New Testament Studies

http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS

Additional services for New Testament Studies:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Notes on a Literary and Form-Critical Ananysis of

Some of the Synoptic Material Peculiar to Luke

William R. Farmer

New Testament Studies / Volume 8 / Issue 04 / July 1962, pp 301 - 316

DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500007943, Published online: 05 February 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0028688500007943

How to cite this article:

William R. Farmer (1962). Notes on a Literary and Form-Critical Ananysis of Some of
the Synoptic Material Peculiar to Luke. New Testament Studies, 8, pp 301-316
doi:10.1017/S0028688500007943

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/NTS, IP address: 130.209.6.61 on 30 Jun 2015

New Test. Stud. 8, pp. 301-16.

WILLIAM R. FARMER

NOTES ON A LITERARY AND

FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME
OF THE SYNOPTIC MATERIAL
PECULIAR TO LUKE1
We may begin our analysis of the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke with a
study of one of its most important component parts, namely that preserved in
the fifteenth chapter. The whole of this chapter constitutes a single literary
unit, whose beginning and end are well defined and whose internal structure,
while not uniform, is perfectly self-consistent. The introduction to this
literary unit points to the 'grumbling' of the Pharisees and Scribes in response
to Jesus' behaviour of receiving and eating with those tax collectors and
sinners who had come to hear him. This response of the Pharisees and Scribes
occasions a threefold response from Jesus, namely a threefold insistence upon
the single point that it is right to accept the repentance of sinners and to
rejoice with them, since their repentance is accepted by God who himself in
heaven rejoices over their return.
It cannot be denied that this literary unit reflects the touch of conscious
literary skill. And it is possible to maintain, at least hypothetically, that the
form and some if not all of the content of chapter xv may be due to the
literary activity of the evangelist Luke. For example, one could imagine, as
some critics do, that Luke took from ' Q,' the saying about the lost sheep (cf.
Matt, xviii. 12-14), and from Mark the introduction (Mark ii. 15-16); that
he then constructed the saying about the lost coin on the pattern of the saying
about the lost sheep, and finally freely created the story of the lost son,

