account of the generation of John the Baptist; the history of Zacharias; the advent of the Angel to Mary; the exclamation of Elizabeth, "Blessed art thou among women, &c.;" the descent of the angels who appeared to the shepherds, and the subject of their communication; the testimony of Anna and Simeon to Christ; the visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at twelve years of age; the full account of John's baptism; the date of Christ's baptism; four additional portions of the Sermon on the Mount-"Woe unto you that are rich, for ye have received your consolation; woe unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger; woe unto you that laugh now, for ye shall mourn and weep; woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you, for so did their fathers to the false prophets." To Luke we are also indebted for the miraculous draught of fishes, through which Peter and those who were with him left their nets and followed Christ; the curing on the Sabbath day of the woman who had suffered eighteen years; the cure, also on the Sabbath, of the dropsical patient, and the discussion. which arose from it concerning the Sabbath; his warning to his disciples against caring for meat and raiment, and the beautiful illustration of God's feeding and clothing all creation; the calling in of the poor, the maimed, the halt, and the blind to the marriage feast; the importunity of the midnight knocker; the salving of Jesus by the sinful woman, in connexion with the parable arising from it, spoken by Jesus to Simon about the two debtors; the parable of the rich man whose soul was required of him; the parable of the prodigal son, of the rich man in luxury and Lazarus in poverty; the response to those who said to him, "Lord increase our faith;" the conversation with Zacchæus the publican; the account of the Pharisee and the Publican worshipping in the Temple; the curing of the ten lepers; the raising the widow's son at Nain; the poor to be invited to a feast, and not the

rich; the parable of the unjust judge, who feared neither God nor man; the fruitless fig tree; the two_disciples on the way to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 13), and their subsequent confession of an instinctive intuition of the presence of Christ, in that their hearts burned when he spoke with them (Luke xxiv., 32), finally the recognition of Christ by the disciples when he broke the bread (Luke xxiv. 30-1).

We next advance to the consideration of the person of Luke. There can be no question about his identity with the Luke who accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi (Acts xvi. 10), where he remained, but afterwards accompanied Paul on his third journey from this place through Troas, Mitylene, Samos, Miletus, to Jerusalem (Acts xx. 6). Then he went with Paul from Cæsarea to Rome (Acts xxvii. 1). He is called by the Church Fathers, Lucanus, and in the Epistles of Paul he is mentioned also by that name as a faithful companion (Col. iv. 14; Philem. xxiv. ; 2 Tim. iv. 11).

The next question is, was he a heathen ΟΙ Jewish Christian? Opinions vary. In the olden times he was regarded as a Jewish proselyte, but in more modern times (Neander von Erlach), he is thought to have been a converted heathen. The style of the Gospel and the Acts--the prevalence of Hebraisms and other phenomena-favour the earlier supposition that he was a Jew; the Gospel was evidently written for Greek educated Christians of heathen origin, from the many explanations he makes of Jewish customs; for instance, he explains the difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, in that the Sadducees denied the resurrection of the dead. In the speech of Peter, recorded in Acts i. 19, he interpolates explanations-"And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem, insomuch as that field is called (in their proper tongue) Aceldama (that is to say, the field of blood)."

The Greek of Luke is beyond question purer than that of the other

In the Gospel and Acts this use occurs frequently (i. 37; ii. 15, 17, 19, 51; Acts, v. 20-32; x. 22, 37). The frequent use of the imperative" idov" as an interjection is an Hebraism; it occurs in the Gospel nearly sixty times (fifty-nine), and in the Acts at least twenty times. He designates the Sunday as one of the Sabbaths, "a Tuv oaßßaruv." There are two forms in use in the New Testament for the word Jerusalem-the Greek "'Iepooολυμα" and the Hebrew “Ιερουσαλημ ; both are found in Luke, but the Hebrew form prevails; the Greek form occurs in the Gospel four times, and in the Acts nineteen times, but the Hebrew form is used in the Gospel twenty-six times, and in the Acts forty times. There is a frequent use of the equivalent to the Hebrew 9976 vayyhi,' and it came to pass;" St. Luke renders it, "¿yeveTo." It occurs in the Gospel forty times. In the Acts, written later, in which an effort after a better style of Greek can be easily ascertained, this form of writing occurs less frequently though ten instances may be found.

