Название:
Автор:
Жанр:
Серия:
Издательство:
was unanimous both as to its authorship and its authority. The common opinion—still defended by the great majority of conservative critics—has always been that the third Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. The radical critics of the present century, however, bring its composition down to a latter date—ranging all the way from 70 to 140 (the latter is Baur’s date, which is now universally recognized as very wild). Many conservative critics put its composition after the destruction of Jerusalem on account of the peculiar form of its eschatological discourses—e.g. Weiss, who puts it between 70 and 80 (while putting Matthew and Mark before the destruction of Jerusalem). The traditional and still prevalent opinion is that Luke’s Gospel was written later than those of Matthew and Mark. See the various commentaries and New Testament Introductions, and for a clear exhibition of the synoptical problem in general, see Schaff’s Ch. Hist. I. p. 607 sqq. On Luke in particular, p. 648 sqq. 13 Luke i. 2, 3. 14 Traces of a knowledge of the Acts are found in the Apostolic Fathers, in Justin, and in Tatian, and before the end of the second century the book occupied a place in the Canon undisputed except by heretics, such as the Marcionites, Manicheans, &c. The Muratorian Fragment and Irenæus (III. 14) are the first to mention Luke as the author of the Acts, but from that time on tradition has been unanimous in ascribing it to him. The only exception occurs in the case of Photius (ad Amphil. Quæst. 123, ed. Migne), who states that the work was ascribed by some to Clement, by others to Barnabas, and by others to Luke; but it is probable as Weiss remarks that Photius, in this case, confuses the Acts with the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the date of its composition. Irenæus (III. 1. 1) seems (one cannot speak with certainty, as some have done) to put it after the death of Peter and Paul, and therefore, necessarily, the Acts still later. The Muratorian Fragment implies that the work was written at least after the death of Peter. Later, however, the tradition arose that the work was written during the lifetime of Paul (so Jerome, de vir. ill. 7), and this has been the prevailing opinion among conservative scholars ever since, although many put the composition between the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem; while some (e.g. Weiss) put it after the destruction of Jerusalem, though still assigning it to Luke. The opposite school of critics deny Luke’s authorship, throwing the book into the latter part of the first century (Scholten, Hilgenfeld, &c.), or into the times of Trajan and Hadrian (e.g. Volkmar, Keim, Hausrath, &c.). The Tübingen School saw in the Acts a “tendency-writing,” in which the history was intentionally perverted. This theory finds few supporters at present, even among the most extreme critics, all of whom, however, consider the book a source of the second rank, containing much that is legendary and distorted and irreconcilable with Paul’s Epistles, which are looked upon as the only reliable source. The question turns upon the relation of the author of the “we” sections to the editor of the whole. Conservative scholars agree with universal tradition in identifying them (though this is not necessary in order to maintain the historical accuracy of the work), while the opposite school denies the identity, considering the “we” sections authentic historical accounts from the pen of a companion of Paul, which were afterward incorporated into a larger work by one who was not a pupil of Paul. The identity of the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is now admitted by all parties. See the various Commentaries and New Testament Introductions; and upon the sources of the Acts, compare especially Weizsäcker’s Apost. Zeitalter, p. 182 sqq., and Weiss’ Einleitung, p. 569 sq. 15 Rom. ii. 16, xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Eusebius uses the expression φασί, “they say,” which seems to imply that the interpretation was a common one in his day. Schaff (Ch. Hist. I. p. 649) says that Origen also thus interpreted the passages in Romans and Timothy referred to, but he gives no references, and I have not been able to find in Origen’s works anything to confirm the statement. Indeed, in