[1021] Take the following specimens of striking parallelism (quoted by Holtzmann, 322): Luke Paul 6:48:etheken themelion epi ten petran 1 Cor. 3:10: os sophos apchitekton themelion etheka 8:15: karpophorousin hupomone. Col. 1:10, 11: karpophorountes kai auxanomenoi eis pasan hupomonen. 9:56: ouk elthe psuchas anthropon apolesai, alla sosai. 2 Cor. 10:8:; Edoken eis oikodomen kai ouk eis kathairesin. 13:10. 10:8:esthiete ta paratithemena humin. 1 Cor. 10:27: pan to paratithemenon humin esthiete. 10:20: ta onomata humon egraphe en tois ouranois Phil. 4:3: hon ta onomata en Biblo zoes. 10:21: apekrupsas tauta apo sophon kai suneton kai apekalupsas auta nepiois 1 Cor. 1:19: apolo ten sophian tonsophon kai ten sunesin ton suneton atheteso. 27: ta mora tou kosmou exelexato ho theos hina kataischune tous sophous. 11:41: panta kathara humin estin Tit. 1:15:panta men kathara tois katharois. 11:49; apostelo eis autous prophetas kai apostolous kai ex auton apoktenousi kai ekdioxousin 1 Thess. 2:15: ton kai ton kurion apokteinanton Iesoun kai tous prophetas kai hemas ekdioxanton. 12:35:estosan humon ai osphues periezosmenai . Eph. 6:14: stete oun perizosamenoi ton osphun humon en aletheia. 18:1: dein pantote proseuchesthai kai me ekkakein. 2 Thess. 1:11: eis ho kai proseuxometha pantote. Col. 4:12: pantote hagonizomenos huper humon en tais proseuxais .. Comp. 1 Thess. 5:1, 7; Rom. 1:10. 20:16: me genoito. Rom. 9:14; 11:11; Gal. 3:21. 20:38: pantes gar auto zosin. Rom. 14:7, 8: ean te gar zomen, to kupio zomen. Comp. 2 Cor. 5:15. 21:24: kai ` Hierousalem estai patoumene hupo ethnon achri plerothosi kairoi ethnon. Rom. 11:25: hoti porosis to Israel gegonen achris hou to pleroma ton ethno
[1022] See the ancient testimonies in Charteris's Kirchhofer, l.c., 154 sqq.
[1023] Freely admitted by Zeller, Davidson (I. 444), and others of that school.
[1024] Even the author of "Supernatural Religion" was forced at last to surrender to the arguments of Dr. Sanday, in 1875, after the question had already been settled years before in Germany by Hilgenfeld (1850) and Volkmar (1852). Davidson also (Introd., new ed., I. 446) admits: "There is no doubt that Marcion had the Gospel of Luke, which he adapted to his own ideas by arbitrary treatment. He lived before Justin, about a.d. 140, and is the earliest writer from whom we learn the existence of the Gospel."
[1025] Davidson still adheres to this exploded Tübingen view in his new edition (I. 467): "Luke wished to bring Judaism [sic!] and Paulinism together in the sphere of comprehensive Christianity, where the former would merge into the latter. In conformity with this purpose, he describes the irreconcilable opposition between Jesus and his opponents." As if Matthew and Mark and John did not precisely the same thing. He even repeats the absurd fiction of Baur, which was refuted long ago, not only by Godet, but even in part at least by Zeller, Holtzmann, and Keim, that Luke had "the obvious tendency to depreciate the twelve, in comparison with the seventy" (p. 469). Baur derived the chief proof of an alleged hostility of Luke to Peter from his omission of the famous passage, "Thou art Rock;" but Mark omits it likewise; and Luke, on the other hand, is the only Evangelist who records the word of Christ to Peter, Luke 22:32, on which the Romanists base the dogma of papal infallibility.
[1026] The critics differ widely as to the date of composition: (1) For a date prior to a.d. 70 are all the older divines, also Lange, Ebrard, Guericke, van Oosterzee, Godet (60-67), Thiersch (58-60), Alford (58), Riddle (60). (2) For a date between 70 and 90: De Wette, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, Güder, Meyer, Weiss (70-80), Keim, Abbott (80-90). (3) For a.d. 100 and later: Hilgenfeld and Volkmar (100), Zeller and Davidson (100-110). The date of Baur, a.d. 140, is perfectly wild and made impossible by the clear testimonies of Justin Martyr and Marcion. Hence he was unwilling to retract in toto his former view about the priority of Marcion's Gospel, though he felt obliged to do it in part (Kirchengesch. I. 75 and 78).
