RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Gospel and Gospels
found a reason for its existence and a ground for its motives and aims.
Luke opens with a prologue of large interest and value. The dedication to Theophilus clearly indicates that the writer is an educated Gentile; the style of it is thoroughly Greek, the
8. Luke's sentence being highly articulated and Gospel, rhetorically developed (contrast the Aramaic type of sentence in the other Gospels). The writer knows of other attempts to write the life of Christ and they do not content him. He tells his readers that he has gone to first sources and consulted the eye-witnesses. In every way he bears himself as an educated Gentile, consciously devoting himself in a literary way to the historian's task. Yet he is not an apologete (contrast Matthew). He betrays no dogmatic motive. Hence he exercises far less control than Matthew over the materials. Coming from the Greek world into Palestine, he cares little for local coloring. While he is careful to make connections with the chronology of the Empire (iii. 1), he is careless of the connections in the Savior's life, following Mark less carefully than does Matthew. Like Mark, his Gospel is, in the best sense, unconstrained, neglecting what it does not need. Thus Jesus' relations to popular Messianism are neglected or casually treated. The " Herodians," more than once in evidence in Mark (Mark iii. 6, xii. 13), are not in evidence. The Savior's policy of silence is not consistently developed. Luke's Gospel was for a long time called Pauline, a term which does not do justice to its breadth. His mind is controlled by forces deeper than a conscious Paulinism. He represents the emotional needs of the Gentile churches recruited for the most part among the lower classes and the socially disinherited. The Savior, in Luke's story, is in saving touch with women and with the folk outside the pale of rigorous Judaism. Luke's sources seem to be Mark, the Logia, and springs of tradition still flowing among the Jewish Christians of Palestine. There are distinct veinings in his Gospel (Jesus' dealings with women, vii. 37 sqq.,viii. 2-3, 19 sqq., 43sqq., x. 38 sqq., xi. 27, xxiii. 49-55, xxiv. 22 sqq. ; a leaning toward Ebionism, vi. 20, xiv. 13-21, xvi. 20 sqq., xxi. sqq.). Some of his sources are thoroughly localized (the " Perean Gospel," containing much material found elsewhere in Mark and Matthew, but some original and local matter : the Jerusalemitic Gospel of the Resurrection; contrast the Galilean Gospel in Mark and Matthew). Evidently he kept the promise made in his prologue; original sources deeply color his report of the Savior's life and words and are reflected much more clearly than in Matthew. The person of Christ stands out more distinctly than in Mark. Forgiveness of sins is based upon love of his person (vii. 47). Luke shares with Matthew the great Logion " No man knoweth the Father " (Luke x. 22; Matthew xi. 27). Though it be true that he takes this from the Logia (or Q), yet his choice of it is significant. None of our Gospels is shaped by a process of mechanical incorporation; all keep close to vital motives and corporate needs. The outstanding person of Christ (cf. the persistent use of Kurios as a title for Jesus) answers the demand of Gentile Christians
for a clear statement of the law of their life. The date of the Gospel can not be definitely fixed. It may fall anywhere between 70 and 85, probably nearer the later date than the earlier, and possibly at Antioch. If this is the case, it is another illustration of the truth that the Gospels were published to meet the pressure brought to bear upon the Christian consciousness at the great centers of missionary opportunity and interest.
In Mark unity is gained through a deep impression of the events. In Luke there is a certain loss of unity. But in Matthew unity of a high order is secured through conscious purpose. The first Gospel is intensely apologetic, and cong. Matthew's trols its material in this interest which Gospel. is its first main object. It steadily employs the argument from prophecy to prove that Jesus is the Messiah (" that it might be fulfilled " occurs in Matthew twelve times, in Mark twice, and in Luke twice). The other main purpose is a clear view of the teaching of Jesus, and this is obtained by massing the Logia in impressive groups (sermon on Mount, parables in chap, xiii., and elsewhere). Through adherence to purpose Matthew becomes in a sense a creative writer, having more initiative and a larger influence than Luke. The apologetic is Jewish-Christian in type. The book springs from the heart of Jewish Christianity straining to convert Israel to Jesus, and is built into Jewish Christianity and its needs. There are some evidences that the Logia, having been constantly used in debate, have been more or less adapted (Matt. v. 3, cf. Luke vi. 20; Matthew adds " in spirit "; v. 32, xix. 9, divorce on ground of fornication, Mark and Luke being silent on divorce). The apocalypse of Jesus (chaps, xxiv.-xxv.) seems to be a literary unit which had passed through several editions before being incorporated in Matthew's text (contrast Mark and Luke). In Matt. xvi. 18 the explanation of Matthew's addition is found not, as Harnack and others have urged, in a second- century Roman molding of the text, but in the history of Jewish Christianity in the first century. Christ's criticism of the Law (v. 21-47) along with his insistence on its binding force (v. 17 sqq.) clearly indicates this. The Gospel stands close to Judaism, while superior to it. The capital relation of Jesus is not, as in Mark, with the popular Messianism (the policy of silence is not steadily presented), but with Phariseeism (xv. 1 sqq., xvi. 1-6, xxiii. 2-27). In close opposition to Judaism as a teaching force the person and mind of the Savior stand out as in no other Gospel except the Fourth. Christ lays hands on the Torah and corrects it (v. 21-47). His personal consciousness stands out in spiritual sublimity (sermon on Mount; xi. 28 sqq., absent from Luke). Thus the first Gospel marks the way in which the deeper Gospel, the Gospel of the self-consciousness of Christ, came to be written. It was probably published between 75 and 90, when Jewish Christianity was under severe strain. Judaism, as the result of the great war, was drawing in its lines and becoming increasingly hostile to Christianity. The author of our Matthew published the Law for Jewish Christianity under the form of a Scriptural apol-
G-ospel and Gospels Grossner