It has been remarked that there is nothing in which Luke is more characteristically distinguisheil from both the evangelists than in his selection of our Lord's para- bles. There are no less than eleven quite peculiar to him: (1.) The two debtors; (2.) (iood Samaritan; (3.) Friend at miihiight; (4.) Kich fool; (5.) Barren tig-
tree; (6.) Lost silver; (7.) Prodigal son; (8.) Unjust steward; (9.) Kich man and Lazarus; (10.) Unjust judge; (11.) Pharisee and publican; and two others, the Great Supper, and the Pounds, which, with many points of similarity, differ considerably from those found in IMatthew.
Of our Lord's miracles, six omitted by JIatthew and Mark are recorded by Luke: (1.) Miracidous draught; (2.) The son of the widow of Nain ; (3.) The woman with a spirit of infirmity ; (4.) The man with a dropsy ; (5.) The ten lepers ; (6.) The healing of Malchus's ear. Of the seven not related by him, the most remarkable omission is that of the Syrophoenician woman, for ^^•hich a ])riori reasoning woidd have claimed a special place in the so-called Gospel of the Gentiles. We miss also the walking on tlie sea, the feeding of the four thou- sand, the cure of the blind men, and of the deaf and dumb, the stater in the fish's mouth, and the cursing of the fig-tree.
The chief omissions in narrative are the whole sec- tion. Matt, xiv-xvi, 12; Mark vi, 45-viii, 26; Blatt. xix, 2-12; XX, 1-16, 20-28; comp. Mark x, 35-45; the anointing. Matt, xxvi, 6-13 ; Mark xiv, 3-9.
With regard to coincidence of language, a most im- portant remark was long since made by bishop Marsh (Michaelis, V, 317), that when Matthew and Luke agree verbally in the common synoptical sections, Mark al- ways agrees with them also; and that there is not a single instance in these sections of verbal agreement be- t;\'een Matthe-\v- and Luke alone. A close scrutiny ^\ ill discover tliat the verbal agreement between Luke and Mark is greater than that between Luke and Mat thew, while the mutual dependence of the second and third evangelists on the same source is rendered still more probable b)' the observation of Eeuss, that they agree both in excess and defect when compared with Mat- thew: that when Mark has elements wanting in Mat- thew, Luke usually has them also ; while, when j\Iatthew supplies more than Mark, Luke follows the latter ; and that where IMark fails altogether, Luke's narrative often represents a different Trapacoati; from that of Matthew.
IV. Character and general Purpose. — We must admit, but with great caution, on account of the abuses to which the notion has led, that there are traces in the gospel of a leaning towards Gentile rather than Jewish converts. The genealogy of Jesus is traced to Adam, not from Abraham, so as to connect him with the whole human race, and not merely with the Jews. Luke de- scribes the mission of the Seventy', which number has usually been supposed to be typical of all nations; as twelve, the number of the apostles, represents the Jews and their twelve tribes.
On the supposed " doctrinal tendency" of the gospel, however, much has been written which it is painful to dwell on, but easy to refute. Some have endeavored to see in this divine book an attempt to ingraft the teach- ing of Paul on the Jewish representations of the Bles- siah, and to elevate the doctrine of universal salvation, of which Paul was the most prominent preacher, over the Judaizing tendencies, and to put Paul higher than the twelve apostles ! (See ZeUer, Apost. ; Baur, Kanon. Erang.; and Hilgenfeld.) How two impartial histori- cal narratives, the Gospel and the Acts, could liave been taken for two tracts written for polemical and personal ends, is to an English mind hardly conceivable. Even its supporters found that the inspired author had car- ried out his purjiose so badly that they were forced to assume that a second author or editor had altered the work with a view to work up together Jewish and Pau- line elements into harmony (Baur, Kanon. Evang. p. 502). Of this editing aiul re-editing there is no trace whatever; and the invention of the second editor is a gross device to cover the faihu-e of the first hypothesis. By such a machinery it will be possible to prove in after ages that Gibbon's History was originally a plea for Christianity, or any similar paradox.
The passages which are supposed to bear out this
LUKE
554
LUKE
"Pauline tendency" are brought together bj' Hilgenfeld with great care (^Evcnifjelien, p. 220) ; but Keuss has shown, by passages from Matthew which have the same " tendency" against the Jews, how brittle such an argu- ment is, and lias left no room for doubt that the two evangelists wrote facts and not theories, and dealt with those facts with pure liistorical candor (Keuss, llistoire de la Thioloffie, vol. ii, b. vi, ch. vi). Writing to a Gen- tile convert, and through him addressing other Gentiles, Luke has adapted the form of his narrative to their needs, but not a trace of a subjective bias, not a vestige of a personal motive, has been suffered to sully the in- spired page. Had the influence of Paul been the ex- clusive or principal source of this gospel, we should have found in it more resemblance to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which contains (so to speak) the Gospel of Paul.