66

Luke also renders by “åπокρilεIS,' the concipient Hebrew "vayyomer and "vayyam;" this form occurs in the Gospel forty-three times, and in the Acts only ten times.

Also the Hebrew form in citation of a speech "lemor" is translated by Luke in the same way as the Seventy by "Xeywv" and "λEYOVTES." In the Gospel this occurs forty-nine times, and in the Acts twenty-four times.

He also uses Hebrew measures, and he merely writes the Hebrew term in Greek letters, but does not give the Greek equivalent, as he would have done had he been a Greek. For instance, in the Gospel xiii. 21, he mentions Tara Toia," the Hebrew "sach,' which is one-third of an epha. In xvi. 6, he says—“¿Karov Barovs," the

"

"bath" being the same quantity in liquid measure as the epha is in dry about seven to ten gallons English. So in the seventh verse he says, “ έκατον κόρους,” the “ cor" being in Hebrew measure equal to ten bathim. Another striking example is in the manner in which he speaks of the Hebrew" ceseph," or "silver shekel,' which he translates in the Septuagint manner by the genitive "apyvo applied to the number; thus, in Acts xix. 19, where he states the value of the books of magic which were burnt at Ephesus to be "apyvpiov pvpiadas TEVTE"--50,000 silver shekels.* This practice of giving the value of heathen books in a heathen city in Jewish reckoning, and heathen measures in Jewish forms, goes to prove the probability that he was a born Jew. The mentioning of Luke by the Apostle in Coloss. iv. 10-14, after those specially designated as of the circumcision, who had been fellowworkers with him at Rome, and of consolation to him, does not prove anything against Luke being a Jew, if carefully examined.

But we must pass on to notice another feature in this Gospel of Luke, which proves that it was written by a person skilled in the medical art.

Luke's account of our Lord's miracles of healing are given with an air of professional love and skill; he is much more minute in describing them than the other Evangelists. He dwells upon the symptoms; he gives the hour when the disease set in, the length of time the patient had been suffering, and the physical aspect of the sufferer. He uses also the professional terms, such as are employed by the Greek medical writers, Galen, Hippocrates, and others. In fact, when we compare his accounts of Christ's healings with those of the other Evangelists, we feel that we have been reading a physician's professional report. He also notices healing miracles not recorded elsewhere.

To justify what we have said, we shall point out a few facts, which can be easily verified, and may lead to the discovery of others by those who are better read in the Greek medical

authors. He speaks of the man who was brought to Christ in the palsy as "Tapaλελoμevos," that is, who had been "taken with a wapaλvois," which is exactly the way in which the Greek writers express it, never using the word " παραλυτικός,” as is the case with the other Evangelists. In describing the casting out of the Devil (iv. 35) he depicts the symptoms graphically; he gives us the words of the man in the agony of possession, and the physical struggle as the spirit left him, in which he was thrown to the ground.

แ

In speaking of the fever of Simon's wife's mother, he distinguishes it with all the minuteness of a practical physician, as a great fever." This is quite in accordance with the rules of Greek medicine. Galen, in his chapter on De Differentia Febris, I., says that there were two forms of fever, the great and the little, "ovvnou ήδη τοις ἰατροῖς ὀνομαζειν τον μεγαν τε και μÍKρоV TUρETOV." Also the expression, "and it left her,” “¿pηkεv avrny," that is, the fever with which she was "ovvsxóμevn," and, as it were, bound by it; but, when cured, she was released, got up, and ministered to them. The same phraseology is used by Hippocrates Aphoris, iv. 30, 61, "apinσi & TUρETOS." In recording the eschatological discourse of Christ, in cap. xxi., where he speaks of surfeiting from drunkenness, Luke uses the proper medical term, a term found in none of the other Evangelists, "xρaɩπaλŋ,” the same term used by Hippocrates. Ammonius defines the distinction between κραιπαλη and μέθη; κραιπαλη is the surfeit of yesterday's drunkenness (x0eovn μeen), and Meon is the drunkenness of the same day. Eustathius defines it as, “ ὁ ἐκ μεθῆς παλμος ὁ ἐστι κινησις και δινησις τοῦ καρα ήγουν της κεφαλῆς.” Heschius as,“ ἡ ἀποχθίζης μέθης κεφαλαλγη.” The same term is used by Athenæus. In the Acts, where Luke describes the miracle of Paul, who struck Elymas blind, he uses the term “áxλuç,” a term to be found nowhere else in the New Testament; but Galen uses it as a medical term in a passage where he speaks of a certain disease of the eye, which was called “axλvs,” because those who were afflicted with it were said, "dia rivos áxλvos ßλ" (to see through a sort of mist).

