תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

21.) Mark vii. 2, 3, 4. What is there said of the Jews' washing themselves, when they come from the market, before they eat: and of their " cleansing cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables,” is peculiar to St. Mark. Comp. Matt. xv. 1, 2. 22.) Ch, vii. 21, 22. seven things only. St. are very singular.

Are the things that defile men. St. Matthew, ch. xv. 19, mentions
Mark has thirteen; and two of them," an evil eye," and foolishness,"

23.) Ch. vii. 31-37. Our Lord bestows hearing and speech upon a deaf and dumb man. 24.) Ch. viii. 22-26. Our Lord cures a blind man at Bethsaida.

These two miracles are peculiar to St. Mark, being related by no other evangelist.

25.) Ch. x. 46-52, is the account of the miracle on the blind man near Jericho. St. Mark, ver. 46, calls him blind Bartimeus, son of Timæus: not mentioned by the other evangelists. See Matt. xx. 29-34. Luke xviii. 35-43. And at ver. 50, "he casting away his garment, rose, and came to Jesus:" a circumstance peculiar to St. Mark. Which shews his exact knowledge of the history, as did likewise his calling the man by his name.

26.) Ch. xi. 13. "For the time of figs was not yet:" that is, the time of gathering was not yet come. A most useful observation peculiar to this evangelist, showing, that as there were leaves, it was reasonable to expect fruit on this fig-tree, if it was not barren. Upon this text might be consulted bishop Kidder, and Mr. Hallet.

a

27.) Ch. xiii. 3, 4. "And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, asked him privately....When shall these things be?" No other evangelist has mentioned the names of the disciples, who put this question to our Saviour. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 1-3. Luke xxi. 5.

28.) In Mark xii. 41-44, and Luke xxi. 1-4, is the account of the people casting their gifts into the chests of the treasury in the temple. St. Mark says: "And Jesus sat over against the treasury." In which expression there is great propriety. And he alone mentions the value of the poor widow's two mites, saying, "which make a farthing."

с

29. Ch. xiv. 51. "And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body. And the young men [the guards] laid hold on him.' Ver. 52. "And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked." A particular in no other evangelist, yet very fitly taken notice of, as intimating the usual noise and disturbance, when a man is taken up in the night-time as a malefactor, and is carried before a magistrate. By the noise of the people passing along that young person was excited to come hastily out of the house where he was, to inquire what was the matter. Mr. Le Clerc, in his French Testament, has an useful note upon this place. He observes the natural simplicity of the evangelist's narration; which, as he justly says, confirms the truth of their history.

30.) Ch. xv. 21. "And they compel one Simon, a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross." That particular, "the father of Alexander and Rufus," is in no other evangelist. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 32, and Luke xxiii. 26.

31.) Ch. xvi. 3, 4. "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre: for it was very great." In no other evangelist.

32.) Ch. xvi. 7. "But go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee." The mention of Peter is peculiar to St. Mark. For in Matt. xxviii. 7, it is, "Go quickly, and tell his disciples." St. Luke has not recorded that message.

83.) I add nothing more of this kind. I have omitted many things, which are in this gospel, and no other, being apprehensive, that if I enlarged farther, I should be charged with prolixity.

34.) The particulars that have been alleged, are sufficient to assure us, that St. Mark is not an epitomiser of another author: and that he was well acquainted with the things of which he undertook to write a history. He writes as an eye-witness, or as one who had full and authentic information at first hand. In a word, St. Mark's gospel, though short, is a very valuable and masterly performance.

4. It may be proper for me to add one thing more: that I suppose the twelve verses at the

a Demonstration of the Messiah, Part ii. ch. ii. p. 38, 39.
Notes and Discourses, Vol. ii. p. 114-125.
Non de Apostolorum grege... sed ex villâ aliquâ horto

proximâ, strepitu militum excitatus, et subito accurrens, ut conspiceret, quid ageretur. Grot. ad Mare. xi. 51.

end of the sixteenth chapter to be a genuine part of this gospel. If any doubt of it, I would refer them for their satisfaction to Dr. Mill, and to the observations of Grotius, at the beginning of that chapter, and to Beza upon the ninth verse. And for explaining those twelve verses, and reconciling them with the other evangelists, I refer to Grotius, and other commentators.

CHAP. VIII.

ST. LUKE, EVANGELIST.

I. His History from the N. T. II. Testimonies of ancient Christian Writers to St. Luke, and his two Books, his Gospel, and the Acts. III. Remarks upon those Testimonies. IV. The Time of writing his Gospel and the Acts. V. Internal Characters of time in the Gospel. VI. The place where it was written. VII. A general recollection of St. Luke's Character. VIII. Observations upon his gospel. IX. Observations upon the book of the Acts.

