The most elaborate attempt to reproduce the special source used by St. Luke is that of Feine. He regards this special source as an enlarged edi- tion of the collection of discourses common to St. Luke with St. Matthew. To this had been added (1) anumber of discourses and parables, (2) a series of narratives. Following Lipsius, he regards it as a Jewish-Christian source, perhaps (1.6. p. 154) originating from the Jerusalem community, written in Greek, not after A.D. 70, and later than the common groundwork of the Synoptic Gospels.
A summary of the results of this section would show that the sources which St. Luke used were as follows :—Firstly, he follows, over a large part of the narrative, the Gospel of St. Mark, and that probably in the form in which we have it, and not merely some underlying document.—Secondly, the matter common to St. Luke and St. Matthew, not found in St. Mark, implies a common written source, and that requirement is to be satisfied by the hypothesis, not of a direct use of St. Matthew by &* “uke, but by the supposition that both Pave
168 LUKE, GOSPEL OF
used some one collection, or more, of our Lord’s
discourses.— Besides these, St. Luke seems to have |
had access to oral tradition, by which he corrects, or supplements, the narratives common to him and the others.—Lastly, he used, especially for chs. 1 and 2 and the section beginning with 951. some special
written sources, which do not supply much infor- |
mation as to Galilee, and may have been con- nected in origin with Jerusalem. ‘This would suit Feine’s view that the special source of St. Luke is that used in Ac 1-12, and would explain the points of contact with St. John noticed above. There is nothing to warrant the view that this source was Ebionitic in character, or prejudiced in favour of any peculiar and one-sided presentation of the history and teaching of our Lord.
5. ST. LUKE AND ST. PAUL.—The passages already quoted (Col 414, 2 Ti 411, Philem*) are evidence of a close connexion of St. Luke with St. Paul at Rome, and if we add to these the ‘ we- sections’ of Ac, St. Luke will be seen to have been with St. Paul for long periods together be- tween the date of Ac 161° and that of 2 Ti 41, To describe this intimate relationship many different expressions are used by early writers. ‘The Muratorian Fragment (as emended by Westcott) says: Lucas iste medicus post ascensum Christi cum eum Paulus quasi ut juris studiosum secundum adsumsisset nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit ; Ireneus (Her. iii. 1) says: ὁ ἀκόλουθος Παύλου τὸ ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου κηρυσσόμενον εὐαγγέλιον ἐν βιβλίῳ κατέθετο, and more generally describes St. Luke (Her. iii. 10. 1, 14. 12) as sectator et discipulus apostolorum, and inseparabilis a Paulo et cooperarius eius in evan- gelio ; Tertullian (c. Mare. iv. 2) describes St. Paul as St. Luke’s iluminator, and (ib. iv. 5) says: Luce digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Jerome (de Vir. Illustr. § 7) says St. Luke was sectator apostoli Pauli. None of these terms seems to imply as close a relationship as that between St. Peter and St. Mark in regard to the writing of the Gospel. They do not support the view men- tioned by Origen (ap. Eus. HE iii. 4, vi. 25) that the expression ‘according to my Gospel’ (Ro 215 16%, 2 Ti 28) refers to that of St. Luke. Nor do they lead us to believe that St. Luke derived all or most of his information from St. Paul, for that would be contrary to his own words in his preface. Nor is there any reason, apart from the ‘strong personal affection and enthusiastic admiration for Paul’ manifest in Ac, to regard the third Gospel as Pauline, in the sense of its being a polemic in favour of Pauline doctrine, or a ‘revision of a hypothetical one-sided Pauline primitive Luke, written with a conciliatory aim’ (Baur, Scholten, etc.). On the other hand, it is difficult to main- tain (as Jiingst, SA, 1896, p. 215 ff.) that there are no traces of Pauline influence. The points in which this influence are indicated are firstly in the actual Greek words and expressions used, secondly in the mode in which the teaching is presented. Thus, in regard to the first point, while the vocabularies of the Gospels give 32 words found only in St. Mt and St. Paul, 22 found only in St. Mark and St. Paul, and 21 found only in St. John and St. Paul, we get as many as 101 found only in St. Luke and St. Paul. Again, of the ‘ character- istic words and phrases’ which mark the three Syn- optists, the proportion common to St. Paul and St. Matthew is rather above, and to St. Paul and St. Mark rather below one-half, while nearly two-thirds are common to St. Luke’s Gospel and St. Paul. These details are taken from Hawkins (1.6. p. 154 ff.), but the points of language common to St. Paul and St. Luke have been often collected, and are clearly and most fully tabulated in Plummer (Commentary on St. Luke, p. liv ff.). In regard to the actual teaching conyeyed in the Gospel, there is evidence
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
that many leading ideas of St. Paul’s are to be found in St. Luke. Thus both agree in laying stress on the universality of the Gospel, on the need of πίστις, on the χάρις shown by God to men, on the importance of the work of the Holy Spirit. Thus there are many points of contact between St. Luke and St. Paul, both in the language they use and in the teaching which they emphasize. Many passages have been set side by side to show the close relation of St. Luke to St. Paul (Resch, Aussercanonische Paralleltexte, p. 121; Plummer, l.c. p. xliv; Weiss, 1.6. p. 312); from among them the following may be selected, 1 Th 55=Lk 21%, 1 Co 11%-°6=Lk 2210. 1 Co 155=Lk 244, 1 ‘Ti δι5-- Lk 107, 1 Co 1077=Lk 108, Eph 64=Lk 12%,