66

Luke also uses the medical term laois for healing, and "iaoua," the verb to heal; but Matthew, when speaking of healing, uses the verb "Oɛραπενw;" so also Mark and John. Luke also uses the verb "EpaπEvw," but more frequently the medical verb “ἰαομαι.”

He uses the same form as the Greek medical writers for describing the attack of disease. Of Peter's wife's mother, Luke says she was “ovvexoμενη πυρετῳ,” ""taken with a fever;" so also, in the case of the father of Publius, we are told he lay seized with (not sick of, as our version renders it), a fever and dysentery (bloody flux). · πυρετοις και δυσεντερία συνεχομενον.” In the account of the woman who had an issue of blood, Mark says that she "suffered many things of many physicians, had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but grew worse." Luke speaks with more reserve about the physicians; says that the woman spent all her living upon them, but could not be healed by them; and in the word "рoσavaXwoaoa," he uses a much more correct term for the spending of money, as the verb applies to ordinary expenditure; but the "daravnoaoa" of Matthew means a wilful, riotous expenditure, and is so used by Luke in the parable of the Prodigal Son, “daravnoävtos ta

αὐτου παντα.

We may, therefore, conclude with safety that the author of the Third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles was Luke, the beloved physician," mentioned by Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, iv. 14.

66

We now advance to the examination of the internal evidence of Luke's Gospel to the truth of the statement of Irenæus, that Luke, the follower of Paul, put together in a book the Gospel as preached by him. "Et Lucas autem sectator Pauli quod ab illo predicabatur Evangelium in libro condidit." (Cont. Hæres, lib. iii., c. 1.)*

The first question which arises is the proemium upon which whole treatises have been written. Difficulties have been pointed out in the exegesis of the passage, but they have generally been created by dogmatic necessities. The Greek is of a superior and more classical kind than the rest of the Gospel, and may be thus translated :

"Since many have taken it in hand, to arrange thoroughly a whole history concerning the things which have been firmly established amongst us, as they who were eye-witnesses from the beginning, and becoming (afterwards) ("YevoμEvoL")

ministers of the Word, have handed them down to us, it appeared (expedient) to me, who have assiduously followed up everything from the beginning, to write to thee, most excellent Theophilus, in a connected order, that thou mightest completely apprehend the certainty of the accounts in which thou hast been instructed."

From this proemium, which is a most satisfactory account of the origin of our Gospels in general, as well as of that of Luke in particular, we may glean-1st, that the Apostles, who, during the life of Christ, were eye-witnesses of his deeds, and who, after his departure, becoming ministers of the Word, had taught to the Churches certain facts concerning the life of Christ, and his sayings, and that many had endeavoured to form a complete biography, "dinynois," from these facts.

2nd. That Luke had assiduously examined these biographies from the first, and, as a result of his examination, it occurred to him to endeavour also to give a complete account of what had happened. Therefore, Luke must have had some reason for doing this, which reason was confirmed by his examination of what was extant concerning our Lord's life upon earth. It does not follow, then, that he rejects these records as apocryphal as some have thought,t but that he accepted them on the authority of the eye-witnesses, who were their authors. He must, therefore, have had some further information in his possession which would complete them. If we accept the most probable fact, which is also in accord with the universal tradition of the Church, that the Gospels were written in the order they were first

arranged, and have come down to us unbroken through nineteen centuries, we may believe that Luke must have Mark before him; and the difference had the Gospels of Matthew and between his Gospel and those of Matthew and Mark, the principal of the root, will prove to us the fact that his was written as a still further and fuller contribution to the then received lives of Christ.

