LUKE, Gospel According to. This Gos pel, like Matthew, conforms in general to the outline of Mark, on which consequently it is generally regarded as dependent, but Luke contains a much greater amount of narrative material independent of Mark than does Matthew.
Contents.—The following is the general out line of the book, after a brief prologue. I. The birth, infancy and childhood stories (1, 5-ii, 52).
II. Preparation for the ministry of Jesus, including the preaching of John and the Ba5 tism and Temptation of Jesus (iii, 1-iv, 13.).
III. The early Galilean ministry (iv, 14-vu, 50). IV. The later ministry in Galilee and its neighborhood (viii, 1-ix, 50). V. The Perean ministry (ix, 51-ictic, 27). VI. The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem and His final public teaching there (xix, 28-xxi, 4). VII. The Eschatological Discourse (xxi, 5-38). VIII. The closing scenes, last supper, agony in Gethsemane, trial, crucifixion, death, resurrec tion and ascension (xxii, l-xxiv, 53). As com pared with the other Synoptic Gospels are to be noted the long story of the Perean min istry to which, except for the last few verses, there is no parallel in either Mark or Matthew, the much fuller treatment of the appearances of the risen Christ and the narrative of the ascension. Much narrative material is found in this Gospel only, as, for example, five miracles are recorded only here, and there is also much teaching of Jesus which is peculiar to Luke, e.g., of the 41 parables Luke has 28, of which 17 ate found in it alone. The dis .courses are as a rule carefully connected with their occasions, and seldom, if ever, is other .material appended because of its likeness in thought or expression. Still another peculiar ity of this Gospel is its introduction of the first great Christian hymns, the Magnificat (i, 4(-55), the Benedictus (i, 68-79) and the Nunc Dimittis (ii, 29-32).
The purpose of the book is clearly stated in the brief introductory address to Theophilus, who seems to have been a Chris tian of at least respectable standing in society. It is not, however, to be thought that the book was intended for his sole use, but rather that it was dedicated to him as in some sense a repre sentative of many Christians for whose benefit it was really prepared. The purpose given may be restated thus: to give an orderly account of the events which are the historical foundation of the Christian faith on the basis of accurate and thorough investigation.
That there had been previous attempts to write the Gospel story, and that Luke had made thorough investigation the basis of his own work, Luke assures us in his pro ,logue. But just what the sources of his in formation were and how he used them we are left to infer for ourselves. On careful study
of his book in comparison with Mark and Matthew it is plain that he used the material which dominates the second Gospel as his chief source. The order of the book, its back bone, so to speak, is the same we find in Mark, and most of the material found there is repro duced here. At the same time it seems scarcely reasonable to hold that Luke had in his hands the Gospel of Mark as we now have it, for had he known the personal touches, the striking details plainly due to an eyewitness, as they now stand in the second Gospel, Luke with his literary instinct as well as historic sense could scarcely have failed to reproduce them. In whatever earlier form the Marcan material may have existed, it seems plain that we must regard this as Luke's chief source. Comparison with the first Gospel shows no less clearly that Luke used aLogia° or ma terial, and at the same time we must hold that it lay before him in a form varying somewhat from the material which was employed in Matthew. While we are bound to recognize that Luke used his sources as a responsible writer of history, and not as a slavish copyist, the above inferences commend themselves to day to the majority of critical scholars. (See article Gomm's). As to the other sources from which he drew, we have no decisive clues. His stay of two years with or near Paul in his Caesarean prison must have given him oppor tunities to gain access to many first hand sources of information, which would be still accessible in the year 60. It has been acutely noted that much of the material peculiar to this Gospel seems to bear in some sense the stamp of a woman. Not only is it character ized by a special gentleness and tenderness, which may be in part, but scarcely wholly, due to the character of Luke himself, but also in the large space and careful details given in relation to women, and, still more, in the man ner of putting things, there seems to many conclusive evidence that one of his chief author ities was a woman. This is true not only in regard to the birth-stories, which would most naturally be connected, though perhaps indi rectly, with Mary herself, but also in regard to many other incidents and sayings. Two such sources have been suggested as possible, the daughters of Philip (Acts xxi, 8, 9) and Joanna, the wife of Herod's steward (Luke viii, 3), who is named because of apparent acquaintance with affairs at Herod's court. He may also have gained much valuable informa tion from other persons whose very names have perished.