Not only is the third Gospel uniformly associated in the tradition of the Church with the name of Luke, the companion of Paul, but this is confirmed by comparison with Acts, which also with no less unanimity of tradition is ascribed to Luke and which so shows itself to be his work as according to the judgment of the majority of scholars to make his authorship of both books a historic cer tainty. A special argument for this view is found in both the Gospel and Acts in the in terest taken by the author in cases of disease and in the peculiar accuracy with which he speaks of it, this naturally implying that the author was a physician as we know Luke to have been.
Date and Place of There is a decided difference of opinion as to the date. The extreme late date, perhaps 90-100, though not necessarily inconsistent with Lucan is at present advocated by so few that this view may now be regarded as negligi ble, especially as the alleged dependence on Josephus has been discredited. The real point of discussion lies in the relation to Acts and the implications of the latter book. The Gospel preceded Acts in composition, but the question is as to the date of Acts. That Acts need not have been written till as late as 80 has been held by many, and certain turns of expression in Luke have been taken as confirmatory of this date. On the other hand, it is held by a group of scholars, which apparently is gaining in number and influence, that Acts should be dated during Paul's imprisonment, not later than the year 64. If the Gospel must of course be dated still earlier, presumably in the year 60, or not much later. The place of composition would on the latter hypothesis naturally be Rome, though the gathering of the material and possibly the putting it more or less in shape might be connected with Caesarea. If the later date (80) is accepted, there is no clue as to where it was written, as we have no historical hint and no trustworthy tradition as to where Luke lived and worked after the death of the Apostle Paul.
Authenticity and The trustworthi ness of this Gospel depends upon the character of the sources employed and the accuracy with which they were reproduced. So far as can he ascertained Luke's sources were of a very high order. Especially his third main source, as also many of his reports of minor incidents, seems even as reproduced to bear the stamp of the testimony of an eyewitness who stood very close to the events recorded, the discourses re peated, the persons discussed. It also appears that Luke reproduced his material with scrupu lous accuracy. This is shown, among other ways, by the number of Semitic idioms to be found in the Gospel as also in the first part of Acts. The sources used must, in part at least,
have been originally in the Aramaic language, and, while Luke's own Greek style is admirable, he faithfully reproduces these idioms, so that his work contains proportionally quite as many Semitisms as do the other Gospels. The late conclusions of scholars, based in many cases on comparatively recent investigations and discov eries, are very favorable to Luke's accuracy as a historian as it appears in Acts, where the greater number of points of contact with the history and circumstances of the time give bet ter opportunity for verification, and he is of course to be credited with the same accuracy in the Gospel. Accepting the trustworthiness of the material and the accuracy of its presen tation, the value of the book is enhanced by the manner of the presentation. Beyond his liter ary style, which is singularly rich in.vocabulary and natural and graceful in expression, Luke possessed an unusual gift or art of what might he called pictorial narration. His Gospel, which is the most comprehensive in the scope of matters reported, seems also to have a special character of universality. It presents Jesus at once as the man whose speech and character are ideal and as the pitying and pardoning Savior of every believing penitent, so that it has been called both the Gospel of repentance and faith and the Gospel of pity and pardon. Particularly does this universality appear in the character of those whose relation to Jesus is depicted. It is the Gospel in which woman hood and infancy find the largest place, and it is to be remembered that women and children were alike looked down upon at that time by both Jews and Gentiles. It is the Gospel which finds a special place for the publican, the Samaritan, the leper, in short, for all the humble, the despised and even the outcasts. When we thus see Jesus depicted in Luke's Gospel as scattering his grace of pardon and helpfulness on all who would receive, we can hut feel that he was in rare sympathy with him of whom he wrote, and that he must have re flected to an unusual degree the kindliness, the gentleness, the helpfulness of which he speaks, and we lose all wonder that Paul called him "beloved,* as well as come to agree with Renan who called the Gospel of Luke "the most beauti ful book there ever was." Harnack, Adolf, 'Luke the Physician' (E. T.) (1907) •, Moffatt, 'Introduc tion to the Literature of the New Testament' (1911) ; Plummer, Alfred, 'Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke' (Int. Crit. Comm., 1906) ; Ramsay, Sir W. M., 'Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?' (1898) ; Zahn, Theodor, 'Introduction to the New Testament' (Eng. trans. Vol. III, 1909).