Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/rwp-lu/lu.int

Text File | 1993-04-16 | 16KB | 272 lines

                        THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

        There is not room here for a full discussion of all the
interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel
and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to
Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and
Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on
Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the
Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes'
_Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the
Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of
Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_,
Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The
Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light
of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that
appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

               THE SAME AUTHOR FOR GOSPEL AND ACTS

        The author of Acts refers to the Gospel specifically as
"the first treatise," \ton prôton logon\, (#Ac 1:1|) and both are
addressed to Theophilus (#Lu 1:3; Ac 1:1|). He speaks of himself
in both books as "me" (\kamoi\, #Lu 1:3|) and {I made}
(\epoiêsamên\, #Ac 1:1|). He refers to himself with others as
"we" and "us" as in #Ac 16:10|, the "we" sections of Acts. The
unity of Acts is here assumed until the authorship of Acts is
discussed in Volume III. The same style appears in Gospel and
Acts, so that the presumption is strongly in support of the
author's statement. It is quite possible that the formal
Introduction to the Gospel (#Lu 1:1-4|) was intended to apply to
the Acts also which has only an introductory clause. Plummer
argues that to suppose that the author of Acts imitated the
Gospel purposely is to suppose a literary miracle. Even Cadbury,
who is not convinced of the Lucan authorship, says: "In my study
of Luke and Acts, their unity is a fundamental and illuminating
axiom." He adds: "They are not merely two independent writings
from the same pen; they are a single continuous work. Acts is
neither an appendix nor an afterthought. It is probably an
integral part of the author's original plan and purpose."

              THE AUTHOR OF ACTS A COMPANION OF PAUL

        The proof of this position belongs to the treatment of
Acts, but a word is needed here. The use of "we" and "us" in #Ac
16:10 and from #Ac 20:6| to the end of chapter #Ac 28| shows it
beyond controversy if the same man wrote the "we" sections and
the rest of the Acts. This proof Harnack has produced with
painstaking detail in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels_ and in his volume _The Acts of the Apostles_ and in his
_Luke the Physician_.

                THIS COMPANION OF PAUL A PHYSICIAN

        The argument for this position lies in the use of medical
terms throughout the Gospel and the Acts. Hobart in his _Medical
Language of St. Luke_ proves that the author of both Gospel and
Acts shows a fondness for medical terms best explained by the
fact that he was a physician. Like most enthusiasts he overdid it
and some of his proof does not stand the actual test of sifting.
Harnack and Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_ have picked out the
most pertinent items which will stand. Cadbury in his _Style and
Literary Method of Luke_ denies that Luke uses Greek medical
words more frequently in proportion than Josephus, Philo,
Plutarch, or Lucian. It is to miss the point about Luke merely to
count words. It is mainly the interest in medical things shown in
Luke and Acts. The proof that Luke is the author of the books
does not turn on this fact. It is merely confirmatory. Paul calls
Luke "the beloved physician" (\ho iatros ho agapêtos\, #Col
4:14|), "my beloved physician." Together they worked in the
Island of Malta (#Ac 28:8-10|) where many were healed and Luke
shared with Paul in the appreciation of the natives who "came and
were healed (\etherapeuonto\) who also honoured us with many
honours." The implication there is that Paul wrought miracles of
healing (\iasato\), while Luke practised his medical art also.
Other notes of the physician's interest will be indicated in the
discussion of details like his omitting Mark's apparent discredit
of physicians (#Mr 5:26|) by a milder and more general statement
of a chronic case (#Lu 8:43|).

                  THIS COMPANION AND AUTHOR LUKE

        All the Greek manuscripts credit the Gospel to Luke in
the title. We should know that Luke wrote these two books if
there was no evidence from early writers. Irenaeus definitely
ascribes the Gospel to Luke as does Clement of Alexandria,
Tertullian, the Muratorian Fragment. Plummer holds that the
authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul (I and II
Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) which even Baur accepted, is
scarcely more certain than the Lukan authorship of the Gospel.
Even Renan says: "There is no very strong reason for supposing
that Luke was not the author of the Gospel which bears his name."

                         A SKETCH OF LUKE

        His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened
form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the
Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre
suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who
probably was the family physician when he was born. That is
conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the
brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were
influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and
in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a
Gentile, possibly a freedman. So this man who wrote more than
one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain
whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also
uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at
Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after #Ac 11:27| which,
if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas.
Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus
at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that
Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether
one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If
he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the
great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away.
As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with
the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the
science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a
painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist
and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He
was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ
and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his
books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

                      THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL

        There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of
this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since
Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the
Apostles since he definitely refers to it in #Ac 1:1|.
Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain.
There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the
Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is
after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to
be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly
hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem
and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event
(#Lu 21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_
instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many
who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel
by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by
Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the
simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome.
Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome,
which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some
argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the
events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of
that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul
already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written
about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the
Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so
happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in
Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind
of research of which he speaks in #Lu 1:1-4|. In Palestine he
could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and
teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already
produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the
Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or
during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere
between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of
Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There
is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's
Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date
by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it
would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of
Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much
earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The
various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by
Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in
_Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The
Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book
of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic
Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical
Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length
in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in
the Light of Research_.

                    THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL

        In his Preface or Prologue (#Lu 1:1-4|) the author tells
us that he had two kinds of sources, oral and written, and that
they were many, how many we have no way of telling. It is now
generally accepted that we know two of his written sources,
Mark's Gospel and Q or the Logia of Jesus (written by Matthew,
Papias says). Mark is still preserved and it is not difficult for
any one by the use of a harmony of the Gospels to note how Luke
made use of Mark, incorporating what he chose, adapting it in
various ways, not using what did not suit his purposes. The other
source we only know in the non-Markan portions of Matthew and
Luke, that is the material common to both, but not in Mark. This
also can be noted by any one in a harmony. Only it is probable
that this source was more extensive than just the portions used
by both Matthew and Luke. It is probable that both Matthew and
Luke each used portions of the Logia not used by the other. But
there is a large portion of Luke's Gospel which is different from
Mark and Matthew. Some scholars call this source L. There is
little doubt that Luke had another document for the material
peculiar to him, but it is also probable that he had several
others. He spoke of "many." This applies especially to chapters 9
to 21. But Luke expressly says that he had received help from
"eye-witnesses and ministers of the word," in oral form this
means. It is, then, probable that Luke made numerous notes of
such data and used them along with the written sources at his
command. This remark applies particularly to chapters 1 and 2
which have a very distinct Semitic (Aramaic) colouring due to the
sources used. It is possible, of course, that Mary the mother of
Jesus may have written a statement concerning these important
matters or that Luke may have had converse with her or with one
of her circle. Ramsay, in his volume, _Was Christ Born at
Bethlehem?_ shows the likelihood of Luke's contact with Mary or
her circle during these two years at Caesarea. Luke handles the
data acquired with care and skill as he claims in his Prologue
and as the result shows. The outcome is what Renan called the
most beautiful book in the world.

                    THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK

        Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that
only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write.
It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an
indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a
delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the
balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the
subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James
Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this
converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the
study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an
historian's method of research, with a physician's care in
diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own,
with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and
Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four
Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way.
John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the
highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we
should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God
and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and
Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile
world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the
outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the
universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is
often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of
praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we
catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful.
Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with
Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in
the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows (_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._,
p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koiné_ and deserves
comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style
is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great
reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms
evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has
graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show.
Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus
himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel
and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting
Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful
place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics
used to cite #Lu 2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical
blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of
how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every
statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his
various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on
the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of
this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of
Research_. So many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been
confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now
rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still
stands alone.