commenting upon the passages in the Epistle to the Romans he takes the words “my Gospel” to refer to the gospel preached by Paul, not to the Gospel written by Luke. It is true, however, that in the passage from his Commentary on Matthew, quoted by Eusebius in VI. 25, below, Origen does suppose Paul to refer to Luke and his Gospel in 2 Cor. viii. 18. The interpretation of the words “according to my Gospel,” which Eusebius represents as common in his day, is adopted also by Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 7), but is a gross exegetical blunder. Paul never uses the word εὐαγγέλιον in such a sense, nor is it used by any New Testament writer to designate the gospel record, or any one of the written Gospels. It is used always in the general sense of “glad tidings,” or to denote the scheme of salvation, or the substance of the gospel revelation. Eusebius is not the first to connect Luke’s Gospel with Paul. The Muratorian Fragment speaks of Luke’s connection with Paul, and Irenæus (III. 1. 1, quoted below in V. 8. §2) says directly that Luke recorded the Gospel preached by Paul. Tertullian (Adv. Marcion. IV. 5) tells us that Luke’s form of the Gospel is usually ascribed to Paul, and in the same work, IV. 2, he lays down the principle that the preaching of the disciples of the apostles needs the authority of the apostles themselves, and it is in accord with this principle that so much stress was laid by the early Church upon the connection of Mark with Peter and of Luke with Paul. In chap. 24 Eusebius refers again to Luke’s relation to Paul in connection with his Gospel, and so, too, Origen, as quoted by Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 25. The Pauline nature of the Gospel has always been emphasized, and still is by the majority of scholars. This must not be carried so far, however, as to imply that Luke drew his materials from Paul; for Paul himself was not an eye-witness, and Luke expressly states in his preface the causes which induced him to write, and the sources from which he derived his material. The influence of Paul is seen in Luke’s standpoint, and in his general spirit—his Gospel is the Gospel of universal salvation. 16 2 Tim. iv. 10, where the Greek word used is ἐπορεύθη, which means simply “went” or “is gone.” That Paul had sent him as Eusebius states (using the word στειλ€μενος) is not implied in the epistle. Instead of εἰς τὰς Γαλλίας (or τὴν Γαλλίαν) most of the ancient mss. of the New Testament have εἰς Γαλατίαν, which is the reading of the Textus Receptus, of Tregelles, of Westcott and Hort and others. Some mss., however (including the Sinaitic), have Γαλλίαν, which Tischendorf adopts; and some of the mss. of Eusebius also have this form, though the majority read τὰς Γαλλίας. Christophorsonus in his edition of Eusebius reads ἐπὶ τὴν Γαλατίαν, but entirely without ms. authority. Epiphanius (Hær. LI. 11) contends that in 2 Tim. iv. 10 should be read Γαλλία and not Γαλατία: οὐ γὰρ ἐν τῇ Γαλατί& 139· ὥς τινες πλανηθέντης νομίζουσιν, ἀλλὰ ἐν τῇ Γαλλί& 139·. Theodoret (in 2 Tim. iv. 10) reads Γαλατίαν, but interprets it as meaning τὰς Γαλλίας: οὕτω γὰρ ἐκαλοῦντο π€λαι. 17 2 Tim. iv. 21. 18 See chap. 2, note 1, above. 19 Clement is mentioned in Phil. iv. 3, but is not called a “fellow-soldier.” Eusebius was evidently thinking of Paul’s references to Epaphroditus (Phil. ii. 25) and to Archippus (Philem. 2), whom he calls his fellow-soldiers. The Clement to whom Eusebius here refers was a very important personage in the early Roman church, being known to tradition as one of its first three bishops. He has played a prominent part in Church history on account of the numerous writings which have passed under his name. We know nothing certain about his life. Eusebius identifies him with the Philippian Clement mentioned by Paul,—an identification apparently made first by Origen, and after him repeated by a great many writers. But the identification is, to say the least, very doubtful, and resting as it does upon an agreement in a very common name deserves little consideration. It was quite customary in the early Church to find Paul’s companions, whenever possible, in responsible and influential positions during the latter part of the first century. A more plausible theory, which, if true, would throw an interesting light upon Clement and the Roman church of his day, is
