conversation has dominated the work, and that has been a conversation with William Barclay himself through the text. There has been a real sense of listening to his voice in all the questioning and in the searching for new words to convey the meaning of that text. The aim of The New Daily Study Bible is to make clear his message, so that the distinctive voice, which has spoken to so many in past years, may continue to be heard for generations to come.
Linda Foster
London
2001
INTRODUCTION
(by John Drane)
William Barclay never prefaced his writings with extensive literary analysis of the Bible books. He believed that the main focus of his attention should be the text itself, and he always aimed to allow the original writers to speak for themselves. Had he been writing today, he might have felt it necessary to say a little more about the fact that Luke’s gospel is just one section of the two-volume work of Luke–Acts, and to have paid more attention to the various ways in which Luke’s story of the life of Jesus is similar to, yet different from, the other New Testament gospels. Certainly, that has been a major preoccupation of scholarship over the last twenty years. Of course, Barclay was not unaware of such questions; and, though he never uses words like ‘redaction criticism’, he was obviously happy with the concept (that each of the evangelists placed their own distinctive spin on the stories which they record).
One of the major characteristics of Luke’s gospel is its stories. It contains some of the most striking of Jesus’ parables, not found in other gospels – stories like the Good Samaritan and the prodigal son (or, as Barclay preferred, ‘the good father’). One of Barclay’s own skills was the ability to think in pictures, and his comments on Luke are full of graphic descriptions of human life, both in the first century ad and in the world he himself knew. Throughout, he writes with ease about the social and historical background of the life of Jesus, but always combining his considerable intellectual knowledge with corresponding insights into human nature which are as true today as they were when he first wrote. On Luke 5:36–9, he comments: ‘We should never be afraid of adventurous thought . . . of new methods . . . Any business which had lost as many customers as the Church has would have tried new ways long ago – but the Church tends to resent all that is new.’ And on 14:25–33, ‘It is possible to be a follower of Jesus without being a disciple’. Comments like that (and not only on that topic) ensure the continuing relevance of Barclay’s work. Like the writer of Luke – and indeed of Jesus – he has the knack of cutting through irrelevance to address the most fundamental questions of all: how can we be good, live closer to God and be more spiritual people?
John Drane
University of Aberdeen
2001
INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF LUKE
A Lovely Book and its Author
The Gospel according to St Luke has been called the loveliest book in the world. When once an American asked him if he could recommend a good life of Christ, the theologian James Denney answered, ‘Have you tried the one that Luke wrote?’ There is a legend that Luke was a skilled painter; there is even a painting of Mary in a Spanish cathedral to this day which purports to be by him. Certainly he had an eye for vivid things. It would not be far wrong to say that the third gospel is the best life of Christ ever written. Tradition has always believed that Luke was the author and we need have no qualms in accepting that tradition. In the ancient world it was the regular thing to attach books to famous names; no one thought it wrong. But Luke was never one of the famous figures of the early Church. If he had not written the gospel no one would have attached it to his name.
Luke was a Gentile; and he has the unique distinction of being the only New Testament writer who was not a Jew. He was a medical man, a doctor by profession (Colossians 4:14), and maybe that very fact gave him the wide sympathy he possessed. It has been said that a minister sees men and women at their best; a lawyer sees them at their worst; and a doctor sees them as they are. Luke saw men and women and loved them all.
The book was written to a man called Theophilus. He is called most excellent Theophilus and the title given him is the normal title for a high official in the Roman government. No doubt Luke wrote it to tell an earnest inquirer more about Jesus; and he succeeded in giving Theophilus a picture which must have bound his heart closer to the Jesus of whom he had heard.
The Symbols of the Gospels
Every one of the four gospels was written from a certain point of view. Very often on stained-glass windows the writers of the gospels are pictured; and usually to each there is attached a symbol. The symbols vary but one of the commonest allocations is this.
The emblem of Mark is a man. Mark is the simplest and most straightforward of the gospels. It has been well said that its characteristic is realism. It is the nearest to being a report of Jesus’ life.
The emblem of Matthew is a lion. Matthew was a Jew writing for Jews and he saw in Jesus the Messiah, the lion of the tribe of Judah, the one whom all the prophets had predicted.
The emblem of John is the eagle. The eagle can fly higher than any other bird. It is said that of all creatures only the eagle can look straight into the sun. John is the theological gospel; its flights of thought are higher than those of any of the others. It is the gospel where the philosopher can find themes to think about for a lifetime and to solve only in eternity.
The symbol of Luke is the calf. The calf is the animal for sacrifice; and Luke saw in Jesus the sacrifice for all the world. In Luke above all, the barriers are broken down and Jesus is for Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner alike. He is the Saviour of the world. Keeping that in mind, let us now set down the characteristics of this gospel.
A Historian’s Care
First and foremost, Luke’s gospel is an exceedingly careful bit of work. His Greek is notably good. The first four verses are well-nigh the best Greek in the New Testament. In them he claims that his work is the product of the most careful research. His opportunities were ample and his sources must have been good. As the trusted companion of Paul he must have known all the great figures of the Church, and we may be sure that he had them tell their stories to him. For two years he was Paul’s companion in imprisonment in Caesarea. In those long days he had every opportunity for study and research and he must have used them well.
An example of Luke’s care is the way in which he dates the emergence of John the Baptist. He does so by no fewer than six contemporary datings. ‘In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [1], Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea [2], Herod being tetrarch of Galilee [3], and his brother Philip being tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis [4], and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene [5] in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas [6], the word of God came to John’ (Luke 3:1–2, Revised Standard Version). Here is a man who is writing with care and who will be as accurate as it is possible for him to be.
The Gospel for the Gentiles
It is clear that Luke wrote mainly for Gentiles. Theophilus was a Gentile, as was Luke himself, and there is nothing in the gospel that a Gentile could not grasp and understand. (1) As we have seen, Luke begins his dating from the reigning Roman emperor and the current Roman governor. The Roman date comes first. (2) Unlike Matthew, he is not greatly interested
