LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

(see § 4), and Ac 1' refers to a 'former' (or 'first') treatise. Thus, If the author Is not the same in both eases, the later writer has deliberately interwoven into his book the whole style of his predecessor, in a manner that absolutely defies detection. That this should have happened is a gross improbability. (6) We have no external evidence of authorship before Irenaeus, who names Luke (§ 1). But the internal evidence of Acts is very strong that the writer was Luke, the companion of St. Paul (see art. Acts of the Apostles). We must therefore conclude either that the author was Luke, or that he wished to pass for him. The latter hypothesis is maintained by some on the ground that the writer is indebted to Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities c. a.d. 94. It may be remarked that this fact, if proved, would not preclude the Lukan authorship, for if Luke was a young man when travelling with St. Paul, he might well have been alive and active In a literary sense c. a.d. 100 (so Burkitt). But it is extremely improbable that he had ever read Josephus. The crucial cases are those of the taxing in Lk 2' and of Theudas in Ac S^^, discussed in § 7 below, and in art. Theudas, where dependence is shown to be most unlikely (see also art. Egyptian [the]). , Other things point to an absence of literary connexion; e.g. Acts describes Agrippa's death quite independently of Josephus. The argument from language, on the other side, scarcely deserves serious refutation; the common use of the LXX accounts for most of the resemblances (see, further, Plummer, St. Luke, p. XXX ; the connexion between Lk. and Josephus is demed by SchQrer, Harnack, Zahn, and by most English writers). For the reasons, then, which are stated in art. Acts of the Apostles, we conclude that Luke was the author. It may be added that it is difhcult to conceive any reason which the author, if not Luke, could have had for the pretence. Luke was not sufficiently well known for a forger to use his name.

(5) Date. — For the reasons just stated we must probably choose a date immediately after Ac 28'° (Blass, Headlam, Salmon, etc.), or else between a.d. 70 and 80 (Sanday, Plummer, Ramsay, etc.). To the present writer the earlier date for Acts, and therefore for Lk., seems on the whole more likely (see art. Acts of the Apostles), and this probability is not diminished by Lk 1" 21™, the chief passages adduced for the later date. Sanday and Plummer think that the earlier date does not allow enough time for drawing up the narratives spoken of in 1'; but it is not obvious why written Gospels should not have been attempted at an early stage. The passage 21'"', where 'Jerusalem compassed with armies' re-places 'the abomination of desolation' of Mk 13", is said to betoken a date later than the destruction of Jerusalem, and to describe what had actually happened. But if the change be due to Luke, it is just what we should expect — a Hebraism interpreted for Gentile readers (see § 6) ; in any case it scarcely goes further than Dn 9^^. Sir J. Hawldns (Harw Synopticce) thinks that there must have been a considerable interval between Lk. and Acts. The whole question of date is far from certain.

6. P\;rpose oJ the Gospel. — St. Luke clearly writes for the Gentiles, being a Gentile himself (see art. Acts of the Apostles, § 2), and undertakes his task because the works of his predecessors were incomplete, — probably as not beginning with our Lord's birth, — and because he was in possession of good information. He writes to Theophilus, thought by Origen and Ambrose to be an imaginary Christian, but more probably a real person, perhaps, as Ramsay deduces from the epithet 'most excellent' (Lk 1'), a Roman citizen of rank [this is denied by Blass and Plummer]. He has also in view, however, other Gentile converts. He explains Jewish customs (221), substitutes Greek names for Hebrew ('Zelotes' for 'Canansean' 6", Ac 1", 'the Skull' for Golgotha' 232', 'Master' for 'Rabbi' often), is sparing of OT quotations and of references to prophecy, uses 'Judaea' for the whole of Palestine (1' 7" 23', Ac 2"

LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO

1037 iiso; but in Lk 4" RVm and Ac 11' the more restricted sense is probable), and insists on the univer-sality of the Gospel (see § 3). An interesting detail which shows the readers to whom the book is addressed is pointed out by Sir Wm. Ramsay i^Was Christ born at Bethlehem p. 63). In 5" Luke alters the description of the breaking up of the mud roof through which the paralytic was let down (Mk 2*) — a description which would be unintelligible to a Western — and speaks of the man being let down through the 'tiles.'

7. Accuracy of Luke. — Very different estimates have been made as to the trustworthiness of Luke as a historian. He is the only Evangelist who connects his narrative with contemporary events in the world at large (2"- 3', Ac 11^' 182 24?'i etc.), and who thus gives us some opportunities of testing his accuracy. His accuracy has been assailed by a large number of scholars, and as strongly defended by others. The former fix especially on two points: (o) Gamaliel's speech about 'Theudas (Ac 5*") is said to be absolutely unhistorical, and to be an invention of the writer, who had read and misread Josephus (see § 5 and art. Theudas). (6) The reference to the enrolment ( AV taxing) in Lk 2'^- is said to be also unhistorical. It is objected that Augustus did not order a general enrolment, that if he did, the order did not apply to Herod's kingdom, and that, even if it did so apply, there was no reason why Joseph and Mary should go to Bethlehem; that no census had been made in JudEea till a.d. 6-7, when Quirinius was governor of Syria (.'the census' Ac 5", Josephus); and that Quirinius was never governor of Syria in Herod's life-time (he died B.C. 4). As against these objections it used to be urged that Luke was accurate in most particulars, but that he made a mistake about Quirinius only. Now Luke does not say that a Roman census was being made in Palestine when Jesus was born; the enrolment is said by him to have been tribal and according to Uneage, not according to the place where persons happened to be at the time, as was the Roman custom. He says that this was the first of a series of enrolments, and that Augustus instituted the rule of enrolments for the [Roman] world — this is the force of the Greek phrase used. A remarkable confirmation of Lk. has recently come to light, by the discovery in Egypt of some papyri which show that periodic enrol-ments by householdsina cycle of 14 years did as a matter of fact take place in that country. Many actual census papers, beginning a.d. 20, have been found. This fact is conflTmed by Clement of Alexandria. Sir Wm. Ramsay, in his fascinating work (.Was Christ horn at Bethlehemf 1st ed. 1898), argues with much probabiUty that the first enrolment in Syria was in b.c. 8, and that the 14 years' cycle was used. The second enrolment would be that of Ac 5", which led to great riots in Palestine, because the Roman system, so offensive to Jewish patriotism, was then first Introduced. No such riots are said by Luke to have occurred at the census when Jesus was born. Ramsay gives reasons for thinking that this was because Herod, ruling a semi-independent kingdom, though he could not from fear of losing Augustus' favour forego the census (this agrees with Josephus' account of his relations with Rome), yet conducted it in Jewish fashion, and postponed it for a year or two. Ttds would give B.C. 6 (summer) for our Lord's birth. All this fits in well with Luke. The difficulty of Quirinius alone remains. An inscription found near Tibur makes it probable that he was for the second time governor of Syria a.d. 6-9. He was consul b.c. 12; and his former governorship must therefore have fallen between these dates. In a technical argument Ramsay urges that Quirinius, during a time of war, held in b.c. 6 a special office in Syria as the Emperor's deputy, with command of the forces, while another was civil governor; and that Luke's phrase (lit. 'while Quirinius was ruling Syria') suits this state of affairs. This would com-pletely vindicate Luke's accuracy. Cf. Quirinius.

659