of those, who had embraced his doctrines. Nor is it improbable that St. Luke's narrative should have produced such an effect on the mind of this person, as to induce him to request from the same author a further account of the Christians, especially of St. Paul, who was then prisoner in Cæsarea, which occasioned the composition of St. Luke's second work, the Acts of the Apostles. All these circumstances put together render the opinion highly probable, that St. Luke's Theophilus is no other than Theophilus the son of Annas, who is mentioned by Josephus. And if the opinion be true, as I really believe, it adds greatly to the credibility of St. Luke's Gospel; for the Evangelist would hardly have ventured to dedicate to the son of that very Annas, who was High Priest, when Christ was crucified, a narrative of facts performed in Palestine, unless he had been able to warrant their truth.

The third dissertation on St. Luke's Theophilus, in the Bibliotheca Bremensis ", was written by James Hase, brother of Theodore. This writer supposes that St. Luke's Theophilus was a Jewish convert in Alexandria, and moreover the first who embraced Christianity in that eity. In favour of this opinion he produces the authority of Bar Bahlul, a Syrian lexicographer of the tenth century, who is quoted in Castelli Lexicon Heptaglotton, pag. 3859, under the article 0012 Theophilus. The words of Bar Bahlul, in Castell's Latin translation are, Theophilus, primus credentium et celeberrimus apud Alexandrienses, qui cum aliis Ægyptiis S. Lucam rogabat, ut eis Evangelium scriberet.' But an assertion made by a writer of the tenth century relative to what happened in the first century cannot be considered as historical evidence, when his assertion is not supported by any preceding authority. And in the present instance I have no doubt that the assertion is nothing more than a conjecture of Bar Bablul founded on the common belief of the Syrians relative to the place where St. Luke wrote his Gospel.

In the superscription to St. Luke's Gospel in the Syriac version it is said that St. Luke wrote and preached his Gospel at Alexandria: hence Bar Bahlul concluded that the person to whom he addressed it must have been an inhabitant of Alexandria. Further, the author of the dissertation in question appears to be of opinion", though he has not positively advanced it, that St. Luke's Theophilus was no other than the celebrated Alexandrian Jew, Philo. But if Philo and Theophilus were one and the same person, which is in itself very improbable, the Alexandrine Fathers Clement and Origen must certainly have known it, and consequently would not have failed to relate it. Besides, as Philo, in the account of his embassy to the emperor Caius Caligula, calls himself at that time an old man', it is not very probable that he was alive, when the Acts of the Apostles were written, which extend as far as the end of the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome, under the emperor Nero, and therefore must have been written more than twenty years after the embassy of Philo.

SECTION V.

Of the Time when St. Luke wrote his Gospel.

THE time when, as well as the place where, St. Luke's Gospel was written, is wholly uncertain, Lardner, in the first volume of his Supplement to the Credi

Ebed Jesu says the same. See Assemani Bib. Orient. Tom. III. P. 1. p. 9.

'His own words, p. 1077. are, Equidem et ipse ille Philo inter suos gessit nomen 7, seu Jedidæi, hoc est opia, quod ipse in Philonis Græcum ex more tum temporis solemni commutavit. Hebræo enim hoc et nativo nomine Philonem citat Jedidæi Alexandrini R. Azarias in Meor Enajim, cap. 32.

'In the beginning of his work entitled, De legatione ad Caium. Chap. VIII. Sect. 4, 5, 6.

VOL. III.

