No variations of style, nor any explanation from the author, helps to establish the relative probability of these theories. Ex cept where close verbal parallels exist it is even possible that the evangelist is quoting oral traditions from memory. In his preface he refers to earlier information, both oral and written, but does not indicate which he uses. When he copies the gospel of Mark he paraphrases it so freely that his own style rather than Mark's remains the more conspicuous. It has been claimed that the Semitic style of the birth stories implies a written source—some would say a source written in a Semitic language like Hebrew or Aramaic, or even in poetry. The phenomena could be explained, however, if a written source in Greek or unwritten traditions were used by Luke and cast or kept by him in an appropriate Greek Biblical style.
Characteristics.—The Greek style of the work shares with other New Testament writings the flavour of the vernacular speech of the time, but is more literary than that of Mark which Luke repeatedly improves in passages where Mark is being employed as a source. The use of the formal preface, of the elaborate dating in iii. 1-2, and other facts, suggest that the author is more akin to the litterateur. He sometimes avoids foreign words, whether Latin or Aramaic, found in his sources, conforming thereby to the better approved habits of style. There is a secular character to his work, and there are references in the gospel to the wider Roman world and its officials, as is the case more abundantly in Acts.
Certain artistic qualities in the work are felt by the observant reader. Renan calls this gospel the most beautiful book in the world. Scenes are portrayed with imagination and with feeling, and are joined together with some effort at connection. The parables told in Luke are among the most effective stories recorded in the Bible. Several passages in the gospel are marked by real pathos, e.g., the "only" children at vii. r2 ; viii. 42 ; ix. 38 ; while elsewhere the spirit of joy is prominent. The qualities of tender ness and sympathy are emphasized. There is also frequent refer ence to suspense and to final enthusiasm.
How far the traits of the gospel are due to the author and how far to the lost sources cannot now be known. Only in changes in sections derived from Mark is the author's own responsibility provable. It may be, however, partly his own choice of materials and editorial treatment that explain the following apparent em phases in his subject matter: Prayer; repentance and f orgive ness ; the Holy Spirit (and more conspicuously in Acts) ; the prominence of women in the narrative and in the parables; praise of poverty and of almsgiving, and warning against wealth; illustration from figures of money or property; comparisons of foreigners, Samaritans, publicans, and the like with self-righteous Jews to the disadvantage of the latter. Equally distinctive em
phases in matters of theology can hardly be discovered. The author is a Christian and shares the general early Christian standpoint.
That. the author was Luke, the associate named by Paul (Col. iv. 12 "the beloved physician," Philemon 24, a "fellow worker"), is a tradition that can be traced back for each volume before 200 A.D. In favour of this tradition is not so much the antiquity or continuity of the tradition, as the fact that a person so obscure in the records of the church would be less likely to have attributed to him the authorship of such important and well regarded writ ings than would one of the twelve apostles. The contents of the volumes may be said neither to confirm nor to weaken this tradition, though a series of interesting arguments pro and con have been put forward.
In favour of the tradition are urged the passages in Acts (xvi.
10-17, xx. 5-16, xxi. 1-18, xxvii. 16) in which the first person plural is used. That the author of the work was himself a companion of Paul is a natural conclusion from this use of "we." Of course, the companion's name is not thereby revealed, but Luke is not excluded, as he is nowhere mentioned in Acts in the third person. Other critics hold that these "we" sections come not from the author of Luke and Acts, but from a written source that he incorporated. In that case Luke might be the author of the source, but probably not of the whole work.
Against this alternative is urged the consideration that (except for the "we") the style of the autobiographical sections in Acts is identical with that of the rest of the work. This is felt to indicate identity of authorship. If, however, we may judge from his use of Mark, this evangelist regularly recast his sources in his own style and may possibly have done so with a "we" source, though why, when otherwise rewording it, he should retain the first person, is not evident.