VIII. Eor ichom written. — On this point we have cer- tain evidence. Luke himself tells us that the object he had in view in compiling his gospel was that a certain Theophilus " might know the certainty of those things wherein he had been (orally) instructed." Nothing more is known of this Theophilus, and it is idle to re- peat the vague conjectures iu which critics have in- dulged, some even denj-ing his personal existence alto- gether, and arguing, from the meaning of the name, that it stands merely as the representative of a class. See Theophilus. One or two inferences may, how- ever, be made with tolerable certainty from Luke's words. He was dtmbtlcss a Christian, and, from his name and the character of the Gospel, a Gentile convert ; whUe the epithet Kod-taTog, generally employed as a title of honor (Acts xxiii, 26; xxiv, 3; xxvi, 25), indi- cates that he was a person of official dignity. He was not an inhal)itant of Palestine, for the evangelist mi- nutely describes the position of places which to such a
LUKE
557
LUKE
one would be well known. It is so with Capernaum (iv, 31), Nazareth (i, '2G), Arimathaia (xxiii, 51), the country of the Gadarencs (viii, 20), the distance of Mount Olivet and Emmaus from Jerusalem (Acts i, 12; Luke xxiv, 13). By the same test he probably was not a Macedonian (Acts xvi, 12), nor an Athenian (Acts xvii, 21), nor a Cretan (Acts xxvii,8, 12). But that he was a native of Italy, and perhaps an inhabitant of Eome, IS probable from similar data. In tracing Paul's journey to Rome, places which an ItaUan might be sup- posed not to know are described minutely (Acts xxvii, 8, 12, 10) ; but when he comes to Sicily and Italy this is neglected. Syracuse and lihegium, even the more ob- scure Puteoli, and Appii Forum and the Three Taverns, are mentioned as to one likely to know them. (For other theories, see Marsh's Michaelis, vol. iii, part i, p. 230; and Kuincil's Prolegomena.) All that emerges from this argument is that the person for whom Luke wrote in the first instance was a Gentile reader. But, though the Gospel is inscribed to him, we must not con- sider that it was written fur him alone, but that The- ophilus stands rather as the representative of the whole Christian world ; not, as we have already seen, of the Gentiles, as such, to the exclusion of the Jews, but the whole race of man, whom Luke had in his eye ; and for whom, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work was adapted "as the Gospel of the nations {toXq (itto tCjv iji'iZv TTfTTOi/j/corrt, Origcn, apud I^useh. \i, 2b), full of mercy and hope assiu-cd to the whole world by the love of a suft'ering Savioiu:" (Westcott, Siudf/ oj' Gospels, p. 218).
IX. Contents of the Gospel. — After the brief preface — the value of which it is difficult to overestimate as throwing light on the history of the composition of the gospels in general, and the true theory of scriptural inspiration — the narrative of the Gospel may be di- vided into four portions : 1. The time preceding our Lord's public life, including the conception and birth of John the Baptist, and of Christ, his circumcision, pre- sentation iu the Temple, and the single incident recorded of his childhood (ii, 41-51), comprised in the first two chapters. The whole of this portion is in form, and to a considerable extent in substance, peculiar to our evan- gelist. See § X. 2. A large number of originally de- tached and independent narratives, comprising our Lord's baptism, temptation, and Galitean ministry, almost the whole being common to Luke with the other synoptists (iii, 1-ix, 49). 8. A large section, sometimes, but im- pro))erly, termed the (jnomolorni, containing narratives of events and reports of discourses belonging to the pe- riod from the close of our Lord's direct Galilean ministry to liis visit to Jericho a few days before his royal en- trance into Jerusalem, and mostly occurring during the actual journey (ix, 50-xvili, 14). The whole of this, in its present form, is peculiar to Luke. 4. The last days of Christ : his entry into Jerusalem, discourses in the Temple, his sufferings and death, his resurrection and ascension, common to Luke and the other evangelists in substance, though there are considerable differences in detail in the narratives of the passion and resurrection (especially the journey to Emmaus), and that of the as- cension is entirely Luke's own (xviii, l5-xxiv, 53).
X. Integrity of the Gospel — the frst ttro Chapters. — The Gospel of Luke is quoted by Justin IMartyr and by the author of the Clementine Homilies. The silence of the apostolic fathers only indicates that it was admitted into the canon somewhat late, which was probably the case. The evidence of the jNIarcionite controversy is, as we have seen, that our gospel was in use before A.D. 120. A special question, however, has been raised about the first two chapters. The critical history of these is best drawn out perhaps in Meyer's note. The chief objec- tion against them is founded on the garliled opening of Marcion's Gospel, who omits the first two chapters, and connects iii, 1 immediately with iv, 31. (So Tertullian, "Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit De- um descendisse in civitatem GaUla^ Caphamaum,"