It (iii. 5, 34; vii. 33; viii. 33; ix. 36; x. 32, etc.) brings out the picturesque character of many of the scenes enacted in our Lord's ministry, e.g. in the narrative of the Feeding of the five thousand (vi. 35-44) this Gospel "alone tells us of the fresh green grass on which they sat down by hundreds and by fifties; and the word used for 'companies' means literally 'flower-beds,' as though to St. Peter those multitudes, in their festal passover attire with its many-coloured Oriental brightness of red and blue, looked like the patches of crocus and poppy and tulip and amaryllis which he had seen upon the mountain slopes." In keeping with this is the photographic character of its account of the Transfiguration1 (ix.) and of the Storm on the Sea of Gennesaret (iv. 35-41). It also frequently reproduces the very words of Jesus (iv. 39; vi. 31; cf. Matt. viii. 26) and of others (vi. 22-25), using the term "Rabbi," or teacher ("Master"), as the earlier mode of addressing Jesus, where the other evangelists prefer "Lord" (iv. 38; ix. 5; x. 51; cf. Matt. viii. 25; xvii. 4; xx. 30-33), and narrates events in the present tense as if they were just taking place (i. 40; xiv. 43). Altogether, it is a simple, direct, forcible narrative, and gives the general outline of our Lord's ministry in a clearer form than either the Gospel of Matthew or Luke. It sets Him before us as He worked and taught in the living present, making no mention of the law, and scarcely ever quoting prophecy, but aiming simply to depict Him in that aspect of energetic and victorious strength which was fitted to impress the Roman mind, and which is foreshadowed by the opening words, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." The following are the passages peculiar to Mark's Gospel : The alarm of Jesus' family (iii. 21). 1 Raffaelle is mainly indebted to this Gospel for the details of his great picture. The seed growing secretly (iv. 26-29). The healing of one deaf and dumb (vii. 32-37). The flight of the young man (xiv. 51-52). Certain details about the Lord's Resurrection (xvi. 6-11). In this connection it may be well to recall the fact that while Mark's Gospel has a larger proportion of common matter than any of the others-amounting to no less than 93 per cent of its whole contents-this is probably due, not to its having borrowed from the others, but to its more strict adherence to the original cycle of oral teaching (pp. 8-10). Note.-Verses 9-20 in the last chapter are absent from some ancient MSS. (see marginal note, R. V.) The verses referred to differ greatly in style and language from the rest of the book, and on this account it has been supposed that they were added by a later hand, probably within a few years after the publication of the Gospel. CHAPTER V "THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE" ITS Author. The authorship of the third Gospel has scarcely ever been disputed. It has uniformly been ascribed to Luke, the friend and companion of the Apostle Paul. A comparison of its opening verses with the preface to the Book of Acts, and an examination of the style and structure of the two books, leave no room for doubt that they were written by one and the same person. The indications of his personality afforded by certain passages in the Book of Acts, where he joins himself with Paul by the use of the first person plural as if he were in his company at the time-viewed in the light of the information afforded by the Book of Acts and the epistles of Paul, regarding the apostle's personal associates and his relations with them,-justify us in holding that the early Church was right in ascribing the authorship to Luke.1 With regard to Luke's personal history, nearly all that 1 An examination of the relative passages, which are too numerous to mention, shows that there are only three of the apostle's friends who could have been with him on the occasions referred to, viz. Luke, Jesus Justus, and Demas. But Demas is disqualified by 2 Tim. iv. 10, while Jesus Justus is referred to as "of the circumcision" (Col. iv. 11), whereas the tone, both of the third Gospel and of the Book of Acts, would lead us to suppose that the author was a Gentile. The details are given in Birks's Hora Apostolica P. 351. we know of him is connected with the apostolic labours of Paul. He is referred to by that apostle as "the beloved physician" (Col. iv. 14), and it has been suggested that it may have been owing to Paul's need of medical attendance that they were first brought into intimate relations with one another (Acts xvi. 6-10; Gal. iv. 13-15). Traces of Luke's profession have been discovered in the frequency with which he refers to Christ's work and that of his apostles as a ministry of healing (iv. 18, 23; ix. 1, 2, 6; x. 9; cf. also xxii. 51, which tells of the healing of Malchus' ear, a fact unrecorded by any of the other three evangelists in their account of the incident), as well as in the occasional use of technical and other forms of expression which a physician was likely to employ (iv. 38; v. 12; vi. 19; xxii. 44). It has been supposed, not without reason, that it is Luke who is referred to (2 Cor. viii. 18) as "the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches"; but whether this be so or not, we have incontestable evidence that Luke was not only a warm friend of the apostle but a valuable coadjutor. In the Epistle to Philemon (ver. 24), which was written during Paul's first imprisonment in Rome, Luke is one of Paul's "fellow-workers" who send greetings, and in 2 Timothy (iv. 11), which was written during Paul's second imprisonment when many of his friends had forsaken him, we find the brief but weighty statement, "Only Luke is with me. Of Luke's nationality and of his history previous to his association with the apostle we have but scanty information. From the distinction drawn between him and those "of the circumcision" (Col. iv. 11-14) it may be inferred that he was of Gentile extraction; and this inference is confirmed by his Greek name and the character of his style, which-except when he is drawing from older documents or reporting speeches conveyed to him by others-is more classical than that of the other Gospels, alike as regards the structure of the sentences and the choice of words, as well as in his use of an opening dedication, a feature quite foreign to the Hebrew style. According to Eusebius and Jerome, who wrote in the fourth century, Luke was a native of Antioch in Syria. Of this we seem to have confirmation in the full account he gives of the Church at Antioch, and also in his mention of Nicolas as "a proselyte of Antioch" (Acts vi. 5).1 While tradition has always ascribed the third Gospel to Luke, it has assigned to Paul a somewhat similar part in its production to that which Peter bore in relation to the Gospel of Mark. Such a connection is rendered probable both by what we know of the relations between Paul and Luke, and by the character of the Gospel itself, which is so liberal and philanthropic in its tone as to form an excellent historic groundwork for the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, which was characteristic of Paul's preaching. There is also a striking similarity between the words attributed to our Lord in the institution of the Supper (xxii. 19, 20) and those in I Cor. xi. 24, 25 (Luke having doubtless often heard Paul use the words in the celebration of the Sacrament), and in the accounts which the two books give of our Lord's appearances after His Resurrection (Luke xxiv.; 1 Cor. xv. I-7). The duty of prayer and the influence of the Holy Spirit, which figure so largely in this Gospel, are also characteristic of Paul's writings; and there are certain habitual forms of expression which are common to them both, e.g. a threefold classification of ideas (xv. 3, 8, 11; ix. 57-62; xi. 11-12; cf. I Cor. xiii. 13; Eph. iv. 4-6). From his preface we learn that it was Luke's object to draw up in as complete and consecutive a form as possible an account of the main facts regarding Christ's person and work, by reference to the most authentic and reliable sources of information. His missionary travels 1 A parallel has been drawn between this circumstance and the mention made by two Scottish authors alone (Scott and Alison), out of eight writers who give an account of Napoleon's Russian campaign, of the fact that General Barclay de Tolly was of Scottish extraction. |