Gospel of Saint Luke
The subject will be treated under the following heads:
I. Biography of Saint Luke;
II.Authenticity of the Gospel;
III. Integrity of the Gospel;
IV. Purpose and Contents;
V. Sources of the Gospel: Synoptic Problem;
VI. Saint Luke's Accuracy;
VII. Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene;
VIII. Who Spoke the Magnificat?
IX. The Census of Quirinius;
X. Saint Luke and Josephus.
I. BIOGRAPHY OF SAINT LUKE
The name Lucas (Luke) is probably an abbreviation from Lucanus,
like Annas from Ananus, Apollos from Apollonius, Artemas from
Artemidorus, Demas from Demetrius, etc. (Schanz, "Evang. des
heiligen Lucas", 1, 2; Lightfoot on "Col.", iv, 14; Plummer, "St.
Luke", introd.) The word Lucas seems to have been unknown before
the Christian Era; but Lucanus is common in inscriptions, and is
found at the beginning and end of the Gospel in some Old Latin
manuscripts (ibid.). It is generally held that St. Luke was a
native of Antioch. Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. III, iv, 6) has: Loukas
de to men genos on ton ap Antiocheias, ten episteuen iatros, ta
pleista suggegonos to Paulo, kai rots laipois de ou parergos ton
apostolon homilnkos--"Lucas vero domo Antiochenus, arte medicus,
qui et cum Paulo diu conjunctissime vixit, et cum reliquis
Apostolis studiose versatus est." Eusebius has a clearer statement
in his "Qu�stiones Evangelic�", IV, i, 270: ho de Loukas to men
genos apo tes Boomenes Antiocheias en--"Luke was by birth a native
of the renowned Antioch" (Schmiedel, "Encyc. Bib."). Spitta,
Schmiedel, and Harnack think this is a quotation from Julius
Africanus (first half of the third century). In Codex Bez� (D)
Luke is introduced by a "we" as early as Acts, xi, 28; and, though
this is not a correct reading, it represents a very ancient
tradition. The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch
and was well acquainted with it (Acts, xi, 19-27; xiii, 1; xiv,
18-21, 25, xv, 22, 23, 30, 35; xviii, 22). We are told the
locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch",
vi, 5; and it has been pointed out by Plummer that, out of eight
writers who describe scribe the Russian campaign of 1812, only
two, who were Scottish, mention that the Russian general, Barclay
de Tolly, was of Scottish extraction. These considerations seem to
exclude the conjecture of Renan and Ramsay that St. Luke was a
native of Philippi.
St. Luke was not a Jew. He is separated by St. Paul from those of
the circumcision (Col. iv, 14), and his style proves that he was a
Greek. Hence he cannot be identified with Lucius the prophet of
Acts, xiii, 1, nor with Lucius of Rom., xvi, 21, who was cognatus
of St. Paul. From this and the prologue of the Gospel it follows
that Epiphanius errs when he calls him one of the Seventy
Disciples; nor was he the companion of Cleophas in the journey to
Emmaus after the Resurrection (as stated by Theophylact and the
Greek Menol.). St. Luke had a great knowledge of the Septuagint
and of things Jewish, which he acquired either as a Jewish
proselyte (St. Jerome) or after he became a Christian, through his
close intercourse with the Apostles and disciples. Besides Greek,
he had many opportunities of acquiring Aramaic in his native
Antioch, the capital of Syria. He was a physician by profession,
and St. Paul calls him "the most dear physician" (Col., iv, 14).
This avocation implied a liberal education, and his medical
training is evidenced by his choice of medical language. Plummer
suggests that he may have studied medicine at the famous school of
Tarsus, the rival of Alexandria and Athens, and possibly met St.
Paul there. From his intimate knowledge of the eastern
Mediterranean, it has been conjectured that he had lengthened
experience as a doctor on board ship. He travailed a good deal,
and sends greetings to the Colossians, which seems to indicate
that he had visited them.
St. Luke first appears in the Acts at Troas (xvi, 8 sqq.), where
he meets St. Paul, and, after the vision, crossed over with him to
Europe as an Evangelist, landing at Neapolis and going on to
Philippi, "being assured that God had called us to preach the
Gospel to them" (note especially the transition into first person
plural at verse 10). He was, therefore, already an Evangelist. He
was present at the conversion of Lydia and her companions, and
lodged in her house. He, together with St. Paul and his
companions, was recognized by the pythonical spirit: "This same
following Paul and us, cried out, saying: These men are the
servants of the most high God, who preach unto you the way of
salvation" (verse 17). He beheld Paul and Silas arrested, dragged
before the Roman magistrates, charged with disturbing the city,
"being Jews", beaten with rods and thrown into prison. Luke and
Timothy escaped, probably because they did not look like Jews
(Timothy's father was a gentile). When Paul departed from
Philippi, Luke was left behind, in all probability to carry on the
work of Evangelist. At Thessalonica the Apostle received highly
appreciated pecuniary aid from Philippi (Phil., iv, 15, 16),
doubtless through the good offices of St. Luke. It is not unlikely
that the latter remained at Philippi all the time that St. Paul
was preaching at Athens and Corinth, and while he was travelling
to Jerusalem and back to Ephesus, and during the three years that
the Apostle was engaged at Ephesus. When St. Paul revisited
Macedonia, he again met St. Luke at Philippi, and there wrote his
Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
St. Jerome thinks it is most likely that St. Luke is "the brother,
whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches" (II Cor.
viii, 18), and that he was one of the bearers of the letter to
Corinth. Shortly afterwards, when St. Paul returned from Greece,
St. Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas, and with him made
the long coasting voyage described in Acts, xx. He went up to
Jerusalem, was present at the uproar, saw the attack on the
Apostle, and heard him speaking "in the Hebrew tongue" from the
steps outside the fortress Antonia to the silenced crowd. Then he
witnessed the infuriated Jews, in their impotent rage, rending
their garments, yelling, and flinging dust into the air. We may be
sure that he was a constant visitor to St. Paul during the two
years of the latter's imprisonment at C�area. In that period he
might well become acquainted with the circumstances of the death
of Herod Agrippa I, who had died there eaten up by worms"
(skolekobrotos), and he was likely to be better informed on the
subject than Josephus. Ample opportunities were given him, 'having
diligently attained to all things from the beginning", concerning
the Gospel and early Acts, to write in order what had been
delivered by those "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and
ministers of the word" (Luke, i, 2, 3). It is held by many writers
that the Gospel was written during this time, Ramsay is of opinion
that the Epistle to the Hebrews was then composed, and that St.
