What are we to say in regard to this theory as an explanation of the facts? We may admit that this Gospel, as haying been addressed firstly to an individual, and afterwards to a wider circle, may have had a different textual history from the others, and we may make all allowance for the greater difficulty of establishing the theory in the Gospel than in the Acts, because the Western text in the Gospel differs almost entirely by its omissions, and because the early history of the Synoptic text must be obscure. Further, we may allow that the term ‘ Western non-interpolations’ given to these omitted passages by Westcott ana
the difference between the characteristics of the | Hort is not applicable, inasmuch as there is, as
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
165
a rule, little besides the suggestion of ‘ assimila- tion’ to show that they are interpolations. And yet we must demand further proof before we can accept Blass’s view, for the arguments on which it rests are inconclusive.
In the first place, the distribution of the pheno- mena is at once too wide and too narrow. Similar omissions are found in the same group of authori- ties, or in some members of the group, in the other Gospels, and elsewhere in the NI. We might quote, for example, the omission of all reference to the Pharisees in Mk 10? and other similar instances, but two illustrations from Mt 19° and 19°" will serve to show not only that the omissions are widely distributed, but also that they are capable of being explained by a divergence in the oral tradition. In the first passage, a number of Western authorities (here with δ and other Greek MSS) omit the words καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται, and in the second many of the same authorities (here with B) omit the words ἢ γυναῖκα. The distribution of the instances of omission in Western texts is therefore too wide. It is also too narrow, for the most important of the cases come in the last few chapters of the Gospel, and are sufficiently explained by ‘the natural variations between the reports given by two different hearers of a story orally delivered in the presence of both’ (Salmon, Text. Criticism, Ρ. 148).
Again, it may reasonably be objected that ‘if there had been a definite Western written text we should have been able to reproduce it in a way we cannot now’ (Salmon, 1.6. p. 148). There is certainly very early support for many of the readings, so that we may well believe that many of them ‘express the form in which the Gospel was read in the Church of Rome in apostolic or sub-apostolic times,’ yet still the distribution of the support cannot be regarded as indicating two editi ns, one Eastern and one Western, and to meet this difficulty Blass has to fall back upon the position that in none of our authorities have we ‘the Western text while still in its pure form.’ Blass, indeed, states that ‘ besides conflations with the other Gospels, which began at a very early date, conflations [of the Western] with the Oriental text must have been more inevitable than in the case of the Acts.’ As instances of such ‘confla- tion,’ by which we suppose he means corruption of the Western text by the Eastern, he would, presumably, regard cases where the authorities on which he relies are divided, as, for example, the insertion of δευτεροπρώτῳ (61), or the word from the Cross (23%). We cannot deny the very early and varied character of the attestation which is found for the Western readings, when we meet with them in Justin, Tatian, and Marcion. We can say that the evidence of these authorities does not allow us to rest on their evidence an edition such as that of Blass.
Again, it is urged by Corssen, whose view is endorsed by Bousset (Theol. Rundschau, July 1898), that the language of the Western text, as Blass has constructed it, often shows an absence of marked characteristics of St. Luke’s style, and therefore is not the work of St. Luke himself, but ‘a revision by another hand.’
Finally, it has to be urged, if not against the theory as a whole, at any rate against Blass’s presentation of it, that the selection of one reading in preference to another is often very arbitrary, and that readings are adopted which have only very slight support, or may be shown to be inferior to the ordinary text, and less original. Some of these are collected by Zahn (Pint. ii. 354 ff.).
The theory, then, of two editions has been rejected by most scholars, even by those who have
accepted it in regard to the Acts, and we must say that it is at any rate unproved. The phenomena on which it rests point at most (Harnack, Chronologie, p. 700n.) to a correction of St. Luke’s Gospel, not to two editions of it; they are not peculiar to the third Gospel, and, though they often preserve an original reading, they are far from representing always the best text, and they are sufficiently explained by a consideration of the circumstances under which the Gospels were first circulated and took written shape.
4. THE SOURCES OF THE GOSPEL.—The deter- mination of the sources used by St. Luke must depend partly upon external, partly upon internal, evidence. Under the first head fall the assertions of the preface, and the statements made by early writers as to St. Luke’s connexion with St. Paul. Both these are dealt with below. Under internal evidence will be included arguments based on points of style, subject-matter, and arrangement, which involve the question of St. Luke’s relation to the other Gospels, and bring us face to face with the Synoptic problem. ‘This problem, which is one of ‘extraordinary difficulty and complexity ’ (Sanday, Inspiration, p. 281), need be discussed here only so far as it concerns St. Luke.