(3) Relation to Gospel of Matthew. It ap pears to be doubtful whether Luke had the gospel of belatthew before his eyes, since, had that been the case, he would probably have been more care ful to avoid apparent contradictions, especially in the history of the birth of Jesus, in which he seems to have made use of documents referring to the family of Mary, while the accounts given by Matthew refer more to the family of Joseph. This is also confirmed by the aphoristic mode in which he reports the Sermon on the Mount. We can scarcely imagine that Ile would have com municated a relation so unusually abrupt, if he had seen the well-arranged and complete state ment's of Matthew.
The Gospel of St. Luke contains exceedingly valuable accounts, not extant in the books of the other evangelists; for instance, those concerning the childhood of Jesus, the admirable parables in chapters xv and xvi, the narration respecting the disciples at Emmaus, the section from chapter ix:51 to xix :27, which contains particulars mostly wanting in the other evangelists. It has been usual, since the days of Schleiermacher, to .con sider this portion as the report of a single jour ney to the feast at Jerusalem ; but it is evident that it contains accounts belonging to several journeys, undertaken at different periods.
Some critics of modern times, such as D. Schulz, Schleiermacher, Sieffert, and Schnecken burger, were in the habit of ascribing to the re ports of Luke a greater historical accuracy than to those of Matthew ; but of late, opinions on this subject have changed, and Strauss, De Wette, and Bruno Bauer find in the reports of St. Matthew more of independent and original information than in those of Luke. There is certainly in the details of the historical account given by St. Luke, more clearness; but many discourses of our Re deemer given by St. Matthew have more of the impress of historical precision, especially the Ser mon on the Mount, and the Discourse against the Pharisees in chapters xxiii and xxiv; although it seems that Matthew sometimes brings into con nection similar discourses, held at various periods, concerning which we find in Luke more accurately stated the particular circumstances under which they were delivered.
(4) Historical Credibility. The statement of Luke himself, at the beginning of his gospel, must dispose us favorably with regard to its his torical credibility. He states that he had ac curately investigated the truth of the accounts communicated, and that following the example of the roXXol, he had made use of the statements of eye-witnesses. Luke had frequent opportunity
of meeting these eye-witnesses when he traveled with Paul. He himself reports, in Acts xxi:t8, that he met James. He gives also, with greater accuracy than the other evangelists. some chrono logical notices, such as those at the beginning of chapters ii and iii, and in Acts vii:35. etc. Yet these very dates have been quoted by Strauss and De \Vette as being quite incorrect, and as proofs that Luke was destitute of accurate historical in formation.
This daring assertion has induced some modern apologetics] authors to examine the matter more closely, who have triumphantly vindicated the his torical character of these statements of Luke.
(5) Date of the Gospel. As to the ments of the ancients concerning the date or time when the Gospel of St. Luke wag written, We find in Irenmus (Adv. Ther. iii :I) that Mark and Luke wrote after Matthew. According to ace bins (Hist. Eccles. vi:28), Origen stated that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark; but Clemens Alexandrinus, according to the same writer (Hist. Eccles. vi:14), asserted on the au thority of 'the tradition of the earlier elders,' that the gospels containing the genealogies were written before the others. According to this view, Mark was written after Luke. It is how ever likely that this statement arose from a desire to explain why the genealogies were omitted by Mark and John. Eusebius, at least (Hist. Eccles. iii :24), in reference to the Gospel of John, says: 'John properly passed over in silence the geneal ogy according to the flesh, of our Savior, which was detailed by Matthew and Luke.' Since the extreme criticism of Strauss and De Wette has been unable to produce even a plausi ble argument against theauthenticity of the Gospel of Luke, attempts have been made to prove at least the very late date of this gospel. De Wette (Introduction to the New Testament, 4th edi tion, p. 176) endeavors to infer from the definite ness with which the destruction of Jerusalem is predicted, and from the circumstance that, accord ing to ch. xxi :25, some time was to intervene be tween the destruction of Jerusalem and the sec ond advent of Christ, that this gospel was writ ten some time after the destruction of the city had taken place, and after it had become apparent from facts that the second advent was not to be immediately consequent upon that destruction.