Luke had a considerable share in it. When Paul appealed to C�sar,
Luke and Aristarchus accompanied him from C�sarea, and were with
him during the stormy voyage from Crete to Malta. Thence they went
on to Rome, where, during the two years that St. Paul was kept in
prison, St. Luke was frequently at his side, though not
continuously, as he is not mentioned in the greetings of the
Epistle to the Philippians (Lightfoot, "Phil.", 35). He was
present when the Epistles to the Colossians, Ephesians and
Philemon were written, and is mentioned in the salutations given
in two of them: "Luke the most dear physician, saluteth you"
(Col., iv, 14); "There salute thee . . . Mark, Aristarchus, Demas,
and Luke my fellow labourers" (Philem., 24). St. Jerome holds that
it was during these two years Acts was written.
We have no information about St. Luke during the interval between
St. Paul's two Roman imprisonments, but he must have met several
of the Apostles and disciples during his various journeys. He
stood beside St. Paul in his last imprisonment; for the Apostle,
writing for the last time to Timothy, says: "I have fought a good
fight, I have finished my course. . . . Make haste to come to me
quickly. For Demas hath left me, loving this world. . . . Only
Luke is with me" (II Tim., iv, 7-11). It is worthy of note that,
in the three places where he is mentioned in the Epistles (Col.,
iv, 14; Philem., 24; II Tim., iv, 11) he is named with St. Mark
(cf. Col., iv, 10), the other Evangelist who was not an Apostle
(Plummer), and it is clear from his Gospel that he was well
acquainted with the Gospel according to St. Mark; and in the Acts
he knows all the details of St. Peter's delivery--what happened at
the house of St. Mark's mother, and the name of the girl who ran
to the outer door when St. Peter knocked. He must have frequently
met St. Peter, and may have assisted him to draw up his First
Epistle in Greek, which affords many reminiscences of Luke's
style. After St. Paul's martyrdom practically all that is known
about him is contained in the ancient "Prefatio vel Argumentum
Luc�", dating back to Julius Africanus, who was born about A.D.
165. This states that he was unmarried, that he wrote the Gospel,
in Achaia, and that he died at the age of seventy-four in Bithynia
(probably a copyist's error for Boeotia), filled with the Holy
Ghost. Epiphanius has it that he preached in Dalmatia (where there
is a tradition to that effect), Gallia (Galatia?), Italy, and
Macedonia. As an Evangelist, he must have suffered much for the
Faith, but it is controverted whether he actually died a martyr's
death. St. Jerome writes of him (De Vir. III., vii). "Sepultus est
Constantinopoli, ad quam urbem vigesimo Constantii anno, ossa ejus
cum reliquiis Andre� Apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia?]." St.
Luke its always represented by the calf or ox, the sacrificial
animal, because his Gospel begins with the account of Zachary, the
priest, the father of John the Baptist. He is called a painter by
Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century), and by the Menology of
Basil II, A.D. 980. A picture of the Virgin in S. Maria Maggiore,
Rome, is ascribed to him, and can he traced to A.D. 847 It is
probably a copy of that mentioned by Theodore Lector, in the sixth
century. This writer states that the Empress Eudoxia found a
picture of the Mother of God. at Jerusalem, which she sent to
Constantinople (see "Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). As Plummer observes. it
is certain that St. Luke was an artist, at least to the extent
that his graphic descriptions of the Annunciation, Visitation,
Nativity, Shepherds. Presentation, the Shepherd and lost sheep,
etc., have become the inspiring and favourite themes of Christian
painters.
St. Luke is one of the most extensive writers of the New
Testament. His Gospel is considerably longer than St. Matthew's,
his two books are about as long as St. Paul's fourteen Epistles:
and Acts exceeds in length the Seven Catholic Epistles and the
Apocalypse. The style of the Gospel is superior to any N. T.
writing except Hebrews. Renan says (Les Evangiles, xiii) that it
is the most literary of tile Gospels. St. Luke is a painter in
words. "The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most
versatile of all New Testament writers. He can be as Hebraistic as
the Septuagint, and as free from Hebraisms as Plutarch. . . He is
Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when describing
Greek society" (Plummer, introd.). His great command of Greek is
shown by the richness of his vocabulary and the freedom of his
constructions.
II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE GOSPEL
A. Internal Evidence
The internal evidence may be briefly summarized as follows:
� The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint
Luke; and
� the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel.
The arguments are given at length by Plummer, "St. Luke" in "Int.
Crit. Com." (4th ed., Edinburgh, 1901); Harnack, "Luke the
Physician" (London, 1907); "The Acts of the Apostles" (London,
1909); etc.
(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely,
Saint Luke
There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this
proposition. The writer of the "we" sections claims to be a
companion of St. Paul. The "we" begins at Acts, xvi, 10, and
continues to xvi, 17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at
xx, 5 (Philippi), and continues to xxi, 18 (Jerusalem). It
reappears again at the departure for Rome, xxvii, 1 (Gr. text),
and continues to the end of the book.
Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the
rest of the Acts:
� from the natural way in which they fit in;
� from references to them in other parts; and
� from the identity of style.
The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative, but
there is no change of language. The characteristic expressions of
the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the
"we" as in the other sections. There is no change of style
perceptible. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive
examination of every word and phrase in the first of the "we"
sections (xvi, 10-17), and shows how frequent they are in the rest
of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with the other Gospels.
His manner of dealing with the first word (hos) will indicate his
method: "This temporal hos is never found in St. Matthew and St.
Mark, but it occurs forty-eight times in St. Luke (Gospel and
Acts), and that in all parts of the work." When he comes to the
end of his study of this section he is able to write: "After this
demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from
a source, and so was not composed by the author of the whole work,
take up a most difficult position. What may we suppose the author
to have left unaltered in the source? Only the 'we'. For, in fact,
nothing else remains. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style,
he must have transformed everything else into his own language. As
such a procedure is absolutely unimaginable, we are simply left to
infer that the author is here himself speaking." He even thinks it
improbable, on account of the uniformity of style, that the author
was copying from a diary of his own, made at an earlier period.
