The sun., 1883-10-28

eral times enjoyed. This is what makes us
think that the society In which Luke lived. and
that in which Josephus lived. we're near neigh
bors Of one another and must have had mors
than one point OF contact
This Theophilus is otherwise unknown his
name may be only fiction. or . pseudonym
adopted to designate one OF tho powerful con-
verts to the Church at Rome. for instance. ono
Of the Cementine family. A short preface ex-
plains clearly tho authors situation and inten-
ton. "Forasmuch as many have taken In
hand 10 set forth in order declaration OF those
things which are most surely believed among
us. even as they delivered them unto US which
from the beginning we're eye-witnesses and
ministers OF the Word: II seemed good 10 me.
also. having had perfect understanding OF all
things from the very first. to write unto thee in
order. most excellent Theophllus. that thon
mightest know the certainty OF those things
wherein thou hast been instructed" II does not
vigorously follow from this preface that Luke
had under his eye. as he worked. those numer-
Gus writings to whose existence he bears wit
ness. but the reading Of the book puts an end
to any doubt upon the subject. Tho verbal CO.
incidences Of Luke's texts with Marks. and.
consequently with Matthews. are very fire.
quent. There can be no doubt that Luke had
under his eye text OF Mark that differed but
very slightly from our own. He may be said to
have assimilated tho whole OF it, except the
part OF Mark between the forty-f Nth verse OF
the sixth. and the twenty-siXth verse OF the
eighth chapter. and except the account OF the
Passion. for which he seems to have preferred
to recur to an older tradition. Elsewhere the
coincidence Is almost literal and when vnria.
tions occur you can easily perceive the motive
which decided Luke to correct. with a
Wow to his own audience the original
which he held in his hands. In the
parallel passages OF the three texts. tho
details added to Mark by Matthew are not
to be found In Luke: but what Luke
seems to add to Matthew Is generally dis
coverable in Mark. In the passages OF the third
Evangelist that are lacking in Mark. Luke
has followed different version from Mat.
thew's. In other words. IS regards the por.
tions Of the narrative common to the three
Gospels. Luke only evlnces an agreement in
terms with Matthew when the latter exhibits a
similar agreement with Mark. Luke leaves out
certain passages OF Matthew. without our be-
ing able to conceive why he should have
omitted them. The discourses Of Jesus are
fragmentary in Luke as they are In Mark; 1t
would be incomprehen sible that Luke, had he
been acquainted with Matthew. should have
broken up the long sermons given us by the
latter. Luke. 1t Is true. recalls multitude of
sayings that we do not find in Mark: but these
looid had not heen brought to his knowledge
in the particular arrangement transmitted to
us by Matthew. Let us add that the legends
about the infancy OF Jesus and the genealogies
in the two Gospels here in question have moth
ing in common with one another. How is II
possible that Luke would have recklessly OK
posed himself to objections so pnlrable This
allows us to infer that Luke was not acquainted
with our Matthew: and. in fact. the tentative
narratives. OF which he speaks in his prologue
might bear the names Of disciples OF the Apos-
ties. but none OF them bore name like that Of
Matthew since Luke sharply distinguishes the
Apostles who were eye witnesses and actors in
the Gospel story and deiverers OF the tradition
from the compilers who have only set forth in
writing the tradition at their own risk and
without any special qualification for the Office
BY the side of Marks book Luke unques-
tionably had upon his table other narratives Of
tho same kind, from which also he borrowed
largely. The long passage. for example from
the flfty-flrst verse Of the ninth to the four.
teenth verse OF the eighteenth chapter. was
copied from some anterior version. for We do
tect great disorder in 1t. Luke composes bet
ter than that when he only follows oral tradl-
ton. 1t has been calculated that a third of
Luke's text is not to be found in Mark or in
Matthew. Certain of the Gospels now lost to
us. but to which Luke had recourse embraced
very definite fcatures-" those upon whom the
tower in Sloan fell" those whose blood
Plate had mingled with their sacrifices. -
Several OF these documents were only re.
visions Of the Hebrew Gospel. strongly tinc-
tured with Ebonism. nd thus they drew near %
Matthew. Thus are explained certain passages
of Luke analogous to Matthew which do not
figure In Mark. In Luke we come uuon the
greater part Of the logia in their primitive
form. not put together in tho shape OF long SER
mons as in our Matthew. but broken up. cut
short. and coupled with particular circum-
stances. Not only did Luke not have orr Cos
pei OF Matthew In his hands. but he does not
seem to have turned to account any compa-
| tion OF the sermons OF Jesus. wherein aready y
| the long series OF mayims whose insertion in
| our Matthew has been pointed out Ind boon
strung together. Ii he possessed such collec-
| tions. he neglected to make use Of them. On
tho other hand. Luke at times draws nigh TO the
Hebrew Gospel. especially in tho cases where
tho latter is superior to Matthew. Perhaps he
had NJ hand q Greek translation of the He
brew Gospel.
We SEQ from this that Luke occupies. with re-
spect to Mark. n position analogous to tha,
which Matthew holds with regard TO the same
evangelist. On the part Of each OF his success.
SOrS. Mhrk WAS enlarged Dy additions borrowed
from documents based. more or less directly
on tho Hebrew Gospel. To explain the numer.
Gus additions made by Luke to Marks common
stock. but which are not found In Mint.
thew. We must also attribute large
shnre OF them to oral tradition. Luke
dipped with both hands In this tradition
he drew from it as fror! a we'll: ho con
sidered himself upon the same footing n.
the numerous authors Of tentative Gospel his
tories who had preceded him. Did he srrnp',
| to insert IN his text stories Of his own inyen
tion, in order 10 impress upon the work o
Jesus tho direction ha thought right? Ger
ta!nly not. Tradition itself comes into being
in no other way. Tradition is a collective
product. since it utters what is in al
mems minds: but for all that. thert
was somebody who struck out for tht
first time This or that fin. saying, this or tina
pregnant aneciote, Luke was often that some
body. The fountain OF the ioyin was dried up
and, to tell the truth, We imagine that. outside
! of Syria, there were never many Of them rro
1uced. On tho contrary. the license that be
| longs to the dyaia Is revealed In its entirety IL