3. Luke's methods. — In using his materials l^uke's methods are in the main those of other writers of the same period. They are quite un- like those of modern writers. A writer of the present day seeks to tell his story in his own words and his own way, giving references to, and, if
722
LUKE
necessary, quotations from, his sources, but care- fully avoiding all confusion between traditional fact and critical inference, and certainly never altering the direct statement of the earlier docu- ments without expressly mentioning the fact. The method of antiquity was as a rule almost the reverse. The author of a book based on earlier materials strung together a series of extracts into a more or less coherent whole, giving no indication of his sources, and modifying them freely in order to harmonize them. Sometimes he would select between several narratives, sometimes he would combine, sometimes he would give them succes- sively, and by a few editorial comments make a single narrative of apparently several events out of several narratives of a single event. As a method this is obviously inferior to modem pro- cedure, but even an inferior method can be well or badly used. That Luke used this method is clear from a comparison of the Third Gospel with Matthew and Mark, but on the whole he seems to have used it well, especially if it be remembered that his avowed object was not to 'write history' but to provide the historical evidence for the Christian instruction which Theophilua had received. The crucial evidence for this view is the use made of Mark, which we can fortunately con- trol. A comparison of Mark with Luke shows that Luke has been on the whole loyal to his source, though he has consistently poUshed the language. At the same time, it must be admitted that he had no objection to deserting it, or to changing its meaning. Two examples must suffice. (1) In Mark the call of Peter precedes the healing of his mother-in-law ; in Luke a different account of Peter's call is given the preference over the Marcan one, and the healing of his mother-in-law is placed before it, apparently to afford a motive for the obedience of Peter to the call. (2) In the narrative of the Passion and Resurrection Luke obviously prefers an alternative narrative to that of Mark. This narrative is different in the essential point that it places all the appearances of the Risen Christ in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, whereas Mark in 14-*, etc., is clearly leading up to appearances in Galilee. But the story of the woman at the tomb seems to be taken from Mark, and this includes the message of the young man to the women toteU the disciples to go to Gahlee, where they will see Jesus. This is inconsistent with the 'Jerusalem narrative,' and is changed by Luke into 'Remember how he spoke to you while he was still in Gahlee,' and the whole narrative is freely re-written. If this were quite certain, it would show that Luke cannot be depended upon not to change the whole meaning of his sources. It is, however, possible that his modification is based on some other source ; if so, this source can hardly have been originally independent of Mark. A detailed examination of the Lucan changes in the Marcan material, which has never yet been sufficiently thoroughly undertaken, ia likely to give valuable evidence as to Luke's met hods in dealing with his sources and the extent to which his statements may be trusted as really represent- ing the earhest tradition, or discounted as being (ditorial alterations. It may be suggested that a study of the Lucan parallels to Mk 13 is especially needed ; a superficial examination suggests that it will show that he was inclined to remove eschato- logical sayings or explain them in some other sense. Another characteristic — or what at first sight appears to be one — is a tendency to separate and give to definite historical circumstances sayings which in Matthew are brought together. From tliis contrast between Matthew and Luke it has been assumed that Luke made special endeavours to find out the exact circumstances under which each
LUST
saying was uttered. But this conclusion is more than the facta warrant. All that can really be said is that a comparison between Matthew and Luke shows either that Luke separated, or that Matthew combined, or that each did a httle of both; but, as we do not know what was the arrangement of the material in the source, we cannot decide between these possibilities. It is sometimes overlooked that reconstructions of Q such as Harnack's or Wellhausen's, though other- wdse admirable, are useless for this purpose, as they necessarily assume an answer to the question at issue. It is perhaps worth notice that the only safe guide which we have is Luke's treatment of the Marcan source. Here we find no trace of the sup- posed separation of sayings, nor do we find any traces in Matthew of the supposed combination of sayings. The logical deduction is that Luke and Matthew did not use the same edition of Q, if indeed there ever was a single document Q. Of course it is hazardous to press this point, but insufficient atten- tion has hitherto been given to the value of Luke's treatment of Mark as the only objective standard which exists for deciding what his methods probably were in dealing with other soui-ces.