Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 10.djvu/831

Rh INTERNAL i«1vinENee.] original tradition would be in many respects distasteful, he substitutes more classical words for many that are used by Matthew and Mark in the Triple Tradition (see above, p. 796). Even the use of “ sea ” to denote the Lake of Geniiesaretli, is objectionable to him, and he always substitutes “lake.” The Latinisni :<o3pcim-779 for fartliiiig (Mat. v. 26 ; Mk. xii. 413) is altered or omitted by Luke. He prefers 7ropez5o,uaL to 15.-rciyw. Versed as he is, and as his readers would be, in the metaniorphoses of the heathen stories, he shrinks from applying the word “inetainorphosed” (Mat. xvii. 2; Mk. ix. :3) to the transﬁgiiratioii of Jesus, and substitutes (ix. 29) “became different.” He dislikes repetitions also, as much as he dislikes low-class words: compare v. 32, 33; vi. 10; viii. 21, 15, with the corresponding passages in Matthew and Mark; and note especially, in the cure of the palsied man (Hat. ix. ; Mk. ii; Lu. V.) how Luke not only avoids the word :<pd)8/3ai-og, for “ bed ” (noted by Phry- niclius as objectionable, Lobeck, p. 62), but also, to avoid repetition, uses three substitutes in succession,—(v. 18) K:L'i'7]9_, (V. 19 and 24) K:LVL3L'<p, (V. 25) E96’ c; (or 3) Ka1'e'KeL1'0, where Mark is content to use the objectionable A-pd/3/3a-roe four times. When writing in his own style he is fond of long and sonorous words, such as 8ui8o; for 869 (Mat. xix. 21 ; Mk. X. 31 ; Lu. X’1ll. 22), 3La).c6pL'Co,u.aL, Stayoyytiécw, and the com- pounds of 3wC generally; compare also his use of 7i-epurotof-yuan (xvii. 33, correct text), and of {mo-yovelv (ib.) for 0'(.L,)C€LV. The question of Luke’s style is specially important -Ilka because the striking differences between certain portions of his 3-ospel which are all, though in very different styles, found in his Gospel alone (occurring neither in the Triple Tradition, nor in the parts which Luke has in coniiiion with Matthew or in common with ;Iarlz.'), might naturally iii- ' duce even a careful student to believe that they are com- pascd by different authors. For example, take as a criterion the use of Kat’ and 3:’. In classical Greek, and indeed in almost every Greek except the ultra-Hebraic, the particle 86’ is of constzint occurrence. The fact that it does not occur more than six or seven times in the whole of the Apocalypse, and not at all in the ﬁrst book of the Maccabees till chap. iii. 36, would naturally lead us readily to believe that the former was written by a Jew who knew little of Greek literature, and that Jerome was right in saying that the latter is a translation from a Hebrew original. Applying this test to Luke, we ﬁnd that in the 80 verses of Luke’s ti rst chapter, it occurs 16 times, while in the 19 verses of x. 25—42 it occurs 16 times; or in other words, 36 is (pro- portionately) used more than four times as often in the ninth chapter as in the first. This suggests the inference that Luke’s introduction has an Aramaic origin. But if we turn to the Acts we ﬁnd that in the ﬁrst chapter, containing
 * 26 verses (or 19 verses of narrative and 7 of a speech), 86

occurs only twice ; whereas in the ninth chapter, which coii- tains 43 verses, 8:’ occurs 35 times. Yet an Aramaic origin has not been tliought, by any consensus of competent autlio- rities, necessary or probable for the ﬁrst chapter in the Acts. Although, therefore, it is possible that the ﬁrst two chapters of Luke may be a direct translation from an Aramaic original, yet there is an alternative. The alterna- tive is that Luke, a man of letters and skilled in composi- tion, consciously or unconsciously adapted his style to the subject, feeling that a different style was required on the one hand by the Magiiiﬁcat and the Nunc Dimittis, and on the other hand by the graceful domestic narrative of the contrast between the sisters lilartlia and Mary. This will be made all the more probable if it can be shown that l.nl(e had studied and imitated the LXX., and in particular the Greek Apocrypha. 'ords not used (or seldom) by Matthew and Mark, but by Luke and the Apocryphal writers, are e’7riBAe4«ov, a’wroa'1raa'6e’v-rwy, e’7riBa'zAAei in the sense of “beloiigiiig,” e’7ria'i-rurp.6s, the use rf i44ua'1-as for God, g-r.-w,1’,_ 4,,-,,3,b,;m,_ .396-,-0,, GOSPELS 807 7repza'7riZa0a_i, xaipbs e’7rLa'Ko1riis, 80x11, and }ua'rreAe2‘. But far more striking than mere words (for llatthew and Mark might be shown to have some peculiar words in common with the Apocryplia) are the sentences in the Apocryplia which seem to have sugrrested similar sentences in Luke. For example, compare Luke’s stbry of i'ic‘liTf'lt>ol (x_ii. 19)tvitth tltcti follt<l)winglt1iasfs‘age Iflroin Sifachl (xii
 * icre is one ia ga iere i wen 1 rom is OVCI‘1€0( an

