has collected a rich treasure of memorable occurrences, which may be explained from his near relationship to the seventy disciples. We find here, and in the preceding account of the commencement of this journey, the most of the pieces peculiar to the Pauline Luke. To these belong the narrative of Martha and Mary; the parable of the friend, who knocks at midnight at the door of his friend; the account of the last great conflicts of Jesus with the Galilean Pharisees; the report of the Galileans, whom Pilate had caused to be executed; the narratives of the woman bowed with a spirit of infirmity—of the healing of the man which had the dropsy, in the house of a Pharisee; several shorter parables, as that of sitting in the highest place, of inviting the poor as guests, of the reckoning the cost before building a tower or making war; the parables illustrative of grace-of the lost sheep, of the lost piece of silver, and of the prodigal son; the parables explanatory of Christian love, and unchristian hardness, viz., of the unjust steward, and of the rich man; the narrative of the ten lepers; the parable of the widow and the unjust judge; and, finally, that of the Pharisee and the publican. The whole section is manifestly a profound exhibition of Christian doctrine in examples. But however displaced the single parts may be in point of chronological order, they still serve, in highly significant traces, to give us a correct conception of the last journey but one performed by Jesus. This is especially true of the two jointly suggestive notices, that Jesus was rejected in a Samaritan village, and journeyed through the border country between Galilee and Samaria. See vol. iii. 411; comp. p. 399.

2. The entrance of Jesus into Bethany cannot belong to the last journey, of Jesus from Perea to Jerusalem. But it might have taken place in the last journey but one. The position, accordingly, of the narrative of Martha and Mary (see above, iii. 159) would be still, at least, doubtful. That the Evangelist did not indeed place together here, exclusively, incidents connected with His two last journeys, is proved by the account given of the disciples being taught the Lord's Prayer in this series (chap. xi.). Likewise the great conflicts with the Pharisees of Galilee (chap. xi. and xii.); in like manner the paragraphs concerning the Galileans whom Pilate caused to be slain, of the unfruitful fig-tree, and of the woman who had a

spirit of infirmity (chap. xiii. 1-17). These narratives belong all of them to the time before the transfiguration. As a whole, therefore, the part from chap. xi.-xiii. 21 belongs to a previous period. It is otherwise with the paragraphs which follow, from chap. xiii. 22 to the end of chap. xvi. The conversation

about offences belongs most probably to the commencement of Christ's departure from Galilee. On the contrary, the passage chap. xvii. 11 points to the time of the journey between the boundaries of Galilee and Samaria, and is to be connected with chap. ix. 57. Single points in the address of Christ concerning the last days may have been taken from the great discourse which He afterwards delivered on the Mount of Olives, and introduced into the lesser one, which was really delivered about this time. To the last days of His last journey but one through Perea to Jerusalem, belong, besides this discourse, chap. xvii. 20 et seq., the parables, chap. xviii. 1-14. The further incidents to the close, belong, on the contrary, to the last sojourn of Jesus in Perea-to the time of His departure. for Jerusalem.

3. Schleiermacher has justly observed, that this section is composed of several records of journeys and narratives; but the arrangement of its contents has nevertheless escaped him. The supposition, that the section from ix. 51-xviii. 14 is a separate writing, he has himself invalidated, p. 221 et seq. As regards the original connection of single passages in cases where a difference subsists between Luke and Matthew, he is disposed, as a rule, to adhere to Luke, frequently in a way which is somewhat forced. He thinks, e.g., that the discourse of Jesus concerning blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, xii. 10, occupies a more suitable position here than in Matt. xii. 31, 32, because, in the case referred to (according to Matt.), the people could not at that time have distinguished well blasphemy against the Son from blasphemy against the Spirit; here, on the contrary, the πνεûμа ayιov is the divine power, which should afterwards animate and guide the disciples in the proclamation and defence of the Gospel.' The contrast may therefore be understood thus: If any one now opposes himself to the Son, the effects of bis sin may still be removed; but whosoever, in future, blasphemes the more speedy and powerful operation of the Spirit, for him no other means of deliverance is in reserve.' Here the fact, in

