Luk 1:4, Luk 1:7, Luk 1:26, Luk 1:28, Luk 1:34, Luk 1:10:6, Luk 1:8, Luk 1:9:21, Luk 1:12:11, Luk 1:22, Luk 1:34, Luk 1:36, Luk 1:37, Luk 1:42, Luk 1:45, Luk 1:13:20, Luk 1:35, Luk 1:14:18, Luk 1:17:3, Luk 1:23, Luk 1:25-31, Luk 1:34, Luk 1:37, Luk 1:18:2, Luk 1:19:12, Luk 1:13, Luk 1:17, Luk 1:20:2, Luk 1:3, Luk 1:21:25, Luk 1:26, Luk 1:28-32, Luk 1:36, Luk 1:22:30, Luk 1:57, Luk 1:24:4.
Cyril of Alexandria (Cyr. Alex.); † 444. Ἐξήγησις εἰς τὸ κατὰ Λουκᾶν εὐαγγέλιον in Migne, lxxii:475. Only portions of the original Greek are extant, but a Syriac version of the whole has been edited by Dr. R. Payne Smith, who has also translated this version into English (Oxford, 1859).
The Syriac version shows that many Greek fragments previously regarded as part of the commentary are from other writings of Cyril, or even from other writings which are not his. The Greek fragments which coincide with the Syriac prove that the latter is a faithful translation. The commentary is homiletic in form.
Theophylact (Theoph.), archbishop of Bulgaria (1071-1078); † after 1118.
Migne, 123.
Euthymius Zigabenus (Euthym.) ; † after 1118. Migne, cxxix, 853.
These two almost contemporaneous commentaries are among the best of their kind. They draw much from earlier writers, but do not follow
slavishly, and are far superior to mediæval Latin commentaries. The terseness of Euthymius is not unlike that of Bengel.
2. Latin Writers
Ambrose (Ambr.) ; †397. Expositio Evang. sec. Lucam; Migne, xv. 1525.
Ambrose follows Philo and Origen in seeking for spiritual or mystical meanings under the natural or historical sense, and these are sometimes very far-fetched: in verbis ludlt, in sententiis dormitat (Jerome, Prol. in Hom. Orig. in Luc.).
Eucherius ; †449 or 450. Liber instructionum in Lucas Evang.; Migne, 1.
799.
Arnobius Junior; † after 460. Annotationes ad quædam Evangeliorum loca;
Migne, liii. 570, 578.
Paterius of Brescia ; friend of Gregory the Great. He colected from the writings of Gregory an Expositio vet. et Nov. Test., of which Book III. is a Catena of Passages on S. Luke; Migne, lxxix. 1057. In the eleventh century the monk Alulf made a similar collection; Migne, lxxix. 1199.
None of these works are very helpful as regards exegesis. Eucherius and Arnobius do not repay perusal. The extracts from Gregory are mainly from the Moralia or commentary on Job, full of allegorical interpretation.
Bede, the Venerable; †735. In Lucam Exp. Libri vi.; Migne, xcii. 307;
Giles, xi., xii.; ed. Colon. 1612, 5:217. The character of the work may be given in his own words: “I have made it my business, for the use of me and mine, briefly to compile out of works of the venerable Fathers, and to
interpret according to their meaning (adding somewhat of my own) these following pieces”—and he gives a list of his writings (H. E.sub fin. See also the Prol. in Marc.). This commentary is far superior is to those just
mentioned, and is an oasis in a desert.
Sedulius Scotus; † c. 830. A mere compiler, often from Origen ; Migne, ciii.
27. Walafrid Strabus of Reichenau; † 849. Glossa ordinaria, a compilation with some original matter; Migne, cxiv. 243, 893. It became very famous.
We may pass over with bare mention Christianus Druthmarus; c. 850;
Migne, cvi. 1503: Bruno Astensis; C. 1125; Migne, clxv. 33: and Petrus Comestor; c. 1180; Migne, cxcviii. 1537.
Thomas Aquinas, Doctor Angelicus ; †1274. Expositio continua or Catena aurea in Evangelia, a mosaic of quotations (to be accepted with caution) from over eighty Christian writers, from Ignatius to Euthymius, so arranged as to form a summary of patristic theological teaching. opp. ed. Venet. iv. 5;
translated Oxford, 1845.
Albertus Magnus of Ratisbon; † 1280.
