CHAP. III. Tertullian speaks of St Paul as 'the illuminator of Luke,' and says that the summary (digestum) of Luke was generally assigned to Paul1.' The allusions which St Paul makes to his Gospel' (Rom. ii. 16; xvi. 25; 2 Tim. ii. 8. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 18) and to St Luke, soon gave occasion to suppose that he himself used the Gospel of St Luke. ! Even Origen speaks of the Gospel of Luke as that praised by Paul2;' and the tradition assumed a more definite shape in the writings of Jerome and the Pseudo-Athanasius. It is remarkable, however, that Eusebius refers to the conjecture (par) without trace of approval, though the corresponding tradition, which confers the direct authority of St Peter on the Gospel of St Mark, rests on his authority*.

The evidence of St Luke's Preface.

(Luke i. 1-4.)

But apart from tradition, the preface with which St Luke opens his Gospel throws a striking light upon its composition. The words have been made the subject of the most varied controversy, though the true sense seems to lie upon their surface. Both in the description which he gives of other 'Gospels,' and in the peculiar character which he claims for his own, St Luke appears to confirm the views already given of the prevalence and nature of the unwritten Gospel of the first age. The common basis of the Evangelic narratives is said to be the oral 'tradition of those who from the beginning (cf. Acts i. 21, 22 were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.' The two elements in the Apostolic character which have been already pointed out, personal knowledge (avróпrai) and practical experience (péra), are recognized by St Luke as present in those who originally handed down' (Tapédoσar) the history which many attempted to draw up and arrange afresh (ανατάξασθαι) in a connected shape (ανατ. διήγησιν ... Kabus .). The work of these first unknown Evangelists

π

1 Tert. adv. Marc. IV. 2; IV. 5.
2 Orig. ap. Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.

3 Hieron. de virr. illustr. 7.
4 Euseb. H. E. III. 4.

was new only in form and not in substance. The tradition CHAP. III. which they incorporated in a narrative was not peculiar to themselves, but common to all (κað. πaр. ỷμîv)1; for the common belief was independent of these written records. St Luke speaks of the attempts' as of something which had no influence at the present. The 'facts' were 'fully believed (πεπληροφορημένων not πληροφορηθέντων, Rom. iv. 21) apart from the evidence of such documents. Theophilus was already instructed' in 'the words "' of the exact truth of which St Luke wished to assure him; and his instruction was derived not from books, but from that oral teaching (karný@ns), which is described by the same term from the first foundation of the Church (Acts xviii. 25; Gal. vi. 6). So far then the statements of St Luke corroborate in the fullest manner the view which has been taken of the origin of written Gospels. The narrative was the embodiment of the oral accounts: the facts' (paypara) were co-ordinate with the word:' the work of the Evangelist was arrangement rather than fresh composition: the subjects with which he dealt were at once matters of firm conviction and ordinary instruction. The grounds on which St Luke rests his own narrative involve the same principles. It is evident at first that he represents his Gospel as a faithful embodiment of the Evangelic tradition.' He finds no fault with the basis on which the earlier writers rested. His own determination is placed on an equal footing with theirs (edoge κapoí); but he claims for himself a knowledge of the Apostolic preaching continuous from the first, complete, exact, and for his writing, a due order (Luke i. 3, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς

1 Bp Marsh justly insists on the importance of the phrase: The Origin of the first three Gospels, p. 364.

* Επεχείρησαν attempted, not 'have attempted.' Possibly some feeling of this difference influenced Origen's judgment, when he saw in

6

the word 'attempt' itself a reproof
of unauthorized temerity (Hom. in
Luc. 1).

3 The words' (ol Xóyoɩ) being the
constituent elements of 'the word'
(ó Móyos). Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 6.

