It is a further proof of the fact of conflation that in some cases, where the subject-matter is so clearh' marked that two Evangelists have collected the utterances respecting it, which may have been widely separated in the Source, into one conflation, they have nevertheless arranged the sections in different order. Thus in the Temptation. St. Matthew gives the second and third Temptations in one order. St. Luke in another. In the passage abotit the Ninevites, and Solomon and the Queen of the South (Mt 12'^s-<5, Lk 11-*-^'), two such
88 LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDING TO
differences of arrangement occur. In the Woes on the Pharisees, St. Luke's order (Lk 113'-54) differs repeatedly from St. Matthew's (Mt 23i3ff), and the deatero-Matthaeus su^Dplies fresh Woes. It is, of course, possible that St. Luke was dissatisfied with St. Matthew's order, and thought to improve upon it ; it is naore probable that he was not acquainted with it.
In cases where the subject is less clearly marked, the Evangelists collect the utterances into inde- pendent conflations. But there is one very instruc- tive example. Both Evangelists have gathered together our Lord's teaching on the subject of prayer. St. Matthew has put it into the Sermon on the Mount (Mt 6^-1^), St. Luke into an inde- pendent conflation (Lk 11 1-^'^). St. Luke, however, has very properly included in his conflation the utterance, ' Ask, and it shall be given to you,' etc. St. Matthew has put this also into the Sermon on the Mount, but in a different department (Mt T^-^i). Why is this ? The words ' pray ' or ' prayer ' do not occur in it, and the redactor of St. Matthew, acting, as we are all liable to do, mechanically, did not perceive that this Logion dealt with prayer. St. Luke was more observant.
That the original Logia had no prefaces beyond 'Jesus said,' etc., is shown by four remarkable cases in which St. Matthew (3'' 122<- ^ 16i) applies to the Scribes and Pharisees, i.e. to the ruling class, denunciations which in St. Luke (3'^ iii5-2y. i6) are addressed to the lower orders. Plainly the Evangelists were left to gather from the contents of the Logion the persons to whom it was ad- dressed. St. Luke's pronounced dislike of the rabble made him incline to them, while St. Matthew's indictment of the upper class led him into the opposite direction. It may well be that both Evangelists were mistaken. At any rate the limitations under which they worked must be acknowledged by all seekers after truth.
The contents of the second Source may be seen in the Synopsis, 187-239. St. Luke's parable of the Pounds is identified with St. Matthew's parable of the Talents, and St. Luke's parable of the Great Dinner with St. Matthew's of the Marriage Feast.
3. Third Source — a Pauline Collection. — If the first Source contained a good deal of triple tradition, and the second Source a good deal of double tradi- tion, the remaining sources consist almost entirely of single tradition. Again, St. Mark contains a small quantity of single tradition, added (we be- lieve) by the trito-Mark. St. Matthew gives a considerable amount ; but St. Luke surpasses them both in respect of quantity and interest. And first we must recognize in his Gospel a collection of nineteen discourses, parables, and stories which stand by themselves, and may be called Pauline from their character (Synopsis, 241-250). We do not mean that St. Paul had much, if anything, to do with their wording ; but some one in sympathy with Pauline teaching must have edited them. Our Lord spoke the words, but credit must be given to the collector who preserved them from oblivion. And if in St. John's Gospel it is more and more recognized that the mind of the Evangelist cast the uttei-ances of our Lord into the peculiar form which they there hold, the same process of redac- tion may be observed in St. Luke, who comes nearest of the Synoptists to the methods of St. John. The story of the Prodigal Son is the crown of this division, but the stories of the Good Samari- tan, of the Pharisee and the Publican, of the woman who washed our Lord's feet with her tears, are scarcely of inferior interest, while the parable of the Unjust Steward, when properly interpreted, is full of interest, and that of the Rich Man and Lazarus of difficulty. The more we consider this collection, the more entranced we are with it. It
is the very cream of the Gospel, and yet (strange to say) it is peculiar to St. Luke.
In all cases, but especially in those of the single tradition, the question arises, How near do our records come to the actual words of Christ ? The traditionalists, although they are forced to admit that in the triple and the double tradition some doubt may exist through the divergences in three, or two, Gospels, quietly assume that in the single tradition we have a verbatim report. To this assumption the critic is unable to assent. If the triple tradition was first taught by St. Peter, and confirmed by the general consent of the Churches ; if the double tradition was taught by St. Matthew and diffused extensively, the single tradition was later in formation, lays no claim to Apostolic origination, and must have been known to few, or else by its intrinsic interest it would often have found its way into more Gospels than one. It is possible that St. Philip the Evangelist was the worker to whom we are indebted for the third Source ; but it is mere guesswork to say so ; thei'e are no solid grounds for argument. We do not therefore claim for the single tradition the same authority that we claim for the others. The work of an editor is often conspicuous in it, and always to be suspected. And yet it would be mere scepti- cism to throw much doubt on these utterances, many of which vindicate their claim to have been given by Him who spake as never man spake. When a witness recollected only one or two sayings of our Lord, his memory would be specially trust- worthy. The apologist has no cause to fear, but he must recognize the human element which plays its part in all Scripture. In this division the human . element, if we are not mistaken, may be most clearly seen in the narrative of the washing of our Lord's feet by the woman who had been a sinner (Lk 7^6-50). Our view of this most perplex- ing section is that its groundwork belongs to the deutero-Mark, being identical with the Markan account of the anointing of our Lord's head. It has been misplaced by St. Luke, but he misplaces all the deutero-Markan sections which he gives. St. Luke agrees with St. John in saying that the feet, not the head, were anointed. In this, accord- ing to our contention, St. Luke and St. John are simply following St. Mark's original narrative. In the Gospels according to St. Matthew and St. Mark the feet have been changed into the head, because the Psalmist wrote, ' Thou anointest my head with oil' (Ps 23^). The early Christians were always searching for fulfilments of Scripture, and in some cases the primitive records have been changed to secure a more complete fulfilment. Such changes appeared legitimate to the literary morality of that age, and we have no right to object (Synopsis, 269).