The coincidence of ii. 7 and Luke xxii. 27 is not indeed sufficient to warrant any such inference, while the different meanings of καλεῖν in ii. 12 and in the parable of Luke xiv. 15 f. (cf. ver. 24) prevent any hypothesis of a connection. On the other hand ii. 14-16 certainly contains a reminiscence of the logia preserved in a passage like Luke xi. 48 ἢ, = Matt. xxiii. 32-34 (see the full discussion in Resch’s Parallel Texte, ii. 278 f., iii. 209 f.), and, while the thought of iii. 3b-4 (cf. i. 4-6) only resembles that of Luke ix. 22-24, just as ili. 13 may be derived from an O.T. background instead of, necessarily, from syn- optic logia like those of Mark viii. 38 = Matt. xvi. 27, a sentence such as that in iv. 8 distinctly echoes the saying in Luke x. 16 (“ l’allusion
1 This idea dominates von Soden’s brilliant essay in Theol. Abhandlungen C. von Weizsdcker gewidmet (1892), pp. 113-167. More balanced estimates are to be found in Keim’s $esus of Nazara, i., pp. 54f.; Titius, der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichts- punkt der Seligkeit (1900), pp. 10-18, and M. Goguel, L’Apétre Paul et Fésus Christus (1904), pp- 67-99. The English reader may consult Sabatier’s Paul, pp, 76 f., and Dr. R. J. Knowling’s Witness of the Epistles (1892) where, as in his Testimony of St. Paul to Christ (1905), the shallows as well as the depths of the relevant literature are indefatigably dredged.
2Cf. Prof. Denney in DCG, ii. 394 f.