;

This really is the only satisfactory solution of the remarkable similarities between the three Gospels, which occur also alongside many aberrations. The whole of the Gospel of Mark, with the exception of a few verses, may be found in Matthew and Luke. Many of the verses are verbally repeated. How does this occur? If we accept the tradition of the Church, the truth of which all the evidence we can gather goes to prove, we can easily understand how Mark might have used Matthew for that Matthew was written first is not simply true by unanimous tradition, but is apparent to anyone who will examine the two gospels without prejudice. That Luke used both may be fairly inferred from what he said in the proem to his Gospel, that he had as siduously examined the records which had come to hand from the Toλor who had recorded what the eye-witnesses had taught: now Matthew we know was an eye-witness himself, and Mark, the companion of Peter, had that apostle as his authority.

That Luke had other sources of information, and of more complete information than we find in Matthew and Mark, is evident from the points in which his Gospel is distinct from the other two; Luke, as we have already shown, goes farther back into the history, and gives us an account of the birth and childhood of John the Baptist, the forerunner of Christ,

his preaching and baptism. He also gives a fuller account of the childhood of Christ, and, in addition, as we have already pointed out, more than twenty historical facts which he had collected, not to be found in the other gospels; therefore he had sufficient reason to write in order a new Gospel, and there cannot be the slightest doubt, that amongst the writings of the Too which lay before him, he must have had those of Matthew and Mark.

We now advance to the examination of the sources he had whence did he get this additional information? Upon what was the dopaλea, which he was going to impart to Theophilus, based?

Schleiermacher has indicated the most probable solution to this question, both in his work on the writings of Luke and in his Life of Christ, which has been recently brought out.* He suggests the following sources whence the particulars concerning that most difficult portion of the gospels: the childhood of Christ came from Christ himself in his conversation with his disciples: from Mary the Mother: from the Shepherds from the Brethren of Christ: from Simeon and Anna; "but with his usual perversity he discards them when he finds that if the truth of that supernatural birth, and the supernatural phenomena attending it, were established, it would overturn his own somatic Christology, and bring out that Divine nature of Christ which was his labour to suppress.

He rejects the suggestion that Christ could have been the source of this history, by the unreasonable supposition that he would be too much occupied with instructing his disciples in their work to talk about himself. Although he felt the force of the fact that Mary was intrusted to the care of John by Christ himself, and we have a clear account of her appearing after the ascension in the company of both John, the disciples, and the brethren of Christ (Acts i. 13, 14); yet Schleiermacher discards this on the still more unreasonable grounds, that such history would have no interest for the disciples, and that

Mary would have no occasion to communicate anything to them about the earlier years of her son. But that such devoted disciples would care nothing about the birth of their master that such a mother would cease to talk about such a son: that she, who we are repeatedly told treasured up in her heart the sayings of his childhood, with the natural, loving pride of a mother, would withhold those remembrances, is such an unnatural and unreasonable explanation that the mind which could suggest it must have been warped by an overwhelming prejudice against the truth. We shall not go into the other sources though they have their weight, but we cannot help thinking that Matthew, who was amongst the twelve to whom Christ appeared, and with the disciples and Mary after the ascension, whose Gospel has many points in keeping with Peter, might have obtained his information direct from the mother herself, or from Peter, or, which is still more probable, that it would be well known to the whole circle of disciples, and from Matthew's Gospel, from the apostolic tradition, and equally probably from some of the writings mentioned by Luke, he may have obtained his version.

Many commentators adopt this view which was so wantonly abandoned by Schleiermacher among others. Olshausen, who says in his commentary-"The eye-witnesses are, without doubt, Mary the mother of Jesus, and other members of the family, of whose internal history the first chapter treats, and clearly for the later history of Jesus, and the Church-the apostles." Further on he repeats concerning the arpadea, that “Facts like the begetting of Jesus by the Holy Ghost could only be attested by Mary."

But our work is more particularly with the rest of the Gospel, which we shall see is in keeping with the statement of Irenæus, who says in that passage of his work upon which we base our investigation into the origin of our Gospels "Et Lucas autem sectator Pauli quod ab illo predicabatur Evangelium in libro condidit."