THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE

I. THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE

IN dealing with the gospel of Luke we have an advantage, which we do not possess in the case of either Matthew or Mark, that the author opens his book with a preface which is rich in information concerning the literary and historical situation out of which the book arose:

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to draw up a narrative concerning those matters which have been fulfilled among us, even as they delivered them unto us which from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty concerning the things wherein thou wast instructed.

Postponing to a later chapter the fuller discussion of the significance of the preface in its bearing upon the general problem of the origin of our gospels, we may notice here its clear indication that this gospel was by no means the earliest attempt to publish a narrative of the life of Jesus. When the author wrote, not only was that life the subject of instruction in the church (vs. 4), but many persons had already undertaken to compose a narrative of its events (vs. 1 ). The author of this gospel, while recognizing the value of these efforts, conceives also that they leave something still to be desired, and writes, after careful investigation, that the reader, already instructed in the facts of the life of Jesus, may have certain knowledge of these things wherein he had received instruction.

It is evident, not only that the statements of this preface have a direct bearing upon the question for whom and with what purpose the gospel was written, but that its distinct intimation that the author possessed, and per haps used, older gospel writings must be taken into account in interpreting the indications of the gospel itself as to who the author was. We must be prepared to consider whether there are diverse indications of authorship, and to determine, as far as we may, whether any given feature of the narrative is traceable to the final author who wrote the preface, or to those earlier authors of whose writings he made use. Yet first of all we must examine the gospel as it stands for the evidence which it yields respecting its author, intended readers, and purpose.

II. THE AUTHOR

1. His nationality as it appears in the gospel itself.—There are numerous references in all parts of the gospel to Palestinian localities ( 1:5, 26, 39; 2:4, 39, 41; 3:1,3; 4:16; 5:1, 17; 6:17; 7:11; 8:26; 10:13, 15; 17:11; 18:35; 19:1, 29, 37,41; 23:5-7; 24:13). One or two of the localities referred to cannot be certainly identified,¹ but in every case in which the location of the place is known the reference of the gospel to it corresponds to its locality, and in some cases the correspondence of the narratives to the local conditions is somewhat striking.² Observe also the reference to climate in 12:54ff. To these may be added occasional references to the different elements of the population of the country and to their relations to one another (7:2; 17:16, 18).

A considerable number of the geographical references occur in passages which have closely parallel narratives in Matthew or Mark, suggesting the possibility that the author's geographical knowledge is second-hand. Yet in some of these cases Luke contains a definition of locality not found in the other gospels (4:31; 8:26), or an alter native name ( 5:1 ), and there are a number of correctly used geographical terms in passages of which there are no parallels in the other gospels (1:5, 26, 39; 2:4, 39, 41, etc.), including one which seems very clearly of an editorial character from the pen of the final author (3:1). Taken altogether, the evidence suggests at least such a general knowledge of the country as enabled the author intelligently to use and edit his sources.

The gospel frequently speaks, and always, so far as we are able to test it, correctly, of Jewish history, parties, institutions, usages,³ and current opinions. Thus the priests and the temple are spoken of in 1:5, 8-11, 21-23; 3:2; 5:14; 6:4; 10:31 (cf. 32); 17:14; 19:45-47; 20:1, 19; 21:1, 5; 22:4, 52, 54, 66; 23:13; the Pharisees, their usages, opinions, and characteristics, in 5:17, 21, 30, 33; 6:2, 7; 7:30, 36ff.; 11:37-44; 12:1; 14:1, 3; 15:2; 16:14; 18:10, ii; 19:39; scribes or lawyers, in 5:17; 10:25; n 45-54; 1 4 -3, 19:47; 20:1, 19, 46; 22:2, 66; the Sadducees, in 20:27; the Sanhedrin, in 9:22; 20:19; 22:2,66; 23:13; 24:20; the publicans, in 3:12; 5:27-30; 7:29; 18:10-13; 19:2, 8; the Jewish Scriptures, in 2:23; 3:4; 4:4, 8, 10, 12,17-21; 7:27; 18:20,31; 20:28, 37, 42; 24:27; characters and events of the Old Testament narrative, in 4:25-27; 6:3, 4, 23; 9:8, 19, 30, 33; 10:12-14; 11:29-32, 51; 13:28; 16:29-31; 17:26-29, 32; recent events, in 13:1-4; probably in 19:12; the custom of circumcision, in 1:59-63; 2:21; the ceremonies in connection with the birth of a child, in 2:22-27, 395 the feast of the passover, in 2:41-46; 22:1, 7, 11, 13, 15; synagogues and their officers, in 4:15, 16-30, 33, 38, 44; 7:5; 8:41, 49; 13:10, 14; 20:46; current opinions and expectations, in 3:15; 9:8,30; 13:28; 16:22; 18:38, 39; 20:17-33.

The facts respecting the use of Old Testament Scripture in this gospel are somewhat peculiar. The first two chapters, the infancy section, are full of language manifestly derived from the Old Testament. This is especially true of the utterances of the angel, of Mary, of Zacharias, and of Simeon. But the narrative also contains Old Testament language, and even explicit quotations (2:23, 24). The genealogical table in chap. 3, though the fact that it is carried back, not as in Matthew to Abraham, the ancestor of the Jewish nation, but to Adam, the progenitor of the human race, shows a wider horizon than that of the Jewish nation, is yet, of course, derived from Jewish sources, partly biblical, partly post-biblical. In the rest of the gospels, on the other hand, the use of Scripture language is much less frequent. Like Mark, this gospel also records the use of Scripture language by Jesus and others, the passages being in the majority of cases parallel to those in Mark or Matthew, but including also a number not reported in the other gospels. But outside the first two chapters and the genealogical table there is but one explicit quotation (Luke 3:4ff.) by the evangelist, and this is parallel to the one passage in which the second gospel quotes the Old Testament. There is also one pas sage (23:34) in which Old Testament language is used in a narrative passage without reference to its Old Testament origin; this passage likewise being parallel to one in Mark and Matthew.⁴ The quotations as a whole show the influence of the Septuagint, and no clear evidence that the author of the gospel knew Hebrew.⁵

References to the political situation in Palestine are explicit and important. Incidental references occur in 1:5; 3:19, 20; 7:2; 8:3; 13:1; 19:12 (?); 20:22-24; 2 3:1-24 passim, 52. In all these cases some of them paralleled in the other gospels, others peculiar to Luke—the references are true to the situation as we know it from other sources. There are also two passages peculiar to Luke which are evidently careful editorial notes:2:1-3; 3:1, 2. The latter of these is an entirely correct statement of the political situation in Judea in the fifteenth year of Tiberius; but there is some difficulty in combining into a consistent chronology the statement that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and the data yielded respectively by Luke 2:1-3 and 3:23.⁶ The expression " in the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" (ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅνα—observe the use of the singular), reflects not very distinctly, yet not incorrectly, the peculiar situation of the time in respect to the office of high priest.⁷ The other passage, 2:1-3, creates more difficulty, and has given rise to prolonged discussion. Of the many solutions that have been proposed none is altogether satisfactory, in the sense of furnishing conclusive evidence that Luke's statement is wholly accurate; yet its erroneousness is not proved, and it is at least possible that it is itself an important datum for the determination of the facts respecting enrolments in the Roman empire.⁸ In any case, it remains that these two passages show an interest of the evangelist in the relations of the life of Jesus to the affairs of the Roman empire at large, such as appears in none of the other gospels, and indicate a writer who had sought by investigation of the facts to connect the events he was narrating with the history of the land and the empire, rather than one who with easy familiarity with the facts mentioned them incidentally without effort or special intention.