1
These notes are set forth with a fourfold sense of indebtedness, to be acknowledged in inverse
chronological order: (1) to Ernst Fuchs for making clear the normative and decisive significance of
the parables for an understanding ofJesus; (2) to Joachim Jeremias for his epoch-making research on
the parables; (3) to James Muilenburg for first bringing my attention to the importance of literary
form; and (4) to Henry J. Cadbury for his book The Style andLiterary Method of Luke (Cambridge, 1920),
hereafter referred to by the abbreviation Cd. We live at a time of upheaval in gospel criticism, when it
has become acceptable to question the ' two-source' hypothesis. This presents a challenge to the critic
who wishes to produce results which are independent of any particular solution of the synoptic
problem. Since frequent reference is made in these notes to the work of Cadbury, and since he pre-
supposed the 'two-source' hypothesis in general and Luke's use of Mark in particular, it will be of
importance to the reader to know that all references to his work, hereinafter made, are valid for the
purposes of these notes not only on his presuppositions, but also on the supposition that if Luke did
not copy Mark and/or ' Q/, he did copy Matthew. In other words, the only major presupposition for
these notes is that there exists some sort of direct literary relationship between Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, and that the earliest of these gospels was not Luke. That Luke was not earliest, I believe, can be
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
 3O2 WILLIAM R. FARMER
possibly making use of a simple parable concerning two sons (cf. Matt. xxi.
28-32). As we shall see, such a hypothesis, however plausible it may appear
to be on the surface, cannot explain the literary phenomena of chapter xv.
Nevertheless, as a preliminary task, we shall find the testing of this hypothesis
most instructive.
First of all, we may ask what evidence there is that the introduction to the
literary unit in chapter xv is based upon a passage in Mark. If the evangelist
has copied Mark there should be evidence of literary dependence. There is
none. If he has not copied Mark but freely composed this introduction
utilizing information derived from Mark, then his own characteristic literary
style and vocabulary might possibly be in evidence. Cadbury happens to
regard this introduction as Lucan.1 And there is some justification for this
view. For example, there are some hints that it is in accordance with Luke's
literary method to provide sayings and parables with introductions which are
basically his own construction. The introduction to the Parable of the Good
Samaritan (Luke x. 29) may be a case in point. Note as characteristic of
Luke ETTTEV followed by Trpos with the object in the accusative case (Cd. p. 202).
The introduction to the Parable of the Pounds (Luke xix. 11) may be another
case in point. Jeremias notes that the use of TrpocrriOrmi is characteristic of
Luke as in the expression ETTTEV Trapoc|3oAr|v. He further cites as Lucan charac-
teristics EIVCCI after a preposition and article; Trapccxpfjpcc and &va<pocfv£a6oci.2
We may also note the use of the genitive absolute construction as character-
istic of Luke (Cd. p. 133).
However, it is precisely evidence of this kind which is absent from the first
two verses of chapter xv. Jeremias concludes that 'neither factual nor
linguistic objections' can be raised against these verses being pre-Lucan (op.
cit. p. 84 [77]).
Verse three, however, which is formally neither a part of the introduction,
nor of the saying which follows, presents a striking contrast. EITTEV 6E is charac-
teristic of Luke (Cd. p. 169), as is the rest of the verse. Note Trpos with the
accusative case (Cd. p. 202). Trp6s. . .TT\V Trapoc|3oAf|V TOCOTTJV. . . has been
inserted by Luke into his account of the Wicked Husbandman at the corre-
sponding point (Luke xx. 9; cf. xx. 19). In Luke xii. 41, which may be a Lucan
editorial addition, we find ETTTEV 6E. . .Trpos r|n5s TTJV Trapcc|3oAf)V TOCUTT|V
which is a close parallel to EITTEV SE Trpos CCUTOUS Tf|V Trapcc(3oAf)v TOUTTIV
AEyoov in Luke xv. 3 (cf. also Luke iv. 23; v. 36; vi. 39; xii. 16; xii. 41; xiii. 6;
xiv. 7; xviii. 9 and xx. 19). It seems, on the basis of this evidence, that Luke
has probably inserted one of his characteristic literary transitions between the
introduction proper and the first saying of Jesus. However, the rest of this
1
Cd. p. 126.
2
Die Gleichnisse Jesu (5th ed., Gottingen, 1958), p. 84: Eng. trans. (3rd ed.), The Parables of Jesus
(London, 1954), p. 77. [Jeremias refers the reader to Hawkins's statistical lists in Horae Synopticae
(Oxford, 1899). These statistics may be useful in some cases, as in this instance. But they must be
used with great care and in every instance checked by a concordance.]
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 303
literary unit (Luke xv. 4-32), is relatively free of Lucan editorial expansion,
alteration, or even rewording.
Traces of the editorial hand of the evangelist in Luke xv. 4-34 may be dis-
cerned in the following cases: (1) The use of evannov in vv. 10, 18 and 21,
which may have been substituted by Luke for £HTrpocr6ev (Cd. p. 204).
(2) f|p£aro OaTEpElaSai in v. 14 may be an Aramaism, but it is none the less
characteristic of Luke to use apxouoci with the infinitive as is done here in
reference to future time (Cd. p. 162). The KCU OCUTOS immediately preceding is
a favourite with Luke (Cd. p. 193), which increases the probabilities that Koci
OCUTOS f|pfaTo vaTEpeTcrOai is a sign of Lucan editorial modification—
probably an explanatory addition. The text, though leaving something to the
imagination, makes good sense with these words omitted. (3) The use of
TTuv06cvo|Jai in v. 26. The only other place this word is found in Luke is in xviii.
36, which may be a Lucan reworking of his source. It is used seven times in
Acts. Elsewhere in the New Testament it is used once in Matthew and once
in John. The possibility that its presence here may be a sign of Luke's editorial
retouching is strengthened by the fact that the optative mood is used in the
expression immediately following (T! OCV eir) cf. xviii. 36). The optative ein is
found eleven times in Luke-Acts, and nowhere else in the New Testament.1
It would be possible to note other cases where one might say that the hand
of Luke has modified his source, as for example the presence of EITTEV 8E in
vv. 11, 21 and 22. But few of these cases are so characteristic of Luke as to
preclude the likelihood that they could as well have stood in the text of some
source from which Luke copied.
Over against these signs of the evangelist's influence upon the text of
chapter xv, we must now set out the literary evidence which indicates that
he has, for the most part, faithfully copied a text which exhibits stylistic and
