In regard to the way in which he uses his sources, it has been suggested that St. Luke ‘ avoids dupli- cates on principle’ (Weiss, Introduction, Eng. tr. ii. 300), and thus gives no account of the cursing of the barren fig tree (Mk 111%, Mt 2118) because he has already narrated a similar event in 136, does not mention the anointing of Mk 14%, Mt 26% because of the narrative of 7°, and so on. But this supposed characteristic of ‘Sparsamkeit’ (as Storr calls it), which may be illustrated by many other omissions of St. Luke (such as the passing over of the miracle of the 4000), has to be taken in connexion with the numerous cases where St. Luke does not show this tendency. Thus we have a twofold dispute as to who should be the greatest 9#° 2274; in regard to the miracles and parables we find similar cases of repetition;
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
and the so-called ‘ doublets ’(e.g. 84°5=11%; 144. =181) show that not only in the narratives, but in our Lord’s words, the same characteristic of repetition is found. Other instances may be found in Plummer, 1.6. p. xxviii, and Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, pp. 64 ff. Another characteristic of the Gospel is a vagueness as to time and place, even in cases where the other narratives are more definite. This vague- ness may be illustrated from 15. 17 ete., is perhaps most marked in the section 9518, and extends even to the account of the passion, e.g. 301, On the other hand, it must be noted that St. Luke very frequently connects sayings of our Lord with the occasion which called them forth, which in the other Gospels are collected together with no such reference, as for instance in the Sermon on the Mount, e.g. 127% 14>. Mention has already been made of the stress St. Luke lays on the effect of our Lord’s words, of his preference for more literary (Greek, of his fondness for medical expressions, of his close connexion in thought, and often in language, with St. Paul.
In the account of Jesus’ life and teaching the symbol of the ox (with which this Gospel is almost universally associated )may perhaps, as the sacrificial animal, represent St. Luke’s Gospel as especially that which emphasizes owr Lord’s ‘ gentleness’ to the sin- ner and the outcast. This may be illustrated from the parables peculiar to St. Luke, e.g. the Prodigal Son ; or from such incidents as that of the sinner in the house of Simon (7%), or that of the peni- tent robber (23%). Most marked, again, are the repeated references to prayer, both in the narrative of our Lord’s life—in which he records many in- stances of our Lord praying which are not found in the other narratives (e.g. 371 5! 612 etc.)—and also in parables which he alone records (e.g. 11° 184), Again, it is noticeable how much of the teaching preserved for us only by St. Luke deals with the use of riches. ‘This is to be regarded rather as proclaiming him as the ‘ Evangelist of Philanthropy’ (Herder), than as proving that St. Luke made use of an Ebionitic source. This char- acteristic appears in much of our Lord’s teaching as recorded by St. Luke, as well as in a large number of the parables peculiar to him, e.g. those of Dives and Lazarus, the Rich Fool, the Unjust Steward. It may have had a special appropriate- ness for a rich man like Theophilus (Zahn, 1.6. ii. 379), or may have been the outcome of St. Luke’s ‘great sympathy with the suffering poor, and a great horror of the temptations which beset all the rich.’ It does not (as Weiss, Introd., Eng. tr. ii. 309) ‘rest on the idea that wealth is pernicious in itself and poverty salutary in itself.” There is no sufficient evidence of St. Luke’s use of an Ebionitic source or sympathy with Ebionitism, for many of the expressions on which this theory is based are found in the other Gospels; and the latter con- tain many things not found in St. Luke which have as good a claim to be regarded as Ebionitic : thus they (Mt 18%, Mk 41%), and they alone, speak of ‘the deceitfulness of riches,’ where St. Luke simply says ‘riches.’ ‘There is no evidence that the protest against worldliness is due to some particular source from which he drew and from which the others did not draw’ (Plummer).
For a discussion of many difficulties connected with special points in St. Luke, such as the Gene- alogy, Census, ete., readers are referred to the articles GENEALOGY OF JESUS CHRIST, JESUS Curist, vol. ii. p. 645 ἔν, and Qurrintus. The present article has aimed at dealing with the main headings of the general topics connected with the Gospel, and giving sufficient illustrations to explain the allusions. The literature given below will enable students to follow out the points more in detail.
LUST
5 Literature.— Besides general books of Introduction to the New Testament, and works on the Canon, the following may be mentioned; (A) Commentaries.—A list of these, complete for all practical purposes, may be found in Plummer'’s volume on the Gospel in the International Critical Commentary. This muy itself be recommended as the best English Commentary, Ey on the linguistic side, in regard to which it is very full and scholarly. Besides these, reference may be made to Schanz, Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas; Godet, Commen- taire sur UEvangile de St. Luc; Knabenbauer (in the Cursus Scriptura Sacre); Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar (last edition of St. Luke by B. and J. Weiss).