LUKE. 529 LUKE. the passion and the resurrection (xxii. l.-xxiv. 49). To this is added what was intended by the Evangelist to be a statement of the ascension (xxiv. 50-53) — a statement which is enhirgcd by )iim in the opening verses of the Book of Acts (i. 1-12). While it is generally admitted that the third Gospel is the latest of the three Sj-noptie Gospels (see Gospels, Hynoptic Prohirm). it is a matter of considerable critical debate whether, in his narrative, the author made use of Matthew as well as of Mark. But whatever sources he used, canonical and extra-canonical (cf. the statement in i. 1-4), it is characteristic of his work that it is done, not onh- with an historical aim in view, but in a literary spirit. This is clear from his constant tendency to enrich the narrative rhetor- ically — his ability to do which is evident from the literary character of his prologue. At the same time no other Evangelist uses such strik- ing Hebraisms and uses them so conspicuously as this one. The combination of these two ele- ments gives a versatility to his style which is not possessed by any other of the Evangelists. A marked example of this quality of style is seen in the sharp change from the classical prologue ( i. 1-4) to the Hebraistic narrative of the nativity (i. 5-ii. 52). That this Hebraism comes from the linguistic character of the sources used niay be granted ; but the author's willingness to use it. as he does, in the narrative of purely Hebrew events (note the difference in the linguistic char- acter of the story of the Jerusalem Church and the record of Paul's travels in the Book of Acts, and notice that the Hebrew element is practically nearly absent from the Palestinian narrative which the Gospel gives) shows on his part a cer- tain literary conception of what was proper in the treatment of the diflferent lines his narrative pursued. It is generally admitted that, whoever the author was. he was identical with the author of the Book of Acts — and further that he was not an eyewitness of the Gospel events, though he was not necessarily outside of the Gospel gen- eration. In fact, the latter point is practically stated by the author himself in his prologue (cf. i. 2). From the evident literary character of the au- thor's writinss it is most natural to infer that he was a Gentile Christian of Greek culture. This is questioned, indeed, by only a few scholars. At the same lime, from a survey of its theologi- cal views, as well as its vocabulary and its phraseology', it is plain that the autlior is of a strikingly Pauline cast of mind, the only ques- tion practically being as to the degree of his Paulinity. I'nlike the other Gospels, tliis one names the render for whom it was intended — a certain Theophilus (i. 3). From the term used in addressing him (KpdTiare), he was evidently a man of rank: while, from the general Gentile tenor of the narrative — especially the evident ignorance regarding Palestinian geography and Jewish customs which it implies on its reader's part — he was clearly a Gentile Christian. The Gospel gives no hiiit of Theophilus's residence, though such tradition as exist? makes it .- - tiocli. The author's motive is clearly given in the prologue — that Theophilus might have cer- tain knowledge of the words regarding which he had been instructed (i. 4). From this it is evi- dent that the reader, who was either a convert or well advanced toward an acceptance of Chris- tianity, stands as a type of the general class for which the Gospels were written. They had been instructed orally and largely on religious, if not doctrinal lines, ris candidates for baptism (note the significant use of the word KaTrixv^v'. '1 i. 4), the historical background not having been prominent, to say nothing of complete. To such, especially if galiicred froiri paganism, it became a matter of interest and of importance to know the full history which stood behind the salvation which had been taught them. Sec ACTS or the Apostles. As to the time of this Gospel's writing there is an absence of the marks which in ilatthew and Mark seem to indicate a date previous to the destruction of .Jerusalem (A.u. 70). On the other hand, the military terms in such passages as xix. 41-44 and xxi. 20-24 (terms peculiar to this Gospel) would readily agree with the event hav- ing taken place when the author wrote; while the announcement of the Second Advent does not seem to be connected so much with this definite catastrophe as with the indefinite future of the times of the Gentiles being fulfilled (cf. xxi. 21- 28 as compared with Mark xiii. 19-27 and Matt. xxiv. 21-31, and see further such com- parisons as Luke xxi. 7 with Mark xiii. 3-4 and Matt. xxiv. 3. Luke xxi. 12 with ilark xiii. 9; though, on the other side, we cannot but notice in JIark xiii. 10-12 and Matt. xxiv. 12-14 far-reaching future statements to which Luke has no parallel). On the whole the most likely date is between 70 and 80. In the internal evidence there is nothing which would render impossible an authorship by Luke, the companion of Paul. In fact, such conclusion is the general though not the unanimous opinion of criticism. Patristic evidence, however, is very clear, summing itself up into a witness to the existence of the book as far back as the last decade of the first century, and a recognition of its Lukan authorship as far back as the second half of the second century. According to the common literary custom of the first century age, the name of the" author must have been originally prefixed to the dedication of the book (i. 1-4). From this place it evidently was transferred to the title of the book as the" book came to be ac- cepted into the canon. The only title ever at- tached to the book, however, points to the name of the author as Luke. Professor Blass of Halle has carried out in application to this Gospel his suggestion original- ly made regarding the two text forms of the Book of Acts; only, in the case of the Gospel, the shorter text is represented in that of the Codex Bez;e (D), the longer in that of the New Testament. Bim,io(;i!.Piiv. Besides the usual Xew Testa- ment introductions, the introductory portions of the more recent commentaries on Luke, ami the special Svno))tic works referred to in the lit- erature cited vnider M.ttiiew. Gospel of. consult: Halcombe. ao.yxl Difpcuthes. or the Displaced ftrrtinii iii Liilc (London, ISSS) ; Bak- huyzcn. Donmatisch Knrahtrr dot ran hct Einn- gcUe ran Lucas irordt treijekcnd (Amsterdam. 1888) ; Feine, Vorlanonische Vebcrliefcrunit do Ltil-as )"» Evanncliiim xind AposM(jeschirhte (Gotha. ISOl): Krenkel. Jonrphiis uiid Liikas (Leipzig. 1894) : Bernard. The Songs of the Holy yatiintii (London. 1895); Blass, ErangeUum
