Page images
PDF
EPUB

myself: for about forty years ago I read lectures on the Russian history, yet for want of knowledge of the Russian language, I took not the least notice of Nestor, though he is the principal historian of the Russians.

[ocr errors]

On the other hand if St. Matthew had not written his Gospel, when St. Paul was prisoner at Cæsarea, St. Luke, if he wrote at that time, wrote before St. Matthew. But if he wrote before St. Matthew, and not only wrote in Palestine, but dedicated his Gospel to a person, who in the opinion of Theodore Hase, had been High Priest at Jerusalem, it may be objected that such a Gospel could not have been overlooked by St. Matthew. Dr. Storr indeed asserts that St. Matthew not only read, but even copied from St. Luke's Gospel. But this appears to me incredible, for an author, who was eye-witness to the facts, which he related, would hardly borrow his materials from a writer, who was not an eye-witness: nor do I believe that he had even read St. Luke's Gospel, for if he had, he would have avoided many apparent contradictions, which he might easily have removed by a short explanation, and sometimes by the addition of a single word. Since therefore St. Luke's Gospel was certainly unknown to St. Matthew, the question to be asked is, whether this circumstance is consistent with the supposition that St. Luke wrote in Palestine before St. Matthew? Now I think it is not absolutely inconsistent: for if St. Luke wrote his Gospel at Cæsarea, and sent it to a Jewish High Priest, it is at least possible that some years elapsed before copies of it were spread abroad among the Christians in Palestine. Besides, as the supposition that St. Matthew wrote so late, is improbable, the objections which are grounded on it, rest on a very unstable foundation. The opinion that St. Luke wrote his Gospel in Palestine, while St. Paul was prisoner in Cæsarea, implies neither that he wrote before, nor that he wrote after St. Matthew. On this last head, we may adopt whatever supposition appears to be the most consistent with it.Whether the opinion be true or not, I will

not undertake to determine, but will leave it to the de cision of the reader 10.

8. The eighth opinion on this subject is, that St. Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria in Egypt, after he had been with St. Paul in Rome. In support of this opinion appeal has been made to the subscription to St. Luke's Gospel in several Greek manuscripts, in which, as well as in the Syriac version, St. Luke is said to have written at Alexandria the Great, by which is meant Alexandria in Egypt. But the same Greek subscription contradicts the latter part of this opinion, for it assigns the fifteenth year after the ascension for the time of its composition, which was long before St. Paul's Journey to Rome. However Grabe and Mill have argued very strenuously in support of this opinion, and their arguments are so plausible, that they induced me to subscribe to it in the first edition of this Introduction. But since I have read Lardner's objections, I have so far altered my sentiments, that, though I will not affirm it is absolutely false, I think it at least very uncertain. Simeon Metaphrastes, to whom Grabe. appeals, lived so late as the tenth century; and is therefore on that account, as well as several others of no authority in determining a fact, which happened in the first century. Besides, as Lardner has rightly observed, he does not say that St. Luke wrote his Gospel at Alexandria, but only that he preached there. Nor has Oecumenius, to whoin Mill appealed, but without quoting any particular passage, asserted that St. Luke wrote at Alexandria: for Lardner, who was per-. fectly well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers, declares that he could find no such assertion in Oecumenius. Further, the advocates for this opinion have appealed to the work, which goes by the name of the Apostolic Constitutions, of which the author is unknown, and to which we have no reason to give much credit. Beside the objections, which Lardner has made

Supplement, P. II. Vol. i. p. 270, 271.

to this work in general, a particular objection may be made to that very chapter, in which St. Luke's supposed residence in Alexandria is mentioned. It is there said: The first bishop of Alexandria, Anianus, was ordained by the Evangelist St. Mark, and his successor Avilius by the Evangelist St. Luke.' Now if this were true, St. Luke must have been at Alexandria after St. Mark had been there, in which case St. Mark's Gospel would hardly have remained unknown to him. Further, as St. Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome while St. Peter was there, and St. Peter certainly did not go to Rome till some time after St. Paul, St. Mark's journey into Egypt must have taken place at so late a period, that St. Luke could hardly have written his Gospel at a still later time. Besides, he was with St. Paul at Rome in the year 66 or 67, when the second Epistle to Timothy was written, as appears from 2 Tim. iv. 11.