[1027] Dr. Abbott, of London (in "Enc. Brit.," X. 813, of the ninth ed., 1879), discovers no less than ten reasons for the later date of Luke, eight of them in the preface alone: "(1) the pre-existence and implied failure of many 'attempts' to set forth continuous narratives of the things 'surely believed;' (2) the mention of 'tradition' of the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word as past, not as present (paredosan , Luke 1:2); (3) the dedication of the Gospel to a man of rank (fictitious or otherwise), who is supposed to have been 'catechized' in Christian truth; (4) the attempt at literary style and at improvement of the 'usus ecclesiasticus' of the common tradition; (5) the composition of something like a commencement of a Christian hymnology; (6) the development of the genealogy and the higher tone of the narrative of the incarnation; (7) the insertion of many passages mentioning our Lord as ho kurios not in address, but in narrative; (8) the distinction, more sharply drawn, between the fall of Jerusalem and the final coming; (9) the detailed prediction of the fall of Jerusalem, implying reminiscences of its fulfilment; (10) the very great development of the manifestations of Jesus after the resurrection. The inference from all this evidence would be that Luke was not written till about a.d. 80 at earliest. If it could be further demonstrated that Luke used any Apocryphal book (Judith, for example), and if it could be shown that the book in question was written after a certain date (Renan suggests a.d. 80 for the date of the book of Judith), it might be necessary to place Luke much later; but no such demonstration has been hitherto produced." But most of these arguments are set aside by the hemin in Luke 1:2, which includes the writer among those who heard the gospel story from the eye-witnesses of the life of Christ. It is also evident from the Acts that the writer, who is identical with the third Evangelist, was an intimate companion of Paul, and hence belonged to the first generation of disciples, which includes all the converts of the apostles from the day of Pentecost down to the destruction of Jerusalem.
[1028] Keim (I. 70) thus eloquently magnifies this little difference: "Anders als dem Matthaeus steht diesem Schrifstellen [Lukas] das Wirklichkeitsbild der Katastrophe der heiligen Stadt in seiner ganzen schrecklichen Grösse vor der Seele, die langwierige und kunstvolle Belagerung des Feindes, die Heere, die befestigten Lager, der Ring der Absperrung, die tausend Bedrängnisse, die Blutarbeit des Schwerts, die Gefangenführung des Volkes, der Tempel, die Stadt dem Boden gleich, Alles unter dem ernsten Gesichtspunkt eines Strafgerichtes Gottes für die dung des Gesandten. Ja über die Katastrophe hinaus, die äusserste Perspektive des ersten Evangelisten, dehnt sich dem neuen Geschichtschreiber eine new unbestimmbar grosse Periode der Trümmerlage Jerusalemz unter dem ehernen Tritt der Heiden und heidnischer Weltzeiten, innerhalb deren er selber schreibt. Unter solchen Umständen hat die grosse Zukunftrede Jesu bei aller Sorgfalt, die wesentlichen Züge, sogar die Wiederkunft in diesem 'Geschlect'zu halten die mannigfaltigsten Aenderungen erlitten." The same argument is urged more soberly by Holtzmann (Syn. Evang., 406 sq.), and even by Güder (in Herzog, IX. 19) and Weiss (in Meyer, 6th ed., p. 243), but they assume that Luke wrote only a few years after Matthew.
[1029] "It is psychologically impossible," says Godet (p. 543), "that Luke should have indulged in manipulating at pleasure the sayings of that Being on whom his faith was fixed, whom he regarded as the Son of God."
[1030] Jerome: Achaia and Boeotia; Hilgenfeld (in 1858): Achaia or Macedonia; Godet (in his first ed.): Corinth, in the house of Gaius (Rom. 16:23), but more indefinitely in the second ed.: Achaia.
[1031] The Peshito, which gives the title: "Gospel of Luke the Evangelist, which he published and preached in Greek in Alexandria the Great."
[1032] Köstlin and Overbeck, also Hilgenfeld in 1875 (Einleit., p. 612).
[1033] Michaelis, Kuinöl, Schott, Thiersch, and others.
[1034] Hug, Ewald, Zeller, Holtzmann, Keim, Davidson.
[1035] Weiss, in the sixth ed. of Meyer (p. 244) "Wo das Evang. geschrieben sei, ist völlig unbekannt."