THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
in the Gospel go farther back — the author does not claim to be an eye-witness or a sharer in the events. Still, suspicion regarding the Gospel i. Types of inevitably followed that regarding the Modern Acts. The hypothesis that the two Criticism, books are from different authors is very seldom put forth and even then in a very guarded manner, while it is easily refuted by the many-sided similarities which are found in the books. Modern New-Testament criticism takes two principal directions in its discussion of the Lucan writings. In one case it asserts that they are " tendency writings," taking a part in the assumed burning contest between Paulinism and Judaism and endeavoring to furnish a middle ground upon which both could unite, blending the dogmatics, ethics, and practicality of Judaism with Pauline universalism. This makes the writings a peace proposal from a Pauline Christian. Of course, various forms of this hypothesis have been put forth. The other direction of modern criticism proceeds from a literary basis, and supposes that the books embody the editing of earlier sources, which expressed various tendencies and were of different origin and value, by a man who was not near enough to the facts to have complete mastery of them. Indeed, it is asserted that the interests of a later time than the authorship of Luke would admit appear in incidental details, that the report often shows that the time of Jesus and his apostles was already long past, while there is silence as to matters of importance which would not be expected from a man in the position of Luke. The question is, whether the objections are so grounded as to demand the rejection of a strong and consentient tradition, or whether, either by means of a more correct exposition or by a more exact appreciation of the intentions and situation of the traditional author, the possibility of the Lucan authorship may be more conclusively established. In order to gain securer results, an attempt must be made to delineate as a whole the historical and literary processes of apostolic times in order satisfactorily to examine the critical hypotheses with reference to their probability or possibility — an attempt which is excluded by the purposes of this article, which can give merely the indications.
The starting-point of any discussion is, of course, the Gospel, to which there is a preface. A prior question is whether this preface belongs only to the Gospel or also to the Acts. Although the question has been answered both ways, •prima facie the preface belongs to the Gospel only. 2. The It indicates that the Gospel is written Preface to for a man of high position who has the Gospel, some certain knowledge of Christianity without necessarily being more than a catechumen, if even that. The Evangelist implies that Theophilus was not averse to such knowledge but was ready to receive further information. This knowledge was not to be of the dogmatic order, but rather historical and " accurate " (Luke i. 3), and by " accurate " was meant not simply " in chronological order " but rather the narration of events in their many-sided relationships. So far, there is nothing antagonistic to Lucan authorship.
And no objection to such authorship is to be seen in the reference to previous writers of Gospel history in Luke i. 1, since enough material is known to justify the expression " many." The very growth of such a literature would emphasize for Luke its necessity not only for believing Christians to whom the oral impartation of the news was becoming increasingly rare, nor only for Jews and Jewish Christians to whom the Messianic consciousness of Jesus was of importance, but also for the heathen to whom Theophilus had belonged. It is continually becoming more completely established that the second Gospel, essentially in its present form, lay before the author of the third and was used by him. But comparison of the two Gospels shows marked differences in plan and conception. Thus Mark sets the story of Jesus in two great groups of events — Jesus' work in Galilee and the events between his departure from Galilee and Easter morning; Luke uses the same two groups but prefixes to the first the Gospel of the Infancy, inserts between them the account of the journey given in Luke ix. 51-xviii. 14, and adds to the second his account of the resurrection. Moreover, while Luke follows Mark in the main in the order of the events in the two groups, he effects transpositions and makes noteworthy omissions. Further, outside of the three great additions already indicated, the third Gospel makes single additions, such as the sermon on the mount, the story of Zaccheus, and very many others. All this indicates a special plan subordinated to a purpose different from that which the author of the second Gospel had before him and suited to a man whose antecedents were heathen, as were those of Theophilus.
But does this purpose, expressed in the preface, and its execution in the Gospel, agree with what is known of Luke? A difficulty raised here is that a man who stood as near to the events as did Luke, and had such opportunities to meet 3. The eye-witnesses, in his departures from Character the narrative of Mark took so little the of the direction of the Fourth Gospel. This Gospel, troubles little one who deals with the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, but the difficulty increases the more one deals with that historicity, and threatens to become fatal to the claim of Lucan authorship if, as many suppose, a long period of historical study (Luke i. 3) is involved. It may be conceded that the Lucan narrative contains parts tinged with Johannine coloring. But when the omission is noted of events given in the Fourth Gospel which are essential to the narrative of one who proposes to " trace the course of all things accurately from the first " (Luke i. 3), when it is remembered that the occurrences of John iiv., the visits to the feasts in Jerusalem of John v., yii., and x., and the Lazarus episode do not appear in the Lucan narrative, the authorship by the apostolic companion Luke seems impossible. For many of those events are not of a nature that permits their omission by one who proposes to give a resume" of the life of Jesus. Upon close observation the case seems otherwise. Luke did not know the Johannine material, but he considered that Mark really preserved the historical scheme in its princi-
'63