I. THE first time that we find any mention of St. Luke in the books of the New Testament is in his own history. Acts xvi. 10, 11. Whereby it appears, that he was in Paul's company at Troas, before the apostle took shipping to go into Macedonia: in which voyage St. Luke was one of the company. ver. 8. " And they passing by Mysia, came to Troas." Ver. 9. "And a vision appeared to Paul in the night: There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us." ver. 10. "And when he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering, that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them." ver. 11. "Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia."

In that journey St. Paul went from Samothracia to Neapolis, and thence to Philippi. 11—17. So far St. Luke speaks in the first person plural. But having finished his account of the transactions at Philippi, which reaches to ver. 40, the last of that chapter: at the beginning of the next ch. xvii. 1. he changeth the person, and says: "Now when they had passed through Amphipolis, and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews."

b

Nor does he any more expressly speak of himself, until Paul was a second time in Greece, and was setting out for Jerusalem with the collections, which had been made for the poor saints in Judea, Acts xx. 1-6. " And after the uproar" [at Ephesus,]" was ceased, Paul called unto him the disciples, and embraced them, and departed for to go into Macedonia. And when he had gone over those parts, and had given them much exhortation, he came into Greece, and there

From some words in the Cambridge manuscript, Bp. Pearson has argued, that Luke was in Paul's company from the year 43. Dein peragrat [Paulus] Phrygiam et Galatiam, et per Mysiam venit Troadem, ubi se illi comitem adjunxisse indicat Lucas, xvi. 10, qui antea etiam Antiochiæ cum Paulo fuit, et jam eum Troade assecutus est: ut colligere licet ex Act. xi. 28. ubi Codex Cantabr. habet, avves pauμava de

. Ab anno igitur 43, per octennium discipulus fuerat Antiochiæ. Annal. Paulin. p. 10. But it is not safe to rely upon one manuscript only, different from all others, and of no great authority. As Mr. Tillemont took notice of this observation of Pearson, I transcribe his thoughts about it. Selon le manuscrit de Cambridge, S. Luc dit qu'il étoit avec S. Paul à Antioche, dès l' an 43: ce que Pearson a reçu. Mais il ne seroit pas sûr de se fier à un manuscrit différent de tous les autres. Et quand cela se pourroit en quelques occasions, ce ne seroit pas à l'égard du manuscrit de Cambridge, qui est plein d'additions et altérations contraires au véritable texte de S. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2. S. Luc. note iii. Some may argue from these words, that Luke was a Gentile, converted

by Paul at Antioch. And others might argue that he is the same as Lucius, mentioned Acts xiii. 1. But I should think it best for neither side to form an argument from this reading. Mr. Wetstein has referred us to a place of St. Augustine, where this text, is quoted very agreeably to the Cambridge manuscript. In illis autem diebus descenderunt ab Jerosolymis Prophetæ Antiochiam. Congregatis autem nobis, surgens unus ex illis, nomine Agabus, &c. De Serm. Dom. 1. 2. c. 17. But it is observable, that Irenæus 1. 3. c. 14. init. a more ancient writer, enumerating St. Luke's journeys in St. Paul's company, begins at Troas. Acts xvi. 8-10. I presume, it must be best to rely upon him, and the general consent of all manuscripts, except one, in the common reading.

Nevertheless it is supposed by many, that Luke continued with Paul. Irenæus calls him Paul's inseparable companion, after his coming to be with the Apostle at Troas. Adv. H.1. 3. c. 14. So likewise Cave. Cujus perinde sectator erat, et omnis peregrinationis comes. H. L. T. i. p. 25. See also Tillem. St. Luc. Mem. Ec. T. 2.

abode three months. And when the Jews laid wait for him, as he was about to sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia. And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea...These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And we sailed away from Philippi...and came unto them at Troas in five days, where we abode seven days." So that Luke accompanied Paul, at that time, from Greece through Macedonia to Philippi, and also went with him from

thence to Troas.

And it appears from the sequel of the history in the Acts, that Luke was one of those, who accompanied the apostle to Jerusalem, and stayed with him there. And when the apostle was sent a prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, he was in the same ship with him, and stayed with him at Rome during the whole time of his two years' imprisonment there, with which the history of the Acts concludes.