After this, Harnack proceeds to deal with the remaining "we"
sections, with like results. But it is not alone in vocabulary,
syntax and style, that this uniformity is manifest. In "The Acts
of the Apostles", Harnack devotes many pages to a detailed
consideration of the manner in which chronological data, and terms
dealing with lands, nations, cities, and houses, are employed
throughout the Acts, as well as the mode of dealing with persons
and miracles, and he everywhere shows that the unity of authorship
cannot be denied except by those who ignore the facts. This same
conclusion is corroborated by the recurrence of medical language
in all parts of the Acts and the Gospel.
That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is
the unanimous voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language
proves that the author was a physician. Westein, in his preface to
the Gospel ("Novum Test. Gr�cum", Amsterdam, 1741, 643), states
that there are clear indications of his medical profession
throughout St. Luke's writings; and in the course of his
commentary he points out several technical expressions common to
the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen. These were
brought together by the Bollandists ("Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). In the
"Gentleman's Magazine" for June, 1841, a paper appeared on the
medical language of St. Luke. To the instances given in that
article, Plummer and Harnack add several others; but the great
book on the subject is Hobart "The Medical Language of St. Luke"
(Dublin, 1882). Hobart works right through the Gospel and Acts and
points out numerous words and phrases identical with those
employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arct�us, Galen,
and Dioscorides. A few are found in Aristotle, but he was a
doctor's son. The words and phrases cited are either peculiar to
the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than in other New
Testament writings. The argument is cumulative, and does not give
way with its weakest strands. When doubtful cases and expressions
common to the Septuagint, are set aside, a large number remain
that seem quite unassailable. Harnack (Luke the Physician! 13)
says: "It is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more
especially from the style, of this great work that the author was
a physician by profession. Of course, in making such a statement
one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics, and yet the
arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing.
. . Those, however, who have studied it [Hobart's book]
carefully, will, I think, find it impossible to escape the
conclusion that the question here is not one of merely accidental
linguistic coloring, but that this great historical work was
composed by a writer who was either a physician or was quite
intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And,
indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sections,
but for the whole book." Harnack gives the subject special
treatment in an appendix of twenty-two pages. Hawkins and Zahn
come to the same conclusion. The latter observes (Einl., II, 427):
"Hobart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof that the
author of the Lucan work was a man practised in the scientific
language of Greek medicine--in short, a Greek physician" (quoted
by Harnack, op. cit.).
In this connection, Plummer, though he speaks more cautiously of
Hobart's argument, is practically in agreement with these writers.
He says that when Hobart's list has been well sifted a
considerable number of words remains. " The argument", he goes on
to say "is cumulative. Any two or three instances of coincidence
with medical writers may be explained as mere coincidences; but
the large number of coincidences renders their explanation
unsatisfactory for all of them, especially where the word is
either rare in the LXX, or not found there at all" (64). In "The
Expositor" (Nov. 1909, 385 sqq.), Mayor says of Harnack's two
above-cited works: "He has in opposition to the T�bingen school of
critics, successfully vindicated for St. Luke the authorship of
the two canonical books ascribed to him, and has further proved
that, with some few omissions, they may be accepted as trustworthy
documents. . . . I am glad to see that the English translator . .
has now been converted by Harnack's argument, founded in part,
as he himself confesses, on the researches of English scholars,
especially Dr. Hobart, Sir W. M. Ramsay, and Sir John Hawkins."
There is a striking resemblance between the prologue of the Gospel
and a preface written by Dioscorides, a medical writer who studied
at Tarsus in the first century (see Blass, "Philology of the
Gospels"). The words with which Hippocrates begins his treatise
"On Ancient Medicine" should be noted in this connection: 'Okosoi
epecheiresan peri ietrikes legein he graphein, K. T. L. (Plummer,
4). When all these considerations are fully taken into account,
they prove that the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts (and
the Gospel) was a physician. Now, we learn from St. Paul that he
had such a companion. Writing to the Colossians (iv, 11), he says:
"Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you." He was, therefore,
with St. Paul when he wrote to the Colossians, Philemon, and
Ephesians; and also when he wrote the Second Epistle to Timothy.
From the manner in which he is spoken of, a long period of
intercourse is implied.
(2) The Author of Acts was the Author of the Gospel
"This position", says Plummer, "is so generally admitted by
critics of all schools that not much time need be spent in
discussing it." Harnack may be said to be the latest prominent
convert to this view, to which he gives elaborate support in the
two books above mentioned. He claims to have shown that the
earlier critics went hopelessly astray, and that the traditional
view is the right one. This opinion is fast gaining ground even
amongst ultra critics, and Harnack declares that the others hold
out because there exists a disposition amongst them to ignore the
facts that tell against them, and he speaks of "the truly pitiful
history of the criticism of the Acts". Only the briefest summary
of the arguments can be given here. The Gospel and Acts are both
dedicated to Theophilus and the author of the latter work claims
to be the author of the former (Acts, i, 1). The style and
arrangement of both are so much alike that the supposition that
one was written by a forger in imitation of the other is
absolutely excluded. The required power of literary analysis was
then unknown, and, if it were possible, we know of no writer of
that age who had the wonderful skill necessary to produce such an
imitation. It is to postulate a literary miracle, says Plummer, to
suppose that one of the books was a forgery written in Imitation
of the other. Such an idea would not have occurred to anyone; and,
if it had, he could not have carried it out with such marvellous
success. If we take a few chapters of the Gospel and note down the
special, peculiar, and characteristic words, phrases and
constructions, and then open the Acts at random, we shall find the
same literary peculiarities constantly recurring. Or, if we begin
with the Acts, and proceed conversely, the same results will
follow. In addition to similarity, there are parallels of
description, arrangement, and points of view, and the recurrence
of medical language, in both books, has been mentioned under the
previous heading.
We should naturally expect that the long intercourse between St.
Paul and St. Luke would mutually influence their vocabulary, and
their writings show that this was really the case. Hawkins (Hor�
Synoptic�) and Bebb (Hast., "Dict. of the Bible", s. v. "Luke,
Gospel of") state that there are 32 words found only in St. Matt.
and St. Paul; 22 in St. Mark and St. Paul; 21 in St. John and St.
Paul; while there are 101 found only in St. Luke and St. Paul. Of
the characteristic words and phrases which mark the three Synoptic
Gospels a little more than half are common to St. Matt. and St.
