ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY LUCIUS R. PAIGE. VOLUME II. LUKE, JOHN. Search the Scriptures.-JOHN v. 39. BOSTON : 1894. 35 2341 'P34 1844 1.2 Entered according to the Act cf Congress, in the year 1845, BY LUCIUS R. PAIGE In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. STEREOTYPED BY GEORGE A. CURTIS; NEW ENGLAND TYPE AND STEREOTYPE FOUNDRY. 2661 46 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO LUKE. THE writer of this Gospel, though not an apostle, was a companion of the apostles, and wrote a history of their acts. He accompanied Paul on several journeys. See Acts, ch. xvi., xx., xxi., xxvii., xxviii. Beyond this, little is known of his personal history. If he was the same person who is named in Col. iv. 14, he was by profession a physician; and this may account for the fact, often noticed, that he describes both bodily and mental diseases with more tecanical precision than the other evangelists. By some he is supposed to have been a Jew; but the more common opinion is that he was a proselyte from the Gentiles. The purity of style and language in the preface to his Gospel is supposed to denote his Grecian origin; while his intimate knowledge of the Jewish religion and customs sufficiently indicates that he was a proselyte, if not a Jew. At what time he was converted to Christianity, we are not informed; nor at what time or place, or in what manner, his death occurred. This Gospel is frequently referred to by the apostolical fathers, and attributed to Luke. Many of the ancients regarded it as substantially the Gospel preached by Paul. Thus Irenæus says, "Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him." And Origen describes it as the gospel "commended by Paul." Indeed, it was generally allowed to have canonical and apostolical authority, though not actually written by an apostle. By some, this Gospel is supposed to have been written as early as A. D. 53; by others, as late as A. D. 64. It was evidently written during the life of Paul; for no account of his death is given in the Acts of the Apos tles, and this Gospel had been previously written. See Acts i. 1; xxviii. 3C, 31. This is as near an approximation to the true date as can easily be made from existing materials. A remarkable variation is observable between Luke and Matthew, as to the apparent order of events recorded. But this may be accounted for by supposing, which is probable, that Matthew arranged the events chronologically, and Luke classified them according to their peculiar character, with less regard to the order of time. |