pulous methods to support their assertion that the New
Testament is Unitarian. In the same way Marcion, although he made
unscrupulous alterations in Luke in order to prove that it was really
Marcionite, obviously accepted it as a genuine work of the apostolic
age.

The Preface of the Gospel begins with a ceremonious dedication to a
person of high rank, named Theophilus. He is {67} called by the title
"most excellent," which ordinarily implies that the person so
designated is a member of the "equestrian order." The evangelist tells
Theophilus that many had taken in hand to draw up a narrative of those
things which are "most surely believed among us." The preface shows us
that many attempts to give an account in order of what our Lord did and
said had already been made. The literary activity of the earliest
Christians is thus demonstrated to us. The preface suggests to us that
substantial accuracy marked these early efforts, and, in a still higher
degree, St. Luke's own Gospel. He does not speak of the earlier works
as inaccurate, and he does distinctly give his reader to understand
that he possesses peculiar qualifications for his task. He asserts
that his information is derived from "eye-witnesses and ministers of
the Word," and that he has himself "traced the course of all things
accurately from the first." This preface certainly shows us that the
writer took real pains in writing, and that he had personally known men
who accompanied our Lord.

The date can hardly be later than A.D. 80, unless the evangelist wrote
in extreme old age. And the date must be earlier than Acts, as the
Gospel is referred to in that work (Acts i. 1, 2). Can we fix the date
more accurately than this? Many critics think that we can. They say
that it must be later than the fall of Jerusalem, A.D. 70. It is said
that the Gospel presupposes that Jerusalem was already destroyed. The
arguments for this are: (1) In Luke xxi. 20-24 the utter destruction of
Jerusalem is foretold with peculiar clearness. We have already seen
that a similar argument is employed by many in speaking of Matt., an
argument which seems to imply that our Lord did not foretell that
destruction because He could not. This argument must be dismissed.
(2) In Luke xxi. 20 there is no editorial note like that in Matt. xxiv.
15, to emphasize the necessity of paying peculiar attention to our
Lord's warning about the coming destruction, and in Luke xxi. 25 the
final j