bility of the Gospel History, has examined the various opinions on this subject, and very clearly shewn the mistakes, which had been made by his predecessors: but, as it often happens in dubious cases, the opinion which he himself defends is equally liable to objection. All that we can affirm with certainty is, that St. Luke wrote his Gospel before the Acts of the Apostles, and that the Acts of the Apostles were not written before the end of the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment in Rome. But of the interval which elapsed, between the composition of the former and that of the latter, we have no knowledge; nor are there any internal marks, either in the Gospel or in the Acts, by which we can determine whether the interval was long or short. It is indeed the commonly received opinion, and Lardner has adopted it, that St. Luke wrote his Gospel not long before the Acts of the Apostles; but this is mere conjecture, for though it is very possible that the former was written so late as the very year in which the latter was written, yet it is equally possible that it was written ten years before. One of the reasons which Lardner assigns, namely, that St. Luke's Gospel contains a more complete view of the Gospel dispensation, than could have been expected from a person who wrote only a few years after the ascension, is wholly foreign to the purpose. If the question related to the work of an impostor, who invented stories and doctrines in order to deceive the world and introduce a false religion, the argument would be valid: for when a writer exhibits a fiction, and produces merely a work of his own invention, he cannot easily ascribe to his pretended prophet a set of doctrines, with which he himself was unacquainted. But it is wholly inapplicable to the Evangelists, who have recorded a series of doctrines, not of their own discovery, but which had been actually delivered by Christ: and therefore, whether they fully understood the Gospel dispensation or not, when they wrote their histories, it was surely

Chap. VIII. Sect. 5.

in their power to record, as true and faithful disciples, what had been taught by their Lord and Master. Lardner's other argument, namely, that several histories of Christ had been written before St. Luke wrote his Gospel, as the Evangelist himself says in the Preface, is more to the purpose, but equally indecisive. For we are wholly ignorant of the time in which the histories, to which St. Luke alludes were written, and there-, fore we cannot argue from them to the time, when St. Luke himself wrote. Lardner indeed says, 'It cannot be reasonably thought, that many should have written histories of Jesus Christ presently after his ascension, nor indeed till many years after it.' But if we argue from mere probability we may with equal reason suppose that some accounts at least were committed to writing soon after the ascension. In fact we cannot conclude either one way or the other with any certainty, and the probability or improbability, which we find in the case itself, depends chiefly on the opi nion, which we have already embraced. If we argue from analogy, the inference will be equally uncertain; for some histories are written soon after the events, which are recorded, though other events of equal importance are not committed to writing, till long after they had happened. For instance, Charles XII. of Sweden had a biographer in Voltaire, within a few years after his death, whereas the life of Gustavus Adolphus has been described by no historian before the present age.

St. Luke's Gospel therefore, for aught we know, may have been written many years before the Acts of the Apostles and consequently the opinion of Theodore Hase, which I noticed in the preceding section, that it was written in Palestine, before St. Paul was sent prisoner from Cæsarea to Rome, may very possibly be true. Nay it is possible that St. Luke wrote before

The subscription to St. Luke's Gospel in some Greek manuscripts quoted by Wetstein imports that it was written only fifteen years after the ascension.

St. Matthew; for though I would not undertake to prove that he did, I should find it difficult to prove that he did not. It is true that according to the common arrangement of the four Gospels, that of St. Luke is placed after that of St. Matthew: but we cannot argue from their position to the time in which they were written. Nor do all the manuscripts agree in the arrangement of the Gospels: for there are some, especially Latin manuscripts, in which St. John's Gospel is placed before that of St. Matthew, though it is certain that St. John's Gospel was written last*. It is therefore not improbable that the common arrangement of the three first Gospels was grounded not on the time when they were written, but on the different degrees of dignity of their respective authors. St. Matthew had the first rank, because he was an Apostle, and St. Mark the second rank, because he had notonly been a companion of St. Peter, but had likewise attended St. Paul, before St. Luke attended him. Yet St. Mark, if he wrote his Gospel after St. Peter was in Rome, wrote certainly later than St. Luke. The only Gospel of which we can positively affirm that its usual position corresponds to the time of its composition is that of St. John: but as in several manuscripts this Gospel has a different position, we see that the arrangement of the Gospels leads to no conclusion what

soever.

That St. Luke's Gospel was really written before that of St. Matthew has been asserted by several commentators, in consequence of what St. Luke says in his preface. Macknight especially has devoted to this subject a great part of his seventh Preliminary Dissertation®, and in addition to the argument deduced from St. Luke's preface, has drawn a conclusion in favour

a Beza observes in a Note to Luke i. 1-4. Forsitan ex hoc loco utcunque colligi posset, Lucam ante Matthæum quoque et Marcum hanc suam historiam edidisse.

Prefixed to his Harmony of the Gospels. The edition which I quote is that of 1763.