Notwithstanding tlie almost unanimous consent of the fathers as to the Pauline origin of Luke's Gospel (TertuU. adv. Marc, iv, 5, " Lucre digestum Paulo ad- scribere solent ;'' Irenajus, Cont. llcer. iii, 1 ; Origen apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vi, 25; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii, 4; Je- rome, De Vir. Illust. 7), there is Uttle or nothing in the gospel itself to favor such a hypothesis, and very much to contradict it. It is true that the account of the in- stitution of the Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi, 23-25, displays an almost verbal identity with Luke xxii, 19, 20 ; and, as Paul affirms that he received his " from the Lord," it is highly probable that the evangelist has in this in- stance incorporated a fragment of the direct teaching of his master. But this is a solitary example (Luke xxiv, 34, comp. with 1 Cor. xv, 5, is too trifling to de- serve mention), and it is impossible that the evangelist should have expressed himself as he has done in his preface if he had derived the facts of his narrative from one who was neither " an ej-e-witness" nor " a minister of the Word from the beginning." Nor again in the general tone and character of the gospel, when impar- tially viewed, is there much that can fairly be consid- ered as bearing out the hypothesis of a Pauline origin. Those who have sifted the gospel with tliis object have, it is true, gathered a number of passages which are sup- posed to have a Pauline tendency (see Hilgenfeld, Evang., and the ingenious essay prefixed to this gospel in Dr. Wordsworth's Greek Testament), e. g. Luke iv, 25 sq. ; ix, 52 sq. ; x, 30 sq. ; xvii, 16-18 ; and the parables of the prodigal son, the unprofitable servant, and the Pharisee and publican, which have been instanced by De W'ette as bringing out the apostle's teaching on jus- tification by faith alone; but, as dean Alford has ably shown (Greek Test, i, 44, note b), such a list may easily be collected from the other gospels, while the entire ab- sence of any definite statement of the doctrinal truths which come forward with the greatest prominence in the apostle's writings, and, with very scanty excei^tions, of his peculiar theological phraseologj', is of itself suffi- cient to prove how undue has been the weight assigned to Pauline influence in the composition of the gospel. It is certainly true that, in the words of bishop Thirl- waU (Schleierraacher On St. Luke, Introd. p. cxxviii), " Luke's Gospel contains numerous indications of that enlarged view of Christianity which gave to the gospel, as preached by Paul, a form and an extent very differ- ent from the original tradition of the Jews," but no more can be legitimately inferred than that Luke was Paul's disciple, instructed by the apostle of the Gentiles, and naturally sharing in his view of the gospel as a message of salvation for all nations; not that his gospel was in any sense derived from him, or rested on the apostolic basis of Paul.
The question naturally arises whether the gospels of Matthew and JIark were among the Sit}y>]<Teig to wliich Luke refers. The answers to this have been various and contradictory, tlie same data leading critics to the most opposite conclusions. Meyer (Comment, ii, 217) is of opinion that Luke availed himself both of Matthew and Mark, though chiefly of the latter, as the " primi- tive gospel;" while De Wette, on the other hand (Ein- leil. sec. 94, p. 185), considers Mark's Gospel the latest of the three, and based upon them as authorities. In the face of these and other discordant theories, of which a list may be seen (De Wette, Einleit. § 88. p. 162-168), it will be wise not to attempt a categorical decision. A calm review of the evidence will, however, lead most unbiassed readers to the conclusion that all three wrote in perfect independence of one another ; each, under the
LUKE
553
LUKE
guidance of the Holy Spirit, giving a distinct view of the great complex whole, tlie retlex of the writer's own individual impressions, and that least of all is Luke to be considered as a mere redacteur of the prior writings of his brother synoptists — a theory, the improbabilities and absiurdities of which have been well pointed out \>y dean Alford in the Prolegomena to his Greek Testament, i, 2-6, 41.
III. Relation to Mattheio and Marl:. — Believing that no one of the three synoptical gospels is dependent on the others, and that the true explanation of this strik- ing correspondence, not only in the broad outline of oiu: Lord's life and work, and the incidents with which this outline is filled up, but also, to a considerable extent, in the parables and addresses recorded, and even in the language and forms of expression, is to be sought in the same apostolical oral tradition having formed the orig- inal basis of each, we have presented a very interesting point of inquiry in tracing the correspondence and diver- gence of the several narratives. In particular, a com- parison of Luke with the other synoptists furnishes many striking and important residts. With the gen- eral identity of the body of the history, we at once no- tice that there are two large portions peculiar to this evangelist, containing events or discourses recorded by him alone. These are the first two chapters, narrating the conception, birth, infancy, and early development of our Lord and his forerunner, and the long section (ix, 51-xviii, 14) devoted to our Lord's final journey to Je- rusalem, and comprising some of his most beautiful par- ables. "We have also other smaller sections supplying incidents passed over by jNIattheiv and jNIark — the ques- tions of the people and the Baptist's replies (iii, 10-14) ; Simon and the woman that was a sinner (vii, 3G-50) ; the raising of the widow's son (viii, 11-17) ; the storj- ofZacchseus (xix, 1-10) ; our Lord's weeping over Jeru- salem (xix, 39-44) ; the journey to Emmaus (xxiv, 13- 35). In other parts he follows a tradition at once so much fuller and so widely at variance with that of the others as almost to suggest the idea that a different event is recorded (ch. iv, 16-30 ; comp. Matt, xiii, 54- 58; Mark vi, 1-6; ch. v, 1-11; comp. Matt, iv, 18-22; Mark i, 16-20). Even where the language employed so closely corresponds as to remove all question of the identity of the events, fresh details are given, often of the greatest interest, e. g. TrQoaivxojx'tvov (iii, 21) ; aw- (lariKi^) lieu (iii, 22) ; 7rX?;p. iTVf.vjx. ay. (iv, 1) ; on i/.ioi TrapaStdorat, k. t. \. (iv, 6) ; tipxt Kaipoij (iv, 13); CvvafiiQ Kvpiov J})', k. r. X. (v, 17); KaraXnrdjv inrav- ra and ?,ox>) fay. (v, 28, 29) ; the comparison of old and new wine (v, 39); tTrXrja^. civoiag (vi, 11); cuvafxiQ Trap' avTov i^i'jpx- (^'ij 19); the cures in the presence of John's disciples (vii, 21), and the incidental remarks (ver. 29, 30) ; many additional touches in the narratives of the Gadarcne demoniac (viii, 26-39), and the trans- figuration, especially the fact of his "praying" (Luke records at least six instances of our Lord having prayed omitted by the other evangelists), and the subject of the conversation with Moses and Elijah (ix, 28-36); notices supplied (xx, 19 ; xxi, 37, 38), all tending to con- vince us that we are in the presence not of a mere co]iy- ist, but of a trustworthy and independent witness. Luke's account of the passion and resurrection is to a great extent his own, adding much of the deepest sig- nificance to the synoptical narrative, particularly the warning to Simon in the name of the twelve (xxii, 31, 32) ; the bloody sweat (ver. 44) ; the sending to Herod (xxiii, 7-12) ; the words to the women (ver. 27-31) ; the prayer for forgiveness (ver. 34) ; the penitent thief (ver. 39-43); the walk to Emmaus (xxiv, 13-35); and the ascension (ver. 50-53).