| || |An Alphabetical Analysis Volume 7 - Doctrinal Truth - Page 16 of 297 INDEX | |
Job, who according to the LXX was a descendant of Abraham through Esau.
Bloomfield feels that there is enough evidence in his writings to suggest
that, like Timothy, Luke may have been the son of a Jewess, and of a Greek
father. While inspiration cannot be limited to any class or nationality, it
would be fitting for the apostle of the Gentiles to have a record of the
earthly ministry of the Son of God written for him by one who was himself a
Gentile. In chapter 1 of The Apostle of the Reconciliation we have given
some samples of medical terms which are peculiar to the Acts, taken from the
book on the medical language of Luke, by Hobart, which should also be
consulted. While this testimony is overwhelming in showing the medical terms
used by Luke, no amount of zeal even for a good cause justifies the slightest
overstatement or proof, and the Rev. W.T. Penley M.A. in an article
contributed to The Thinker, Vol. vi. 1894, draws attention to the fact that
many so called distinctively medical terms were in common use. Penley's
criticism of The Medical Language of St. Luke by the Rev. W. K. Hobart LL.D.
'Dr. Hobart's standpoint is too narrow. He chooses to ignore how much
St. Luke was under the influence of the Septuagint ...'.
'Out of the total number of words claimed as 'medical' by Dr. Hobart
... 388 belong to the Septuagint, leaving only 25 out of 413. This
fact alone discredits his book'.
'Books on the preservation of health, by whomsoever written, Galen
tells us, were for the public ... This implies a considerable general
knowledge of medical terms'.
While the criticism of Penley should make us read Hobart with caution,
it in no wise robs the testimony to the 'beloved physician' of the witness
provided by his own choice of terms that differ from those employed by the
other Gospels. The advice given in 1 Timothy 5:23 still sounds like a
friendly prescription, and the use of the word thrombos in Luke 22:44 in his
description of the Saviour's agony in the garden is unique, the word
occurring nowhere else either in the New Testament or the LXX. The
distinctive features of Luke's Gospel as compared with parallel passages in
Matthew's account, prevent us from accepting the structure given in a much
prized work, wherein each of the four Gospels has as its central feature 'The
King'. It is set out in The Companion Bible (p. 1305) thus:
of the Lord.
This outline can only be accepted if it is taken in the very broadest
of meanings, but unless exceeding care is exercised, its very simplicity is
likely to prevent the more important differences that characterize these four
Gospels from being perceived and followed. As a contrast with this attempt
to reduce the four Gospels to a common level, let the reader 'try the things
that differ' and ponder the following examples of the differences that are
observable upon a comparison of the testimony of Matthew and Luke.