the first place, is overlooked, that immediately in Jesus one might also blaspheme the Spirit; and, secondly, that in the messengers filled with His Spirit one might also, possibly, only speak evil against the men. For the peculiar interpretations which Schleiermacher has given to the parables of the unjust steward, and of the rich man and Lazarus, and to other passages, see pp. 203-210. Weisse thinks he has found out that the parable of the unjust steward has reference to the forgiveness of sins, p. 163; by which the interpretation given by the Lord Himself must be set aside, and put to the account of a misapprehension on the part of Luke. Also the parable of the rich man and Lazarus he finds to be defective, p. 168. Gfrörer is often able to find no connection at all between the several parts of this section (e.g., between Luke xi. 32 and ver. 33: p. 243). He seeks, where it is possible, as if in despair, to get the appearance of a grammatical connection. Thus, e.g., certainly nothing but the number eighteen,' which occurs in both, can unite together the parts, Luke xiii. 1-9 and vers. 10-17. The narrative xiv. 1-6 must be the same with what is narrated xiii. 10 et seq., because similar features occur in both; although here a man afflicted with the dropsy, and there a woman bowed down with a spirit of infirmity, is the object of the compassion of Christ. Thus also he finds (p. 266) three accounts of one parable, and, what is still more surprising, two of them beside each other. The words, xiv. 34, 35, suit the context very much 'as a fist does the eye.' The declarations, x. 16-18, have found a place there, he supposes, by mere association of ideas—a like sound in the words. The connection between the parable of the unjust steward and that of the rich man has been admirably shown by Gfrörer (p. 276). The interpretation given by us of διὰ μέσου Σαμαρείας καὶ Γαλιλαίας is contested by Gfrorer in vain. For although the New Testament has also an express term for border district, öpia or μelópia, that expression does · not render the same service with the one here selected, viz., to designate a keeping within the frontier line. According to the author of the book die Evang., etc., Luke has also changed the Lord's Prayer under the influence of a Pauline interest,—an hypothesis, to which the critical examination of the text offers no support. In the 12th chapter, Paul, by the representation he gives of Gospel facts, has it in view throughout to ridicule the

Jewish apostles and Jewish Christians. In Matt. xxiv. 48, the evil servant in the parable is, without doubt, Paul;' hereaccording to him-the evil servant is manifestly Peter. How much the ridiculous here competes with the blasphemous, in order to complete the triumph of criticism, is shown, amongst others, in the passage (p. 125) where the author finds that the woman who had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years was the Apostle Paul himself, so far as he had allowed himself formerly to be ruled by a regard for the authority of the Twelve.

4. Ritschl (in the above-mentioned treatise) has missed the connection in several passages of the canonical Gospel of Luke, and especially in the section before us. He has sought to prove that the text of Marcion, with its supposed omissions, shows itself to be the original, by its giving in such cases the right connection. Von Baur, in his essay on 'The Origin and Character of Luke's Gospel' (Zeller's Theolog. Jahrb. 1846, iv. Heft), has on the whole approved of Ritschl's hypothesis. According to his view, the canonical Gospel of Luke consists of two essentially different elements of an original stem, to which several not unimportant pieces were afterwards added by another hand.' Amongst the passages which the author designates as interpolations, he reckons the following lengthier sections:1. The history of the birth, baptism, and temptation, chap. i.iv. 15. 2. The three parables-that of the fig-tree, attached to the account of the Galileans slain by Pilate, xiii. 1-9—that of the prodigal son, xv. 11-32—that of the rebellious husbandmen, xx. 9-18; further, the narrative of the public entry into Jerusalem, xix. 29-46. It is worthy of notice, that the same critic who recognises in the Gospels, along with the general object of an historical narrative, also a special aim, which can only be known from their special character,' equally with Ritschl, will not hear of any special object or dogmatic interest, when the Gospel of Marcion is in question. The writing referred to is also burdened with the fixed idea, that the ideality of a Gospel narrative is a sufficient ground for inferring its unhistorical character. This he applies, in the first place, to the seventy disciples (p. 572), who, by a singular logic in the spirit of the above idea, are set aside. Let only the two following sentences be read in succession: On the whole narrative of the seventy disciples, as it appears in this Gospel, there is so unmistakeably impressed such

of

a Pauline cast and interest, that, even in the case of an historical tradition underlying it, we must suppose it to have been entirely remodelled by a Pauline writer for his own purposes. What great difference then is there, whether one assume that something of its material was pre-existent, or consider it as his own invention, adopted by him into the Gospel history?' The Gospel of Luke, synoptically considered, as the author justly remarks, more nearly approaches to Matthew on the one side, and to the Gospel of John on the other, and in the same measure possesses an ideal character; which means, however, according to him, a figurative character' (p. 573). Of this nature, e.g., he regards the narrative of the two sisters, Mary and Martha ; likewise also the history of the woman who was a sinner. According to his opinion, Luke also forms a transition between Matthew and John in this, that, according to the former, the ministry of Jesus was chiefly exercised in Galilee, according to the latter, in Jerusalem; whilst Luke transfers the chief part it to Samaria (p. 497). For, contrary to the connection, he understands the journey through Galilee and Samaria, of a residence of Jesus in Samaria (without taking into consideration, that even on his own interpretation of the part in question, the half of the journey must be again put to the account of Galilee). Notwithstanding Luke has so considerable an affinity to John, he everywhere, according to this author, gives expression to the Ebionitic view, concerning the relation between riches and poverty, and the contrast resting on it between the present and the future world,' which is designated as the fundamental idea of the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, and in general as the primitive Christian conception. The author comes then (p. 514) to a delineation of Gospel poverty, in which the Ebionites, with their morose chiliasm, would scarcely have recognised their own theory; although he certainly fails to appreciate the best element in it, the being poor in righteousness and spiritual life. The fundamental idea of primitive Christian poverty is, according to him, the being poor consciously, and of free choice, even as the ideally contrasted riches is the reflection of this poverty. One is thus gradually, in the way of a dialectic play on words, without moral counterpoise and connection, led to the conclusion, that the teaching of the Church concerning poverty, down to the present day, is Ebionitic, and consequently the