We have seen that in the main St. Luke follows the order of the framework found in St. Mark.
Are we in a position now to say, looking back over the Gospel, what St. Luke meant when he purposed to write καθεξῆς Ὁ Various theories as to St. Luke’s principle of arrangement have been put forward. Plummer (J.c. p. xxxvi ff.) says, ‘we may assert with some confidence that Luke generally aims at chronological order.’ Weiss (1.6. p. 301) says the evangelist ‘has attempted to divide Jesus’ public ministry into work in Galilee, outside Galilee, and in Jerusalem.’ Another aspect is represented by Godet and Westcott. The former (Biblical Studies, p- 43) regards the Gospel as giving an account of the ‘organic growth of the person and of the work,’ and Westcott (Introd. to the Study of the Gospels, ch. vii. note G) gives an elaborate analysis based on a general development of ideas such as ‘marks of the future Church,’ ‘the universal Church,’ ete. Zahn (1.0. ii. 366) thinks that ‘the chronological exactness is not a clearly marked principle in the representation,’ but that, ‘in con- trast with the disconnected narratives of single incidents,’ St. Luke’s object is to give Theophilus ‘a continuous representation of the history, in which the earlier prepares the way for the later, and makes it intelligible.’
11. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOSPEL.—These must depend in thus, as in any other work, partly on the nature and extent of the sources to which the writer alludes in his preface and the use he makes of them, partly on his consideration of the readers for whom the Gospel was intended, partly on his own personality. It is not always easy to say to which of these causes the different characteristics are to be assigned: thus the selec- tion of particular incidents may be due to the personal interest of St. Luke, or to considera- tion for the readers he wished to interest, or it may be explained by the fact of his finding them in the sources he used. The following are among the most important characteristics which have attracted attention in the Gospel. Some of them have been alluded to already.
That St. Luke wrote for Gentiles is clear. <A number of technical terms are explained. Thus we find νομικός (189 10% etc.) instead of γραμματεύς. ἐπιστάτης Where the other evangelists have some
ἘΞ --- -- "»-
other word (e.g. 833). Hebrew names are trans- lated : e.g. Τολγοθά (2888) and Kavavatos (6). The position of places, especially in Palestine, is often defined, e.g. 451 82° 23°1. Expressions which might be misunderstood by Gentile readers are modified or added to: thus (9°) in the account of the Trans- figuration μετεμορφώθη (Mt, Mk) becomes ἐγένετο... ἕτερον. The appeals to the OT are very few, and the quotations from it are found for the most part in the sayings of our Lord (e.g. 44:8 777 etc.), which are reproduced by St. Luke from his authori- ties, or are reminiscences of the LXX, with which, as we have seen, he was very familiar. ‘There are only five references to prophecy, and of these only one (54) occurs in the narrative of St. Luke. Points in our Lord’s teaching which would have no in- terest for Gentile readers are altogether passed over or curtailed. Thus the teaching, in the Ser- mon on the Mount, as to the relation of the new to the old Law is omitted; so also is the denunciation of the Jews for observing the ‘tradition’ at the expense of the Law (Mt 151, Mk 7!) ; the rebuke of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23!) is very much shortened. The frequent allusions to the universality of the Gospel are to be explained by the same reference to Gentile readers. St. Luke alone quotes in full (3° ®) the prophecy of Is 403— ‘ All flesh shall see the salvation of God’—a prophecy which all the evangelists connect with John the Baptist. Our Lord’s first recorded teaching (4%) emphasizes the admission of Gentiles to privileges at the hands of Elijah and Elisha, while His last explanation of the Scriptures at Emmaus (2447) showed that ‘repentance and forgiveness of sins were to be preached to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.’ Between these limits a number of passages and incidents might be quoted to estab- lish this characteristic of the Gospel, e.g. 10: 1329 ete. In accordance with this, we find a ‘marked antipathy to exclusiveness and intoler- ance’ (Plummer), and stress laid on those quali- fications for entrance to the kingdom, which it is open to all without distinction of birth to attain. On the other hand, the Gospel is not anti-Jewish, though the Jews are strongly condemned directly or indirectly, and that in parts of the Gospel peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. 1081-82 1616 ete. Jewish expressions are often kept in parables or teaching found only in St. Luke, and the regard for temple worship and observance of the law is not depreci- ated. All the rites of the law are fulfilled in our Lord’s case (231 etc.): He is the ‘Son of David’ (18% etc.): The commands of the Jewish law are to be observed (514 1714 etc.), and are of lasting importance (1629 1839 etc.). In all these and similar cases St. Luke may have been preserving only the language of his sources, but, if his purpose had been to depreciate Judaism, he would no doubt have acted as Marcion did towards the allusions to the OT which he found in St. Luke’s Gospel, and removed them.