ΠΑΡ. III. καθεξής σοι γράψαι). ypáva). Each word in the sentence contributes an important element to the completeness of the whole idea. St Luke appears to speak of a gradual unfolding of the whole Gospel in the course of the Apostolic work which he had watched from the first step throughout in every detail. The same term (Tapaкoλover) describes the personal attendance on a teacher (Papias, 1. c. ap. Euseb. H. E. III. 39), and the careful following of a doctrine (1 Tim. iv. 6; 2 Tim. iii. 10). The long companionship seems to be the criterion of the complete knowledge. And this view of the notion implied in 'following' illustrates the meaning of the next words. St Luke's 'continuous familiarity' with the subject gave him a knowledge of the whole cycle of the 'tradition,' and not only of particular periods or of particular parts of it. His knowledge started from the first and extended to every point; and the peculiar advantages of the Evangelist are enforced by the notice of his special care (akpßus) and plan. But the notion of order (κales) does not necessarily involve that of time, but rather that of moral or logical sequence (cf. Acts xi. 4). The two may coincide, and in the exhibition of a perfect life they will in the main, but chronology is not paramount in the Gospels, and the language of St Luke does not imply that he designed to follow it. Like the teaching on which it was first based, the record is subservient to special requirements. It is complete in regard to its object, but not absolutely, a message of good tidings and not a biography, united in its several parts by a spiritual law and not by a table of dates.

2. The internal character

Hitherto all the evidence which can be gathered from of the Gospels. the circumstances of the early Church, and the traditions of the origin of the Gospels, has tended to establish the existence of an original oral Gospel, definite in general outline and even in language, which was committed to writing in the lapse of time in various special shapes,

according to the typical forms which it assumed in the CHAP. III. preaching of different Apostles. It is probable that this oral Gospel existed from the first in Aramaic and Greek, as would naturally be the case in a country where two languages were generally current. The teaching of St Matthew 'among his own countrymen' is expressly said to have been in 'Hebrew,' and it is not less certain that Greek must have been the common medium of intercourse with the Hel-, lenists. The step from these oral narratives to written records in Hebrew and Greek is simple and natural; but nothing has been said yet of the internal evidence to be derived from the Gospels themselves; and still it is on this that the decision of the question of their origin mainly depends. General indications and beliefs, probabilities and seeming coincidences, must be abandoned if they are clearly opposed to the internal character of the books-to the peculiarities of their mutual relations, to the extent and limit of their similarity and difference, to the general unity by which they are held together, and to the special characteristics by which they are distinguished. It may be i. The nature asked whether there is any intimate external connexion which they between the Gospels? Whether the resemblances which exist point to the existence of a common source or to mutual dependence? Whether, in the latter case, it is possible to determine the order of precedence, or in the former the nature oral or written of the original records? Various answers have been given to these questions, but the first, at least, may be regarded as definitely settled. No one at present would maintain, with some of the older scholars of the Reformation, that the coincidences between the Gospels are due simply to the direct and independent action of the same Spirit upon the several writers. The explanation of the phenomena which they present is sought by universal consent in the presence of a common element, though opinions are still divided as to its nature. The

of the problem

present.

CHAP. III. original source of the resemblance may lie in the influence of an original tradition, or of a popular narrative, or in the earliest written Gospel itself; but the existence of some such source is admitted on all sides. The merits of the different hypotheses must be decided by their fitness to satisfy the various conditions of the question; and before attempting to decide their claims, it will be necessary to gain a distinct notion of the nature and extent of the concordances of which an explanation is required1.

(a) The concordances

threefold.

be

The concordances of the synoptic Gospels may between them classed under three heads:-general agreement in the plan and arrangement of the materials; constant identity of narrative in form and substance; and verbal coincidences. With these concordances are combined differences in detail" and expression, large interpolations of peculiar matter, distinct revisions, so to speak, of the same record, so that the points of meeting between the different writers are scarcely more numerous than the points of divergence, and the theory which explains the existence of the former must not leave the existence of the latter unnoticed or unexplained.

1. In general plan.

The general plan of the first three Gospels exhibits a remarkable correspondence. The history of the Infancy contained in St Matthew and St Luke finds no parallel in St Mark, but afterwards the main course of the three narratives is throughout coincident. The preparation for the

1 For the study of the parallelisms of the Gospels abundant helps are provided. Greswell's Harmonia Evangelica (Ed. 4ta. Oxon. 1845) is perfect in respect of typography, but the text is bad and altogether unprovided with critical apparatus, so that it cannot be safely used alone. Stroud's New Greek Harmony (Lond. 1853) is second only to Greswell in the convenience of its typographical arrangement, and it has a fair apparatus criticus. An

ger's Synopsis Evangeliorum Matt. Marc. Luc.... (Lipsia, 1851) contains a most complete and elaborate summary of all the early evangelic fragments and quotations in addition to the canonical text and critical apparatus, but the arrangement not so distinct as that in Greswell and Stroud. For practical purposes Anger, combined with Stroud or Greswell, will furnish all the student can require.