Associate professor of church history princeton theological seminary baker book house

Download 4,25 Mb.
Date conversion27.04.2018
Size4,25 Mb.
1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   ...   38



itself (1833‑36, 1840‑58). He contributed a long

aeries of important articles to periodicals and uni­

versity publications, the most noteworthy of which

was the treatise Ueber daa Alter and den Verfasser,

die ursprungliche Farm and den wahrere Sinn den

kirchlichen Friedenaspruches " In necesaariia unitas,

etc." (Gbttingen, 1860). Of practical importance,

too, were four addresses delivered before the GtSt­

tinger Miseionsverein between 1840 and 1842,

which prepared the way for the founding of the

" Seminar fUr inhere Mission," the very name being

taken from the last of them, though used not quite

in his sense. (F. SANDER.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Ltlcke's biography was written by F. San­

der, Hanover‑Linden, 1891. There are notices by J.

M811er in ZKW, 1865, hoe. 18‑17; by R,edepenning in

Proteetantiecha Kirchensaitunp, 1865; and by Ehrenfeuch­

ter, in T3R, 1855. Indications of further literature are

given in Hauck‑Herzog, RE, a. 874.


Swiss Protestant; b. at Kiel Sept. 15, 1842. He

was educated at the universities of Kiel, Heidel­

berg, and Berlin from 1861 to 1867 (Ph.D., Kiel,

1870), and in 1872 became privat‑docent at the

university of his native city (where he also taught

in a private school). In 1878 he was appointed as­

sociate professor of New‑Testament exegesis at the

same institution, and since 1884 has been con­

nected with the University of Bern, where he has

been professor successively of church history (1884­

1891) and of systematic theology, dogmatics, and

philosophy (since 1891). He is an adherent of the

liberal school in theology, and has written: Die

Anthropologie den Apostel Paulus and ihre Stellureg

innerhalb seiner Heilslehre (Kiel, 1872); Die " Eid­

briichigkeit " urtaerer netikirchlichen (freisannigen)

Geisllichen (1881); Die natters Enturicldung der

proteatantiachen Theologie (Bremen, 1884); Reform

and Tdtuferlum in ihrem Verhliltnis rum chriatlichen

Prinzt.'p (Bern, 1896); Inditridualit8t and Pers6rh

lichkeit (1900); Was heiast "bt'blischea Chriatenxum"t

(190b) and Religion urtd Leben (1908).

LUETGERT, liit'gitrt, WILHELM: German

Protestant; b. at Heiligengrabe (a village near

Wittstock, 60 m. n.w, of Berlin), Brandenburg,

Apr. 9, 1887. He was educated at the universities

of Greifawald and Berlin from 1886 to 1889, and in

1892 became privat‑docent for New‑Testament

exegesis and dogmatic theology at the former in­

stitution, where he was appointed associate pro­

fessor of the same subjects in 1895. In 1901 he

went in a similar capacity to Halls, where he was

promoted to his present position of full professor

in 1902. Besides assisting A. Schlatter since 1904

in editing the Beitrtige zur Ftirderung der chrdat­

lichen Theologie, he has written Dan Reich Gotten in

den aynoptiachen Evangelien (Giitersloh, 1895); Die

johanneische Christologie (1899); Die Liebe im

Neuen Testament (Leipeic, 1905); Gotten Sohn and

Gotten Geist, Vorlrage zur Christologie and zur Lehre

vom Geiste Gotten (1905); Im Diertste Gotten. Be_

trachtungen (Berlin, 1907); Jesus Chriatua fiirwn­

aere Zeit (Hamburg, 1907; in collaboration with

several others); Frechet'tapredigt and Sch>varmgeister

in Iforinth, Ein Beilrag zur Charakteriatik der Chria‑

tuspartei, and Die Irrlehrer der Pastoralbrtje, both in the Beitr6ge, ut sup. (1908‑09).

LUETSEMANN, liit'ke‑man, JOACHIM: German

Lutheran theologian; b. at Demmin (28 m. s. of

Stralsund), Pomerania, Dec. 15, 1608; d. at Wolfen­

biittel (8 m. s. of Brunswick) Oct. 18, 1655. Both

his writings and his personality, which combined

deep learning with the efficacious inner conviction of

Pietism, had no alight influence in the same direc­

tion as those of Arndt and Johann Milller, while his

controversy with the orthodox Lutherans as to the

humanity of Christ in his death, though without

abiding consequences, attracted much attention at

the time. He was educated at the universities of

Greifewald and Strasburg, afterward traveling

through France and Italy and returning to Rostock

to pursue his studies there. He became a lecturer

in the philosophical faculty there in 1638, and five

years later professor of metaphysics and physics.