From St. Paul's epistles written at Rome, in the time of that confinement, we have proofs of Luke's being with him. He is mentioned as with the apostle. 2 Tim. iv. 11. an epistle written, as I suppose, in the summer, after the apostle's arrival there. In Philem. ver. 24. he is one of those, who send salutations to Philemon, and is mentioned by the apostle, as one of his fellowlabourers. And, if Luke the beloved physician, mentioned Col. iv. 14, be the evangelist, that is another proof of his being then with the apostle.

St. Luke is also supposed by some to be" the brother, whose praise is in the gospel throughout all the churches," 2 Cor. viii. 18. but that is not certain.

As I think, that all St. Paul's epistles, which we have, were written, before he left Rome and Italy, when he had been sent thither by Festus, I must be of opinion, that the New Testament affords us not any materials for the history of St. Luke, lower than his own book of the Acts, which brings us down to the end of that period.

II. I how therefore proceed without farther delay, to observe what light may be obtained from ancient Christian writers. And as St. Luke's two books, his gospel and the Acts, were all along universally received; I intend here, for avoiding prolixity, to allege, chiefly, such passages only, as contain something, relating to the history and character of St. Luke, or the time of writing his two above-named works.

[ocr errors]

a

Irenæus, as before quoted: And Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.' And the coherence seems to imply, that this was done after the writing of St. Mark's gospel, and after the death of Peter and Paul. In a passage formerly cited at length, Irenæus shows from the Acts, as we did just now, that Luke attended Paul in several of his journies and voyages, and was his fellow-labourer in the gospel. He likewise says that Luke was not only a companion, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul." Again, he calls him a disciple and follower of the apostles.' The apostles, he says, envying none, plainly delivered to all the things which they had learned from the Lord. So likewise Luke, envying no man, has delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says: "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye witnesses and ministers of the word." By all which it seems, that Irenæus reckoned Luke to have been a disciple of the apostles, not a hearer of Jesus Christ himself.

[ocr errors]

d

[ocr errors]

Clement of Alexandria has borne a large testimony to this gospel, and the Acts, as well as to the other books of the New Testament. And as we learn from Eusebius, in his Institu⚫tions he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which he had received from 'presbyters of more ancient times, and which is to this purpose. He says, that the gospels containing the genealogies were written first:' according to that tradition therefore St. Matthew's and St. Luke's gospels were written before St. Mark's. Which, according to the same Clement and the tradition received by him, was written at Rome, at the request of Peter's hearers, or the Christians in that city.

Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ, of Mark and Luke as disciples. of apostles: therefore I think he did not reckon these to have been of the seventy, or hearers of Christ. However, he ascribes a like authority to these, and says, that the gospel, which Mark 'published, may be said to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was. For Luke's digest also is

[blocks in formation]

.

h

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

' often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the master's which the disciples "published.' Again: Moreover Luke was not an apostle, but apostolical; not a master, but a disciple: certainly less than his master, certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the apostles.' This likewise shows Tertullian's notion of St. Luke's character.

Origen mentions the gospels in the order now generally received. The third, says he, is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile 'converts.' In his commentary upon the epistle to the Romans, which we now have in a Latin version only, he says, upon ch. xvi. 21. Some say Lucius is Lucas the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names sometimes according to the original form, sometimes ' according to the Greek or Roman termination:' Lucius, mentioned in that text of the epistle to the Romans, must have been a Jew. Nevertheless, as Origen assures us, some thought him to be Luke the evangelist. The same observation we saw in Sedulius, who wrote a commentary upon St. Paul's epistles, collected out of Origen and others.

[ocr errors]

d

Eusebius of Cæsarea, as transcribed formerly, speaking of St. Paul's fellow-labourers, says, And Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most part a companion of Paul, who had likewise a more than slight acquaintance with the rest of the apostles, has left ⚫ us in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of these is the gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him, "who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word:" with all 'whom, he says likewise, he had been perfectly acquainted from the very first. The other is the Acts of the apostles, which he composed now, not from what he had received by the report of others, but from what he had seen with his own eyes.' And in another place, cited also formerly, he observes, that Luke had delivered in his gospel a certain account of such things, as he had been well assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with Paul, and his conversa⚫tion with the other apostles.' From all which, I think it appears that Eusebius did not take Luke for a disciple of Christ, but of apostles only.

h

In the Synopsis, ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, that the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.' The author of the Dialogue against the Marcionites, says, that Mark and Luke were disciples of Christ, and of the number of the seventy.'

k

Epiphanius speaks to the like

1

purpose.

Gregory Nazianzen says, that Luke wrote for the Greeks,' or in Achaia.

m

Gregory Nyssen says, that Luke was as much a physician for the soul as for the body:" taking him to be the same that is mentioned Col. iv. 14.