9. The ninth and last opinion is, that St. Luke wrote his Gospel at Thebes in Egypt. This opinion is grounded partly on the supposed journey of St. Luke into Egypt mentioned in the preceding article, and partly on the report mentioned in the fifth article that he wrote at Thebes in Boeotia, which, it is said, was confounded with Thebes in Egypt. But, since not only the inference is unwarranted, but the premises from which it is drawn, are themselves uncertain, this opinion falls of itself to the ground. But if any one should think it necessary to have a particular confutation of it, he may have recourse to Lardner's Supplement'.

• Ch. xlvi.

f Vol. I.

P.

271-273.

SECTION VII.

Result of the Inquiries instituted in the preceding Section.

IT appears from what has been said in the preceding section, that of the nine opinions respecting the place where St. Luke wrote his Gospel, there are only two of which it can be said, that they have historical accounts in their favour; namely, that which refers the composition of it to Troas in the fifteenth year after the ascension, and that which refers its composition to Macedonia in the twenty-second year after the ascension. But then these historical accounts are of such a nature that they hardly deserve the name of evidence: for they are contained in the subscriptions to St. Luke's Gospel, the authors of which are unknown, and who probably gave nothing more than their own conjectures. The most ancient Fathers appear not to have known either the time, or the place where St. Luke wrote: and therefore what later writers have asserted is hardly entitled to more credit, than what is asserted by an author of the eighteenth century. Eusebius, whose object was to collect whatever information could be procured respecting the four Evangelists, has not said a syllable either on the time or the place where St. Luke wrote: nor of the person and character of Theophilus. We must conclude therefore that Eusebius was not able to procure any intelligence on this subject, at least nonè on which he could depend. Origen is equally silent on the time and place where St. Luke's Gospel was written and when he speaks of Theophilus, instead of communicating information of his person and character, he gives an explanation founded on the composition of the Greek word Oopos, which shews that he had no real information to communicate.

Under these circumstances we must be directed in our choice of the most eligible opinion, not by external,

t

but by internal evidence. Now in favour of Troas is the circumstance that this was the place, where St. Paul first met with St. Luke, and took him into his company: in favour of Macedonia, that he resided there for some time, while St. Paul was travelling in other countries: and in favour both of Troas and Macedonia is the circumstance, that either supposition will account for St. Luke's want of knowledge of St. Matthew's Gospel. On the other hand there are two circumstances against both of these opinions. For if he wrote either at Troas, or in a city of Macedonia, it is difficult to comprehend how the many apocryphal Gospels, to which he alludes in his preface, could have been propagated in Greece at so early a period : and secondly, he had no opportunity either in Troas or in Macedonia of tracing up the history of Christ to its source, and of consulting those who had been eye-witnesses to the several facts, which he has recorded. The latter objection may indeed be removed by the supposition that he had been at Jerusalem, before he went thither with St. Paul: but for this supposition we have no foundation what

soever.

In favour of the opinion that he wrote his Gospel in Egypt, is the circumstance that St. Luke alluded to apocryphal Gospels, and that of all the apocryphal Gospels now extant, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, is supposed to be the most ancient. This argument however will be of no weight, if it be true that the Gospel according to the Egyptians was not written before the second century 8. Another circumstance in favour of this opinion is, that there are several passages in St. Luke's Gospel, which, as I shall shew in the next section, are particularly applicable to the Essenes, who were very numerous in Egypt. But against this opinion may be alleged the following arguments, First, St. Luke has totally omitted the flight of Joseph and Mary with Jesus into Egypt, and omitted it in

Credibility of the Gospel History, P. II. Vol. II. p. 527-530.

« PreviousContinue »