Paul, less than half to St. Mark and St. Paul and two-thirds to
St. Luke and St. Paul. Several writers have given examples of
parallelism between the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles. Among the
most striking are those given by Plummer (44). The same author
gives long lists of words and expressions found in the Gospel and
Acts and in St. Paul, and nowhere else in the New Testament. But
more than this, Eager in "The Expositor" (July and August, 1894),
in his attempt to prove that St. Luke was the author of Hebrews,
has drawn attention to the remarkable fact that the Lucan
influence on the language of St. Paul is much more marked in those
Epistles where we know that St. Luke was his constant companion.
Summing up, he observes: "There is in fact sufficient ground for
believing that these books. Colossians, II Corinthians, the
Pastoral Epistles, First (and to a lesser extent Second) Peter,
possess a Lucan character." When all these points are taken into
consideration, they afford convincing proof that the author of the
Gospel and Acts was St. Luke, the beloved physician, the companion
of St. Paul, and this is fully borne out by the external evidence.
B. External Evidence
The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the
internal character of the two books, is strengthened when taken in
connection with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for
the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel;
and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a
like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places
of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. Luke. The
external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest
manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES.
The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing
the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the
belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and
Origen were great travellers, and all three were omniverous
readers. They had access to practically the whole Christian
literature of preceding centuries; but they nowhere hint that the
authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in question.
This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be
adduced for the majority of classical works. But we have much
earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria was probably born at
Athens about A.D. 150. He travelled much and had for instructors
in the Faith an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an
Assyrian, and a Hebrew in Palestine. "And these men, preserving
the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and
James, John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from
father, came by God's providence even unto us, to deposit among us
those seeds [of truth] which were derived from their ancestors and
the Apostles". (Strom., I, i, 11: cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", V,
xi). He holds that St. Luke's Gospel was written before that of
St. Mark, and he uses the four Gospels just as any modern Catholic
writer. Tertullian was born at Carthage, lived some time in Rome,
and then returned to Carthage. His quotations from the Gospels,
when brought together by R�nsch, cover two hundred pages. He
attacks Marcion for mutilating St. Luke's Gospel. and writes: " I
say then that among them, and not only among the Apostolic
Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them in
Christian fellowship, the Gospel of Luke, which we earnestly
defend, has been maintained from its first publication" (Adv.
Marc., IV, v).
The testimony of St. Iren�us is of special importance. He was born
in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences
of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he
frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest
in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the
letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be
succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of
martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the
Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St.
Iren�us, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is,
therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome,
and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would
do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal
inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and
only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the
priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare
his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant
readings of text present themselves. There was already established
an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West.
The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through
errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to
establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they
became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian
religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel,
and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.
The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour
the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the
century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and
converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of
the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by
Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark,
Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites
the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous
quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in
Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ
except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was
descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David-
-that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the
Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah
. . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence
of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a
lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where
Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott,
"Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's
quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual
in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian,
Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was
addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which
were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with
the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on
an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the " Dialogue", cv, we
have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His
Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my
Spirit' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of
this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must
be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Iren�us,
were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as
inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any
revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by
another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church
in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect
was paid in the days of Iren�us, not many years after. This
conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's
quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the
Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards
compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in
Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and
the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were
recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150.
This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the
Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many
scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first
century.
Iren�us, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position
for forming a judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we
are of knowing who were the authors of Scott's novels, Macaulay's
essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc of
"Tracts for the Times" etc. But the argument does not end here.
Many of the heretics who flourished from the beginning of the
second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's Gospel as
authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable
position long before these heretics broke away from the Church.
The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about A.D. 150, makes use of our
Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their
titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the
phenomena of variant readings, to be found in Clement, Iren�us,
Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a long period of
previous copying. Finally, we may ask, if the author of the two
books were not St. Luke, who was he?
Harnack (Luke the Physician, 2) holds that as the Gospel begins
with a prologue addressed to an individual (Theophilus) it must,
of necessity, have contained in its title the name of its author.
How can we explain, if St. Luke were not the author, that the name
of the real, and truly great, writer came to be completely buried
in oblivion, to make room for the name of such a comparatively
obscure disciple as St. Luke? Apart from his connection, as
supposed author, with the Third Gospel and Acts, was no more
prominent than Aristarchus and Epaphras; and he is mentioned only
in three places in the whole of the New Testament. If a false name
were substituted for the true author, some more prominent
individual would have been selected.
III. INTEGRITY OF THE GOSPEL
Marcion rejected the first two chapters and some shorter passages
of the gospel, and it was at one time maintained by rationalstic
writers that his was the original Gospel of which ours is a later
expansion. This is now universally rejected by scholars. St.
Iren�us, Tertullian, and Epiphanius charged him with mutilating
the Gospel; and it is known that the reasons for his rejection of
those portions were doctrinal. He cut out the account of the
infancy and the genealogy, because he denied the human birth of
Christ. As he rejected the Old Testament all reference to it had
to be excluded. That the parts rejected by Marcion belong to the
Gospel is clear from their unity of style with the remainder of
the book. The characteristics of St. Luke's style run through the
whole work, but are more frequent in the first two chapters than
anywhere else; and they are present in the other portions omitted
by Marcion. No writer in those days was capable of successfully
forging such additions. The first two chapters, etc., are
contained in all the manuscripts and versions, and were known to
Justin Martyr and other competent witnesses On the authenticity of
the verses on the Bloody Sweat, see AGONY OF CHRIST.
IV. PURPOSE AND CONTENTS
The Gospel was written, as is gathered from the prologue (i, 1-4),
for the purpose of giving Theophilus (and others like him)
increased confidence in the unshakable firmness of the Christian
truths in which he had been instructed, or "catechized"--the
latter word being used, according to Harnack, in its technical
sense. The Gospel naturally falls into four divisions:
� Gospel of the infancy, roughly covered by the Joyful Mysteries
of the Rosary (ch. i, ii);
� ministry in Galilee, from the preaching of John the Baptist
(iii, 1, to ix, 50);
� journeyings towards Jerusalem (ix, 51-xix, 27);
� Holy Week: preaching in and near Jerusalem, Passion, and
Resurrection (xix, 28, to end of xxiv).
We owe a great deal to the industry of St. Luke. Out of twenty
miracles which he records six are not found in the other Gospels:
draught of fishes, widow of Naim's son, man with dropsy, ten
lepers, Malchus's ear, spirit of infirmity. He alone has the
following eighteen parables: good Samaritan, friend at midnight,
rich fool, servants watching, two debtors, barren fig-tree, chief
seats, great supper, rash builder, rash king, lost groat, prodigal
son, unjust steward, rich man and Lazarus, unprofitable servants,
unjust judge, Pharisee and publican, pounds. The account of the
journeys towards Jerusalem (ix, 51-xix, 27) is found only in St.