linguistic peculiarities not characteristic of his work as a whole. That is to say,
we now turn to consider the literary phenomena which support the view that
the content and literary style of the tradition preserved in the fifteenth chapter
of Luke is pre-Lucan.
(1) Luke tends to use the periphrastic imperfect in subordinate sentences
(cf. iv. 31, 38; v. 17, 29; vi. 12; viii. 40), and to close a passage (cf. iv. 44; v.
16; xix. 47), but not at the beginning of an introductory sentence as in v. 1.
(2) In Greek, the normal order is for the numerals to follow the nouns they
qualify. Luke tends to follow this normal order (Cd. p. 153). Yet we find the
reverse order at five points in this literary unit (cf. especially vv. 4 and 11. The
same reverse order in vv. Ja, b, and 10 might possibly be credited to Luke's
desire to emphasize).
(3) The noun Trp6|3aTov occurs in two separate passages in Mark, eleven
1
E. DeW. Burton in Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek (3rd ed., Edinburgh,
1898), p. 80, notes that the optative with &v occurs in the New Testament only in Luke-Acts. But he
believes that the text in v. 26 may be doubtful.
304 WILLIAM R. FARMER
times in Matthew and eighteen times in John. It is never found in Luke out-
side this literary unit (that is, in vv. 4 and 6). It is found once in Acts viii. 32
in a quotation from the LXX. We might have expected Trp6(3crrov in Luke
xiv. 5 since it is found in the nearest parallel passage (Matt. xii. 11). Harnack
regards apvocs in Luke x. 3 as a Lucan refinement of TrpopocToc in 'Q.'. 1 The
presence of Trp6(3arov in a quotation from the LXX in Luke-Acts2 proves that
Luke could copy into his text the word Trp6|3ocTov. The absence of this word
elsewhere in Luke-Acts, outside chapter xv of Luke, at least suggests the
possibility that its presence in this literary unit may be most easily accounted
for on the hypothesis that it has been copied from a source.
(4) avQpcoTTos is used at the beginnings of both the sayings about the lost
sheep and the lost son (vv. 4 and 11). But Luke seems to prefer dcvrip to
ocv6pcoTTos (Cd. p. 189).
(5) Matthew Black notes alliteration in the Aramaic of v. y.3
(6) In v. 15 Svi TCOV TTOAITCOV is an unclassical use of els which Luke usually
avoids (Cd. p. 193). The same may be said for evcc TCOV iraiScov in v. 26.
(7) The use of a£ios in vv. 19 and 21 may be non-Lucan. Harnack notes
that Luke avoids aftos 'used absolutely' as here (op. cit. p. 58 [80]).
(8) EcnrAayxvi(76r| in v. 20 may be non-Lucan. It occurs elsewhere in
Luke-Acts only in Luke vii. 13 and x. 33, both from the synoptic tradition
peculiar to Luke.
(9) In Hellenistic times epEpco was encroaching upon ccyco by taking on the
meanings 'lead' and 'bring' with reference to persons and cattle. Cadbury
thinks that Luke sometimes corrects his source in the use of q>£poo where some
form of ccyco would be closer to classical usage (Cd. p. 174). This would sug-
gest that <p£p£T6 TOV [xoaypv TOV atTevrrov in v. 23 may be a further sign that
this literary unit is pre-Lucan in origin, and that it has been rather faithfully
copied by the evangelist.
(10) Burney has noted the synonymous parallelism in v. 32: 'This thy
brother was dead and is alive, he was lost and is found.'4 And yet, elsewhere in
his gospel, when Luke finds this type of Semitic parallelism in his sources he
frequently destroys the poetic structure. Burney writes concerning Luke:
'. . . the substance, rather than the form, of the teaching appears to have been
the all-important consideration; and, while he was clearly a skilful and
faithful recorder of the substance, he certainly seems to have held himself
free to alter the form in cases in which Synonymous Parallelism might appear
redundant to Gentile readers. . . ' (op. cit. pp. 7-8). It is all the more striking
to note that in this literary unit the phenomenon of synonymous parallelism
1
The point is no less sharp if Luke used Matthew. Spriiche und Reden Jfesu (Leipzig, 1907), p. 14.
Eng. Tr. The Sayings of Jesus (New York, 1908), p. 13. Cf. Matt. x. 16.
a
The unity in authorship of Luke-Acts is a methodological presupposition of this analysis, although
our conclusions are not seriously affected by this since we have made so little use of this assumption.
3
An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (2nd ed., Oxford, 1954), p . 141.
4
The Poetry of Our Lord (Oxford, 1925), p . 69.
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 305
in v. 32 is closely paralleled by an almost identical case of synonymous paral-
lelism in v. 24. While it is true that Luke frequently destroys this kind of
parallelism, it should be noted that he also is capable of copying unchanged
into his gospel passages from his sources which in form exhibit synonymous
parallelism (cf. Burney, op. cit. pp. 64-8). That such is the probable explana-
tion for the presence of synonymous parallelism in this literary unit seems
likely.
(11) Dalman regards epxo^evos f|yyiaev in v. 25 as an Aramaism.1
(12) The Atticists condemned the use of TT&VTOTE and recommended 5id
TTCCVTOS in its place. Luke used 81a TTCCVTOS in his gospel and in Acts, but
TTOCVTOTE is found in Luke-Acts only in this literary unit (v. 31), and in the
introduction to the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke xviii. 1).
Not all the twelve literary phenomena listed above are of equal weight,
though each makes its contribution, and taken together they easily outweigh
any evidence to the contrary. We conclude, therefore, that although there are
signs of editorial influence of the evangelist upon the text of chapter xv, it
seems none the less to be essentially pre-Lucan, that is, we suggest that with
relatively little alteration it has been copied into the gospel of Luke from an
earlier source.2
We are now in a position to consider the question whether there are other
literary units within the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke which have
literary characteristics similar to those of chapter xv, and which belong to
the same pre-Lucan source. To this end we need now to pay close attention to
the unique form and structure of chapter xv as a single literary unit.
We may define the formal structure of Luke xv as follows: (1) an introduc-
tion to the literary unit; (2) three closely related sayings constituting the
main body of the literary unit; (3) the first two of these sayings are, relative
to the third, comparatively short; (4) the first two sayings relative to one
another are closely parallel in formal structure and identical in meaning;
(5) these first two sayings are connected by the simple conjunction f|; (6) each
of these two sayings begins with a rhetorical question and ends with a pro-
nouncement introduced by the formula Aeyco uiilv. . . ; (7) the third saying is
in the form of a story which illustrates the single point made in the two
preceding parallel sayings.