References to social life, everyday occupations, and articles of common use are very frequent, so much so as to constitute a characteristic of this gospel as compared with the other gospels. Thus the house is spoken of in 5:19; 11:7; 12:39; 13:25; 17:31; 22:11; various household utensils are mentioned in 1:63; 5:18; 8:16; 11:7, 33; 15:8, 5:8; 17-34; clothing, in 9:3; 10:4; 22:35f.; the meals of the day, in 7:36; 11:37; 14:1, 7, 8; 20:46; articles of food, in 6:44; 9:13; 11:5, 11, 12; 13:21; 15:23; 17:35; 22:19; 24:30, 42; beverages, in 1:1 5; 5:37; 7:33; 2 3:36; oil and ointment, in 7:37, 38, 46; feasts and similar social customs, in 7:44-46; 14:7-10; 15:22-25; funeral customs, in 7:12, 14; 8:52; exigencies of travel, in 9:3-5; 10:4-6, 10, 11, 34, 35; 11:5-7. Men of various occupations are mentioned: shepherds, in 2:8; 15:4; 17:7; swineherds, in 8:34; 15:15; plowmen, in 17:7; fishermen, in 5:2-11; corn-grinders, in 17:35; spinning, in 12:27; cf. also 14:17; 15:17; servants and their duties, in 12:35ff., 42ff.; 13:6-9.⁹ Most of these references have little or no evidential value in respect to the question of authorship, yet, taken together, they show a notable conformity to the conditions of life in Palestine.

The Greek of the gospel is of three somewhat distinct types. The preface is in excellent idiomatic Greek, with no suggestion of Hebraistic influence. The infancy section is very distinctly and strongly Hebraistic in character. The remainder of the gospel is less markedly Hebraic, resembling in general the gospels of Mark and Matthew, yet having some peculiarities of its own.¹⁰

All these facts, considered together, point to the conclusion that the author certainly employed Jewish sources, and was familiar with Jewish affairs, but may not have been himself a Jew. The story of the infancy is of a strongly Jewish cast; the sources of the remainder of the book are quite similar in this respect to the gospel of Mark, and are presumably of Jewish origin, though not so pronouncedly Jewish in character as the infancy story or as the gospel of Matthew. The references to affairs of the Roman empire, and the extension of the genealogical table, are suggestive of a man who was not a Jew, or who was at least somewhat decidedly cosmopolitan in his feeling. He shows too much sympathy with the Jewish point of view to have been a gentile who repudiated the Old Testament religion, and too broad an outlook to have been a Jew who held a narrow Jewish view of the world and God's relation to it. He might be a Jew of cosmopolitan feeling, or a gentile proselyte to Judaism.

2. His religious position.—Of this there is no room for doubt. Like the writers of the other gospels, the third evangelist is a Christian in his belief. The subject of his book is Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and the things "which have been fulfilled among us," and concerning which he desires his readers to " know the certainty," are the deeds and teachings of Jesus. As respects the particular type of Christianity which he represented, it is evident that his sympathies would be with the Pauline rather than with the Judaistic party. Evidence of this will appear in connection with the consideration of the purpose of the book.

3. Evidence concerning the identity of the author from outside the gospel.—This is of three kinds:

a) That which is derived from the book of Acts, combined with the evident relation of the gospel and the Acts. That these two books are from the same author is so evident that it has been affirmed by critics of every school, and very rarely questioned.¹¹ To determine the authorship of Acts would then be to determine that of the third gospel. The former problem, however, is scarcely less difficult than the latter. In certain portions of Acts, known as the " we-sections " ( 16:10-40; 20:6 21:18; 27:1 28:16 or 31), the narrative is told in the first person, implying that it is from the pen of an eyewitness of the events. That this implication is in accordance with the facts, and that the author of these sections was in fact a companion of the apostle Paul on some of his missionary journeys, is one of the assured results of historical criticism. It is natural to suppose that the author of these we-sections is at the same time the author of the whole book, the absence of the first-person pronoun in the other portions of it reflecting the fact that he is here, in part at least, relating what he had learned from others. There is, moreover, considerable evidence for this opinion in the prevalence throughout the book of certain peculiarities of style, as well as in the very fact of the retention of the "we" in these sections themselves. Yet there is by no means the same agreement on this point as on the autoptic character of the we-sections, and a certain conclusion concerning the authorship of the gospel can be drawn from the relation of it to Acts only when the Acts problem itself is definitely settled.¹²

b) The ancient manuscripts of the gospel uniformly bear the title Κατα Λουκαν, " According to Luke," or Ευαγγελιον κατα Λουκαν, " Gospel according to Luke," or its equivalent.¹³

c) From the earliest times at which ancient writers mention any author of our gospel they ascribe it to Luke. The following are some of these testimonies:

For in the memoirs which I say were composed by his apostles and those who followed them, it is written that his sweat fell down like drops of blood, while he was praying and saying, " Let this cup, if it be possible, pass from me."¹⁴ (JUSTIN MARTYR, Dialogue with Trypho, chap. 103.)

Irenaeus, naming the four gospels in the order in which they stand in modern versions, says:

Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him. (Adv. Haer., iii, 1.)

Thirdly, the gospel-book according to Luke. Luke the physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken him as it were as a follower zealous of the right, wrote it in his own name, as is believed. The Lord, nevertheless, he had not himself seen in the flesh, and accordingly, going back as far as he could obtain information, he began his narrative with the birth of John. (The Muratorian Fragment.)

These testimonies, dating from the middle and end of the second century—the Muratorian fragment is perhaps from the beginning of the third century—show what was believed in the church at the earliest period from which we have definite testimony. There is nothing in the gospel itself to contradict this belief, except as concerns the statement of Irenaeus with reference to the relation of Paul to this gospel. That Paul exerted some influence upon the mind of the evangelist, and even upon the gospel itself, need not be questioned,¹⁵ but that Luke drew his material to any considerable extent from Paul is excluded alike by Luke's own preface, in which he names as the source of his information " those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word"—a phrase which would not include Paul—and the internal evidence of the relation of the gospels to one another.

The Luke to whom tradition ascribed the gospel is without question the one named in the New Testament as a companion of Paul, and referred to in Philem., vs. 24; Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11. The second of these passages describes him as a physician, and the gospel itself yields some indication of having been written by one who was familiar with medical matters.¹⁶ The same passage com pared with vs. 11 implies that he was of gentile birth, and with this agree the internal indications of the gospel itself. (See p. 53.) If he was the author of the " we-passages " of the Acts, the journeys in which he accompanied Paul gave him ample opportunity to meet and consult with those who were companions and ministers of Jesus. If there is any reason to doubt that he was in fact the author of our gospel, such reason is to be found, not in the gospel, but in the book of Acts. For our present purpose it is of more importance to observe that, whatever the name or personality of the evangelist, he was, according to the evidence of the gospel itself, substantially such a man as Luke; not a personal follower of Jesus, but one who had access to the testimony of the eyewitnesses of Jesus life; a man of Jewish sympathies, but of cosmopolitan interests; a Christian whose affiliations were with the more liberal party in the early church.

