Weymouth New Testament in Modern Speech: Preface and Introductions | Page 6

Gospel narrative which
Luke alone has preserved for us, are among the most beautiful treasures
which we possess, and we owe them in a great measure to his desire to
make his collection as full as possible." Luke's object was rather to
write history than construct an "apology" and for this reason his order
is generally chronological.
This Gospel is often termed, and not without reason, "the Gospel of
Paul." Luke's close association with the great Apostle--an association to
which the record in the Acts and also the Pauline Letters bear
testimony--at once warrants and explains the ancient assumption that
we have here a writing as truly coloured by the influence of Paul as that
of Mark was by Peter. This is especially the Gospel of gratuitous and
universal salvation. Its integrity has recently been placed beyond
dispute. Marcion's edition of it in 140, A.D., was a mutilation of the
original!

The Good News as Recorded by John
In spite of its rejection by Marcion and the Alogi, the fourth Gospel
was accepted by most Christians at the end of the second century as
having been written by the Apostle John. In the present day the
preponderating tendency among scholars favours the traditional
authorship. On the other hand the most recent scrutiny asserts:
"Although many critics see no adequate reason for accepting the
tradition which assigns the book to the Apostle John, and there are
several cogent reasons to the contrary, they would hardly deny that
nevertheless the volume is Johannine--in the sense that any historical
element throughout its pages may be traced back directly or indirectly
to that Apostle and his school."
As regards the date, no more definite period can be indicated than that
suggested by Harnack--between 80, A.D., and 110, A.D. But that it was
written in Ephesus is practically certain, and there is evidence that it
was composed at the request of Elders and believers belonging to the
Churches of Roman Asia.
The special characteristics which render the book unique in literature
are unmistakable, but scarcely admit of brief expression. It is
manifestly supplementary to the other Gospels and assumes that they
are known and are true. The differences between the fourth Gospel and
the other three may be easily exaggerated, but it must be acknowledged
that they exist. They relate, (1) to the ministry of Christ, and (2) to His
person. As to the former it is impossible to correlate all the references
to distinct events, for whilst the Synoptics appear to contemplate little
more than the life and work of a single year, from John's standpoint
there can scarcely have been less than three years concerned. As to the
person of Christ, it must be owned that although the fourth Gospel
makes no assertion which contradicts the character of Teacher and
Reformer attributed to Him by the Synoptics, it presents to us a
personage so enwrapped in mystery and dignity as altogether to
transcend ordinary human nature. This transcendent Personality is
indeed the avowed centre of the whole record, and His portrayal is its
avowed purpose. Yet whilst the writer never clearly reveals to us who

he himself is, it is equally manifest that his own convictions constitute
the matrix in which the discourses and events are imbedded, and that
there is nothing in this matrix to render that which it contains unreal or
untrustworthy.
The Acts of the Apostles
The authorship of this book has been much discussed, but it may now
be affirmed with certainty that the writer of our third Gospel is also the
author of "the Acts," and that he speaks from the standpoint of an
eye-witness in the four we sections (16:10-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18;
27:1--28:16), and is known in Paul's Letters as "Luke the beloved
physician" (Col 4:14; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). The date necessarily
depends upon that of the third Gospel. If the latter was written before
the destruction of Jerusalem, then Luke's second work may well have
been issued between 66 and 70, A.D. But the tendency, in the present
day, is to date the Gospel somewhere between 75 and 85, A.D., after
the destruction of the city. In that case "the Acts" may be assigned to
any period between 80 and 90, A.D. The latter conclusion, though by
no means certain, is perhaps the more probable.
The familiar title of the book is somewhat unfortunate, for it is
manifestly not the intention of the writer to describe the doings of the
Apostles generally, but rather just so much of the labours of Peter and
Paul--and especially the latter--as will serve to illustrate the growth of
the early Church, and at the same time exhibit the emancipation of
Christianity from its primitive Judaic origin and environment.
It is plain that the writer was contemporary with the events he describes,