(c) St. Luke and St. John.—We have already noticed (above, p. 164) that St. Luke has more points in common with St. John than either St. Matthew or St. Mark has, but they are not enough to establish any literary relation. Among such points of contact may be noted the allusions to a ministry in Judea (4% 13%) ; the Galilean journey before the death of John the Baptist (wh. see), implied by the term ὑπέστρεψεν (414), 225 (= Jn 1810 τὸ δεξιόν) ; the visit of Peter to the sepulchre, 2415 Jn 20%), Others may be seen by a reference to the ninth of the groups marked in the Ammonian sections, or in Weiss (7.6. p. 297 n.) or in Holtz- mann (Joh. Evang. p. 6ff.). The result of a com- parison does not ‘establish a literary relation,’ but indicates some common points in the oral tradition used by both.
(d) St. Luke’s special source or sources.—In face of the large amount (see above, p. 165) peculiar to St. Luke, we are justified in assuming that St. Luke had access to some source or sources not used by St. Matthew or St. Mark. Our object here must be to try and determine the extent and nature of these sources. This we might expect to do, partly from the style, partly from the subject-matter. (1) In regard to the first we do not get much help, because St. Luke has so worked over the sources that they are permeated by his own style; nor do the Hebraisms really help us much, if at all, because on one theory (see below, p. 169) they are artificially distributed by St. Luke to suit his subject-matter, while according to another, and, as it seems to the present writer, much truer, view they are not due to the sources but are charac- teristic of St. Luke’s style, and therefore appear in the connecting links between the narratives. It is possible that in such summaries of history or teaching as we get in 44-15 444 etc., we may find, as in Ac, the marks of the beginning or end of documents used, Other expressions, like εἶπεν δέ (424 68° etc.) or ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, May point in the same direction, but they occur too frequently to be safely used in this way.
(2) The subject-matter has to be considered under the two main divisions of narrative and dis- course. The additions in the narrative begin with
the first two chapters, and are scattered over the |
whole Gospel. Some of these are sufliciently ex- plained by oral tradition, such as the additional references which St. Luke makes to Herod (e.g. 3}
9° 1881 237, which it is not fanciful to connect with Chuze. To the same sort of tradition may be due the additions which we find in the narratives of the Passion and Resurrection (e.g. 22°40 δὶ 234-12. 21-8ι etc.), or the little differences of detail either by way of addition or correction which we find in the material which St. Luke has in common with the other Gospels (see p. 165). This would explain also points of difference in the order in which the material is arranged (e.g. 22%-34), We nave also, finally, to take into account cases where a narra- tive is preserved in St. Luke, but in a form quite independent of the other Gospels, e.g. those of 4168. δι8. 736,
In regard to the discourses we find very puzzling phenomena. A large amount of them is common to St. Matthew and St. Luke and not found in St. Mark. These are no doubt due to some such source as the Adya, and Sir J. Hawkins (l.c. pp. 88, 89) in a ‘tentative’ list ascribes some 72 passages to this source, apart from the passages derived through St. Mark. These amount to some 185 verses, or about one-sixth of the whole Gospel. The special point which requires notice is that more than two-thirds of this material appears in quite a different connexion in St. Matthew and St. Luke. There is nothing impossible in the supposition that some of this teaching was repeated by our Lord on more than one occasion, and so preserved in both places. Thus the teaching about anxiety occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 675) and also as a corollary to the parable of the Rich Fool (Lk 1222). The warning against serving two masters occurs in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 64) and also as an addition to the parable of the Unjust Steward (Lk 161%). As a rule, St. Matthew has collected together (e.g. ch. 10) what St. Luke has pre- served in connexion with separate incidents; but sometimes the reyerse has happened, as in the passage beginning Lk 12%. The ‘doublets’ al- ready referred to (see p. 166), which occur chiefly in the discourses, are another perplexing factor. These have been most fully dealt with by Sir J Hawkins (1.6. pp. 64-92), and his conclusions have been already given.
These differences in regard to the discourses may or may not have been due to the use of a special source by St. Luke. There can be no doubt as to some special source for a large part of the material found in the long section from 9°! onwards, most of which is recorded with only the vaguest refer- ences to time and place, and some of which seems obviously out of place, e.g. the lament over Jeru- salem 13%4, while in other places there are marks of a grouping which regards the subject dealt with, such as prayer or the responsibility of riches.