III. THE READERS FOR WHOM THE BOOK WAS INTENDED

Reference has already been made to the evidence in the preface to the gospel that it was written for Christian readers. Theophilus, to whom the book is addressed or dedicated, was probably a real person, but certainly also the representative of the class for whom especially the book was written. It is not probable either that the book was intended solely for his private reading, or that the other persons whom the author had in mind belonged to a distinctly different class from Theophilus. The only question, then, is whether the Christians for whom Luke wrote were predominantly Jews or gentiles. The name Theophilus, though suggesting gentile readers, would not be decisive, since so many Hebrews bore Greek names. But the content of the gospel leaves no room for doubt that the author has gentile readers specially in mind. There is a notable absence of Hebrew words, such as occur in Mark accompanied by an explanation, and in Matthew without explanation. There are a few geo graphical notes which suggest that the readers were not Palestinians (2:4; 8:26; 19:29). In a number of instances this gospel employs terms which would be intelligible to gentiles in place of Jewish terms used in parallel or similar passages in the other synoptic gospels.¹⁷ The sermon of Jesus in 6:20-49 conspicuously lacks that reference to the needs and point of view of the Jews which is so distinctly marked in the parallel discourse in Matt., chaps. 5, 6, 7. There are, as already noted (p. 50), but two references by the evangelist (as distinguished from Jesus and others whose words he records) to the fulfilment of Old Testament Scripture, and both of these give evidence of being derived from the sources of the gospel. This author alone of the evangelists makes mention of the Roman emperor in whose reign the events recorded took place (3:1), and more explicitly than the others defines the political status of Palestine at the time. The familiarity with Jewish affairs which he assumes on the part of his readers, especially in chaps, 1, 2, at first sight suggests Jewish readers, but is in reality sufficiently explained by the fact that he wrote for Christians who had already heard the story of Jesus life by word of mouth (1:4). It must, moreover, be remembered, as the epistles of Paul already clearly show, that even gentile Christians early acquired a knowledge of the Old Testament.

IV. THE PURPOSE AND POINT OF VIEW OF THE GOSPEL

In this matter, as in respect to the readers, we have the great advantage of possessing a statement from the author himself. He wrote, he says, after careful investigation, in order that his reader might know the certainty concerning the things wherein he had been instructed, i. e., that he might have accurate knowledge concerning the events of Jesus life. We are prepared, therefore, not to find any such definite argumentative aim as characterizes the gospel of Matthew, but, on the other hand, to discover a somewhat more definite and conscious historical purpose than appears in Mark. Nor are these expectations disappointed in the book. Though written chiefly for gentiles, there is as little evidence of intention to enter into the controversies of the apostolic age with reference to the relations of Jews and gentiles in the kingdom as appears in Mark. Both John and Jesus are intimately associated with the temple in their birth, and the first event in which Jesus is recorded as taking active part occurs also in the temple. That Jesus was opposed by the Pharisees appears as clearly as in the other synoptic gospels, and there are not a few passages in which Jesus sharply reproves them. But most of the passages which in the gospel of Matthew emphasize the special opportunity of the Jews, and distinctly set forth the rejection of the kingdom by the Jews, and of the nation by Jesus, are absent from Luke. Intimations of the universal scope of the gospel occur, some of them peculiar to this gospel (2:31 f.; 3:6; 4:24-27; 9:52), but, on the other hand, some which are found in the other gospels (e. g., Matt. 15 122-28; Mark 7:25-30; Matt. 8:11 ) are lacking in Luke. The book is consider ably longer than Mark, and shows more indications of conscious literary construction than appear in Mark. But of the influence of an argumentative aim on the structure it is impossible to discover any trace. The author seems to have aimed at an orderly account of the life of Jesus, as complete as his sources enabled him to make it without duplication of material or the use of matter which he regarded as untrustworthy.

Yet the book is not, after all, devoid of a color and character of its own. While the material is in large part the same that is found in Matthew and Mark, and while it presents Jesus from much the same point of view as the other synoptists, especially as compared with the fourth gospel, yet the portrait is not identical with theirs. Luke's picture of Jesus is in a sense less provincial, more" cosmopolitan, than that of Matthew or that of Mark. While Mark's attention is absorbed with the majestic figure of Jesus in his public career, teaching, working, suffering, dying, rising again; while Matthew sees in him the promised Messiah, fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and his own prediction that, if his own nation rejected him, the kingdom of God should be taken from them and given to the nations, this gospel presents him to us in his intimate, and yet his universal, relationship to men, the mediator between the one God and all men. Divine in origin, yet born into a human family, and subject to the ordinances of the law under which he was born and to parental authority, he is by his genealogy (traced back, not, as in Matthew, to David and Abraham, but to Adam, son of God) set forth as a member of the universal human family, itself the offspring of God. A man who by constant prayer took hold on God, while he devoted his life to helping and saving the lost, he is at the same time the friend of the publican and the sinner, and the expression of God's love for a lost world (see especially chap. 15). But this conception of the mission of Jesus is naturally accompanied by an emphasis upon the intimacy and universality of men's relations to one another. The parables that teach the duties of men to one another, intimate not indistinctly that these obligations are not limited by social or national lines (6:27ff.; 10:30-37; 16:19-31). It is not so much, however, the barrier between Jew and gentile against which the teaching of Jesus reported in this gospel is directed, as that which pride had set up between Pharisee and publican, rich and poor, man and woman, Jew and Samaritan. And of these various barriers separating men into classes it is the one between rich and poor which more frequently perhaps than any other is inveighed against in this gospel. The facts of Jesus life which associate him with the poor, and his teachings which express sympathy with the poor or point out the danger of riches, are represented, not in this gospel alone, but in this more than in any of the others.¹⁸

Thus, if we are to point out anything which is distinctive of the point of view of this gospel as compared with the other synoptic gospels, it will be the emphasis upon the two conceptions of universality and relationship, applied both as between Christ, as representative of God's attitude, and men, and between man and man. Jesus, as this gospel presents him to us, reveals to us the compassion of God for all, and teaches that men ought in humility and love to seek out and help all the needy and the lost, ignoring all the artificial barriers which pride and selfish ness have set up.

Yet it is not less necessary to remember that our gospels, especially the synoptic gospels, resemble one another in purpose, as in scope and content, by more than they differ the one from the other. Like Matthew and Mark, Luke wrote for the edification of the church, and used the materials which he possessed. With less definite argumentative purpose, and probably with less selection and exclusion of material at his hand than Matthew, the distinctive character of his book may be due quite as much to the character of his sources, or to unconscious selection, as to definite intention. The only conscious purpose which we can with confidence attribute to the evangelist is that which he has himself expressed in his preface, viz., on the basis of trustworthy sources and careful investigation to give an orderly and historically true narrative of the events connected with the life of Jesus.