3. Reformation And Post-Reformation Writers
Erasmus, Desiderius; †1536. Adnotationes in N.T., 1516; Paraphrases, 1522.
Butzer Or Bucer, Martin; † 1551 In sacra quatuor Evangelia Enarrationes, 1551.
Calvin, John; † 1564. In harmoniam ex Matt. Mare. et Luc. compositam Commentarii, 1553; Brunsvigæ, 1868; translated by the. Calvin Trans.
Society, 1842; strong and independent.
Beza, Theodore; † 1605. Adnotationes in N.T., 1565, 1594.
Grotius (Huig van Groot); † 1645. Adnotationes in N.T., 1644. Arminian ; an early attempt to apply philological principles (learned from J. J. Scaliger) and classical illustrations to the Bible; still useful.
Hammond, Henry; † 1660. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford; “the Father of English Commentators.” Paraphrase and Annotations of the N.T., 1653, 1845 ; “reveals genuine exegetical tact and learning.” Biblical paraphrase is of English origin.
One or two Roman Catholic commentators in this period require mention.
Cajetan, Cardinal (Jacob de Vio) ; † 1534; a Dominican. In quatuor Evang.
et Acta Apost. Commenarii, 1543. Under pressure from Luther (1518) he became considerably emancipated from patristic and scholastic influence.
Maldonatus, Joannes (Maldon.); † 1583 ; a Spanish Jesuit. Commentarii in quatuor Evangelia 1596; ed. Sansen, 1840; ed. K. Martin (condensed) 1850.
Admirable of its kind: he rarely shirks a difficulty, and is often sagacious in his exposition. An English translation by G. J. Davie is being published by Hodges.
Cornelius a Lapide (van Stein); † 1637 ; a Jesuit. Comm. in quatuor Evang., 1638. Part of a commentary on almost the whole Bible. A voluminous
compilation, including much allegory and legend; devout and ’often edifying, but sometimes puerile. English translation of the Comm. on S.
Luke, Hodges, 1887.
Escobar y Mendosa, Antonio; † 1669 ; a Spanish Jesuit, whose casuistry was gibbeted by Pascal. In Evangelia sanctorum et temporis commentarii, 1637.
Two great names in the eighteenth century serve well as a transition from the writers of the two preceding centuries to the present age.
Bengel, Johann Albrecht (Beng.); †1751. Gnomon N.T., 1742. A
masterpiece, rivalling Euthymius Zigabenus in terseness, and excelling him in originality and insight. English translation, Clark, 1857.
Wetstein, Johann Jacob (Wetst.), †1754. Nov. Test. Græcum, 1751, 1752. A monument of criticism and learning. Wetstein was a leader in the field of textual criticism, and the stores of learning collected in his notes have been of the greatest service to all subsequent students of N.T.
4. Modern Writers
Schleiermacher, Fried. Dan. Ernst ; †1834; Ueber die Schriften des Lukas, 1817. Translated anonymously by Thirlwall, 1825.
Bornemann, Fried. August.; †1850. Scholia in Lucæ Evangelium, 1830 De Wette, Wilh. Mart. L. ; †1849. Kurze Erklä1rung der Evangelien des Lukas und Markus, 1839. Free, precise, and compact.
Meyer, Hein. Aug. Wilh. ; †1873. Kritisch exegetischer Kommentar uber das N.T. Markus and Lukas, 1846. Excellent A good English translation of the fifth edition was published by T. & T. Clark, 1880. Grammar is
sometimes ridden to death; but this is still one of the best commentaries for English readers. The German revisions of Meyer by Bernhard and Johannes Weisa, 1885, etc., are superior, especially as regards the text.
Oosterzee, Jan Jacob van; †1882. In Lange’s Theologisehehomiletisches Bibelwerk, 1857-1876, he commented on S. Luke. English translation
published by T.& T. Clark, 1864. The notes are in three sections throughout;
critical, doctrinal, and homiletic.
Hahn, G. L., Professor of Theology at Breslau. Das Évangelium des Lukas, 1892, 1894. Two substantial volumes, full of useful material, but grievously perverse in questions of textual criticism.
Schanz, Paul. Das Evangelium des heiligen Lucas, 1883. Probably much the best Roman Catholic commentary.
Lasserre, Henri. Les Saints Évangiles, 1886, 1887. A French translation of the Gospels with brief notes. Uncritical, but interesting. It received the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Paris and the praise of Leo xIII., ran
through twenty-five editions in two years, and then through the influence of the Jesuits was suppressed.