Luke; and he gives special prominence to the duty of prayer.
V. SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL; SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
The best information as to his sources is given by St. Luke, in
the beginning of his Gospel. As many had written accounts as they
heard them from "eyewitnesses and ministers of the word", it
seemed good to him also, having diligently attained to all things
from the beginning, to write an ordered narrative. He had two
sources of information, then, eyewitnesses (including Apostles)
and written documents taken down from the words of eyewitnesses.
The accuracy of these documents he was in a position to test by
his knowledge of the character of the writers, and by comparing
them with the actual words of the Apostles and other eyewitnesses.
That he used written documents seems evident on comparing his
Gospel with the other two Synoptic Gospels, Matthew and Mark. All
three frequently agree even in minute details, but in other
respects there is often a remarkable divergence, and to explain
these phenomena is the Synoptic Problem. St. Matthew and St. Luke
alone give an account of the infancy of Christ, both accounts are
independent. But when they begin the public preaching they
describe it in the same way, here agreeing with St. Mark. When St.
Mark ends, the two others again diverge. They agree in the main
both in matter and arrangement within the limits covered by St.
Mark, whose order they generally follow. Frequently all agree in
the order of the narrative, but, where two agree, Mark and Luke
agree against the order of Matthew, or Mark and Matthew agree
against the order of Luke; Mark is always in the majority, and it
is not proved that the other two ever agree against the order
followed by him. Within the limits of the ground covered by St.
Mark, the two other Gospels have several sections in common not
found in St. Mark, consisting for the most part of discourses, and
there is a closer resemblance between them than between any two
Gospels where the three go over the same ground. The whole of St.
Mark is practically contained in the other two. St. Matthew and
St. Luke have large sections peculiar to themselves, such as the
different accounts of the infancy, and the journeys towards
Jerusalem in St. Luke. The parallel records have remarkable verbal
coincidences. Sometimes the Greek phrases are identical, sometimes
but slightly different, and again more divergent. There are
various theories to explain the fact of the matter and language
common to the Evangelists. Some hold that it is due to the oral
teaching of the Apostles, which soon became stereotyped from
constant repetition. Others hold that it is due to written
sources, taken down from such teaching. Others, again, strongly
maintain that Matthew and Luke used Mark or a written source
extremely like it. In that case, we have evidence how very closely
they kept to the original. The agreement between the discourses
given by St. Luke and St. Matthew is accounted for, by some
authors, by saying that both embodied the discourses of Christ
that had been collected and originally written in Aramaic by St.
Matthew. The long narratives of St. Luke not found in these two
documents are, it is said, accounted for by his employment of what
he knew to be other reliable sources, either oral or written. (The
question is concisely but clearly stated by Peake "A Critical
Introduction to the New Testament", London, 1909, 101. Several
other works on the subject are given in the literature at the end
of this article.)
VI. SAINT LUKE'S ACCURACY
Very few writers have ever had their accuracy put to such a severe
test as St. Luke, on account of the wide field covered by his
writings, and the consequent liability (humanly speaking) of
making mistakes; and on account of the fierce attacks to which he
has been subjected.
It was the fashion, during the nineteenth century, with German
rationalists and their imitators, to ridicule the "blunders" of
Luke, but that is all being rapidly changed by the recent progress
of arch�ological research. Harnack does not hesitate to say that
these attacks were shameful, and calculated to bring discredit,
not on the Evangelist, but upon his critics, and Ramsay is but
voicing the opinion of the best modern scholars when he calls St.
Luke a great and accurate historian. Very few have done so much as
this latter writer, in his numerous works and in his articles in
"The Expositor", to vindicate the extreme accuracy of St. Luke.
Wherever arch�ology has afforded the means of testing St. Luke's
statements, they have been found to be correct; and this gives
confidence that he is equally reliable where no such corroboration
is as yet available. For some of the details see ACTS OF THE
APOSTLES, where a very full bibliography is given.
For the sake of illustration, one or two examples may here be
given:
(1) Sergius Paulus, Proconsul in Cyprus
St. Luke says, Acts, xiii, that when St. Paul visited Cyprus (in
the reign of Claudius) Sergius Paulus was proconsul (anthupatos)
there. Grotius asserted that this was an abuse of language, on the
part of the natives, who wished to flatter the governor by calling
him proconsul, instead of propr�tor (antistrategos), which he
really was; and that St. Luke used the popular appellation. Even
Baronius (Annales, ad Ann. 46) supposed that, though Cyprus was
only a pr�torian province, it was honoured by being ruled by the
proconsul of Cilicia, who must have been Sergius Paulus. But this
is all a mistake. Cato captured Cyprus, Cicero was proconsul of
Cilicia and Cyprus in 52 B.C.; Mark Antony gave the island to
Cleopatra; Augustus made it a pr�torian province in 27 B.C., but
in 22 B.C. he transferred it to the senate, and it became again a
proconsular province. This latter fact is not stated by Strabo,
but it is mentioned by Dion Cassius (LIII). In Hadrian's time it
was once more under a propr�tor, while under Severus it was again
administered by a proconsul. There can be no doubt that in the
reign of Claudius, when St. Paul visited it, Cyprus was under a
proconsul (anthupatos), as stated by St. Luke. Numerous coins have
been discovered in Cyprus, bearing the head and name of Claudius
on one side, and the names of the proconsuls of Cyprus on the
other. A woodcut engraving of one is given in Conybeare and
Howson's "St. Paul", at the end of chapter v. On the reverse it
has: EPI KOMINOU PROKAU ANTHUPATOU: KUPRION--"Money of the
Cyprians under Cominius Proclus, Proconsul." The head of Claudius
(with his name) is figured on the other side. General Cesnola
discovered a long inscription on a pedestal of white marble, at
Solvi, in the north of the island, having the words: EPI PAULOU
ANTHUPATOU--"Under Paulus Proconsul." Lightfoot, Zochler, Ramsay,
Knabenbauer, Zahn, and Vigouroux hold that this was the actual
(Sergius) Paulus of Acts, xiii, 7.