V. THE PLAN OF THE GOSPEL

The book is simple in structure, following the main outlines which appear also in Mark, but prefixing the sections on the infancy and youth, and greatly enlarging the narrative of the journey to Jerusalem. The following analysis is an attempt to exhibit the author's plan; but little significance, however, can be attached to the divisions of the Galilean ministry:

ANALYSIS OF THE GOSPEL OF LUKE

I. PREFACE. 1:1-4

II. BIRTH, CHILDHOOD, AND YOUTH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST AND OF JESUS. 1:5 2:52

1. The birth of John the Baptist promised. 1:5-25

2. Annunciation of the birth of Jesus. 1:26-38

3. Mary's visit to Elizabeth. 1:39-56

4. Birth and youth of John. 1:57-80

5. The birth of Jesus. 2:1-7

6. The angels and the shepherds. 2:8-20

7. The circumcision of Jesus. 2:21

8. The presentation in the temple. 2:22-39

9. Childhood and youth of Jesus in Nazareth. 2:40-52

III. PREPARATION FOR CHRIST'S PUBLIC WORK. 3:1 4:13

1. The early ministry of John the Baptist. 3:1-20

2. The baptism of Jesus. 3:21, 22

3. Genealogy of Jesus. 3:23-38

4. The temptation of Jesus in the wilderness. 4:1-13

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY. 4:14 9:50

1. Early events at Nazareth and Capernaum. 4:14-44

a) Beginning of the ministry in Galilee. 4:14, 15

b) The rejection at Nazareth. 4:16-30

c) A sabbath at Capernaum. 4:31-41

d) Leaves Capernaum and preaches in Galilee. 4:42-44

2. From the call of the Four to the choosing of the Twelve. 5:1-6:11

a) Call of the Four. 5:1-11

b) A leper healed. 5:12-16

c) A paralytic healed. 5:17-26

d) The call of Levi and the feast in his house. 5:27-32

e) Question about fasting. 5:33-39

f) Plucking grain on the sabbath. 6:1-5

g) A withered hand healed on the sabbath. 6:6-11

3. From the choosing of the Twelve to the sending of them out. 6:12-8:56

a) Choosing of the Twelve. 6:12-16

b) Sermon on the Mountain. 6:17-49

c) The centurion's servant healed. 7:1-10

d) Widow's son at Nain. 7:11-17

e) Message from John the Baptist. 7:18-35

f) Jesus anointed in the house of Simon the Pharisee. 7:36-50

g) Tour in Galilee continued. 8:1-3

h) Teaching in parables. 8:4-18

i) Natural and spiritual kinsmen. 8:19-21

j) Stilling of the tempest. 8:22-25

k) The Gerasene demoniac. 8:26-39

l) The daughter of Jairus raised to life. 8:40-56

4. From the sending out of the Twelve to the departure from Galilee. 9:1-50

a) Sending out of the Twelve. 9:1-9

b) Feeding of the five thousand. 9:10-17

c) Peter's confession and Christ's prediction of his death and resurrection. 9:18-27

d) The transfiguration. 9:28-36

e) The demoniac boy. 9:37-42

f) Jesus again predicts his death and resurrection. 9:43-45

g) The ambition and jealousy of the disciples reproved. 9:46-50

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM THROUGH SAMARIA (AND PEREA). 9:51-19:28

1. The final departure from Galilee. 9:51-56

2. Answers to three disciples. 9:57-62

3. Mission of the Seventy. 10:1-24

4. Parable of the good Samaritan. 10:25-37

5. In the house of Martha and Mary. 10:38-42

6. Teaching about prayer. 11:1-13

7. Casting out demons. 11:14-28

8. The sign of Jonah; the lamp of the body. 11:29-36

9. Woes against the Pharisees uttered at a Pharisee's table. 11:37-54

10. Warnings against hypocrisy and covetousness; injunctions to be watchful. chap. 12

11. The Galileans slain by Pilate: Repentance enjoined. 13:1-9

12. The woman healed on a sabbath. 13:10-21

13. Are there few that be saved? 13:22-30

14. Reply to the warning against Herod. 13:31-35

15. Teachings at a Pharisee's table. 14:1-24

16. On counting the cost. 14:25-35

17. Three parables of grace. chap. 15

18. Two parables of warning. chap. 16

19. Concerning offenses, forgiveness, and faith. 17:1-10

20. The ten lepers. 17:11-19

21. The coming of the kingdom. 17:20-18:8

22. The Pharisee and the publican. 18:9-14

23. Christ blessing little children. 18:15-17

24. The rich young ruler. 18:18-30

25. Jesus predicts his crucifixion. 18:31-34

26. The blind man near Jericho. 18:35-43

27. Visit to Zaccheus. 19:1-10

28. The parable of the minae. 19:11-28

VI. PASSION WEEK. 19:29-23:56

1. The triumphal entry. 19:29-44

2. The cleansing of the temple. 19:45, 46

3. Conflict with the Jewish leaders. 19:47-20:47

4. Commendation of the widow's gift. 21:1-4

5. Discourse concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. 21:5-38

6. The plot of the Jews and the treachery of Judas. 22:1-6

7. The last supper. 22:7-23

8. Discourse to the disciples. 22:24-38

9. The agony in Gethsemane. 22:39-46

10. The arrest. 22:47-54

11. Peter's denials. 22:55-62

12. The trial Jesus before the Jewish authorities. 22:63-71

13. The trial before Pilate. 23:1-25

14. The crucifixion and death. 23:26-49

15. The burial. 23:50-56

VII. FROM THE RESURRECTION TO THE ASCENSION. chap. 24

1. The empty tomb. 24:1-12

2. The appearance to the two on the road to Emmaus. 24:13-35

3. The appearance to the eleven at Jerusalem. 24:36-49

4. The ascension. 24:50-53

APPENDED NOTE I

THE FIFTEENTH YEAR OF TIBERIUS

In Luke 3:1 we are told that John the Baptist began his ministry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. In 3:23 the evangelist speaks of Jesus as being about thirty years old. The latter statement probably refers to the time when Jesus began his public ministry, and this event, it is evidently implied, occurred not many months after the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry already dated as in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. Reckoning the reign of Tiberius, in the usual way, from the death of Augustus in August of 767 A. U. C. = 14 A. D., his fifteenth year would begin in September, 27, January, 28, April, 28, or August, 28, according to the method of reckoning which Luke employed (see RAMSAY, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? p. 221), and the beginning of the ministry of John would fall in the year 28, possibly at the end of 27. If some months later, say in the middle of the year 28, Jesus began to teach, being then about thirty years of age, his birth would fall about 3 B. C. From Matt., chap. 2, on the other hand, we learn that the birth of Jesus preceded the death of Herod (cf. also Luke 1:5), and since Herod died in March, 4 B. C., the birth of Jesus would on this basis fall in 5 B. C., or, at the latest, in the beginning of 4 B. C. The gap between this result and that reached on the basis of Luke 3:1 and 3:23 may be bridged over if " about thirty years " in 3:23 may in fact cover thirty-one or thirty-two years, and so 4 or 5 B. C. be substituted for 3 B. C. But Luke himself furnishes a most serious difficulty by his statement in 2:3, which seems to assign the birth of Jesus to a year not later than 7 B. C. See the next note. The gap of four years or more thus created between the prima facie result from 3:1 and 3:23, and that derived from 2:3, is rather long to be covered by " about " of 3:23.

