6. ST. LUKE AND JOSEPHUs.—The relation of St. Luke to Josephus has been discussed in regard to Acts (see vol. i. p. 30), and for the Gospel it is equally true that the differences ‘are only conceiy- able on the supposition of independence.’ Belser. in two articles in the Theologische Quartalschrift for 1895 and 1896, shows that the arguments of Krenkel (Josephus und Lucas, Leipzig, 1894) to establish a connexion, are based -partly on resem- blances which prove nothing, such as the use of words like πορεύεσθαι and αὐξάνειν, partly on ex- pressions used certainly by both writers, but in different senses. ‘The literary points in common are sufficiently explained in other ways, as, for instance, by the influence of the LXX. on both, while many of the alleged instanees are ‘the common material of various Greek writers.’ When we pass from the language used to the facts referred to by the two authors, their connexion is equally unproved. Zahn (Hint. ii. 394 ff.) shows this in regard to their references to the Census. Both writers mention it, but the area which it concerned is limited in Josephus to the territory of Archelaus (Ant. XVIIL i. 1, ii. 1; BJ VIL viii. 1), or at most extends to Syria (Ant. XVII. xiii. 5), and is not, as in Lk 2!3, an event of world-wide importance. Again, Josephus seems to know nothing of the official position of Quirinius in Syria, or at most only vaguely implies it. ‘No single historical fact of Luke finds its explanation by means of the hypothesis that he has read Josephus. On the contrary, he often shows a knowledge clearly independent of Josephus in regard to historical events of the time, and in regard to persons more or less prominent’ (Zahn, 1.6. p.397). As instances may be quoted the facts mentioned in Lk 88. 13! 2312, These, however, only show that, independ- ently of Josephus, St. Luke had detailed informa- tion ; they do not disprove a use of Josephus. The arguments dealing with the question are summed up by Clemen in his Chronologie d. Paul. Briefe, Halle, 1893. We mustsuppose (with Schiirer) either that St. Luke did not use Josephus at all, or that if he did he forthwith forgot what he had learnt from him. As maintaining a connexion between the two writers may be quoted Holtzmann, Krenkel, Keim, Hausrath, and others; while their inde- pendence is upheld by such authorities as Schiirer, Harnack, and Zahn. In the words of the last- named we need not use further argument to support the view that ‘Luke could have followed Josephus as an authority neither in historical matters nor in his Greek style’ (1.6. p. 397).
7. ST. LUKE AND MARCION.—It is generally admitted by all scholars at the present day that the Gospel of St. Luke was the foundation of Marcion’s Gospel, and that Marcion’s work was not enlarged so as to become our third Gospel. Such was the unanimous opinion of early and inde- pendent witnesses. Thus Ireneus (Her, 1. xxvii. 2) speaks of Marcion as circumcidens id quod est secundum Lucam evangelium, and (ib. 111. xii. 12) describes Marcion and others as decurtantes secun-
LUKE, GOSPEL OF
dum Lucam evangelium; Tertullian (ὁ. Mare. i. 10. 1) speaks of Marcion as one qui evangelia corrosit. ‘The same is true of Epiphanius. It is only in quite recent times, and partly on grounds of textual criticism, that it has been maintained, as by Baur and Ritschl, that Marcion’s was the earlier form; but subsequent investigations have established, beyond a possibility of doubt, that the statements of Irenzeus, quoted above, give the true state of the case. It is possible to reconstruct, almost in its entirety, from the quotations of Tertullian and others, the form of Marcion’s Gospel. This has been done most recently by Zahn (Geschichte des Kanons, i. 674 ff., ii. 409 ff.), Omit- ting all the first three chapters except the chrono- logical data in 3!, Marcion begins with 414, and, except for one or two small omissions, e.g. 729-85, goes on to 1138. Then, 11% (the ἘΠ ΣῈ to Jonah), 114! (ref. to OT history), 15% (the massacre of the Galileans), 15.59.85 150-8 (prodigal son), 17519 1881-4 (announcement of the Passion), 19°48 (triumphal entry), 209-18 (wicked husband- men), 2057. 88 (refs. to OT), 2114. 18. 21. 22 2916-18. 28-30. 35-38. 49-51 2447-53. are all omitted. It is to be noticed that Marcion’s Gospel differs from that of St. Luke almost entirely by omission, and that many of the omissions are sufficiently explained by Marcion’s dogmatic views. Such minor changes as ‘all the righteous’ for ‘ Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets’ (13%) are also ex- plicable in the same way. ‘The omissions amount in all to some 309 verses. Another point to notice is that St. Luke’s Gospel and Marcion’s agree so closely that not only has Marcion preserved almost all the sections peculiar to St. Luke, but he has kept the same order. In settling the question which of the two documents was prior, the ques- tion of style is decisive. This has been carefully worked out by Sanday (Gospels in the Second Century, ch. viii.), and he comes to the conclusion that there is a unity of style, both in regard to words and syntax, so that ‘ the verified peculiarities of St. Luke’s style are found in the portions omitted by Marcion in a proportion of more than one to each verse’ (1.6. p. 229).