(2) The Politarchs in Thessalonica
An excellent example of St. Luke's accuracy is afforded by his
statement that rulers of Thessalonica were called "politarchs"
(politarchai--Acts xvii, 6, 8). The word is not found in the Greek
classics; but there is a large stone in the British Museum, which
was found in an arch in Thessalonica, containing an inscription
which is supposed to date from the time of Vespasian. Here we find
the word used by St. Luke together with the names of several such
politarchs, among them being names identical with some of St.
Paul's converts: Sopater, Gaius, Secundus. Burton in "American
Journal of Theology" (July, 1898) has drawn attention to seventeen
inscriptions proving the existence of politarchs in ancient times.
Thirteen were found in Macedonia, and five were discovered in
Thessalonica, dating from the middle of the first to the end of
the second century.
(3) Knowledge of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe
The geographical, municipal, and political knowledge of St. Luke,
when speaking of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, is
fully borne out by recent research (see Ramsay, "St. Paul the
Traveller", and other references given in GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO
THE).
(4) Knowledge of Philippian customs
He is equally sure when speaking of Philippi, a Roman colony,
where the duum viri were called "pr�tors" (strategoi--Acts, xvi,
20, 35), a lofty title which duum viri assumed in Capua and
elsewhere, as we learn from Cicero and Horace (Sat., I, v, 34).
They also had lictors (rabsouchoi), after the manner of real
pr�tors.
(5) References to Ephesus, Athens, and Corinth
His references to Ephesus, Athens, Corinth, are altogether in
keeping with everything that is now known of these cities. Take a
single instance: "In Ephesus St. Paul taught in the school of
Tyrannus, in the city of Socrates he discussed moral questions in
the market-place. How incongruous it would seem if the methods
were transposed! But the narrative never makes a false step amid
all the many details as the scene changes from city to city; and
that is the conclusive proof that it is a picture of real life"
(Ramsay, op. cit., 238). St. Luke mentions (Acts, xviii, 2) that
when St. Paul was at Corinth the Jews had been recently expelled
from Rome by Claudius, and this is confirmed by a chance statement
of Suetonius. He tells us (ibid., 12) that Gallio was then
proconsul in Corinth (the capital of the Roman province of
Achaia). There is no direct evidence that he was proconsul in
Achaia, but his brother Seneca writes that Gallio caught a fever
there, and went on a voyage for his health. The description of the
riot at Ephesus (Acts, xix) brings together, in the space of
eighteen verses, an extraordinary amount of knowledge of the city,
that is fully corroborated by numerous inscriptions, and
representations on coins, medals, etc., recently discovered. There
are allusions to the temple of Diana (one of the seven wonders of
the world), to the fact that Ephesus gloried in being her temple-
sweeper her caretaker (neokoros), to the theatre as the place of
assembly for the people, to the town clerk (grammateus), to the
Asiarchs, to sacrilegious (ierosuloi), to proconsular sessions,
artificers, etc. The ecclesia (the usual word in Ephesus for the
assembly of the people) and the grammateus or town-clerk (the
title of a high official frequent on Ephesian coins) completely
puzzled Cornelius a Lapide, Baronius, and other commentators, who
imagined the ecclesia meant a synagogue, etc. (see Vigouroux, "Le
Nouveau Testament et les Decouvertes Archeologiques", Paris,
1890).
(6) The Shipwreck
The account of the voyage and shipwreck described in Acts (xxvii,
xxvii) is regarded by competent authorities on nautical matters as
a marvellous instance of accurate description (see Smith's
classical work on the subject, "Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul"
(4th ed., London, 1880). Blass (Acta Apostolorum, 186) says:
"Extrema duo capita habent descriptionem clarissimam itineris
maritimi quod Paulus in Italiam fecit: qu� descriptio ab homine
harum rerum perito judicata est monumentum omnium pretiosissimum,
qu� rei navalis ex tote antiquitate nobis relicta est. V.
Breusing, 'Die Nautik der Alten' (Bremen, 1886)." See also
Knowling " The Acts of the Apostles" in "Exp. Gr. Test." (London,
1900).
VII. LYSANIAS TETRARCH OF ABILENE
Gfrorrer, B. Bauer, Hilgenfeld, Keim, and Holtzmann assert that
St. Luke perpetrated a gross chronological blunder of sixty years
by making Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, who lived 36 B.C., and was
put to death by Mark Antony, tetrarch of Abilene when John the
Baptist began to preach (iii, 1). Strauss says: "He [Luke] makes
rule, 30 years after the birth of Christ, a certain Lysanias, who
had certainly been slain 30 years previous to that birth--a slight
error of 60 years." On the face of it, it is highly improbable
that such a careful writer as St. Luke would have gone out of his
way to run the risk of making such a blunder, for the mere purpose
of helping to fix the date of the public ministry. Fortunately, we
have a complete refutation supplied by Sch�rer, a writer by no
means over friendly to St. Luke, as we shall see when treating of
the Census of Quirinius. Ptolemy Menn�us was King of the Itureans
(whose kingdom embraced the Lebanon and plain of Massyas with the
capital Chalcis, between the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon) from 85-40
B.C. His territories extended on the east towards Damascus, and on
the south embraced Panias, and part, at least, of Galilee.
Lysanias the older succeeded his father Ptolemy about 40 B.C.
(Josephus, " Ant.", XIV, xii, 3; "Bell Jud.", I, xiii, 1), and is
styled by Dion Cassius "King of the Itureans" (XLIX, 32). After
reigning about four or five years he was put to death by Mark
Antony, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who received a large
portion of his territory (Josephus, "Ant.", XV, iv, 1; " Bel.
Jud.", I, xxii, 3; Dion Cassius, op. cit.).
As the latter and Porphyry call him "king", it is doubtful whether
the coins bearing the superscription "Lysanias tetrarch and high
priest" belong to him, for there were one or more later princes
called Lysanias. After his death his kingdom was gradually divided
up into at least four districts, and the three principal ones were
certainly not called after him. A certain Zenodorus took on lease
the possessions of Lysanias, 23 B.C., but Trachonitis was soon
taken from him and given to Herod. On the death of Zenodorus in 20
B.C., Ulatha and Panias, the territories over which he ruled, were
given by Augustus to Herod. This is called the tetrarchy of
Zenodorus by Dion Cassius. "It seems therefore that Zenodorus,
after the death of Lysanias, had received on rent a portion of his
territory from Cleopatra, and that after Cleopatra's death this
'rented' domain, subject to tribute, was continued to him with the
title of tetrarch" (Sch�rer, I, II app., 333, i). Mention is made
on a monument, at Heliopolis, of "Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch
Lysanias". It has been generally supposed that this is the
Zenodorus just mentioned, but it is uncertain whether the first
Lysanias was ever called tetrarch. It is proved from the
inscriptions that there was a genealogical connection between the
families of Lysanias and Zenodorus, and the same name may have
been often repeated in the family. Coins for 32, 30, and 25 B.C.,
belonging to our Zenodorus, have the superscription, "Zenodorus
tetrarch and high priest.' After the death of Herod the Great a
portion of the tetrarchy of Zenodorus went to Herod's son, Philip
(Jos., "Ant.", XVII, xi, 4), referred to by St. Luke, "Philip
being tetrarch of Iturea" (Luke, iii, 1).