In view of this difficulty, appeal has been made to the possibility of a different reckoning of the years of Tiberius. About the end of 764 A. U. C. = 11 A. D. Tiberius began, by decree of the senate, to exercise in the provinces authority equal to that of the emperor. (VELLEIUS PATERCULUS, II, 121, "Et [cum] senatus populusque Romanus, postulante patre, ut aequum ei jus in omnibus provinciis exercitibusque esset decreto complexus esset . . . .") It has been suggested that Luke, writing in the provinces where Tiberius exercised this authority, might have reckoned his years from the begin ning of its exercise in n or 12 A. D. No conclusive proof of such a reckoning has been brought forward; for the coin of Antioch on which Wieseler relied is not now regarded as genuine, and other coins of Antioch reckon the years of Tiberius from the death of Augustus. But it is known that there was considerable variety in the methods of reckoning the years of the emperors, and it seems at least possible that Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from II or 12 instead of 14 A. D. This is all the more possible in view of the fact, to which Ramsay calls attention, that the years of Titus, in or soon after whose reign Luke probably wrote, were in fact reckoned from his coregency with Vespasian. According to his reckoning, the fifteenth year of Tiberius would begin in 25 A. D. If, then, in 25 or 26 John began to preach, and if Jesus began his work a few months later, being then about thirty years old, he was born about 6-4 B. C., a result in entire harmony with the data given by Matthew. For its relation to Luke 2:3 compare the next note.

WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 171-73; WIESELER, Beiträge zur Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 190ff.; WOOLSEY, Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1870, pp. 332-36; ANDREWS, Life of Our Lord, pp. 22-29; TURNER, in HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible., Vol. I, p. 405; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. 82; RAMSAY, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? pp. 199ff.; VON SODEN, in Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. I, col. 804.

APPENDED NOTE II

THE ENROLMENT IN THE GOVERNORSHIP OF QUIRINIUS

The questions concerning the statement in Luke 2:1-5 are five:

1. Did Augustus order a census of the empire? The probabilities respecting the correctness of the statement of Luke to this effect have been set in an entirely new light by the evidence of papyri recently discovered in Egypt. From these it is entirely clear that from 8 B. C. to 202 A. D. the Roman census, usually at least disconnected from the listing of property for taxation, was taken in Egypt at intervals of fourteen years. The fourteen-year cycle can be traced back to the census of 9-8 B C, and the evidence renders it probable that, though there were census enrolments in a much earlier time, the fourteen year cycle originated with Augustus. Luke's statement that the census covered the whole world, that is, the Roman empire, is not directly established by the papyri, but neither is it disproved by them. Augustus is known to have instituted a valuation of property throughout the provinces, but of a general census we have no direct evidence other than the statement of Luke. Whether this census was in Palestine accompanied by a listing of property for taxation, or was, like those in Egypt, separated from such listing, is also a matter not made clear by the evidence. See KENYON, Classical Review, 1895, p. no; RAMSAY, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? chaps, vii, viii; but especially GRENFELL AND HUNT, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part I (London, 1899), pp. 207-14.

2. Would the kingdom of Herod have been included in such an order, supposing it to have been issued? There are several reasons to believe that this would have been the case. The kingdom of Herod was by no means an independent state, but differed from a Roman province more in name and appearance than in fact. Herod belonged to the large class of reges socii. He received his authority by the consent of the Romans (Jos., Antiq., xiv, 13, i; xiv, 14, 4). His transmission of it to his sons and their retention of it were subject to the approval of the emperor (Jos., Antiq., xvii, 8, i; xvii, II, 4; xvii, 13, 2; xviii, 7, 2). He paid tribute to Rome (APPIAN, De bell, civil., v, 75) and his sons, if they did not themselves pay tribute, were at least obliged to defer to Rome in the matter of the taxes which they collected (Jos., Antiq., xvii, n, 4; cf. also xix, 8, 2; xv, 4, 4; APPIAN, De reb. Syr., 50). A Roman legion guarded Jerusalem in the beginning of Herod's reign (Jos., Antiq., xv, 3, 7). Herod was not allowed to make war without the consent of the emperor or of his representatives (Jos., Antiq., xvi, 9, 3; xvi, 10, 8). He could not execute his own sentence of death against his sons without the consent of the emperor (Jos., Antiq., xvi, n, i; xvii, 5, 8). His subjects were required to take the oath of allegiance to Rome, and for refusing to do so six thousand Pharisees were fined (Jos., Antiq., xvii, 2, 4; cf. xviii, 5, 3). The statement of Marquardt (Römische Staatsverwaltung, Vol. I, p. 408) that " Herod is to be looked upon as a procurator with the title of king " seems to be strictly correct.

It has been further pointed out and urged by Ramsay, as an additional reason for supposing that Herod's kingdom would be included in a general plan of enrolment of the empire, that in the latter part of his life Herod fell into disfavor with Augustus (Jos., Antiq., xvi, 9, 3). But Josephus also relates that Herod was after no long time restored to favor with Augustus (Antiq., xvi, 10, 9, and ii, i). Unless, therefore, this restoration was but partial, or the order of enrolment was given while Herod was in disfavor, it would seem to have no special relation to the census. The more general facts, however, go far toward removing any improbability in the assertion of Luke that the enrolment included Judea. It is not necessary to suppose that the census was carried out simultaneously in all parts of the empire, or that in practice it covered absolutely every part of it.

3. Would such a census have been conducted as Luke implies that the one of which he speaks was conducted, each family going to its ancestral city? What interest had the Roman authorities in Jewish tribal lines and family connections? If the census was con ducted by imperial officers, it probably would not have been made after this fashion. The census of 6 or 7 A. D. (Acts 5:37) was conducted by Roman officers in Roman fashion, and caused great disturbance (Jos., Antiq., xviii, i, i). But if the enumeration was made by Herod at the request or command of Augustus, it might be, probably would be, conformed as nearly as possible to Jewish ideas (cf. RAMSAY, pp. 185 f., and SCHURER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes, 3d ed., Vol. I, pp. 396ff.). Luke does not say that the enumeration was made by the governor of Syria; he merely dates it by the term of office of Quirinius.

But it is also possible, as suggested by GRENFELL AND HUNT (op. cit., p. 211), that "his own city" in Luke 2:3 means, not his ancestral city, but the city of his permanent residence. In this case the implication of the statement would be that Bethlehem was the real home of the family, and that, whatever the occasion or length of the stay in Nazareth, it was the intention of Joseph and Mary to make Bethlehem their future home. This would, of course, correspond with the implication of Matthew's narrative (Matt 2:22, 23), and the statement of fact in Luke 2:3 may well be correct, even if the reason assigned for the journey in Luke 2:4 reflects a misapprehension on his part, or refers to the ground of Joseph's preference for taking up or resuming residence in Bethlehem rather than to a requirement imposed by the rules of the census.

