Luke’s syntax, a number of that they may be Thus πρός with the
* Plummer (/.c. p. lil), following Thayer's Lexicon, p. 78,
gives the number rather differently,
1τὸ LUKE, GOSPEL OF
times. His use of the optative, a mood com- paratively rare in the N'T, is also remarkable. In regard to conjunctions, his fondness for re, espe- cially in Ac, has been already noticed; he shares with St. Paul a fondness for the expression δὲ καί. These may be taken as illustrations of points in St. Luke’s syntax. in Plummer’s Commentary, which is particularly good and full on the linguistic side, and in the
work of Sir John Hawkins already quoted, as well |
as in the older books of Gersdorf, Vogel, and Holtzmann.
(c) The Hebraisms have attracted especial atten- tion in St. Luke because of the purity of his own style. Their distribution is not altogether ex- plained by saying that St. Luke has preserved them as he found them in his sources, for if they had offended his ear he would no doubt have removed them, with the same freedom which he has shown generally in regard to the use of his authorities. It is pointed out by Zahn (J.c. ii. 400) that these Hebraistic turns of expression are used in the editorial links between the narratives, and in these places must be due to St. Luke himself. This is especially true of the expression καὶ ἐγένετο kal... or ἐγένετο δέ. This seems to indicate that, though St. Luke, no doubt, did preserve the Aramaic expressions of his sources, or may even (as in the first two chapters) have directly imitated the style of the LXX, yet his Hebraisms are in the main to be attributed to the fact that he was thoroughly imbued with the style of the LXX, and not only (as we have already seen) with its vocabulary. Whatever the cause, the number of Hebraistic usages is very large in St. Luke, and they are scattered over the whole Gospel. Besides the uses of γίνομαι, already mentioned, we may notice his periphrastic use of the participle, his
use of ἰδού and καὶ ἰδού, such genitives as ὁ κριτὴς
τῆς ἀδικίας (18°), or ὁ οἰκονόμος τῆς ἀδικίας (16°), and
circumlocutions by means of words like πρόσωπον,
χείρ. στόμα, etc., as in the expression πρὸ προσώπου 727 952),
‘ 9. Sf LUKE’S PREFACE.—This is so unique in character as to claim separate special Lagarde, in his Psalteriwm iuxta Hebreos Hier- onymi, tried to show that St. Luke’s is modelled on that of Dioscorides in his Materia Medica. There does not seem, however, to be much more resemblance than would be natural in two cases
where the writers were referring to the work of |
their predecessors in the same field, and therefore used a number of similar words. though unique in form, as far as the NT is con- cerned, is in itself only an instance, as Zahn tells us, of a custom which prevailed widely at that time among Greeks and Romans.
What is of more importance for us is the evidence afforded by the preface in regard to the early narratives of our Lord’s life, in reference to St. Luke’s use of his materials, and other similar questions. The exact meaning of each of the more important words has been closely investigated, as well as the inferences which may be drawn from them. ‘This has been done most recently by Blass in his Philology of the Gospels.
(Blass) a continuous narrative, not necessarily written (διήγησις, see Liddell and Scott). The word ἐπεχείρησαν does not necessarily imply (as Origen)
an unfavourable criticism of these ‘attempts,’ and | in the καὶ ἐμοί of v.2 St. Luke puts himself on the |
same footing as these predecessors. (2) These accounts were all second-hand, and handed down orally (so Zahn argues from παρέδοσαν, but based on the evidence of those who had been eye-witnesses from the beginning (1.6. of our Lord’s public
Complete lists will be found |
| order of time.
| the case, so far as the Gospel is concerned. | principle of arrangement @ aiso stated in the
notice. |
The dedication, |
The follow- | ing points deserve attention: (1) Many had before | St. Luke attempted to ‘restore from memory’ |
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
ministry). Are we precluded by these words from supposing that amongst the διηγήσεις of γ.} was any apostolic narrative? (8) St. Luke, inasmuch as he had at some earlier date carefully investi- gated all the facts to the very beginning (ἄνωθεν perhaps goes further back than ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), ventures to write, and that (4) καθεξῆς, i.e. either a continuous narrative in contrast with a number of narratives of separate events, or a complete account in con- trast with accounts marked by omissions. ‘The word does not necessarily, or probably, imply an (5) St. Luke’s purpose in writing was to supply Theophilus, as yet, perhaps, not a Christian, with a convincing account of the things in which he had been instructed.
The exact meaning of almost every word has been pressed in one direction or another, and corre- spondingly divergent inferences have been made.
10. PURPOSE AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE GO8- PEL.—The primary purpose of the Gospel (as well as of the Acts) is stated in the preface, namely, that Theophilus may have full knowledge in re- gard to the truth of the accounts given to him in the teaching which had been imparted orally—iva ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. What was intended for a single person was adapted for others in similar circumstances, and so St. Luke may have sent out the Gospel in a second form (as Blass holds), though it has been said gbove that this is unlikely, and not required by the facts of The