udgment is not so {68} clearly connected with the fall of
Jerusalem as in Matt. xxiv. 29, where it is foretold as coming
"immediately, after the tribulation of those days." Moreover, xxi. 24
suggests that the writer was well aware that an interval must elapse
between the two great events. This is the only good argument for
placing Luke later than Matt., and it certainly deserves careful
attention. At the same time, we must observe the following facts: (a)
St. Luke probably did not know St. Matthew's Gospel, otherwise he would
not have given such very different, though not contradictory, accounts
of the infancy and the resurrection of our Lord; (b) St. Luke may
perhaps owe the superior accuracy of his report of the eschatological
discourse of Christ to persons whom he knew at Jerusalem in A.D. 56;
(c) St. Luke himself possibly thought that the end of the world would
follow soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, for in xxi. 32 he seems
to connect the final judgment with his own generation. But the
statement is not so strong as in Matt. and Mark. For St. Luke says,
"This generation shall not pass away till all be accomplished," while
Matt. and Mark say, "until all _these_ things be accomplished,"
evidently including the final judgment.

On the whole, it seems reasonable to date the Gospel according to St.
Luke soon after A.D. 70, but it contains so many primitive touches that
it may be rather earlier. It has been urged that both the Gospel and
Acts betray a knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus, and must
therefore be later than A.D. 94. This theory remains wholly unproved,
and the small evidence which can be brought to support it is far
outweighed by the early features which mark St. Luke's books.

[Sidenote: Literary Style.]

The style is marked by great delicacy and power. It is in better Greek
than the other Synoptic Gospels, and the evangelist seems to
deliberately avoid some of the racy, popular words which are employed
by St. Mark. But the beginner should be warned that this Gospel is not
very easy to translate, for it contains a good {69} many words with
which he is not likely to be familiar. The language of St. Luke
contains many proofs that he is writing as a Gentile for Gentiles.
Thus he calls the Apostle Simon, who belonged to the fanatically devout
party known as the "Cananaeans," by the corresponding Greek name
"Zealot" (vi. 15); he seldom uses the Hebrew word "Amen," and he never
uses the