4. Can the census referred to by Luke and supported by the evidence of Egyptian papyri have fallen in the year of Jesus birth as established by other evidence? The only census year that can be considered is that which, in accordance with the fourteen-year cycle, fell in 9-8 B. C. The next succeeding census, 6-7 A. D. (referred to in Acts 5:37 and Jos., Antiq., xviii, 1, i), is out of the question, being wholly irreconcilable with the other data (see the preceding note). But is the census of 9-8 B. C. a possibility? The other data, as shown in the preceding note, place the date of the birth of Jesus somewhere between 6 and 3 B. C. Can the gap between this result and 9-8 B. C. be bridged? Ramsay has endeavored to show that a census ordered for 9-8 B. C. might, not improbably, be actually taken in the year 6 B. C. ( Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? pp. 130ff., 174ff.). The evidence to which he appeals does, indeed, show that the returns made by the householders to the officer conducting the enumeration w r ere sometimes received by the officers in a year following that to which they referred, this latter being the census year proper. He has also cited an example of delay in a similar matter in the province of Galatia during the years 6-3 B. C., in which an interval of about two years elapsed between the decree that the inhabitants of Paphlagonia should take the oath of allegiance to Augustus (in consequence of the incorporation of their country in the province of Galatia following the death of the king of Paphlagonia) and the actual administration of the oath (Expositor, 1901, Vol. IV, pp. 321-23). Grenfell and Hunt, however, call attention to the fact that the instances of a year's interval between the date to which the returns referred and the presentation of them to the officers pertain to a later period, and that the indications do not favor the supposition that such an interval was usual as early as the end of the first century B. C. And they question whether, with all reasonable allowance for delay in the taking of the census, from whatever cause, it can be supposed to have taken place later than 7 B. C. Between this result and Matthew's statement that Jesus was born before Herod died there is, of course, no conflict. With Luke's own statements in 3:1 and 3:23 this result can be harmonized only by supposing that when Jesus was, as Luke says, " about thirty years old," he was in fact thirty-two, or, if the years of Tiberius were reckoned from the death of Augustus, thirty-four. Of these suppositions the former, at least, is not improbable.

5. But if the census referred to by Luke is that of 9-8 B. C., and if this census was actually taken in 7 B. C., can Quirinius have been governor of Syria at that time? The only governorship of Quirinius over Syria of which we have direct evidence, outside this statement of Luke, is that which began in 6 A. D. (Jos., Antiq., xviii, 2, i). But that he was governor of Syria also at some previous time, and as such conquered the Homonadenses, is established by indirect evidence which is accepted as convincing by the best historians (MOMMSEN, Res Gestae d wi Augusti, pp. 172ff.; ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 43-62; SCHURER, Jewish People, Div. I, Vol. I, pp. 351-56; 3d German ed., Vol. I, pp. 322-24; RAMSAY, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? chap, xi, and other authorities there given).

Respecting the date of this earlier governorship there is differ ence of opinion. Mommsen, Zumpt, Schiirer, and others place it in 3-2 B. C. In this case it would have begun after Herod's death (March, 4 B. C.). Zahn, on the basis of a criticism and amendment of the statements of Josephus, holds that Quirinius was governor of Syria but once, viz., in 4-3 B. C. (see ZAHN, in Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1893, pp. 633-54, and criticism of Zahn's view in SCHURER, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkcs, 3d ed., Vol. I, pp. 541ff.). In this case the governorship of Quirinius would coincide in part with the reign of Herod. But, aside from the fact of the doubtful character of Zahn's argument, which has not gained the assent of other scholars, it is to be observed that Luke does not say that the events which he records took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria, but that they occurred in the course of an enrolment, which enrolment was enrolment first, or the first held when Quirinius was governor. He seems distinctly to have in mind the well-known enrolment under Quirinius (Acts 5:37) and to date this as a previous one or the first of a series; cf. the evidence in I above that the census of 9-8 B. C. was the first of the series established on a fourteen-year cycle also occurring while Quirinius was governor. The conditions of his statement are met if the enrolment was begun by Herod during the governorship of a predecessor of Quirinius and completed in the term of office of Quirinius. Ramsay has endeavored to establish the probability that the campaign in which, as governor (legatus) of Syria, Quirinius subdued the Homonadenses fell in the year 6 B. C, including also the preceding or the following year. We know, indeed, that Quinctilius Varus was governor of Syria in 6-4 B. C. But Ramsay points to other instances in which, in addition to the regular proconsul or propraetor, a special lieutenant was appointed to have charge of the military operations and foreign policy of a province. The necessity of subduing the Homonadenses and the inexperience of Varus in military affairs would give occasion to such an arrangement at this time. Both officers would bear in Greek the title ἡγεμών which Luke applies to Quirinius.

Can it then be said that the data coincide in the assignment of the governorship of Quirinius and the enrolment recorded by Luke to the years 7-6 B. C.? The facts from which Ramsay argues seem to show that Quirinius may possibly have been legatus in the years named, being charged with a special military task while another was governor in general charge of the province. Luke's statement is not then clearly disproved by the other evidence, and may even furnish an important additional datum. But it must be admitted that Ram say's argument involves conjectures and improbable assumptions, and does not go beyond showing that his thesis is a somewhat improbable possibility. Such a solution cannot be regarded as finally satisfactory. The suspicion remains that there is some error or incompleteness in the data.

But may the error lie in the substitution of one proper name for another? The statement of TERTULLIAN (adv. Marc., iv, 19) which connects the birth of Jesus with a census held by Sentius Saturninus, governor of Syria 9-7 B. C., has usually been set aside because of its conflict with the statement of Luke. But the very fact that it is not derived from the New Testament suggests that it perhaps rested on independent evidence; and when we find the other data given by Luke pressing the census back into the very years of the governorship of Saturninus, it is obvious to inquire whether Luke has not con fused the names of Saturninus and Quirinius. Let it be noted that there were two enrolments, one falling in 6-7 A. D. and one about 9-8 B. C., both apparently known to Luke; that there were two governorships of Quirinius; that the second of these enrolments fell in the second governorship of Quirinius; and, finally, that the names Quirinius and Saturninus are at least slightly alike. Is it not possible that, associating the two governorships of Quirinius and the two enrolments, one of them under Quirinius, he may have fallen into the error of two enrolments, each in a governorship of Quirinius? If so, the mistake is in the name of Quirinius, not in the fact or date of the enrolment. (Cf. GRENFELL AND HUNT, op. cit.)

It must be evident that confident decision of the question here raised would be rash. Important new data have come to light within the last four or five years. Still other facts may yet be discovered and may set the whole matter in still clearer light. At present it is necessary to rest in the conclusion that, while the chronological statements of Luke are in the main confirmed by archaeological evidence, it must remain somewhat uncertain from what event he reckoned the years of Tiberius, how wide a margin is covered by the word about " in 3:23, and whether he or Tertullian is right in the name of the governor in whose term of office the first enrolment under Augustus took place in Palestine. The date of the birth of Jesus must apparently be provisionally assigned to 7 B. C.