Another tetrarchy sliced off from the dominions of Zenodorus lay
to the east between Chalcis and Damascus, and went by the name of
Abila or Abilene. Abila is frequently spoken of by Josephus as a
tetrarchy, and in "Ant.", XVIII, vi, 10, he calls it the
"tetrarchy of Lysanias". Claudius, in A.D. 41, conferred "Abila of
Lysanias" on Agrippa I (Ant., XIX, v, 1). In a. D. 53, Agrippa II
obtained Abila, "which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias"
(Ant., XX., vii, 1). "From these passages we see that the
tetrarchy of Abila had belonged previously to A.D. 37 to a certain
Lysanias, and seeing that Josephus nowhere previously makes any
mention of another Lysanias, except the contemporary of Anthony
and Cleopatra, 40-36 B.C. . . . criticism has endeavoured in
various ways to show that there had not afterwards been any other,
and that the tetrarchy of Abilene had its name from the older
Lysanias. But this is impossible" (Sch�rer, 337). Lysanias I
inherited the Iturean empire of his father Ptolemy, of which Abila
was but a small and very obscure portion. Calchis in Coele-Syria
was the capital of his kingdom, not Abila in Abilene. He reigned
only about four years and was a comparatively obscure individual
when compared with his father Ptolemy, or his successor Zenodorus,
both of whom reigned many years. There is no reason why any
portion of his kingdom should have been called after his name
rather than theirs, and it is highly improbable that Josephus
speaks of Abilene as called after him seventy years after his
death. As Lysanias I was king over the whole region, one small
portion of it could not be called his tetrarchy or kingdom, as is
done by Josephus (Bel. Jud., II, xii, 8). "It must therefore be
assumed as certain that at a later date the district of Abilene
had been severed from the kingdom of Calchis, and had been
governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch" (Sch�rer, 337). The
existence of such a late Lysanias is shown by an inscription found
at Abila, containing the statement that a certain Nymphaios, the
freedman of Lysanias, built a street and erected a temple in the
time of the "August Emperors". Augusti (Sebastoi) in the plural
was never used before the death of Augustus, A.D. 14. The first
contemporary Sebastoi were Tiberius and his mother Livia, i.e. at
a time fifty years after the first Lysanias. An inscription at
Heliopolis, in the same region, makes it probable that there were
several princes of this name. "The Evangelist Luke is thoroughly
correct when he assumes (iii, 1) that in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius there was a Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene" (Sch�rer, op.
cit., where full literature is given; Vigouroux, op. cit.).
VIII. WHO SPOKE THE MAGNIFTCAT?
Lately an attempt has been made to ascribe the Magnificat to
Elizabeth instead of to the Blessed Virgin. All the early Fathers,
all the Greek manuscripts, all the versions, all the Latin
manuscripts (except three) have the reading in Luke, i, 46: Kai
eipen Mariam--Et ait Maria [And Mary said]: Magnificat anima mea
Dominum, etc. Three Old Latin manuscripts (the earliest dating
from the end of the fourth cent.), a, b, l (called rhe by Westcott
and Hort), have Et ait Elisabeth. These tend to such close
agreement that their combined evidence is single rather than
threefold. They are full of gross blunders and palpable
corruptions, and the attempt to pit their evidence against the
many thousands of Greek, Latin, and other manuscripts, is anything
but scientific. If the evidence were reversed, Catholics would be
held up to ridicule if they ascribed the Magnificat to Mary. The
three manuscripts gain little or no support from the internal
evidence of the passage. The Magnificat is a cento from the song
of Anna (I Kings, ii), the Psalms, and other places of the Old
Testament. If it were spoken by Elizabeth it is remarkable that
the portion of Anna's song that was most applicable to her is
omitted: "The barren hath borne many: and she that had many
children is weakened." See, on this subject, Emmet in "The
Expositor" (Dec., 1909); Bernard, ibid. (March, 1907); and the
exhaustive works of two Catholic writers: Ladeuze, "Revue
d'histoire ecclesiastique" (Louvain, Oct., 1903); Bardenhewer,
"Maria Verk�ndigung" (Freiburg, 1905).
IX. THE CENSUS OF QUIRINIUS
No portion of the New Testament has been so fiercely attacked as
Luke, ii, 1-5. Sch�rer has brought together, under six heads, a
formidable array of all the objections that can he urged against
it. There is not space to refute them here; but Ramsay in his "Was
Christ born in Bethlehem?" has shown that they all fall to the
ground:--
(1) St. Luke does not assert that a census took place all over the
Roman Empire before the death of Herod, but that a decision
emanated from Augustus that regular census were to be made.
Whether they were carried out in general, or not, was no concern
of St. Luke's. If history does not prove the existence of such a
decree it certainly proves nothing against it. It was thought for
a long time that the system of Indictions was inaugurated under
the early Roman emperors, it is now known that they owe their
origin to Constantine the Great (the first taking place fifteen
years after his victory of 312), and this in spite of the fact
that history knew nothing of the matter. Kenyon holds that it is
very probable that Pope Damasus ordered the Vulgate to be regarded
as the only authoritative edition of the Latin Bible; but it would
be difficult to Prove it historically. If "history knows nothing"
of the census in Palestine before 4 B.C. neither did it know
anything of the fact that under the Romans in Egypt regular
personal census were held every fourteen years, at least from A.D.
