Luke the Historian in the Light of Research

Whilst the greatest effort has been made to ensure the quality of this text, due to the historical nature of this content, in some rare cases there may be minor issues with legibility. The work of the last fifteen years has created new interest in the writings of Luke. The relation of Luke's Gospel to Mark's Gospel and the Logia of Jesus has sharply defined his own critical methods and processes. The researches of Har nack, Hobart, and Ramsay have restored the credit of Luke with many critics who had been carried away by the criticism of Baur, and who looked askance upon the value of Luke as the historian of early Christianity. It has been like mining digging now here, now there. The items in Luke's books that were attacked have been taken up one by one. The work has been slow and piecemeal, of necessity. But it is now possible to gather together into a fairly complete picture the results. It is a positively amazing vindication of Luke. The force of the argument is cumulative and tremendous. One needs to have the patience to work through the details with candor and a Willingness to see all the facts with no prejudice against Luke or against the supernatural origin of Christianity. It is not claimed that every difficulty in Luke's books has been solved, but so many have been triumphantly removed that Luke is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the rest or at any rate to patience on our part till further research can make a report. Luke should at least be treated as fairly as Thucydides or Polybius when he makes a statement that as yet has no other support or seems in conflict with other writers. Modern scholars are no longer on the defensive about Luke. His books can be used with confidence. The work of research has thrown light in every direction and the story is fascinating to every lover of truth.

The work of the last fifteen years has created new interest in the writings of Luke. The relation of Luke's Gospel to Mark's Gospel and the Logia of Jesus has sharply defined his own critical methods and processes. The researches of Har nack, Hobart, and Ramsay have restored the credit of Luke with many critics who had been carried away by the criticism of Baur, and who looked askance upon the value of Luke as the historian of early Christianity. It has been like mining digging now here, now there. The items in Luke's books that were attacked have been taken up one by one. The work has been slow and piecemeal, of necessity. But it is now possible to gather together into a fairly complete picture the results. It is a positively amazing vindication of Luke. The force of the argument is cumulative and tremendous. One needs to have the patience to work through the details with candor and a Willingness to see all the facts with no prejudice against Luke or against the supernatural origin of Christianity. It is not claimed that every difficulty in Luke's books has been solved, but so many have been triumphantly removed that Luke is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in the rest or at any rate to patience on our part till further research can make a report. Luke should at least be treated as fairly as Thucydides or Polybius when he makes a statement that as yet has no other support or seems in conflict with other writers. Modern scholars are no longer on the defensive about Luke. His books can be used with confidence. The work of research has thrown light in every direction and the story is fascinating to every lover of truth.