Godet, Fréderic, Professor at Neuchatel. Commentaire sur l’Évangile de S.
Luc, 1871, 1872, 1888. Equal to Meyer in exegesis, but weak in textual criticism. The edition of 1888 is greatly to be preferred. An English translation of the second edition was published by T.&T. Clark, 1879.
Alford, Henry; †1871. Greek Testament, vol. i. 1849, 5th ed. 1863. Sensible and clear.
Wordsworth, Christopher, Bishop of Lincoln; † 1885. Greek Testament, vol.
i:1856, 5th ed. 1866. Scholarly and devout, supplying the patristic element wanting in Alford, but otherwise inferior; weak in textual criticism.
McClellan, John Brown. The New Testament, a new translation, from a revised text, with analyses, copious references and illustrations,
chronological and analytical harmony, notes and dissertations, vol. i:1875 ; unfortunately the only one published. Contains some grotesque renderings and perverse arguments, with a great deal of valuable matter.
Plumptre, Edward Hayes ; †1891. The Synoptic Gospels in Bishop Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers, Cassell, 1878. Popular and suggestive, with a tendency to excessive ingenuity.
Jones, William Basil, Bishop of St. David’s, and Cook, Frederic Charles, Canon of Exeter; St. Luke in the Speaker’s Commentary, 1878. Inadequate.
Carr, Arthur, Notes on the Greek Testament, St. Luke, 1875. A scholarly handbook.
Farrar, Fred. William, Dean of Canterbury. St. Luke in the Cambridge Greek Testament, 1884 and later. More full, but less precise, than Carr.
Sadler, Michael Ferrebee : †1895. Gospel arc. to St. Luke, 1886. Dogmatic and practical rather than critical: somewhat capricious in textual criticism.
Bond, John. WH. text of St. Luke with introduction and notes, 1890. Brief to a fault, but useful.
Campbell, Colin. Critical Studies in St. Luke’s Gospel, 1890. Fails to establish a special demonology and Ebionite tendency, but contains many useful remarks.
Bernard, Thomas Dehany. The Songs of the Holy Nativity, 1895. Did not come to the knowledge of the present writer until the commentary on chapters 1. and 2. was in print.
Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Synoptic Gospels in the Expositor’s Greek Testament, Hodder & Stoughton, 1897. T. R. with introduction and notes;
modelled on Alford.
Blass, Fredericus. Evangelium secundum Lucam sive Lucæ ad Theophilum Liber Prior, seeundam Formam quæ videtur Romanam, Trubner, 1897.
Western text with introduction and critical notes.
Index II contains the names of many other writers whose works are of great use to the student of this Gospel.
Abbreviations
————
Ecclesiatical Writers.
Ambr. Ambrose.
Aug. Augustine.
Bas. Basil.
Chrys. Chrysostom.
Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria.
Clem. Hom. Clementine Homilies.
Clem. Recogn. Clementine Recognitions Clem. Rom. Clement of Rome.
Cypr. Cyprian.
Cyr. Alex. Cyril of Alexandria.
Cyr. Hier. Cyril of Jerusalem.
Dion.Alex. Dionysius of Alexandria.
Epiph. Epipnamus.
EUS. Eusebius.
Euthym. Euthymius Zigabenus.
Greg. Naz. Gregory of Nazianzum.
Greg. Nys. Gregory of Nyssa.
Herm. Hermas.
Hippol. Hippolytus.
Ign. Ignatius.
Iren. Irenæus.
Iren. lat. Latin Version of Irenæus.
Jer. Hieron. Jerome.
Jos. Josephus.
Just. M. Justin Martyr.
Orig. Origen.
Orig-lat. Latin Version of Origen.
Tert. Tertullian.
Theoph. Theophylact.
Versions.
Aegyptt. Egyptian.
Boh. Bohairic.
Sah. Sahidic.
Aeth. Ethiopic.
Arm. Armenian.
Goth. Gothic.
Latt. Latin.
Lat. Vet. Vetus Latina.
Vulg. Vulgate.
Cod. Am. Codex Amiatinus.
Syrr. Syriac.
Cur. Curetonian.
Sin. Sinaitic.
Pesh. Peshitto.
Harcl. Harclean.
Hier. Jerusalem.
Cov. Coverdale.
Gen. Geneva.
Luth. Luther.
Rhem. Rheims (or Douay).