He had already become known as a preacher, and

contributed much to the activity of religious life

in Rostock. His work there was interrupted by a

controversy in which he became engaged with the

strict orthodox party in Mecklenburg, whom the

duke favored. He put forth in what seemed to

them a dangerous form a proposition already enun­

ciated in the Middle Ages. To the concept of hu­

manity, he said, there belongs besides the existence

of soul and body the form of their joint existence,

their unity; and with the dissolution of thin unity

in death the manhood of Christ was dissolved. The

assertion of its permanence must take away some­

thing from the reality of the death of Christ, and

thus from the reality of redemption. He attempted

to save the belief in the divine‑human character of

Christ by the theory that the divinity was united

not only with the soul but with the body; and

when the soul left the body, the Godhead did not

leave it, but the true, essential, eternal life still

dwelt in the dead body. A vehement strife broke

out over this apparent departure from the ortho­

dox doctrine. Liitkemann defended himself in his

Disset'faEfo phyeico‑lheologica de taro homine. The

orthodox teaching seemed to imply that the body

of Christ, as a necessary concomitant with the soul

to the unity of human nature, was incorruptible.

Two court preachers at Weimar, Collar and Bar­

tholomii, now expressed a doubt of this, and de­

fended Liitkemann's view from this standpoint. The

Rostock theologian Cothmann appeared as a violent

opponent of Liitkemann, and used his influence with

the duke to have him silenced both as a professor and

as a preacher. In spite of the support of clergy and

people, he was obliged to leave Rostock. Duke Au­

gust of Brunswick, however, offered him the position

of general superintendent and court preacher, and

there he spent his remaining years, drawing up the ex­

cellent school ordinance of 1651 and the church order

of 1657. He wrote a number of philosophical works

and one of the most popular books among the disci­

ples of Arndt was his Vorschmack der gottlichen Gate

(Wolfenbiittel, 1643). (W. DILTHEY.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: A Life by Philipp Rethmeyer is prefixed to

his Vorachnsack in the later editions, e.g., Brunswick, 1740. Consult also: F. A. Tholuck, Akademische Leben, ii,

109, Hamburg, 1854.


I. The Man. Early References to Him (¢ 1). Traditions of His Authorship (; 2). Characteristics se a Historian (§ 3).


II. His Writings. Types of Modern Criticism G 1). The Preface to the Gospel (§ 2). The Character of the Gospel (¢ 3). Bearing upon Authorship (¢ 4).

I. The Mao: The name appears three times in the New Testament as that of a man who belongs to the Pauline circle (Col. iv. 14; II Tim. iv. 11; Philemon 24), in the first case as that of " the be­loved physician," in the last as a " fellow worker." Col. iv. 11 characterizes certain fellow

:. Early workers as " of the circumcision " but

References does not include Luke among them, to Him. hence it may be concluded that Luke was not of Jewish blood and also not a Jewish proselyte. But it dote not follow that he was personally known in Colosse, although known by reputation. It appears also that he was with Paul during the first imprisonment, helped him in his labors and perhaps as a physician was especially valuable in Paul's activity. So it appears from II Tim. that Luke was with the apostle in his eeo­and imprisonment as his only companion, and con­jecture sees in this a reference to Luke's medical services, especially in view of the absence of Cres­cens, Tychicus, and Titus (II Tim. iv. 10). This exhausts all that the New Testament expressly says of Luke. The Lucius of Rom. xvi. 21 (a Jew) and of Acts xiii. 1 have nothing to do with the subject of this article. Formerly the " brother " of II Cor. viii. 18, or of 22, was identified with Luke, but this has not the foundation of tradition in its favor, only of traditional exegesis from before the time of Origen, sad the identification is insecure. Testi­mony external to the New Testament derives Luke from Antioch (Euaebius, Hist. eccl., III., iv. 7; A. Mai, Patrum nova bt'bliotheca, Rome, 1844‑71, iv. 270; F. A. W. Sputa, Brief den Julius Africanus, Halls, 1877, pp. 69, 111). For this the singular reading of codex D in Acts xi. 28 (which describes the prophecy of Agabua as being delivered "while we were gathered together ") can not be the basis, though the tradition may embody the facts. But many other traditions regarding the region of Luke's labors and the place of his literary activity have not in their favor the same degree of probability as inheres in that relating to the place of his nativity. Indeed, some of them palpably sties from misun­derstanding of the New Testament, and others are purely conjectural and without solid foundation ‑‑‑e.g., that which connects Luke with the disciples at Emmaus, and that which makes of him an artist with the pencil as well as with the pen.