See, in addition to the writers and passages cited above, ZUMPT, Das Geburtsjahr Christi, pp. 20-224; WIESELER, Chronological Synopsis, pp. 71-117, 143-50; ANDREWS, Life of Our Lord, pp. 71-82; WOOLSEY, in New Englander, October, 1869, and Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1870; SCHURER, History of Jewish People, Div. I, Vol. II, pp. 105-43, 3d German ed., Vol. I, pp. 508-43; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke; SANDAY in HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, pp. 645 f.

APPENDED NOTE III

REFERENCES TO THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW IN LUKE 2:22-24

The problem suggested by this passage can be best presented by an analysis of it into four parts, as follows:

It will be seen that vss. 22a and 24 refer to the ceremony of purification. Now, according to the law, this pertained to the mother. Vss. 22&, 23, on the other hand, interrupting the reference to purification, refer to a presentation of the child to the Lord in Jerusalem. Each portion of the passage has its difficulties, and the relation of the two gives rise to further questions.

1. The word "their," αὐτῶν, in vs. 22 is in apparent conflict with the law, which speaks only of the purification of the mother.

2. The bringing of the child to Jerusalem mentioned in 22b was not required by the law or any known usage; neither the redemption of the child nor the sacrifice for the purification of the mother required the presence of either mother or child in the temple.

3. There is no mention in the Old Testament of a ceremony of presentation of the child to the Lord. What the law requires is the devotion of the child to the Lord, and the redemption of him by the payment of five shekels. The quotation in vs. 23 of a portion of the law respecting redemption, joined by "as it is written" to vs. 22, seems to imply that vs. 22b referred, in the writer's mind, to redemption. Apparently, therefore, the writer has either converted redemption into presentation, or has introduced a ceremony of presentation, and has referred to it a passage which in the Old Testament refers to the devotion of the child to the Lord that in its turn necessitated the redemption of it.

4. The ceremony of purification took place forty days after the birth of the child. Redemption took place " from a month old " (Numb. 18:16).

For the plural "their" of vs. 22 there is no direct basis in the Old Testament law. Yet it may (a) reflect the thought of the first century respecting the meaning of the ceremony. If it refers to the mother and child, the basis for the inclusion of the child with the mother may have been furnished in the implication of circumcision that the child was unclean at birth, or in the necessary contact of a nursing child with its mother; and because of one or both of these the thought may have arisen that the child shared in the uncleanness of the mother until her purification, and that the ceremony of purification pertained to them both. Purely grammatical considerations would suggest that the word " their " refers to the father and mother, since it is to them that the plural subject of the verb of the sentence refers. Nor it is entirely improbable that, from considerations similar to those which pertain to the child, the notion should have arisen that the father shared with the mother in the uncleanness, and in the ceremony of purification. It is even in favor of this that the language of vs. 24, though agreeing in substance with Lev. 12:8, which refers to the sacrifice to be offered by a woman after child-birth, agrees verbally and exactly, not with the Greek version of this passage, but with that of Lev. 5:11, which relates to the offering to be made by a man who by contact (among possible causes) may have become unclean. Yet, on the whole, the reference of the pronoun is more probably to the mother and child. The suggestion of Edersheim that it refers to the Jews in general seems wholly improbable, (b) A different explanation is suggested by the general Hebraistic character of the first two chapters of Luke, which, quite aside from these verses in particular, renders it probable that Luke is here translating from a Hebrew or Aramaic original. In that case, especially if the original was in Hebrew, the word " their " may have arisen from a misreading of the possessive suffix in the original. This explanation would involve the conclusion that the evangelist was unfamiliar with the details of the Jewish law, hence was doubtless a gentile an inference not in itself improbable.

Of the visit to Jerusalem and the presentation of the child to the Lord in the temple there are likewise two possible explanations, (a) Though it was not required by law that either the mother or the child should go to Jerusalem in connection either with the redemption of the child or with the purification of the mother, and though it is very unlikely that it was customary for mothers all over Palestine to make such a journey, yet it is by no means improbable that, when proximity to Jerusalem made it easy, the mother would go in person with her child at the time of one or both of these ceremonies. And it is perhaps especially likely that the parents of Jesus would be impelled thus to go to Jerusalem by their exceptional feeling about the child Jesus. It is to be observed that the narrative does not say that the journey was required by law or custom, but only states the fact that it was made. There is, therefore, in any case no contradiction between Luke's statement and the law. The case is much the same respecting presentation of the child to the Lord. Of a ceremony of presentation we know nothing expressly from the law or from Jewish custom. But that such an act was sometimes voluntarily performed, in this case perhaps exceptionally, as an outward expression of the devotion of the child to the Lord, which devotion the law required, is by no means improbable. Indeed, if it be true, as Edersheim states (Life of Jesus, Vol. I, p. 194, apparently supported by the Mishna, Bechoroth, vii, I; cf. vi, 12), that only a child without blemish could be redeemed, it would seem almost a matter of necessity that the child should be taken before the priest, and so naturally, in the case of all those living near to Jerusalem, to the temple. Such a presentation could hardly have followed the payment of the redemption price, but must have preceded or accompanied it. Cf. vs. 27. (&) The expression "to present him to the Lord" may be the evangelist's interpretation of Exod. 13:12, " thou shalt set apart to the Lord" (Hebrew, הַעֲבַרְתָּ "thou shalt cause to pass over;" Greek, ἁγιάζεις, "thou shalt consecrate" ), or of the words which stood in his Hebrew source at this point. In the former case we should suppose that the evangelist added " to present him to the Lord," and the quotation of vs. 23, as his own explanation of the visit to Jerusalem, the source having contained only vss. 220 and 24; in the latter case the whole matter stood in his Hebrew source, the Greek expression being Luke's translation of it.

Respecting the apparent discrepancy between redemption thirty days, and purification forty days, after the birth of the child, both spoken of as occurring on the same visit to Jerusalem, it is to be observed that, although the law of Numb. 16:18 names a month after the birth of the child as the approximate time at which the redemption price was due (on the force of the preposition מו in such a case see BROWN, DRIVER, and BRIGGS, Hebrew Lexicon, s. v., 2, b), yet in usage a certain leeway was allowed. This seems to be clearly indicated in the Mishna, Bechoroth, viii, 6 (cf. also viii, 5), in which it is prescribed that "if a first-born son dies within thirty days, the priest must return the money which has been paid for his redemption, if it has already been received; but if the son dies after thirty days, the father must still pay the money to the priest, if he has not already given it. . . . . If the father dies inside of thirty days the son rests under the presumption that the redemption price has not been paid, unless he is able to produce proof of its payment. If the father dies after thirty days, the presumption is that the redemption price has been paid, unless the contrary can be proved." From this passage it appears that, though the redemption price was properly payable at the end of a month, it might be paid even earlier or later; and this renders it probable that, especially if the parents intended to go to the temple at the time of the ceremony of the purification, they would thus delay a few days the payment of the redemption price. Indeed, in a country where travel and transportation of money were less easy than in modern times, some leeway would be almost a matter of necessity. For other and extreme instances of delay in the ceremonies appointed for a definite time, see Bechoroth, viii, 5, and Kherithoth, i, 7.