Tyn. Tyndale.
Wic. Wiclif.
AV. Authorized Version.
RV. Revised Version.
Editors.
TR. Textus Receptus.
Tisch. Tischendorf.
Treg. Tregelles.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
Alf. Alford.
Beng. Bengel.
De W. De Wette.
Grot. Grotius.
Maldon. Maldonatus.
Mey. Meyer.
Nösg. Nösgen.
Wetst. Wetstein.
Wordsw. Wordsworth (Chr.) Miscellaneous.
Burton. Burton, N.T. Moods and Tenses.
C. I. G. Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum.
Didon, J. C. Père Didon, Jésus Christ L. J. Leben Jesu.
V. de J. Vie de Jésus.
Lft. Epp. J. B. Lightfoot, Notes on Epistles of S. Paul.
Wsctt. Westcott.
Edersh. L. & T. Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
Hist. of J. N. History of the Jewish Nation.
Rob. Res. in Pal. Robinson, Researches in Palestine.
Schürer, J. P. in T. of J. C. Schürer, Jewish People in the Times of Jesus Christ.
Scriv. Int. Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament.
Stanley, Sin. & Pal. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine Trench, Mir. Trench, Miracles.
Par. Trench, Parables.
Syn. Trench, New Testament Synonyms.
Tristram, Nat. Hist. of B. Tristram, Natural History of the Bible.
D. B.1 or D. B.2 Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 1st or 2nd edition.
D. Chr. Ant. Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities.
Kraus, Real-En d. Chr. Alt.. Kraus, Real - Encyklopädie der Christlichen Alterthümer.
Herzog, Pro 1 or Pro 2 Herzog’s Protestantische Real-Encyklopädie, 1st or 2nd edition.
Crem. Lex. Cremer, Lexicon of New Testament Greek.
L. & S. Lex. Liddell and Scott, Lexicon.
Greg. Proleg. Gregory, Prolegomena ad Tischendorfii ed. N. T.
Win. Winer, Grammar of N.T. Greek (the page refers to Moulton’s edition).
om. omit.
ins. insert.
N.B.—The text commented upon is that of Westott and Hort. The very few instances in which the editor is inclined to dissent from this text are noted as they occur.
1 For general information on these Jewish writings see Schürer, Hist. of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1886, Div. II. vol.
iii.; W. J. Deane, Pseudepigrapha, Edinburgh, 1891 ; J. Winter und A.
Wünsche, Die Jüdische Literatur seit Abschluss des Kanons, Trier : Part III.
has just appeared.
WH. Westcott and Hort.
1 J. Friedrich, Das Lukasevangelium und die Apostelgeschichte Werke desselben verfassers, Halle a.S., 1890. The value of this useful pamphlet is somewhat lessened by want of care in sifting the readings. The argument as a whole stands; but the statistics on which it is based are often not exact.
2 For ἀναστὰς δὲ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν D has συνεστραμμένων δὲ ἡμῶν ἔφη εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν, revertentibus autem nobis ait unus ex ipsis. This reading is also found in Augustine (De Serm. Dom. ii. 57 [17.]).
3 ἐζητήσαμεν ἐξελθεῖν.
4 ἡμῖν ἔκραζεν.
5 ἔμενον ἡμᾶς.
6 εἰσῄει ὁ Παῦλος σὺν ἡμῖν.
7 τοῦ ἀποπλεῖν ἡμᾶς.
8 εἰήλθαμεν εἰς Ῥώμην.
Orig. Origen.
Clem. Alex. Clement of Alexandria.
1 What Pseudo-Tert. says of Cerdo is perhaps a mere transfer to Cerdo of what is known of Marcion.
Wsctt. Westcott.
Eus. Eusebius of Cæsarea
D. B. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition.
1 Even Jülicher still talks of “the silence of Papias” as an objection (Einl. in das N.T. § 27, 3, Leipzig, 1894). In the case of a writer of whose work only a few fragments are extant, how can we know what was not mentioned in the much larger portions which have perished? The probabilities, in the absence of evidence, are that Papias did write of Luke. But we are not quite without evidence. In the “Hexaemeron” of Anastasius of Sinai is a passage in which Papias is mentioned as an ancient interpreter, and in which Luk 10:18 is quoted in illustration of an interpretation. Possibly the illustration is borrowed from Papias. Lft. Supernatural Religion, pp. 186, 200.
