Liberal dating gospels
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 1:2, 3). 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.
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. When Paul appealed to Cæsar, Luke and Aristarchus accompanied him from Cæsarea, and were with him during the stormy voyage from Crete to Malta. Paul's two Roman imprisonments, but he must have met several of the Apostles and disciples during his various journeys. 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. These were brought together by the Bollandists ("Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). When all these considerations are fully taken into account, they prove that the companion of St. Writing to the Colossians (iv, 11), he says: "Luke, the most dear physician, saluteth you." He was, therefore, with St. Several writers have given examples of parallelism between the Gospel and the Pauline Epistles.
The words and phrases cited are either peculiar to the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than in other New Testament writings. (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. Luke was the author of Hebrews, has drawn attention to the remarkable fact that the Lucan influence on the language of St.
The argument is cumulative, and does not give way with its weakest strands. 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. He claims to have shown that the earlier critics went hopelessly astray, and that the traditional view is the right one. Paul is much more marked in those Epistles where we know that St. Summing up, he observes: "There is in fact sufficient ground for believing that these books.
The writer of Acts took a special interest in Antioch and was well acquainted with it (Acts -27; 13:1; -21, , , 23, 30, 35; ). Hence he cannot be identified with Lucius the prophet of Acts 13:1, nor with Lucius of Romans , who was cognatus of St. 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 Menologium). Luke had a great knowledge of the Septuagint and of things Jewish, which he acquired either as a Jewish proselyte (St.
We are told the locality of only one deacon, "Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch", 6:5; and it has been pointed out by Plummer that, out of eight writers who describe the Russian campaign of 1812, only two, who were Scottish, mention that the Russian general, Barclay de Tolly, was of Scottish extraction. Jerome) or after he became a Christian, through his close intercourse with the Apostles and disciples. "The author of the Third Gospel and of the Acts is the most versatile of all New Testament writers. He is Hebraistic in describing Hebrew society and Greek when describing Greek society" (Plummer, introd.). Com." (4th ed., Edinburgh, 1901); Harnack, "Luke the Physician" (London, 1907); "The Acts of the Apostles" (London, 1909); etc.
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 present at the conversion of Lydia and her companions, and lodged in her house. 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). 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 Bœotia), filled with the Holy Ghost. He is called a painter by Nicephorus Callistus (fourteenth century), and by the Menology of Basil II, A. 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.
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. "Luke, Gospel of") state that there are 32 words found only in St. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. 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. There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. 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.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. 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 1:1). 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. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. 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.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. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. 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. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves.Luke and Timothy escaped, probably because they did not look like Jews (Timothy's father was a gentile). Luke accompanied him from Philippi to Troas, and with him made the long coasting voyage described in Acts 20. Mark; and in the Acts he knows all the details of St. Mark's mother, and the name of the girl who ran to the outer door when St. The characteristic expressions of the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the "we" as in the other sections. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustiveexamination 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. Luke (Gospels 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. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have transformed everything else into his own language.When Paul departed from Philippi, Luke was left behind, in all probability to carry on the work of Evangelist. Luke is "the brother, whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches" (2 Corinthians ), and that he was one of the bearers of the letter to Corinth. 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. His manner of dealing with the first word ( hos) will indicate his method: "This temporal hos is never found in St. What may we suppose the author to have left unaltered in the source? 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.
Search for liberal dating gospels:
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. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St. Mark, and he uses the four Gospels just as any modern Catholic writer. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West.