With the name of Luke three writings of the

New Testament have been connected, the third

Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistle to

the Hebrews, though Luke's connection

_. Tradi‑ with the last is put forth as a mere dons of His hypothesis and requires no considers, Authorship. tion. The tradition of his relation to the third Gospel goes back to a time earlier than Origen, and Paul's expression " my gospel" has been construed as a reference to that book. Ireneeua, the Muratorian Canon, Clement of

Character of the Ante of the Apostles (¢ b). Historical Difficulties of Acts :o (; 8). The Author's Methods (§ 7). Remaining Problems (¢ 8).

Alexandria, and Tertullian express what was evi­dently the opinion of their day, that Luke was the author of the third Gospel. And practically the same testimony assigns a Lucan origin to the Acts of the Apostles, while earlier hints to the same pur­port are discovered in the works of Marcion and Justin Martyr. It is now generally held that so­eentially the present Gospel of Luke lay before Marcion when the latter compiled his Gospel, while the reverse proposition, that Marcion's composition underlay Luke's, is universally given up. Until recent times there was no trace of a tradition ad­verse to Lucan authorship, while the title to the Gospel as given in the manuscripts testifies to the antiquity of the belief that Luke wrote this Gospel. Of course, modern criticism as well as Marraonitic rejected Lucsn authorship, as did the encratitic Severians, the Ebionites, and the Manicheane, not on literary but on doctrinal grounds.

Acceptance of this tradition immediately results in a large increase of knowledge concerning the person and the fortunes of Luke. It must be rec­ognized that he had more to do with the work of

Paul than appears from the latter's

3. Charac‑ epistles. Part of the narrative of the teristics Acts of the Apostles is in the first pnr‑

as a son. If Luke is the author of the nar­Historian. rative of Paul's journeys in that book,

the "we" passages testify that he was an eye‑witness of the events, and this fits in well with the references in the epistles. And the oceur­rence of " we " in codes D of the clause noted above (§ 1) in a passage earlier than is found in the common text (Acts xi. 28) has caused Blare to suspect a double recension of the Acts by Luke's own hand. Neither Weirs' explanation (T U, avii. 111, 1899) nor that of Ramsay (St. Paul the Tmv­eller, New York, 1896, pp. 27, 210), which assume a correction of the original text arising in different ways, seems to have much probability in its favor. If Blass' supposition of a double text, both from the hand of Luke, be not accepted, the "we" must be original to the text. In that case the tradition of the Antiochian origin of Luke receives confirma­tion, and Luke must have been an associate of Paul in his early activities before either Timothy or Titus were connected with him. Moreover, Luke appears not only as a friend and close companion of Paul, as his personal medical attendant, but as a man well and broadly educated and with wide in­terests, possessing powers of keen observation and the ability to describe simply but vividly what he saw. If in spite of the modern adverse criticism tradition be accepted, Luke becomes a source of the first importance for the origins of Christianity and of the Christian Church.

II. His Writings: Doubts of Lucan authorship have been raised rather with regard to the Acts than the Gospel. In any case, the facts reported



in the Gospel go farther back‑the author does not claim to be an eye‑witness or a sharer in the events.

Still, suspicion regarding the Gospel :. Types of inevitably followed that regarding the

Modern Acts. The hypothesis that the two

Criticism. books are from different authors is

very seldom put forth and even then in a very guarded manner, while it is easily refuted by the many‑sided similarities which are found in the books. Modern New‑Testament criticism takes two principal directions in its discussion of the Lucan writings. In one case it asserts that they are " tendency writings," taking a part in the as­sumed burning contest between Pauliniam and Ju­daism and endeavoring to furnish a middle ground upon which both could unite, blending the dog­mstica, ethics, and practicality of Judaism with Pauline universalism. Thin makes the writings a peace proposal from a Pauline Christian. Of course, various forms of this hypothesis have been put forth. The other direction of modern criti­cism proceeds from a literary basis, and supposes that the books embody the editing of earlier sources, which expressed various tendencies and were of different origin and value, by a man who was not near enough to the facts to have complete mastery of them. Indeed, it is asserted that the interests of a later time than the authorship of Luke would admit appear in incidental details, that the report often shows that the time of Jesus and his apostles was already long past, while there is silence as to matters of importance which would not be expected from a man in the position of Luke. The question is, whether the objections are so grounded as to de­mand the rejection of a strong and conaentient tra­dition, or whether, either by means of a more correct exposition or by a more exact appreciation of the intentions and situation of the traditional author, the possibility of the Lucan authorship may be more conclusively established. In order to gain securer results, an attempt must be made to delineate as a whole the historical and literary processes of apos­tolic times in order satisfactorily to examine the critical hypotheses with reference to their probability or possibility‑an attempt which is excluded by the purposes of this article, which can give merely the indications.