Hilgenfeld thinks that the preface to Papias shows that he was acquainted with the preface to Luke. Salmon is disposed to agree with him (Intr. p. 90, Exo 5).
1 The argument from the Greek form (that Λευκανός, not Λουκανός, is the equivalent of Lucanus) is inconclusive. After about a.d. 50 forms in Λουκ- begin to take the place of forms in Λευκ-.
2 Comp. Annas for Ananus ; Apollos for Apollonius (Codex Bezae, Act 18:24) ; Artemas for Artemidorus (Tit 3:12; Mart. v. 40) ; Cleopas for
Cleopatros ; Demas for Demetrius, Demarchus for Demaratus, Nymphas for Nymphodorus, Zenas for Zenodorus, and possibly Hermas for Hermodorus.
For other examples see Win. 16:5, p. 127; Lft. on Col 4:15; Chandler, Grk.
Accent. § 34.
3 Marcion omitted these words, perhaps because he thought that an
Evangelist ought not to devote himself to anything so contemptible as the human body (Texte und Unters. 18:4, p. 40)
1 Of the six who send greetings, the first three (Aristarchus, Mark, Jesus Justus) are doubly bracketed together: (1) as of οἱ ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς, (2) as μόνοι συνεργοὶ εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ, i.e. the only Jewish converts in Rome who loyally supported S. Paul. The second three (Epaphras, Luke, Demas) are not bracketed together. In Phm 1:23 Epaphras is
συναιχμάλωτος, and Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are οἱ συνεργοί μου, while Justus is not mentioned.
Epiph. Epipnamus.
1 Renan conjectures that Luke was a native of Philippi. Ramsay takes the same view, suggesting that the Macedonian whom S. Paul saw in a vision (Act 16:9) was Luke himself, whom he had just met for the first time at Troas (S. Paul the Traveller, p. 202).
Iren. Irenæus.
Tert. Tertullian.
1 It has been noted that of eight narratives of the Russian campaign of 1812, three English, three French, and two Scotch, only the last (Alison and Scott) state that the Russian General Barclay de Tolly was of Scotch extraction.
2 His words are: Sepultus est Constantinopoli [vixit octoginta et quatuor annos, uxorem non habens] ad quam urbem vicesimo Constantii anno ossa ejus cum reliquiis Andress apostoli translata sunt [de Achaia]. The words in brackets are not genuine, but are sometimes quoted as such. The first
insertion is made in more than one place in De vir. ill. vii.
1 For an interesting account of this famous picture, and of others attributed to the Evangelist, see The Madonna of St. Luke, by H. I. Bolton, Putnam, 1895.
1 There are a few passages which are common to Mark and Luke, but are not found in Matthew: the Demoniac (Mar 1:23-28 = Luk 4:33-37); the Journey in Galilee (Mar 1:35-39 = Luk 4:42-44); the Request of the
Demoniac (Mar 5:18 = Luk 8:38) ; the Complaint of John against the Caster out of Demons (Mar 9:38 = Luk 9:49); the Spices brought to the Tomb (Mar 16:1 = Luk 24:1). Are these the result of the time when S. Mark and S.
Luke were together (Col 4:10, Col 4:14; Phm 1:24)?
1 Among these are Baur, Davidson, Hilgenfeld, Jacobsen, Pfleiderer, Overbeck, Schwegler, Scholten, Volkmar, Weizsäcker, Wittichen, and Zeller. The more moderate of these suggest a.d. 95-105, the more extreme a.d. 120-135.
1 F. Bole, Flavius Josephus über Christus und die Christen in den jüdischen Alterthümern, Brixen, 1896, defends the disputed passage about Christ (18:3, 3) rather than the independence of S. Luke.
Jos. Josephus.
1 Some year between a.d. 70 and 95 is advocated by Beyschlag, Bleek, Cook, Credner, De Wette, Ewald, Güder, Holtzmann?, Jülicher, Keim?, Köstlin, Lechler, Lekebusch, Mangold, Ramsay, Renan, Reuss, Sanday, Schenkel, Trig, Tobler, Weiss, and others. And the more trustworthy of these, e.g. Ramsay, Sanday, and Weiss, are disposed to make a.d. 80 the latest data that can reasonably be assigned to the Gospel, or even to the Acts.
