preface, in the word καθεξῆς. but the interpretation to be put upon the word is doubtful, and has to
_ be gathered from the Gospel itself.
(a) Purpose.—The first point which may be regarded as significant of St. Luke’s purpose is the way in which the facts are definitely brought into connexion with secular history. He alone among the NT writers mentions a Roman emperor by name (21 31, Ac 1138 183). and in Ac other Roman officials, whose names would fix the dates, to some extent at any rate. Another point which would help to earry conviction (Zahn, 1.6. ii. 375, 391) is the relatively large number of personal names, not only of prominent actors, but also of those of secondary importance (e.g. 2? 31-2 7# 8% 19! 2415), Again, it is a noteworthy characteristic of St. Luke that, while St. Matthew seems to collect our Lord’s teaching together, he keeps the sayings in what must have been their original setting, and emphasizes the circumstances which called them forth. This may best be illustrated from the way in which the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew is scattered over St. Luke’s Gospel. ‘This greater definiteness of circumstance could not fail to im- press Theophilus, and from the point of view of conviction is more important than definiteness of place or time, which St. Luke, in the Gospel, as in the Acts, often cannot give. In these ways Theophilus would see the work of ‘the critic who has had diligent inquiry made in regard to the external facts of the history, and the historian who makes every effort to bring his figures out of the gloom of vague tradition into the clear light of reality.’ Another point which St. Luke em- phasizes is the impression which our Lord’s teach- ing and acts made on those who were present ; and just as St. John, in order to instil ‘the belief that Jesus was the Christ the Son of God,’ is careful to record the impression made by our Lord’s work, so St. Luke lays stress on the way in which our Lord’s hearers were affected (e.g. 415 948 1849 1987 etc.), where these points are not mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark. Again, there can be no doubt that St. Luke, all through the Gospel, has in mind the points on which a Gentile reader would want further information or would feel greater or
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
less interest, or would be more or less impressed, and so we meet with explanations, we find teaching of special Jewish interest ignored or curtailed, and methods of argument such as appeal to the OT dropped. These are all illustrated in the next section of this article.
We see, then, how the expressed purpose of the Gospel seems to be carried out as the narrative proceeds, and we may add that probably St. Luke endeavoured to make his work as complete as possible, and did not omit facts or sayings as irrelevant to his immediate object of convincing Theophilus. ἢ
Other objects have been assigned to St. Luke of a polemical or conciliatory character, but the features of the Gospel referred to below show that it will be difficult to make a completely consistent theory on these hypotheses.
(6) In considering St. Luke’s arrangement of his Gospel, we may suppose him to have followed in the main the sources which he used, unless he had any occasion to think these were incorrect, or unless his special purpose required him to deviate from them for the sake of clearness. And so we find that over large stretches of the narrative the order of events follows exactly that of St. Mark. (1) After the first two chapters comes the narra- tive of our Lord’s baptism and temptation. Here St. Luke’s independence of arrangement is seen in the way in which he finishes the history of John the Baptist before beginning the account of our Lord’s ministry. The most important deviation at this period of the narrative is to be found in the previous journey through Galilee, implied in the word ὑπέστρεψεν, 44. The next point to notice is the visit to Nazareth, 41°, In this account the reference to miracles at Capernaum (4%) seems to indicate that it is inserted out of chronological order, unless we suppose these miracles to have happened on the circuit in Galilee just mentioned. In 481 Capernaum is introduced as if it had not been mentioned before, which supports what has just been said. (2) 43!-619—St. Luke's order follows St. Mark’s (131-319) exactly, save for the section 5!-11 which records the call of the disciples and the miraculous draught of fishes. But there are marks of independence: thus St. Luke assigns no time or place to the healing of the paralytic (5'#-), unless the connexion with the call of Levi (57) fixes it. St. Mark and St. Matthew definitely fix it at Capernaum. Again, the two cases which touch Sabbath observance (6! and 66) St. Luke assigns definitely to two different Sabbaths, St. Mark apparently to the same. (3) 6%-8%—the record seems to agree generally with St. Matthew. Thus in both the discourse on the Mount (or Plain), 629 jis followed by, and in both definitely con- nected with, the healing of the centurion’s servant (omitted by St. Mark). St. Luke adds the incident at Nain on the next day (? ; var. lec. 7), and then in both St. Luke and St. Matthew the message of John the Baptist follows, but with no reference as to time. The incident at the house of Simon the Pharisee follows (7), but with no note of time. The section closes (8!) with a circuit of Galilee, ἐν τῷ καθεξῆς. (4) 8#-9'7—St. Luke and St. Mark (4!-64) agree, but St. Luke leaves out Mk 3%, and inserts later Mk 3°, Here St. Matthew seems to support St. Luke’s order. As to Mk 38%, the visit of our Lord’s mother, St. Matthew and St. Luke put it on the same day as the parable of the Sower, but St. Matthew records it before, St. Luke after, the parable. ‘They all agree in insert- ing here the parable of the Sower, but St. Matthew