In the catalogue of Ebedjesu it is said, "that" Luke taught and wrote at Alexandria, in the • Greek language.'

The author of the Commentary upon St. Paul's thirteen epistles seems to have doubted whether the evangelist Luke be the person intended Col. iv. 14.

[ocr errors]

Jerom agrees very much with Eusebius, already transcribed: nevertheless I shall put down here somewhat largely what he says. Luke," a physician of Antioch, not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another excellent volume, entitled the Acts of the Apostles....It is supposed that Luke did not learn his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord ' in the flesh, but also from other apostles: which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, "Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and • ministers of the word." Therefore he wrote the gospel from the information of others: but the Acts he composed from his own knowledge.' So writes Jerom in his book of illustrious men. In the prologue to his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he says, The third evangelist is Luke, the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and published 'his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bæotia.'

a Vol. i. p. 422.

[ocr errors]

b P. 532.

c Sed et Lucium quidam perhibent esse Lucam Evanger listam, qui Evangelium scripsit, pro eo quod soleant nomina interdum secundum patriam declinationem, interdum Græcam Romanamque, proferri. In Rom. T. 2. p. 632. Basil. 1571. Vol. iii. p. 32. e Vol: ii. p. 371. f P. 369. Την ασφαλή λογον ών αυτός ἱκανως την αληθειαν

...

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

He observes elsewhere, that some said Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his, 'conversion to Christianity.' He speaks of St. Luke in many other places, which I need not now take notice of.

b

Augustine says, that two of the evangelists, Matthew and John, were apostles...Mark and Luke disciples of apostles.'

[ocr errors]

Chrysostom in the Synopsis, probably his, says, Two of the gospels were written by John and Matthew, Christ's disciples, the other two by Luke and Mark, of whom one was disciple of Peter, the other of Paul. The former conversed with Christ, and were eye-witnesses of what they wrote: the other two wrote what they had received from eye-witnesses.' And to the like purpose in his first homily upon St. Matthew. Again, he says, Luke had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.' And upon Col. iv. 14, he says, this is the evangelist.

[ocr errors]

e

Upon Col. iv. 14. Theodoret says, this person wrote the divine gospel, and the history of the Acts.' He says the same upon 2 Tim. iv. 11.

i

Paulinus celebrates Luke, as having been first a physician of the body, then of the soul. Here I would refer to the author of Quæstiones et Responsiones, probably written in the fifth century, who reckons both the evangelists, writers of the genealogies, that is, Matthew and Luke, to have been Hebrews.

According to Euthalius,' Luke was a disciple of Paul, and a physician of Antioch.

m

Isidore of Seville, says, of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had heard Christ say, or had seen him perform. The other two, placed between them, relate those things, which they had learned from apostles. Matthew wrote his gospel first in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke the third, in Achaia; John the last, in Asia. In another place, he says, Of all the evangelists Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gospel in Greece.'

[ocr errors]

P

[ocr errors]

In Theophylact are these things. In his preface to St. Matthew's gospel he says, that there are four evangelists, two of which, Matthew and John, were of the choir of the twelve apostles: the other two, Mark and Luke, were of the number of the seventy. Mark was a disciple and companion of Peter, Luke of Paul....Luke wrote fifteen years after Christ's ascension.' In the preface to his Commentary upon St. Luke he says, that from that introduction it appears, Luke was not from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. For others were disciples from the beginning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the things which they had seen or heard.' Upon which some remarks were made by us in the place referred to. In his comment upon the history of the two disciples, whom Jesus met in the way to Emmaus, one of whom is said to be Cleopas. Luke xxiv. 18. Theophylact says: Some have thought the other to be Luke the evangelist, who out of modesty declined to mention himself.' his preface to the Acts, Theophylact says: The' writer is Luke, native of Antioch, by profession a physician.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In

Euthymius says: Luke' was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen years after our Lord's

ascension.'

So Euthymius. But I should think, that very few, who supposed Luke to have been a native of Antioch, could likewise reckon him a hearer of Jesus Christ. But Euthymius, as it seems, puts together every thing he had heard or read, without judgment or discrimination.

What Nicephorus Callisti says, is, briefly, to this purpose. Two' only of the twelve, Matthew and John, left memoirs of our Lord's life on earth and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke... Matthew wrote about fifteen years after our Saviour's ascension. Long after that Mark and ◄ Luke published their gospels by the direction of Peter and Paul. The same Luke composed also the book of the Acts of the apostles.'

To these authors I now add Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria,

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

in the tenth century, who

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« הקודםהמשך »