1 Among them are Alford, Ebrard, Farrar, Gloag, Godet, Grau, Guerike, Hahn, Hitzig, Hofmann, Hug, Keil, Lange, Lumby, Nösgen, Oosterzee, Resch, Riehm, Schaff, Schanz (67-70), Thiersch, Tholuck, Wieseler, and now Blass Harnack has changed from (b) to (c).
1 The idea that Theophilus may symbolize the true disciple is as old as Origen (Hom. i. in Luc.), and is adopted by Ambrose: scriptum est
evangelium ad Theophilum, hoc est ad eum quem Deus diligit (Comm. in Luc. i.3). Epiphanius regards the name’s denoting πᾶς ἄνθρωπος θεὸν ἀγαπῶν as a possible alternative (Haeligr. ii. 1.51, Migne, xli.900).
1 The following Hebrew or Aramaic words, which occur in the other Gospels, are not found in Luke: Ἀββᾶ (Mk.), Βοανηργές (Mk.), Γαββαθᾶ (Jn.), Ἐβραϊστί (Jn.), Ἐμμανουήλ (Mt.), ἐφφαθά (Mk.), Κορβᾶν (Mk.), Κορβανάς (Mt.), Μεσσίας (Jn.), ὡσαννά (Mt. Mk. Jn.), together with the sayings, ταλειθὰ κοῦμι (Mk.) and ἐλωΐ. ἐλωΐ. κ.τ.λ. (Mt. Mk.).
1 Jerome (Comm. in Isa 6:9, Migne, xxiv. 100) says, Evangelistam Lucam tradunt veteres Ecclesiæ tractatores medicinæ artis fuisse scientissimum, et magis Græcas litteras scisse quam Hebræas. Unde et sermo ejus, tam in Evangelio quam in Actibus Apostolorum, id est in utroque volumine comptior est, et secularem redolet eloquentiant, magisque testimoniis Græcis utitur quam Hebræis.
2 Six miracles are peculiar to Luke, three to Matthew, and two to Mark.
Eighteen parables are peculiar to Luke, ten to Matthew, and one to Mark.
See p. 41. For other interesting statistics respecting the relations between the Synoptists see Westcott, Intr. to Gospels, pp. 194 ff.
1 As regards order, in the first half the Second and Third Gospels
commonly agree, while the First varies. In the second half the First and Second commonly agree, while the Third varies. Matthew’s additions to the common material are mostly in the first half; Luke’s are mostly in the
second.
1 The divisions and subdivisions of the Gospel in the text of WH. are most instructive. Note whether paragraphs and sentences have spaces between them or not, and whether sentences begin with a capital letter or not. The analysis of the Gospel by Sanday in Book by Book, pp. 402-404 (Isbister, 1893), will be found very helpful.
§ Found in Luke alone.
* Common to Luke, Mark, and Matthew.
° Common to Luke and Mark.
† Common to Luke and Matthew.
1 Comp. also the close of the Acts, esp. 28:28; and the πᾶς (Luk 16:16), which is not in Mt. (11:12).
2 In the Jewish liturgy the men thank God that they have not been made women.
1 Both in Mark (1:21-28) and in Luke (4:31-37) the miracle of healing the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum is perhaps placed first as being typical of Christ’s whole work. But there is no evidence of any special
“demonology” in Luke. With the doubtful exception of the “spirit of
Infirmity” (13:10) there is no miracle of casting out demons which he alone record.
2 A marked exception is the violent scene so graphically described 11:53, 54.
1 Ramsay regards Luke as a historical writer of the highest order, one who
“commands excellent means of knowledge … and brings to the treatment of his subject genius, literary skill, and sympathetic historical insight” ’S. Paul the Traveller, Php 2:3, Php 2:20, Php 2:21, Hodder, 1895).
1 Compare in this respect the letter of Lysias (23:26-30) and the speech of Tertullus (24:2-9) with the speeches of Peter (2:14-39, 3:12-26).
1 There are some who attribute the strongly Hebraistic tone of the first two chapters to a conscious and deliberate imitation of the LXX rather than to the influence of Aramaic sources.
1 Owing to the various readings it may be doubted either (1) whether the word is used Luke, or (2) whether it is not used by some other writer. In the lists on pp. lii, liii, the lower number has generally been preferred in
doubtful cases.
* Shown by Hobart to be frequent in medical writers.
1 An exception must be made of the author of The Four Gospels as
Historical Records, Norgate, 1895, pp. 93-95. The work is retrograde, and rakes together criticisms and positions which have been rendered impotent