Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 80:318 (Apr 1923)
Article: The Travel Narrative In St. Luke (9:51-18:14)
Author: H. E. Guilleband

BSac 80:318 (April 1923) p. 237

The Travel Narrative In St. Luke (9:51-18:14)

H. E. Guilleband

THE usual view of this section of St. Luke’s Gospel at the present time seems to be that it is in no sort of chronological order; indeed Dr. A. Wright, in his article on St. Luke’s Gospel in Hastings’ “Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels” contends that the Travel Narrative is “a collection of undated material.” Now it may be conceded at once that there may be one or two sections within these chapters, which belong to an earlier period of our Lord’s ministry (11:14–32 is probably an instance: cp. Mark 3:20–30, Matt. 12:22–45); but the purpose of this paper is to point out certain remarkable undesigned coincidences between the Travel Narrative and the part of the Fourth Gospel that covers the same period, which seem to show that, on the whole, Luke’s arrangement was much more chronological than is supposed.

The Travel Narrative begins with the definite end of the Galilean ministry, no return to Galilee being mentioned. If then we are to compare Luke with John, we must first consider at what point in the Fourth Gospel the end of the Galilean ministry should be placed. Now it is quite clear that our Lord was not working in Galilee after the Feast of Dedication (John 10:40, 11:54, 12:1); but it is conceivable, as far as John’s account is concerned, that He might have resumed work in Galilee between the Feasts of Tabernacles and Dedication. On the other hand, the Synoptic account of the events between the Feeding of the Five Thousand and the end of the Galilean ministry scarcely seems to leave room for a journey to Jerusalem.

It seems therefore far more probable that the journey to the Feast of Tabernacles marks our Lord’s farewell to Galilee. It would follow then that the period covered by John 7:10—12:19 (from the Feast of Tabernacles to the triumphal entry into Jerusalem) is the same as that covered by Luke 9:51—19–44. If between

BSac 80:318 (April 1923) p. 238

these sections of the two Gospels remarkable undesigned correspondences can be shown, it would at least give considerable presumption for the substantial chronological accuracy of Luke’s narrative. At first sight, it would seem almost hopeless to fit the two narratives together. If we had Luke alo...