But while there can be no doubt that Marcion’s work is only an abridgment of St. Luke’s Gospel, made with a doctrinal object, the text preserved in it often contains readings of great interest, which cannot be regarded as arbitrary changes, for they are supported by other early authorities. The assertions of Epiphanius (Her. xlii.) and Tertullian, that Marcion altered the text of his authorities to suit his views, must be qualified by the fact that, in many of the instances mentioned, Marcion’s reading finds other support, and repre- sents (according to Blass) one of the two early recensions of St. Luke’s Gospel (see above), though not always ‘in its pure form.’ Blass, in his edition of St. Luke (see p. xliii ff.) has collected to- gether the passages where Marcion departs from D and other authorities. On the ground of the read- ings they contain, the fragments of Marcion may have an importance; but they throw no suspicion on the integrity of St. Luke’s Gospel, from which they are extracted.
8. 51. LUKE'S STYLE.—The verdict of Jerome (Migne, Pat. Lat. xxiv. 100) in regard to St. Luke’s style is sermo comptior est et_secularem redolet eloquentiam, and Renan (Les Evangiles, ch. xiii.) says of it that St. Luke’s ‘is the most literary of the Gospels.’ The opening verses, 1'“4, arrest our attention at once on account of their classical character, and offer a strong contrast to the verses which follow, which are marked by a number of Hebraisms. This combination of characteristics is traceable in varying degrees throughout the Gospel, but it seems a little fanciful to suggest
LUKE, GOSPEL OF 169 that St. Luke ‘has in places allowed his style to be Hebraistic because he felt that such a style was appropriate to the subject-matter.’ It will be necessary to say something as to St. Luke’s char- acteristics of style in regard to vocabulary and syntax, and then to notice some points connected with the Hebraistic usages.
(a) An examination of St. Luke’s vocabulary shows that he uses a very large number of words not found in any other NT writer. Sir John Hawkins* (1.6. p. 162 ff.) gives the number of words peculiar to the Gospel as 261, which number is increased by 471 if we add words used only in the Gospel and the Acts. If we further analyze the character of these peculiar words, we find that not quite three-fourths of them occur in the LXX, St. Luke showing himself more familiar with the vocabulary of the LXX than St. Matthew or St. Mark. Out of the same total of peculiar words 38 are marked as non-classical, i.e. ‘not occurring in Greek writers earlier than the Christian era’; the proportion of non-classical words is therefore about one-seventh, which is the same as that in St. Matthew, and very much smaller than that in St. Mark. But these figures do not adequately repre- sent the classical colouring of St. Luke’s style, which may be illustrated in almost every narrative which he has in common with St. Matthew and St. Mark, by his rejection of a non-classical word or ex- pression in favour of one which is classical. Thus, to take a few illustrations, κατακείμενοι ἦσαν (5%) is preferred to the cuvavéxewwro of Mt 910 and Mk 216; twice (438 827) a more classical expression is adopted for St. Mark’s expression ἄνθρωπος ἐν πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ; St. Luke avoids (with St. Matthew) the unclassical word κράββατος (Mk 24) ; παραλελυμ- μένος is preferred to παραλυτικός. Other instances will be found in Plummer (1.6. p. li) or Zahn (1.c. ii. 419). <A very striking, because obviously un- premeditated, illustration of the classical character of St. Luke’s vocabulary will be found by examin- ing in a concordance the distribution of the use of τε in the books of the NT. Besides the greater purity in choice of words, as compared with those used by St. Matthew and St. Mark, another char- acteristic of St. Luke’s vocabulary is his use of medical terms. This point has been carefully examined by Hobart (The Medical Language of St. Luke, London, 1882), who has made a long list of words which in the NT occur chiefly or solely in St. Luke, and are also found in Greek medical writers. Plummer (1.6. p. xiv) points out that a very large proportion of these words occur in the LXX, and may have come to St. Luke through that channel, while he allows a large residuum, which, taken together, point to a familiarity with medical terms which would be natural in ‘the beloved physician.’ As illustrations may be quoted συνεχομένη πυρετῷ μεγαλῷ, 488 ; ἡμιθανής, 1080, ἔστη ἡ ῥύσις τοῦ αἵματος, δ᾽" ; κραιπάλτῃ 21%, Another point in regard to St. Luke’s vocabulary is the amount common to him and St. Paul, which has been alluded to above (see p. 168). The last character- istic which need here be noticed is St. Luke's fondness for compound words, 6.0. προσαναβαίνειν, ἐπεισέρχεσθαι, etc.
(b) In regard to St. usages recur so frequently regarded as characteristic. accusative is preferred to the simple dative after verbs of saying. This construction occurs 151 times in the Gospel and Acts, and 26 times in the rest of the NT. Another noteworthy usage is that of γίνομαι followed by καί, a finite verb, or an infinitive ; these are almost confined to St, Luke, in whose writings they are found more than 60