To turn from the internal to the external character- istics of Luke's Gospel, these we shaU find no less mark- ed and distinct. His narrative is, as he promised it should be, an orderly one (/ca3-f5/)f, i,3) ; but the order is one rather of subject than of time. As to the other synoptists, though maintaining the principle of chrono- logical succession in the main outline of his narrative, " he is ever ready to sacrifice mere chronology to that order of events which was the fittest to develop his pur- pose according to the object proposed by the inspiring Spirit, grouping his incidents according to another and deeper order than that of mere time" (3Iaurice, u. s.~). It is true that he furnishes us with the three most pre- cise dates in the whole Gospel narrative (ii, 2; iii, 1,23 — each one, be it remarked, the subject of vehement con- troversy), but, in spite of the attempts made by ^^'ieseler and others to force a strict chronological character upon his gospel, an unprejudiced perusal will convince us that his narrative is loose and fragmentarj', especially in the section ix, 49-xviii, 14, and his notes of time vague and destitute of precision, even where the other synoptists are more definite (ch.v, 12; corap. Matt, viii, 1; ch.viii,4; comp. Matt, xiii, 1 ; ch. viii, 22 ; comp. Mark iv, 35, etc.). " Tlie accuracy with which Luke has drawn up his (iospel apiiears in many instances. Tluis, he is partic- ular in telling us the dates of his more important events. The birth of Christ is referred to the reign of Augustus, and the government of Syria by Cyrenius (ii, 1-3). The preaching of John the Baptist is pointed out as to its time with extreme circumstantiality (iii, 1-2). But it is in lesser matters that accuracy- is chiefly shown. Thus the mountain storm on tlic Lake of Gennesaret is mark- ed by him with a minute accuracy which is not seen in Mark or IMatthew (com]), ch. viii, 23 with parallel Gos- pels, and with Josephus, War, iii, x; Irby and JIangles, Travels, ch. vi). In ch. xxi, 1, we read of a gesture on
LUKE
555
LUKE
Christ's part which marks a wonderful accuracj' on the part of Luke. We read tliere that Christ " looked uj],'" and saw the rich casting their gifts into the treasury. From Mark xii, 41 we learn the reason of Luke's ex- pression, which he does not give himself, for there we read that Christ, after warning his disciples against the scribes, '' sat down" and would therefore have to look up in order to see what was going on. This minute accu- racy marks Luke's description of our Lord's coming to Jerusalem across the Mount of Olives (xix, 37-41). Travellers who are very accurate in topographical de- scription speak of two distinct sights of Jerusalem on this route, an inequality of ground liiding it for a time after one has tirst caught sight of it {Clerical Journal, August 22, 1856, p. 397). Luke distinctly refers to this nice topographical point ; in ver. 37 he marks the first sight of Jerusalem, and in ver. 41 he marks the second sight of the city, now much nearer than before. The correctness of Luke's date in the matter of the govern- ment of Syria by Cyrenius has indeed been often ques- tioned, but on insufficient grounds. The just way of dealing with very ancient documents wliich have given general proofs of trustworthiness, but which, in particu- lar instances, make statements that do not appear to us to be correct, is to attribute this apparent want of cor- rectness to our ignorance rather than to that of the writer. In the particular case before us recent research has shown that Cyrenius was in all probability twice governor of Syria, thus establishing, instead of over- throwing, the correctness of Luke" (Fairbairn). Com- pare Huschke, Ueher den zur Zeit der Gehurt Christi ge- haltenen Census (Breslau, 1840); Wieseler, Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien (Hamburg, 1843) ; Tholuck, Glaubwiirdigkeii der evangelischen Geschichte. See Cy- renius.
In his narrative we miss the graphic power of Mark, though in this he is superior to Matthew, e. g. ch. vii, 1-10; comp. Matt, viii, 5-13: ch.viii, 41-56; comp.Matt. ix, 18-26. His object is ratlier to record the facts of our Lord's life than his discourses, while, as Olshausen remarks (i, 19, Clark's ed.), " He has the peculiar power of exhibiting with great clearness and truth our Lord's conversations, with all tlie inciilents that gave rise to them — the remarks of the by-standers, and their re- sults."
Wa may also notice here the passing reflections, or, as bishop Ellicott terms them {Flist. Ltd. p. 28), "psy- chological comments," called up by the events or actors which appear in his Gospel, interpolated by him as obi- ter dicta in the body of the narrative. We may in- stance ii, 50, 51 ; iii, 15 ; vi, 11 ; vii, 29, 30, 39 ; xvi, 14 ; XX, 20; xxii, 3; xxiii, 12.
V. Style and Language. — Luke's style is more finished than that of Matthew or Mark. There is more of com- position in his sentences. His writing displays greater variety, and the structure is more complex. His dic- tion is substantially the same, but purer, and, except in the first two chapters, less Hebraized, as remarked by Jerome {Comment, in £.<!. ; compare ad Damas. Ep. 20). It deserves special notice how, in the midst of close ver- bal similarity, especially in the report of the words of our Lf)rd and others, slight alterations are made by him either by the substitution of another word or phrase (e. g. Luke XX, 6 ; comp. Matt, xxi, 26 ; Mark xi, 32 : Luke vii, 25; ]Markxi,8: Luke ix, 14 ; Mark vi,39,40: Luke XX, 28, 29; Mark xii, 20, 22: Luke viii. 25; Mark viii, 27), the suyiply (Luke xx,45; Mark xii, 38 : Luke vii, 8; Matt, viii, 9), or the omission of a word (Luke ix, 25; Matt, xvi, 26; Mark viii, 36), by which harsh construc- tions are removed, and a more classical air given to the whf)le composition.