Against the supposition that the whole passage is simply the work of one who knew neither the facts nor Jewish law and custom, and in favor of an explanation that finds, either in the passage as it stands, or in the original of which it is a translation, an account consistent with the law or the usage of the first century, there are two considerations which are at least of some weight: (a) It is probable that a writer who knew neither the facts nor Jewish usage, but who had access, as this writer evidently had, to the Old Testament scriptures would have made his references to these more exact, if not even verbally so. The very departures from the letter of the law imply that behind this narrative there lies something besides the bare prescriptions of the law and the imagination of the writer. (b) The quotation of Lev. 12:8 in vs. 24 does not bear the marks of having been introduced by an inventor who was unfamiliar with Jewish law and custom. Such a writer, adding a specific statement of what sacrifice was offered, could hardly have done so except to emphasize the fact that the offering was that which the law permitted to the poor, and in that case would surely not have failed to call attention to this by some comment. This sentence must then reflect either acquaintance with the facts or familiarity with Jewish usage, if not also an assumption of such familiarity on the part of his readers. In either case it is not the invention of one unfamiliar with Jewish usage. But vs. 22, as far as the word "Jerusalem," must come from the same hand as 24 (i. e., cannot be the addition of a later hand), and "their" must in that case be either an error of translation or reflect correctly the thought of that time. But if vss. 220 and 24 are, at least in their original form, from the hand, not of an ignorant inventor, but of one who knew either the facts or Jewish usage or both, it is improbable that vss. 22,b, 23 are an interpolation of one who therein betrays his ignorance. For it is improbable that one ignorant enough to insert " their " in vs. 22 incorrectly (as is the case on the supposition that the errors of the passage are due to one who translated the Hebrew original and inserted vss. 22b, 23) would feel any occasion to add a presentation ceremony to that of purification narrated in this document. And if " their " is not an error of translation, but a correct reflection of custom or thought not otherwise known to us, then it is gratuitous to assume that the reflections in vss. 22b, 23 of custom likewise unknown to us, but not contradictory to the law, are the invention of ignorance.

Apparently, therefore, probability lies between the possibilities that "their" αὐτῶν in vs. 22 and "to present" παραστῆσαι in vs. 23 are errors of translation, and, on the other hand, that the whole account as it stands correctly reflects the Jewish usage and thought of the first century, to whose divergencies from the letter of the law, not otherwise known to us, we have testimony in this passage.

1) On Bethphage, 19:29, and Emmaus, 24:13, see the Bible dictionaries. On " the country of the Gerasenes," 8:26, see chap, i, p. 2, n. 2.

2) On 4:31, "down to Capernaum," observe that Nazareth is 1,144 feet above sea-level, while Capernaum is on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which is 682 feet below sea-level. On the route of the triumphal entry as described by Luke in 19:37, 41 (these details are peculiar to him) see STANLEY, Sinai and Palestine, pp. 186-90.

3) Concerning a possible exception to this statement in 2:22-24, see Appended Note III, p. 74.

4) To this there should perhaps be added three passages in which Westcott and Hort recognize the use of Old Testament language (23:35, 36, 49), but the resemblance to the Old Testament is so slight and incidental, extending in two cases to a single word only, that they afford little evidence.

5) See PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. xxxv.

6) See Appended Note I, p. 67.

7) See chap, v, p. 99, n. 2; LIGHTFOOT, Biblical Essays, p. 163; PLUMMER, ad loc.

8) See Appended Note II, p. 68.

9) See Article by SHAILER MATHEWS, in Biblical World, June, 1895, pp. 450ff., of which free use has been made in this list.

10) Especially noteworthy are the use of the optative with ἄν (a classical idiom found in the New Testament only in Luke and Acts), the frequent employment of ἐν with the infinitive (a construction very common in the Septuagint, and found in all parts of Luke except the preface, and occurring six times as often as in Matthew and Mark together), the frequent occurrence of ἐγένετο δέ and καὶ ἐγένετο (about four times as often as in Matthew and Mark together), and prevailingly with the Hebraistic construction following (indicative alone, or καὶ with an indicative; in Acts, on the other hand, usually with the infinitive following). See J. H. MOULTON, Expositor, January, 1904, p. 74. Thus the peculiarities of Luke's style are in part Hebraistic, in part distinctly non-Hebraistic. See a detailed discussion of Luke's style in PLUMMER'S Commentary, pp. li ff. and 45. HAWKINS, Horae Synopticae, pp. 140-61,,

11) See, for example, PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. xi; HEADLAM, art. "Acts " in HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, p. 29; SCHMIEDEL, art. "Acts " in Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. I, p. 48; STANTON, in Expositor, May, 1893, pp. 336-53; FRIEDRICH, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben Verfassers, Halle, 1890.

12) PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. xii, says, " It is perhaps no exaggeration to say that nothing in biblical criticism is more certain than this statement," viz., that the author of Acts (not simply of the " wesections ") was a companion of Paul. With this statement agree also LIGHTFOOT, art. " Acts in SMITH, Dictionary of the Bible, 2d Eng. ed.; HEADLAM, art. "Acts" in HASTINGS, Dictionary of the Bible; RAMSAY, BLASS, and many others. On the other hand, McGIFFERT, Apostolic Age, pp. 237 f., 433 f.; SCHMIEDEL, art. "Acts" in Encyclopedia Biblica, Vol. I; WENDT, Kommentar über die Apostelgeschichte, 8th ed., and JULICHER, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, p. 268, distinguish between the author of the "we-sections" and the author of the book.

13) See chap, i, p. 8, n. 7.

14) Cf. Luke 22:44. The mention of the blood-like sweat being found in Luke only of our gospels, the statement of Justin is naturally understood as ascribing the gospel to an apostle or one of the companions of the apostles.

15) Could the common text of Luke 22:19-21 be accepted as genuine, this would be an almost indubitable instance of dependence either of Luke upon Paul (1 Cor. 11:23-25) or of Paul upon Luke. But on this passage see WESTCOTT AND HORT, New Testament in Greek, Vol. II, App., pp. 63 f.

16) See HOBART, Medical Language of Luke; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, pp. lxiii ff.

17) See, e. g., 5:19, "through the tiles," in place of expressions in Matthew and Mark which suggest a thatch roof; ἐπιστάτης 8:24 (Mark διδάσκαλος, Matthew κύριος); 5:5; 9:33, 49; 17:13; ῥαββεί never occurs in Luke; ἀληθῶς (9:27; 12:44; 21:3) instead of ἀμήν which Luke uses, but much less frequently than Matthew; νομικός (7:30; 10:25; 11:45, 46, 52; 14:3) instead of γραμματεύς, which Matthew and Mark usually employ. (See also MATHEWS, in Biblical World, May, 1895, pp. 340 f.; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. xxxiv.)

18) See, e. g., 2:7, 16, 24; 6:20, 21, 24, 25; 8:3; 9:58; 12:13-34; 14:12-14; 16:14, 15, 19-31; 18:22-30; 19:8; cf. MATHEWS, Social Teaching of Jesus, pp. 141 f.; PLUMMER, Commentary on Luke, p. xxv, especially as against an overemphasis on this element of the third gospel.