he was a member. Jesus of Nazareth is to most of them personally unknown; the title, Son of God, which it was the duty and pride of the church to apply emphatically to him, begins to awaken a degree of mystic reverence; and the believer feels bound to relate every act and saying in terms of submissive admiration. Yet, although the above title, continually repeated among gentiles, must probably acquire some different associations to those which strict Jews would allow, it does not appear that Mark had taken the pains to define clearly his conception of the designation which he places so conspicuously in front of his Gospel: certainly there are no indications that he or his circle were yet in possession of the ideas of the logos and its incarnation, which afterwards were made to supply such ample meaning to the term.*

* Credner, Einl. § 56, p. 122, comes to rather a different conclusion respecting the authorship of the second Gospel. "The great correspondence in expression between this Gospel and those of Matthew and Luke, shows incontrovertibly, even without further evidence, its original composition in the Greek language. As far as relates, on the other hand, to the time and place of composition, Eusebius appears to be our only authority. He himself however rests his statement on the sayings of Clement of Alexandria and Papias. The statement of Clement is opposed with precisely equal weight to that of Irenæus, so that there remains to us only the oldest and weightiest of all, the testimony of the Presbyter John in Papias. The latter tells us certainly, in agreement with the tradition of the church, that a follower of Peter, named Mark, had noted down separate evangelic records delivered by the Apostle, but the description which is given at the same time of these notes, does not correspond with our Gospel of Mark. This Gospel therefore in its present form cannot be the work of Mark."

The supposed disagreement with the description of Papias, is the historical order in which the Gospel is drawn up, whereas Papias said that Mark wrote "what he remembered, but not in the order (Tage) in which things were spoken or done by Christ;" also that "Peter made his discourses not in the way of a regular history" (OUVTAğIV).

Yet this does not clearly indicate that Papias had in view any other composition than our present Gospel of Mark, for he might intend to disapprove merely of its chronological order, and not to deny that it was at

tempted to be written in some order. The last sense seems to apply to Peter's
discourses only.

But would not Mark himself have written in Latin, since he wrote for
the church at Rome? Possibly he had in view the churches of Alexandria
and the East also. The traditions had acquired a fixed form in the Greek.
The latter was the apostolic tongue. If Mark had written in Latin, Pa-
pias might have been expected to notice it, since he tells us the λoyia of
Matthew were written in Hebrew.

(1.4 Alford In Test. 34 Ea. Voc I. Dirrty. use this undence & gives quotatuns.

་་༧

11/32-35

CHAPTER V.

ON THE DATE AND CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL OF

ST. LUKE.

THE prefaces to this Gospel and the Acts show that both proceed from the same author, and the earliest traditions agree that he was Luke, the companion of Paul, mentioned Col. iv. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Philem. 24. There is some reason for supposing that he was the same as Silas.*

This Gospel, like the others, is not alluded to in any of the speeches in the Acts, nor in the Epistles.†

A. D. 96. Clement of Rome has a passage agreeing exactly with Luke xvii. 2; but nearly the same sentence is in Mark.

The pronoun we first occurs in the narrative of the Acts, at ch. xvi. 10. "We endeavoured to go into Macedonia." The only companions of St. Paul at this time appear to have been Silas and Timothy. (See xv. 40; xvi. 3, 4, 6.) In this case either St. Paul, Silas, or Timothy, wrote the Acts.

It was neither Timothy nor Paul himself, ch. xx. 4. "And there accompanied him (Paul) into Asia, Sopater of Berea.... and Timotheus, &c. These going before, tarried for us at Troas."

Also ch. xx. 13, "And we went before to ship, and sailed into Assos, there intending to take in Paul.”

Therefore Silas was the writer. Wherever the pronoun we occurs, throughout the Acts, there is no objection to supposing that Silas was of the company. The name Silas, or Silvanus, has nearly the same meaning as Lucas or Lucanus, the one being derived from Silva, a wood, and the other from Lucus, a grove; each being probably merely a latinized form of the author's original Greek or Hebrew name.

+ John the Baptist's preaching is mentioned Acts xiii. 25, and the Lord's supper 1 Cor. xi. 23, in words agreeing very nearly with Luke. But neither passage is introduced as a quotation; and it is more likely that Luke should have borrowed from Paul, than the converse.

A. D. 140. Justin Martyr mentions the visit of Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, in the words of Luke i. 35–38; and Christ's agony, in the words of Luke xxii. 42; both which texts have no parallel one in the other Gospels. He does not mention Luke by name, but frequently speaks of the Gospels or memoirs composed by the Apostles and their companions, as his authority.

A. D. 178. Irenæus is the first who names Luke as the author of a Gospel. After speaking of Mark, he says, "And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the Gospel preached by him."—" But the Gospel according to Luke being of a priestly character, begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense to God."-" But if any one rejects Luke, as if he did not know the truth, he will be convicted of throwing away the Gospel, of which he professeth to be a disciple. For there are many, and those very necessary, parts of the Gospel which we know by his means."

A. D. 194. Clement of Alexandria (according to Eusebius) "had a tradition that the Gospels containing the genealogies were first written."

A. D. 230. Origen. "The third Gospel is that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts."

A. D. 392. Jerome. "The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and published his Gospel in the countries of Achaia and Boeotia."

A. D. 596. Isidore, of Seville. "Matthew wrote his Gospel first in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke, the third, in Achaia; John, the last, in Asia."

II. The most prevalent opinion, then, was, that Luke's Gospel was written the third in order of time; which agrees well with the internal evidence, for, on comparing the three,

there is much appearance that Luke made use of both Matthew and Mark.

In addition to internal evidence and conjecture, which apply to the case of Luke as well as that of Mark, he himself gives a Preface which assists us in deciding whether he made use of his predecessors. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which were from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed."

Luke does not in this state precisely the sources of his information, for the phrase," having had perfect knowledge of all things from the very first," is a vague one. His words certainly do not imply that he borrowed from some of the many who went before him; but neither do they disclaim it so distinctly as to set aside the internal evidence of his having done so. Matthew and Mark are the only Gospels extant which could have been amongst the many alluded to;* and it seems very evident, on examination, that Luke drew largely from both, and especially from Mark. Compare

Luke iv. 1—12, with Matt. iv. Luke vi. 1—11, with Mark ii. 23—

1-11.

iv. 38-44, with Mark i. 29-39.

v. 12-15, with Mark i. 40-45, and Matt. viii. 1—4.

v. 18-38, with Mark ii. 3-22, and Matt. ix. 2—8.

iii. 6.

viii. 26-39, with Mark v. 1—20. ix. 23-36, with Mark viii. 34; ix. 10.

xxii. 7-13, with Mark xiv. 12— 16.

* Origen argued that Luke could not intend to include Matthew and Mark amongst the many, because they did not "take in hand (erexinov) to write," but wrote. Most Christian writers have been anxious to prove