a position to gather together not only written materials, but also first-hand oral reports. The two years at Cffisarea (Ac 24") would give him good opportunities

558

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

for collecting materials both for the Gospel and for Acts. Mary may well have been aUve at the time (c. a.d. 57), or at least Luke may have met several of the women best known to her. And both in Palestine at this time and later at Rome, he would have direct access to Apostolic information: in the former case, of several of theTwelve; in the latter, of St. Peter. At Rome he would probably read the written ' Petrine tradition,' his Markan source.

We must notice that Lk. is not the Pauline Gospel in the same sense that Mk. is the Petrine. St. Paul could not be a 'source' as St. Peter was; and indeed the preface to Lk. contradicts such an idea. Yet the Pauline influence on Luke is very great, not only in his ideas but in his language. Many words and phrases are peculiar in NT to Luke and Paul. Among other topics insisted on by both may be mentioned the universaUty of the Gospel (Lk 3"- 4™'- lO^™-132s etc.).

As a detail in the consideration of the treatment of his sources by Luke, we may notice the Lord's Prayer, which is much shorter in Lk. than in Mt. (see RV). Does this mean that the Prayer was delivered twice, in two different forms, or that Luke abbreviated the original, or that Matthew enlarged it? The firat hypothesis is a priori quite probable; but u we have to choose between the two others, thepresence of the Lukan phrase 'day by day' (11^, so 19^', Ac 17u, not elsewhere in NT) , and of others which seem to De simpUflca-tions (as 'we forgive' for 'we have forgiven' of Mt. RV, or 'sins' for 'debte' of Mt.)j points to the Matthsean prayer being the original. But it is difficult to believe that either Evangelist would deliberately alter the Lord's Prayer as found in his sources; the case is not parallel with other alterations. If we hold the Prayer to have been given only once, themostprobable explanation of the differences would seem to be that, our Lord not having laid down fixed rules for worship, but only general principles, the first Christians did not feel bound to use, or did not know, His ipsissima verba; hence the liturgical usa^e with regard to the Prayer would vary. The First and Third Evangelists might well incorpo-rate in their Gospels that form to which they were accustomed in worship. We must not forget also that as originally delivered the Prayer was, doubtless, in Aramaic, and so in any case we have not Jesus' exact words.

4. The writer's style and interests. — The Third Evangelist is at once the most hterary and the most versatile of the four. The sudden change from a classical to an Aramaic style at 1' has been noticed in § 3; when the writer is working on the 'Petrine tradition,' and the 'non-Markan document,' the Aramaic tinge is much less marked. The same thing is seen in Acts, where the early chapters have a strong Aramaic tinge which is absent from the rest. Yet the special character-istics of language run through both the books, and their integrity and common authorship, is becoming more and more certain. The writer has a keen sense of effective composition, as we see by the way in which he narrates his incidents (e.g. that of the sinful woman, 7™). Yet his descriptions are not those of an eye-witness; the autoptic touches which we find in the Second Gospel (see Mark [Gospel acc. to]) are absent here. The author's interests are many — his sympathy with women, his 'domestic tone' shown by the social scenes which he describes, his medical language and descriptions of cures (a large number of technical phrases used by Greek medical writers and by Luke have been collected), and his frequent references to angels, are clearly marked in both books. It has been said that in his Gospel he avoids duplicates; but this statement can hardly stand examination (cf. the two songs (146, «8)_ the two feasts (5" 196), the mission of the Twelve and of the Seventy (9' 10') , the two disputes as to who is the greatest (9« 22'<), etc.).

The Evangelic symbol usually ascribed by the Fathers to Luke IS the calf, though pseudo-Athanasius gives him the lion; and it is said that the Gospel has a sacrificial aspect, the calf being the animal most commonly used for saonfice. But this appeara to be very fanciful, and it is not easy to see why Lk. IS more sacrificial than the other Gospels.

5. Authorship and date.— (a) The Third Gospel and Acts have the same author. Both books are addressed to the same person, Theophilus; the style of both is identical, not only in broad features, but in detail