It is a certain fact that Luke was not one of
the Apostles. It is written in the beginning of the Gospel of Luke: “Forasmuch
as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,” “Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;” “It
seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the
very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent The-oph’i-lus,” “That
thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been
instructed.” (Luke: 1-1, 2, 3, 4)
This paragraph has several denotations:
First; Luke wrote this Gospel as many other
people contemporary with him wrote Gospels. Second; Luke points out the fact
that there is no Gospel written by the Apostles themselves. For he
distinguishes the Gospel writers from those who have seen with their own eyes,
with the expression “Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the
beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; ...”
Third; he does not claim to be a disciple of
one of the Apostles. For in his time there were numerous publications, articles
and epistles attributed to each of the Apostles; he did not hope that such a
documentation, i.e. claiming to be a pupil of one of the Apostles, would cause
others to trust his book. Perhaps he thought it a more dependable document to
point out that he had observed every fact in its original source and learned
everything by personal scrutiny. One point should be noted: recently it has
become a customary practice on the part of the Protestant clergy to replace the
criticised expressions with some other appropriate expressions, each time a
Gospel is reprinted. In fact, with permission, registered with the date 1371
and number 572, given by the (Turkish) Ministry of Education, the British and
American Bible companies transformed this paragraph, too. By substituting the
expression “As I know all the facts to the most minute details....,” with
“having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first...,” they
adapted the meaning to their own goals. But the French versions and the
versions printed in Germany retain the meaning we have translated above.
In giving the genealogy of Îsâ
‘alaihis-salâm’, the twenty-seventh verse of the third chapter of the Gospel of
Luke writes as follows: “Which was the son of Jo-an’na, which was the son of
Re’sa, which was the son of Zo-rob’a-bel, which was the son of sa-
la’thi’el, which was the son of Ne’ri,” (Luke: 3-27) There are
three errors here:
First; the children of Zo-rob’a-bel are
written clearly in the nineteenth verse of the third chapter of I Chronicles of
the Old Testament. There is no one by the name of Re’sa there. This writing of
his contradicts Matthew’s writing, too.
Second: Zo-rob’a-bel is the son of Pe-dai’ah.
He is not the son of Sa-la’thi el. He is the son of Sa-la’thi-el’s brother.
Third; Sa-la’thi-el is the son of Jech-o-ni’as,
not the son of Ne’ri. Matthew writes so, too.[1]
Again, the thirty-sixth verse of the third
chapter of the Gospel of Luke reads, “... Sa’la,” (Luke: 3-35) “Which was the
son of Ca-i’nan, which was the son of Ar-phax’ad,” (ibid: 3-36) which is wrong,
too. For Sa’la is not the grandson of Ar-phax’ad; he is his son. This fact is
stated in the first chapter of I Chronicles (nineteenth verse) and in the
eleventh chapter of Genesis [in its tenth, eleventh and twelfth verses].
Also, the first and second verses of the
second chapter of the Gospel of Luke, “And it came to pass in those days, that
there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be
taxed.” “(And this taxing was first made when Cy-re’nius was governor of
Syria,)” (Luke: 2-1, 2) are wrong. The Romans never dominated the whole world;
how could they have issued a firman concerning a worldwide taxing? In fact, the
Protestant priests, in order to dodge this question as usual, changed these
statements in the Istanbul-1886 edition of the New Testament and wrote it as,
“In those days a firman concerning the registering of the whole world was
issued by the Kaiser Augustus.” On the other hand, in the Turkish version
issued by the British society in Paris in 1243 [A.D. 1827], this passage is
written as, “In those days it befell so that a firman concerning a census of
the world was issued by the Cæsar Augustus.” “And Joseph also went up from
Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which
is called Bethlehem; ..,” “To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, ...” (Luke:
2-2, 3, 4) Afterwards, when scrutinies on the passage about the taxing began,
it was seen that neither the historians contemporary with Luke nor those a
short while before him said anything concerning the taxation. As for
Cy-re’ni-us; he became the governor of Syria fifteen years after the birth of
Îsâ ‘alaihis-salâm’; it is an obvious fact, therefore, that the so-called
taxing could not have taken place in his time, supposing after all the doubtful
taxing did take place.
---------------------------------
[1] Matt:
1-12