pinching; and this is the lot of his reward. In the hour when he sayeth, I have found rest, and now let me eat of my good things, even then he knoweth not what season shall pass away, and he shall‘leave these thinrrs unto others and shall ierish.” Again, in the parable of the ounjust judge, there is a 1striking siinilarity between the words (xviii. 8_) “Though he bear long with them (}.laKP.O0U].L€l), I tell you He will avenge them speedily, and (Siracli xxii. 22), “And He will surely not delay; nor will lie bear long (iaxpo0u_;.u'7a'ei) with them"; so also between (i. 42)- “ Blessed art thou among women," and (Judith xiii. 17) “ Blessed art thou, 0 daughter, by the Most High God, above all the women that are in the earth” ; and between (vi. 35) “ Love ye your enemies . and ye shall be the children of the Highest,” and (Siracli iv. 10), “ Be as a father unto the fathei-less. . . and thou shalt be as the son of the Highest.” Occasional similarities of thought and even of words are found between Mattlicw and Mark and the LXX. Apocrypha-, but it cannot be said of either of them, as it can of the Tliird Gospel, that it is saturated with the LXX. diction. In many cases there is an allusive use of LXX. words. For example, Luke (xxiii. 51), telling us that Joseph of Arimathcea had not “ consented to ” the wicked decision of the Pharisees against Jesus, uses a word- iiot elsewhere used in the whole of the New Testament. Why? Because the word is used by the LXX. (Exod. xxiii. 1) in a passage expressly prohibiting combinations for false judgment: “ Thou ‘ shalt not consent with (a'v-yxa-ra6-/;a7;) the unjust to become an unjust witness ; thou shalt not be with the stronger side to do ill ; thou shalt not add thyself with the multitude to shut out judgment.” Again, when Luke (xxiii. 49), telling how the “ acquaintances" of Jesus stood at a distance from the cross, uses the word “ -yywa'-roi’ " —not elsewhere f_ound in the synoptists, —tlicre can be little doubt that he has in his mind the passage from the LXX. (l’s. lxxvii. 9), “ Thou hast put mine acquaintances (-;vwa'-roiis) far from me.” Coin- pare also the use of e’-yxaﬂe’-rous, only found once in Luke (xx. 20), with the use of the word in the LXX. (twice only) Job xix. 12; xxxi. 9. See also a similarity implied between the aged Abraliaiii and Sarah on the one hand, and Zacharias and Elisabeth on the other, in the similarity between “1rpoBeBnK6-res 1')p.ep¢?w” (Gen. xvii. 11) and 7rpoB£B1]K¢i'res‘ (‘ix -ra'is 1'7p.s'pais ” (Lu. i. 7). Our conclusion must be (1) that as Luke has modiﬁed the Triple Tradition, and the words of the Lord common to himself and Matthew, by alterations of words and phrases, so and much more has he modiﬁed other tradi- tions _or documents which he has introduced into his work ; and that those portions of the part of the Gospel peculiar to himself which have a more archaic and J udaie rhythm and vocabulary than the rest may be either translations from Araiiiaic documents, or imitations, conscious or unconscious, of the books of the LXX.,— natural adaptations of the style to the subject, like the language of Shakespeare’s J uli-us C'ccsar as compared with the less simple and dignified language in his English plays of the same date. It is probable, however, that when the evidence is more thoroughly classiﬁed than it has hitherto been, it may at least demonstrate the existence of different documents in Luke, whether translations or not. Iiiipossihle though it is here even to summarize the evidence, we niay give the reader a conception of the nature of it. Attention has been called above to the use of the form 6 Ki’-pios, “ the Lord,” in narration, as being an indication of late authorship. But this form occurs several times in the body of Luke’s Gospel : namely, in the passages containing the raising of the widow's son at l'ain (vii. 13); the appointment of the seventy (x. 1); the rebuke of the l’harisees (xi. 39); the preface to the paiable of the faithful and just steward (xii. 42); the healing of the daughter of Abi'alia_iii bound by Satan (xiii. 15) ; the parable of the sycamore tree (xvii. 5, 6); the parable of the unjust judge (xviii. 6); the story of Zacchtcus (xix. 8); warning to Simon Peter (xxii. 31); Christ s look (xxii. 61) ; and the verse where it is said that they found not the body of the Lord Jesus (xxiv. 3). Many of the above passages certainly show signs of translation; and when we renieniber that the Gospel of the Hebrews (see below, p. 8_1S) always uses the form 6 Kﬁpios, and never 6 ’InaoiJs, we see herein a conﬁriiiation of the theory that these passages in Luke are translations from Aramaic. D Another testing word is 'IepoucraA-r’;p.. l.uke_uses 'I_§pov¢Ta7‘/If‘ about _ twenty-six times, 'Iepoo6Aup.a only three times (ii. 22; xix. 28;