ページの画像
PDF
ePub

TO

argument is strong that this eye-witness was Luke, and that these passages are by the same person who wrote the rest of the book. We know that Luke was a Gentile physician (Col. 4 : 14), and we note his trained use of medical terms, and the fact that he alone records Jesus' use of saying, “Physician, heal thyself” (4:23). His gospel shows literary finish, and an historical sense much beyond the other gospels, as might be expected from a man of broader education.

His sources of information are various. He knows about written records (1 :1-4), and-as we have seen

-made use of Mark's gospel (whose author he knew personally, Phile. 24) and of the Logia. Probably his source for the story of the infancy was a written onethe style indicates this—and he may have used other similar sources. Then he may have learned much from Paul; for there are plain indications that Paul, though he never met Jesus during his ministry, was well acquainted with the facts of that ministry (e. g., Acts 20 : 35; I Cor. 15:1-8; 9:14). Also, in his travels with Paul he must have met many early disciples (e. g., Philip the evangelist at Cæsarea, Acts 21:8) who could give him first-hand information about Jesus. We notice that he seems to have had special information about the court of Herod (3:1, 19; 8:3; 9:7–9; 13:31; 23: 7-12) gained, perhaps, from Manaen (Acts 13 : 1) or from Joanna (8:3). In all, more than one-half of his gospel is not found in the other synoptics.

His two books are dedicated to Theophilus, whom some suppose to be any “Lover of God," but who was probably a real person—a Roman of rank (so the title" most excellent” would indicate: cf. Acts 24 : 3; 26 : 25; 23 : 26). Of course, he intended them for others besides Theophilus, and many things indicate that the readers he had in mind were Gentiles and especially Romans. He substitutes Gentile terms for Jewish-e. g., master or teacher for rabbi, the skull for Golgotha (23 : 33), zealot for Cananæan (6 : 16); he tells of “the feast of unleavened bread which is called the Passover" (22 : 1); he explains that Capernaum is a city of Galilee (4:31) and that Arimathea is a city of the Jews (23 : 51); he calls the little sheet of water in Galilee a lake and not a sea; he even states that the Mount of Olives is nigh unto Jerusalem (Acts 1:12). On the other hand, he takes for granted that his readers know just where the Market of Appius and the Three Taverns are, and so will understand how far out from Rome the brethren came to meet Paul (Acts 28 : 15).

Luke plainly states the purpose of his writing: it is that Theophilus may know that the Christian faith, which he has embraced, is founded on facts that cannot be shaken (1:4). These facts are not alone those set forth in his gospel: the Book of Acts is a continua

na

tion of them: and there is reason to think that Luke intended to write still another book-alas! that it was left unwritten-carrying on further the story of the work of Christ as it was wrought through his apostles. Other writers already have recorded some of these facts; but it seems to Luke that, having special opportunities for investigation and giving special care to his task, he can improve upon their work (1:3). He writes, therefore, as an historian, and Dr. Ramsay, who is specially qualified to pronounce upon Luke's other book, Acts, declares that for trustworthiness, skill in arranging his material, and sympathetic historical insight, he should be reckoned “among the historians of the first rank.” He writes, also, as a literary artist, showing this not only in his command of Greek and his versatile style, but still more in his artistic treatment of each subject, his “rare combination of descriptive power with simplicity and dignity,” and his “insight into the lights and shadows of character, and the conflict between spiritual forces ” (Plummer).

Prompted by his historical instinct, Luke tries to arrange his material in chronological order. He takes from the Logia practically the same extracts as those in Matthew; but instead of giving them in a few large collections, he breaks them up and puts them, so far as possible, in their original setting. In his use of Mark he follows Mark's order very closely in the first part; even as Matthew does in the last part. But Luke has a long passage (9 : 51-18 : 14) inserted into Mark's narrative and consisting largely of matter peculiar to himself. The indications of time for the events in this passage are few and vague, and the incidents seem to be gathered from various periods of Jesus' ministry. Where to place them is a difficult problem, and gives rise to the chief disagreements between various harmonies of the gospels or chronologies of the life of Christ. Possibly Luke himself did not know just where to put them, and threw them together as disconnected stories he had gathered from various sources; indeed, some critics would call this portion of his gospel “Luke's scrap-basket.” Possibly, however, the section—which has its peculiaritieswas taken by Luke from some written source, not used by Mark or Matthew.

Luke, with the great Gentile world in mind, sets forth a universal gospel. Jesus, whose genealogy is traced back to Adam instead of stopping with Abraham, is the Saviour for all men—for Samaritans, Gentiles, publicans, sinners, outcasts, as well as for Jews. Most of the parables peculiar to Luke's gospel are evangelistic; e. g., the great supper, the good Samaritan, the Pharisee and the publican, the lost sheep, the lost coin, the prodigal son. There is special interest in women and in the life of the home. There are numerous teachings about riches-not in condemnation but in warning; possibly this was because Theophilus was wealthy, or possibly Paul, when taking up his great collection for the poor at Jerusalem, emphasized Jesus' teachings about riches and poverty, and this impressed Luke who was with Paul part of the time. There is much emphasis of prayer, both by direct teachings and by references to Christ's example. The catholic spirit of this gospel, harmonizing as it does with the teachings of Paul, is a better reason than the mere fact that Luke at times travelled with Paul, for calling it “the Gospel of Paul.”

Luke, more than Matthew, in following Mark's account of Jesus, omits details that might seem inconsistent with sinlessness and full divinity; e. g., the violent acts in cleansing the temple; such emotions as anger, grief, groaning, vehemence; the strange sorrow and homesickness of Gethsemane, and the cry on the cross, “My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?” He also shows deep respect for the apostles (a title he uses frequently while Matthew and Mark use it rarely), and dislikes to record anything to their discredit; e. g., he omits the rebuke to Peter (Mark 8:33), the censure of the twelve (Mark 8 : 174.), the ambitious request of James and John (Mark 10:35f.), and the flight at Jesus' arrest (Mark 14 : 50); he tones down the denial by Peter (22 : 54-62), and the rebuke to the twelve on the lake (8 : 25); he excuses the sleep at Gethsemane as "for sorrow” (22 : 45), and Peter's proposal to build three tabernacles on the

« 前へ次へ »