The starting‑point of any discussion is, of course, the Gospel, to which there is a preface. A prior question is whether this preface belongs only to the Gospel or also to the Acts. Although the ques­tion has been answered both ways, prima facie the preface belongs to the Gospel only.

a. The It indicates that the Gospel is written Preface to for a man of high position who has

the Gospel some certain knowledge of Christian_

ity without necessarily being more than a catechumen, if even that. The Evangelist implies that Theophilus was not averse to such knowledge but was ready to receive further information. This knowledge was not to be of the dogmatic order, but rather historical and " accurate " (Luke i. 3), and by " accurate " was meant not simply " in chronological order " but rather the narration of events in their many‑sided relationships. So far, there is nothing antagonistic to Luc,, authorship.

And no objection to such authorship is to be seen in the reference to previous writers of Gospel his­tory in Luke i. 1, since enough material is known to justify the expression " many." The very growth of such a literature would emphasise for Luke its necessity not only for believing Christians to whom the oral importation of the news was be­coming increasingly rare, nor only for Jews and Jewish Christians to whom the Messianic conscious­ness of Jesus was of importance, but also for the heathen to whom Theophilus had belonged. It is continually becoming more completely established that the second Gospel, essentially in its present form, lay before the author of the third and was used by him. But comparison of the two Gospels shows marked differences in plan and conception. Thus Mark sets the story of Jesus in two great groups of events‑Jesus' work in Galilee and the events between his departure from Galilee and Easter morning; Luke uses the same two groups but prefixes to the first the Gospel of the Infancy, inserts between them the account of the journey given in Luke ix. 51‑xviu. 14, and adds to the second his account of the resurrection. Moreover, while Luke follows Mark in the main in the order of the events in the two groups, he effects transpo­sitions and makes noteworthy omissions. Further, outside of the three great additions already indi­cated, the third Gospel makes single additions, such as the sermon on the mount, the story of Zaccheus, and very many others. All this indicates a special plan subordinated to a purpose different from that which the author of the second Gospel had before him and suited to a man whose antecedents were heathen, as were those of Theophilus.

But does this purpose, expressed in the preface, and its execution in the Gospel, agree with what is known of Luke? A difficulty raised here is that a man who stood as near to the events as did Luke, and had such opportunities to meet 3. The eye‑witnesses, in his departures from

Character the narrative of Mark took so little the of the direction of the Fourth Gospel. This Gospel troubles little one who deals with the historicity of the Fourth Gospel, but the difficulty increases the more one deals with that historicity, and threatens to become fatal to the claim of Lucsn authorship if, as many suppose, a long period of historical study (Luke i. 3) is in­volved. It may be conceded that the Lucan narra­tive contains parts tinged with Johannine coloring. But when the omission is noted of events given in the Fourth Gospel which are essential to the narra­tive of one who proposes to " trace the course of all things accurately from the first" (Luke i. 3), when it is remembered that the occurrences of John i.­iv., the visits to the feasts in Jerusalem of John v., vii., and x., and the Lazarus episode do not ‑appear in the Lucan narrative, the authorship by the apostolic companion Luke seems impossible. For many of those events are not of a nature that per­mits their omission by one who proposes to give a rdsum6 of the life of Jesus. Upon close observation the case seems otherwise. Luke did not know the Johannine material, but he considered that Mark really preserved the historical scheme in its priaci‑


pal outlines. His historical investigations there­fore were limited in extent and need have lasted scarcely a, year. Indeed, the enaerroble of the Lucas Gospel is rather that of a narrative produced under the influence of the Marten Gospel with the many additions, already noted, of events which seemed fully guaranteed, and which appeared, in accord­ance with the writer's scheme, to demand a place in the story. It presents also such omissions and transpositions as were necessary, in the plan con­ceived, to produce in new form a well‑ordered his­tory of the life of Jesus, such as would be adapted to the situation of the reader for whom it was os­tensibly designed. So far as the preface is con­cerned, therefore, the Gospel might have proceeded from the pen of the historic Luke.

