few anecdotes and sayings gleaned from other sources, oral or written |
4. Notwithstanding this pervading regard to what may be com- prehensively called edification, the author of the third Gospel cannot justly be charged with indifference to historic truth. He professes in his preface to have in view acribeia, and the profession is to be taken in earnest. But he is writing not as a mere chronicler, but as one seeking to promote the religious welfare of mose for whom he writes, and so must strive to combine accuracy, fidelity to fact, with practical utility. The task is a delicate one, and execution without error of judgment not easy. Even where mistakes are made, they are not to be confounded with bad faith. Nor should it be for- gotten that Luke’s peculiarities can be utilised for the apologetic purpose of establishing the general credibility of the evangelic tradition. Luke omits much. But it does not follow that he did not know. He may omit intentionally what he knows but does not care toreport. Luke often understates. What a writer tones down he is tempted to omit. By simply understating, instead of omitting, he becomes a reluctant and therefore reliable witness to the historicity of the matter so dealt with. Luke often states strongly. Either he adds particulars from fuller information or he exaggerates for a purpose. Even in the latter case he witnesses to the truth of the basal narrative. A writer who has ideas to embody is tempted to invent when he cannot find what will suit his purpose. Luke did not invent but at most touched up stories given to his hand in trustworthy traditions.
5. The author of the third Gospel avowedly had a didactic aim. He wrote, so it appears from the preface, to confirm in the faith a friend called “most excellent (κράτιστε) Theophilus,” expecting probably that the book would ultimately be useful! for a wider circle. But there is no trace of a dominant theological or controversial aim. The writer, e.g., is not a Paulinist in the controversial sense of the word. He is doubtless in sympathy with Christian universalism, as appears from his finishing the quotation from Isaiah beginning with, «The voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ and ending with, “All flesh shall see the salvation of God” (iii. 6). Yet, in other places, ¢.g., in the history of the infancy, the salvation brought by Jesus is conceived of as belonging to Israel, the chosen people (τῷ λαῷ αὐτοῦ, i. 68; cf. ii. 10; vii. 16; xiii. 16; xix. 9). The author is not even Paulinist in a theological sense, as the absence from his pages of most of the words of Jesus bearing on a theory of atone- ment, already remarked on, sufficiently proves. He appears to be an
4
5ο INTRODUCTION
eclectic, rather than a man whose mind is dominated by a great ruling idea. Distinct, if not conflicting, tendencies or religious types find houseroom in his pages: Pauline universalism, Jewish par- ticularism, Ebionitic social ideals, the blessedness of poverty, the praise of almsgiving. Geniality, kindliness of temper, is the personal characteristic of the evangelist. And if there is one thing more than another he desires to inculcate on his readers it is the graciousness of Christ. ‘ Words of grace” (iv. 22) is his compre- hensive title for the utterances of Jesus, and his aim from first to last is to show the Saviour as the friend of the sinful and the social outcast, and even of those who suffer justly for their crimes (vii. 36- 50; xix. 1-10; xxiii. 39-43).
6. The literary aspect of this Gospel is a complex phenomenon. At times, espccially in the preface, one gets the impression of a writer having at his command a knowledge of Greek possible only for one to whom it was his native tongue. an expert at once in the vocabulary and the grammatical structure of that language. But far oftener the impression is that of a Jew thinking in Hebrew and reflecting Hebrew idiom in phrase and construction. Hebraisms abound, especially in the first two chapters. Two explanations are possible: That the author was really a Jew, that his natural style was Hebrew-Greek, in which case it would have to be shown that the preface was no such marvellous piece of classicism after all; or that he was a Gentile well versed in Greek, but somewhat slavish in his copious use of Jewish-Christian sources, such as the primitive Luke for which Feine contends.