omissions. The matter is not helped by a reference to a proto-Mark, either Hebrew or Greek, of
which we know nothing.
Luke has a great deal of original and most valuable matter, which proves his independence
and the variety of his sources. He adds much to our knowledge of the Saviour, and surpasses
Matthew and Mark in fulness, accuracy, and chronological order—three points which, with all
modesty, he claims to have aimed at in his preface.^997 Sometimes he gives special fitness and beauty
to a word of Christ by inserting it in its proper place in the narrative, and connecting it with a
particular occasion. But there are some exceptions, where Matthew is fuller, and where Mark is
more chronological. Considering the fact that about thirty years had elapsed since the occurrence
of the events, we need not wonder that some facts and words were dislocated, and that Luke, with
all his honest zeal, did not always succeed in giving the original order.
The peculiar sections of Luke are in keeping with the rest. They have not the most remote
affinity with apocryphal marvels and fables, nor even with the orthodox traditions and legends of
the post-apostolic age, but are in full harmony with the picture of Christ as it shines from the other
Gospels and from the Epistles. His accuracy has been put to the severest test, especially in the Acts,
where he frequently alludes to secular rulers and events; but while a few chronological difficulties,
as that of the census of Quirinius, are not yet satisfactorily removed, he has upon the whole, even
in minute particulars, been proven to be a faithful, reliable, and well informed historian.
He is the proper father of Christian church history, and a model well worthy of imitation
for his study of the sources, his conscientious accuracy, his modesty and his lofty aim to instruct
and confirm in the truth.
Dedication and Object.
The third Gospel, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, is dedicated to a certain Theophilus
(i.e., Friend of God), a man of social distinction, perhaps in the service of the government, as appears
from his title "honorable" or "most noble."^998 He was either a convert or at least a catechumen in
preparation for church membership, and willing to become sponsor and patron of these books. The
custom of dedicating books to princes and rich friends of literature was formerly very frequent,
and has not died out yet. As to his race and residence we can only conjecture that Theophilus was
a Greek of Antioch, where Luke, himself probably an Antiochean, may have previously known
him either as his freedman or physician. The pseudo-Clementine Recognitions mention a certain
nobleman of that name at Antioch who was converted by Peter and changed his palace into a church
and residence of the apostle.^999(^997) Luke1:3:πᾶσις—ἀκριβῶς—καθεξῆς. Says Godet " Matthew groups together doctrinal teachings in the form of great
discourses; he is a preacher. Mark narrates events as they occur to his mind; he is a chronicler. Luke reproduces the external and
internal development of events; he is the historian, properly so called."
(^998) Luke 1:4: κράτιστε Θεόφιλε. In Acts 1:1 the epithet is omitted. Bengel infers from this omission that when Luke wrote the
Acts he was on more familiar terms with Theophilus. The same title is applied to Governors Felix and Festus, Acts 23:26; 24:3;
20:25. The A. V. varies between "most excellent" and "most noble;" the R. V. uniformly renders "most excellent," which is apt
to be applied to moral character rather than social position. "Honorable" or "most noble" would be preferable. Occasionally,
however, the term is used also towards a personal friend (see passages in Wetstein).
(^999) For other conjectures on Theophilus, which locate him at Alexandria or at Rome or somewhere in Greece, see the Bible
Dicts. of Winer and Smith sub Theophilus. Some have fancied that he was merely an ideal name for every right-minded reader
of the Gospel, as a lover of truth.
A.D. 1-100.