Or does the pretended circumstance that the Gospel contains vague recollections or statements in conflict with certified fact compel one to suppose that the author or editor of sources lived at a later period? It may be admitted that in this or that one may think of legendary recasting ;. Bearing or adornment. Such material many Upon find in the Gospel of the Infancy and

Author‑ in other details. But these are practi­ship. tally paralleled in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, which are rightly re­garded as belonging to apostolic times, and failure has met the attempts to set the point at which these elements enter. So far as disagreement with other reports is concerned, it has first to be discov­ered which reports are correct, whether indeed rec­onciliation is not possible. Here is to be noted the relationship of Luke's history of the glorification of Jesus to I Cor. xv. b eqq., since the narrative of Luke has so little in common with the enumeration of Paul, though even here there are points which agree, and explanation of Lucas omissions is easy. On the whole, the Gospel would thus occupy an excellent position were it not that the Acts of the Apostles seems, under the methods of criticism, to draw it into the vortex of unreliability.

The Acts of the Apostles appears as a continua­tion of the Gospel. The occasion calling it forth moat have been something different from that which educed the Gospel, whether Theophiius had become a Christian or not. Christian‑

g. Charac‑ ity might have seemed to some an un‑

ter of the justified break with the past, an filly

Acts of the ordered revolutionary movement des‑

Apostlea. tined to fail. The Acts sets forth the

development of the later from the

primitive apostolic Christianity, its extension into

the world of the heathen, especially by the instru­

mentality of Paul, whose figure in noon introduced

into the picture. The purpose of the book seems

to agree with that expressed in the preface to the

Gospel. The old view that there is a paralleling

of the fortunes of Peter and Paul, and the other ex­

position that the purposes of these two are harmo­

nized, are no longer maintained. That Paul could

in his epistles speak otherwise than he does in the

speeches of the Acts goes without saying, whether

the speeches reported in the Acts be actual reports

or assumed addresses made up after the pattern

of Greek historiography. There is no a priori. rea‑

son why Peter should not early have found the way toward universalism, and it would be difficult to show that Paul could not have made use is the synagogues of the privileges of a born Jew (I Cor. ix. 19 aqq.).

The difficulty really lies where Luke has to do with Pauline accounts. The locus clasaicus is Acts xv. 1 eqq., compared with Gal. ii. 1 eqq. Earlier and later attempts .to harmonize these passages upon the basis of another journey to Jerusalem moat be rejected. The most frequent

6. Histori‑ method of lightening the difficulty is cal Diffi‑ to show that according to Luke's ie­culties of port the decree was applicable to the Acts xv. original community, that it was not an ordinance for converts from heathen­ism to which they were bound for the sake of sal­vation, that in general it involved nothing new so far as the general duty of Christians was concerned, and that therefore it was not necessary for Paul to mention it either to the Galatians or, indeed, later to make it a matter of injunction. Thin does not do away with the necessity for further attempts at enlightenment, and in view of the feat that the issuance of the decree can not be doubted while only the question of the occasion is in dispute, and further, since it is given by an author whose inten­tion to be trustworthy appears from Luke i. 3, it is a duty not only of barmonistie interest but of his­torical exposition to attempt the solution of the problem. A beginning is to be made with a ques­tion of textual criticism. The olt oi* of Gal. ii. b has usually been regarded as relating the sentence to the circumcision of Titus. But in fact it may have been that this construction of the sentence in­fluenced the introduction of those two words and that they are to be stricken out (so Ambroeiaster, Tertullian, Viotorinus, Ireaseus, Pelagius, and the codices D, d, and e). Verse 5 then may refer to the recognition on the part of Paul and Barnabas of the decree known to the Galatians. Paul is deal­ing with the calumnies uttered against him to the effect that he was a time.eerver (Gal. i. 10). He relates, therefore, the history of the events in his life which led up to the decree, states his independ­ence as an apostle, tells of his exposition of his teaching before the authorities in Jerusalem, arms that he had sot yielded to the subjection of the "false brethren" (Gal. ii. 4) so far as Titus was con­cerned though he had yielded a point elsewhere; while so far as the meeting with Peter in Anti­och was concerned, Peter had received the blame. When compared with Acts xv. this narrative seemed to be obscure, sad relief was sought by the addition of the ols o'vaii in question in order to reconcile Paul and Luke. Paul was able to give adhesion to the decree so far as he did in permitting it to be sent to his congregations, indeed in personally imparting it to them (Acts avi. 4), but he did not obligate himself to apply it to his mission field, though he was not personally opposed to it. While James could not disavow his own proposal (Acts axi. 2b), he could recognize that Paul was not bound to ad­vance the matter and might have been ready to protect Paul in the tatter's position. Finally Luke may have had an interest in informing Theophilus,

1   ...   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   ...   38

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page