4. Fourth Source — Anon5miou8 Fragments. — To this Source we assign 80 fragments of St. Luke, of which nine are found also in St. Matthew, but, of course, in a different context. If the sections in the third Division lack Apostolic authority, still more probable is it that these do so. Nay, to some of us it may appear their chief glory, as it is of the Epistle to the Hebrews, that their authors are unknown. Hundreds of Christians in Palestine had seen our Lord in the days of His flesh, and every one of them would treasure up some personal reminiscence. The great majority of these have inevitably been lost, but a few were so widely known and so much valued that they forced their way into local Church tradition and so passed into one — seldom into two — Gospels. All this is quite certain to the^s historian. But, of course, difficulties about chronology arise. Probably most of these fragmepts are widely misplaced. Thus St. Luke (5' 'J by a conflation blends the Draught of
./
/
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCOEDIXG TO
LUKE, GOSPEL ACCORDIXG TO 89
fishes with the deutero-Markau accoimt of St. Peter's Call. St. Johu places it (in what we be- lieve to be its true position) after the Resun-ection (Jn 21^-"). Now, as St. Luke leaves no room either in his Gospel or in the Acts for a visit to Galilee after the Resurrection, it is at last being confessed that he was not aware of such a visit, and therefore it was quite natural for him to infer that the Draught of fishes belonged to St. Peter's Call, and indeed explains his readiness to rise and follow Christ without question. But. if this had been the true connexion of events, it is incredible that St. Mark, if he gives St. Peter's account of the call, did not mention it {Synopsis, 13).
If in the deutero-Mark and in the Logia St. Luke was content to find a literaiy connexion for many of our Lord's Utterances, it is no wonder if he did so in the fourth Source. He certainly en- deavoured to write, as he saj's, ' in (chronological) order," but in many cases he had not the detailed information which was necessary for doing so. St. Luke's Gospel is probably the least chronological of the three (as we shall show hereafter more fully), but in all the Gospels criticism teaches us to value the picture more than the frame ; to treasure the Utterance, but esteem at a much lower value the setting which the Evangelist has given it.
5. Fifth Source — a Private Collection (from the Holy Family?). — St. Luke's first two chapters, together with the Genealogy, the Sermon at Nazareth, and the Raising of the widow's son at Nain, form our fifth and last Di%Tsion. Marcion re- jected the first two chapters and many other sections from his canon. Wellhausen omits them from his edition of St. Luke. The Bishop of Ely infei-s from Ac li'- that they were no part of the first edition of the Gospel. The present writer has long taught that they are among the latest additions to the Gospel, and that they never were part of the oral teaching : beyond that we can hardly go. The idea that St. Luke issued two editions of his Gospel has gained few converts, and Dr. Blass, its chief advocate, assigns these chapters to both supposed editions. That they proceed from St. Luke is shown by the literary connexion which Sir John Haw^kins has traced.
This Division bears testimony to the fact, which Irenseus records, that there was difference of opinion in the early Church on the question of the Virgin Birth. St. Paul is silent on that subject, showing, perhaps, that it had not been raised in his day. St. John alludes to it in his own peculiar way {\*°). Both Genealogies seem to have issued from Ebionite circles, in which our Lord's descent from Joseph was affirmed. They have been altered with some rather clumsy editorial changes, to make them square with orthodox belief. But the trito-Mark has altered the wording of a passage (6^) with a view to support the Virgin Birth {Synopsis, xli), while St. Matthew's first chapter and St. Luke's second strenuously assert it. There can be no doubt that, when once the question was raised, it was answered in widely different Churches in no hesitating way. East and West, at Rome and in the provinces, belief in the Virgin Birth became a test of orthodoxy.
In St. Matthew, Joseph is the hero, and all action is taken by him. ^lary is kept in the backgrouiKi in accordance with Eastern feeling. But in St. Luke, Elisabeth and Mary are brought forward. Honour is claimed for women, as it is throughout the Third Gospel.
It is obvious that the story told in these chapters, unless it be regarded as a free invention, must have been derived, directlj' jr indirectly, from the Virgin Mary hei-self. The .^tyle is strangely Semitic, in striking contrast to the four verses of preface. Not only was the jriginal narrative told in Ara-
maic, but the translator has closely imitated the language and manner of the LXX. feeling th?.t he could thus best convey the meaning. Few parts of the Gospel have been more popular than this. The Sermon at Nazareth (41*'--'^) is conflate, much of a (misplaced) deutero-ilarkan section having been worked into it. But it shows additional informa- tion; and long ago the observation was made, that St. Luke's knowledge of events at Nazareth is unique. If he had intercourse with some member of the Holy Family, the mystery is explained.