20 till the time of Constantine. Many of these census papers have
been discovered, and they were called apograthai, the name used by
St. Luke. They were made without any reference to property or
taxation. The head of the household gave his name and age, the
name and age of his wife, children, and slaves. He mentioned how
many were included in the previous census, and how many born since
that time. Valuation returns were made every year. The fourteen
years' cycle did not originate in Egypt (they had a different
system before 19 B.C.), but most probably owed its origin to
Augustus, 8 B.C., the fourteenth year of his tribunitia potestas,
which was a great year in Rome, and is called the year I in some
inscriptions. Apart from St. Luke and Josephus, history is equally
ignorant of the second enrolling in Palestine, A.D. 6. So many
discoveries about ancient times, concerning which history has been
silent, have been made during the last thirty years that it is
surprising modern authors should brush aside a statement of St.
Luke's, a respectable first-century writer, with a mere appeal to
the silence of history on the matter.
(2) The first census in Palestine, as described by St. Luke, was
not made according to Roman, but Jewish, methods. St. Luke, who
travelled so much, could not be ignorant of the Roman system, and
his description deliberately excludes it. The Romans did not run
counter to the feelings of provincials more than they could help.
Jews, who were proud of being able to prove their descent, would
have no objection to the enrolling described in Luke, ii.
Sch�rer's arguments are vitiated throughout by the supposition
that the census mentioned by St. Luke could be made only for
taxation purposes. His discussion of imperial taxation learned but
beside the mark (cf. the practice in Egypt). It was to the
advantage of Augustus to know the number of possible enemies in
Palestine, in case of revolt.
(3) King Herod was not as independent as he is described for
controversial purposes. A few years before Herod's death Augustus
wrote to him. Josephus, "Ant.", XVI, ix. xxxxxx:,, has: "C�sar
[Augustus] . . . grew very angry, and wrote to Herod sharply. The
sum of his epistle was this, that whereas of old he used him as a
friend, he should now use him as his subject." It was after this
that Herod was asked to number his people. That some such
enrolling took place we gather from a passing remark of Josephus,
"Ant.", XVII, ii, 4, "Accordingly, when all the people of the Jews
gave assurance of their good will to C�sar [Augustus], and to the
king's [Herod's] government, these very men [the Pharisees] did
not swear, being above six thousand." The best scholars think they
were asked to swear allegiance to Augustus.
(4) It is said there was no room for Quirinius, in Syria, before
the death of Herod in 4 B.C. C. Sentius Saturninus was governor
there from 9-6 B.C.; and Quintilius Varus, from 6 B.C. till after
the death of Herod. But in turbulent provinces there were
sometimes times two Roman officials of equal standing. In the time
of Caligula the administration of Africa was divided in such a way
that the military power, with the foreign policy, was under the
control of the lieutenant of the emperor, who could be called a
hegemon (as in St. Luke), while the internal affairs were under
the ordinary proconsul. The same position was held by Vespasian
when he conducted the war in Palestine, which belonged to the
province of Syria--a province governed by an officer of equal
rank. Josephus speaks of Volumnius as being Kaisaros hegemon,
together with C. Sentius Saturninus, in Syria (9-6 B.C.): "There
was a hearing before Saturninus and Volumnius, who were then the
presidents of Syria" (Ant., XVI, ix, 1). He is called procurator
in "Bel. Jud.", I, xxvii, 1, 2. Corbulo commanded the armies of
Syria against the Parthians, while Quadratus and Gallus were
successively governors of Syria. Though Josephus speaks of Gallus,
he knows nothing of Corbulo; but he was there nevertheless
(Mommsen, "R�m. Gesch.", V, 382). A similar position to that of
Corbulo must have been held by Quirinius for a few years between 7
and 4 B.C.
The best treatment of the subject is that by Ramsay "Was Christ
Born in Bethlehem?" See also the valuable essays of two Catholic
writers: Marucchi in "Il Bessarione" (Rome, 1897); Bour,
"L'lnscription de Quirinius et le Recensement de S. Luc" (Rome,
1897). Vigouroux, "Le N. T. et les Decouvertes Modernes" (Paris,
1890), has a good deal of useful information. It has been
suggested that Quirinius is a copyist's error for Quintilius
(Varus).
X. SAINT LUKE AND JOSEPHUS
The attempt to prove that St. Luke used Josephus (but
inaccurately) has completely broken down. Belser successfully
refutes Krenkel in "Theol. Quartalschrift", 1895, 1896. The
differences can be explained only on the supposition of entire
independence. The resemblances are sufficiently accounted for by
the use of the Septuagint and the common literary Greek of the
time by both. See Bebb and Headlam in Hast., "Dict. of the Bible",
s. vv. "Luke, Gospel of" and "Acts of the Apostles", respectively.
Sch�rer (Zeit. f�r W. Th., 1876) brushes aside the opinion that
St. Luke read Josephus. When Acts is compared with the Septuagint
and Josephus, there is convincing evidence that Josephus was not
the source from V which the writer of Acts derived his knowledge
of Jewish history. There are numerous verbal and other
coincidences with the Septuagint (Cross in "Expository Times", XI,
5:38, against Schmiedel and the exploded author of "Sup.
Religion"). St. Luke did not get his names from Josephus, as
contended by this last writer, thereby making the whole history a
concoction. Wright in his "Some New Test. Problems" gives the
names of fifty persons mentioned in St. Luke's Gospel. Thirty-two
are common to the other two Synoptics, and therefore not taken
from Josephus. Only five of the remaining eighteen are found in
him, namely, Augustus C�sar, Tiberius, Lysanias, Quirinius, and
Annas. As Annas is always called Ananus in Josephus, the name was
evidently not taken from him. This is corroborated by the way the
Gospel speaks of Caiphas. St. Luke's employment of the other four
names shows no connection with the Jewish historian. The mention
of numerous countries, cities, and islands in Acts shows complete
independence of the latter writer. St. Luke's preface bears a much
closer resemblance to those of Greek medical writers than to that
of Josephus. The absurdity of concluding that St. Luke must
necessarily be wrong when not in agreement with Josephus is
apparent when we remember the frequent contradictions and blunders
in the latter writer.
C. AHERENE
Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik
From the Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright � 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright � 1996 by
New Advent, Inc.
Taken from the New Advent Web Page (www.knight.org/advent).
This article is part of the Catholic Encyclopedia Project, an
effort aimed at placing the entire Catholic Encyclopedia 1913
edition on the World Wide Web. The coordinator is Kevin Knight,
editor of the New Advent Catholic Website. If you would like to
contribute to this worthwhile project, you can contact him by e-
mail at (knight.org/advent). For more information please download
the file cathen.txt/.zip.
-------------------------------------------------------
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Web:
http://www.ewtn.com
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------
