records the ‘other parables’ and the private explanation to His disciples, which are only mentioned in St. Mark (4°). The narratives
here diverge, because the crossing of the lake, the
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
171
storm, the events in Gadara are put much earlier in St. Matthew (815), in connexion perhaps with the jirst visit to Capernaum. St. Mark, however, connects these detinitely (4%) with the parable, while St. Luke, perhaps having St. Mark and also the order of St. Matthew before him, records this in the same place as St. Mark, but (8%) with a vague reference to ‘ one of the days.’ It is possible that St. Luke has acted in exactly the same way with regard to the events which follow in St. Matthew (the healing of the paralytic, the call of Levi, the discourse on fasting, Mt 9!-!”) after the return from Gadara, but are in St. Luke and St. Mark given earlier. Here, again (517), St. Luke avoids the need of reconciling the accounts by taking refuge in the phrase ‘on one of the days.’ The narratives then proceed together (but St. Matthew 818 definitely adheres to his order, for he connects what follows with the call of Levi), but St. Matthew adds to the healing of Jairus’ daughter and of the woman with the issue of blood two miracles, 9°-4, which he assigns to the same day. Then follows a departure from Capernaum (Mk 6!) to Nazareth, and a circular journey through Gali- lee mentioned by St. Matthew and St. Mark, though the reason for it is to be found in the miracle recorded only by St. Matthew (951) requir- ing his withdrawal. In this connexion (though St. Luke does not state the time) occurs the mission of the Twelve, followed by Herod’s comments on the result of that mission. St. Luke omits the account of John’s death (which St. Matthew and St. Mark here insert). With the withdrawal to Bethsaida (which St. Matthew attributes to the news of John the Baptist’s death) and the feeding of the five thousand this section closes (9117). (5) Here St. Matthew and St. Mark give in general agreement a long section (Mt 1435- 1015. Mk 61-88), narrating a return to Gennesaret, a visit to Phoeni- cia, a return through Decapolis to the Sea of Galilee, the feeding of the four thousand, a crossing by ship and back, and (Mk only) a visit to Beth- saida. All this is practically omitted by St. Luke, except for one or two sayings which he records in another connexion. (6) At 9! the three narra- tives proceed together in recording, exactly in the same order, the confession of St. Peter (the scene of which St. Luke does not mention), the announce- ment of the Passion, the Transfiguration, the lunatic boy, another announcement of His death, and the dispute as to who should be greatest (the scene of which St. Luke again does not mention). With this St. Matthew and St. Mark connect a discussion as to offences which St. Luke puts much later, and distributes (171-3 14% 15*7). (7) The section beginning with 9° is independent of the other accounts, as far as 184. All the narratives (Mt 191, Mk 10!, Lk 951) agree in making our Lord leave Galilee at this stage, and St. Matthew and St. Mark add ‘for Perea.’ St. Luke mentions a journeying to Jerusalem several times during the section, e.g. 95}. 8. 13.3174, and St. John (77 10” 117-4) tells us of visits to Jerusalem and its neigh- bourhood and withdrawals again ; and so some, δ... Wieseler and Ellicott, have supposed that St. Luke here gives us the narrative of three definite jour- neys to Jerusalem. But St. Luke in this section impresses upon us so often his uncertainty as to time and place, that a chronological sequence seems out of the question; and in certain chapters it is obvious that the subject of prayer, or riches, or something similar, is the link which holds the narrative together. ‘The proposal of Mr. Haleombe (The Displaced Section of St. Luke, Cambridge, | 1886) to remove bodily a small part of this section, | namely 1144-1321, and to insert it after 8%, involves an impossible act of violence to textual evidence with a very slight improvement from the point of
——
172
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
view of harmonizing the narratives. (8) At 17% the narratives unite again, and go on to the end of 18%; but St. Matthew and St. Mark are inde- pendent in details, and St. Luke adds the incident of Zaccheus, and the parable of the Pounds (191-55), (9) At 1029 the account of the triumphal entry begins, and from here on to the end of the Gospel the question of arrangement does not need to be considered, though even in the events of the last week we may notice (e.g. 201) the same indefinite- ness as to time, and resort to summaries (e.g. 1957 2187). The main facts recorded are the same in all, though there are, of course, additions and omissions in St. Luke’s account as in the others. Blass (Philology of the Gospels) and Reuss assume that a different source has been used here also, and certainly St. Luke is independent of St. Matthew and St. Mark in the form in which he gives the eschatological discourses. The general order of events is, however, the same, as must necessarily have been the case. Here and there St. Luke seems to have intentionally put together events separate in time and place. Thus St. Peter’s denials are placed together in order ‘to add force to the episode’ (Lightfoot), and in the account of the appearances after the resurrection St. Luke seems to have summarized and put them all on the day of the resurrection, though he cannot from his acquaintance with St. Paul have been ignorant of the events of 1 Co 15>’.