1
Die Worte Jesu (2nd ed., 1930), p. 164. English trans., The Words of Jesus (Edinburgh, 1902),
pp. 20—31. Jeremias lists this as a Semitism along with sixteen additional Semitisms which he and
others have noted in vv. 11-32. 'Zum Gleichnis vom verlorenen Sohn, Luke xv. 11-32', Theol. Z-
no. 3 (1949), 228-30.
8
Whatever the relationship between Luke xv. 4-6 and Matt, xviii. 12—14, there is no reason to
attribute any of the form or content of Luke xv. 4-6 to the evangelist Luke. Nor is there evidence of
literary dependence. One must go back in time behind the literary activity of the evangelists to posit
any connexion between these two alternate forms of what may well have been an original saying of
Jesus. Nor is there any reason to think that Luke xv. 7 and 10 are Lucan additions. These words may
be later additions to the sayings concerning the lost sheep and the lost coin, but there is no reason to
think they were not already a part of the text Luke was copying.
306 WILLIAM R. FARMER
Luke xiii. i—g is a literary unit exhibiting the same formal structure at all seven
points. There are also formal differences, notably the difference in the overall
length of the two literary units, and the differences in the internal structure of
the three sayings in one unit as compared with the corresponding sayings in
the other. But these differences do not affect the striking similarities between
the two literary units taken as a whole and as outlined above. These similarities
pose a form-critical problem; one would hardly be justified in dismissing these
phenomena as accidental. Our initial impression that the formal structure of
Luke xv reflects the conscious touch of literary skill is strengthened by the
fact that in Luke xiii. 1-9 we find the same formal structure. The self-con-
sistent character of the internal structure of Luke xiii. 1-9 is quite clear, in
spite of the fact that commentators pay no attention to it. For as in Luke xv,
here also in Luke xiii. 1-9 the setting of all three sayings is provided by the
introduction with which the literary unit begins. The editors of Huck-
Lietzmann, Synapse der drei ersten Evangelien, are right in regarding xiii. 1—9 as
a literary unit under a common heading 'The Call to Repentance'. The
intention of the one responsible for creating this literary unit was that the
story of the Fig Tree in the Vineyard should be viewed in the light of the
situation set forth in the introduction to the literary unit, and in the light of
the two parallel sayings of Jesus which follow the introduction and precede
the story. The beginning and end of this literary unit are well defined. There
seems to be no justification for separating the parable in vv. 6-9 from vv. 1-5.
If we may anticipate a conclusion already hinted at, and for which further
evidence is forthcoming, namely that both these literary units have been
copied by Luke from the same source, then it might be helpful to discuss
briefly the purpose of tradition in this particular literary form in the early
church. In our view, these literary units were first created to meet the
catechetical and homiletical needs of some early Christian community. That
is to say, they were originally designed as aids to teaching and preaching. As
with the larger literary unit the teacher or preacher was aided in expounding
the appropriateness of accepting the repentance of sinners and of rejoicing in
their movement from 'death' to 'life', so with the smaller literary unit he
was aided in expounding the folly of postponing repentance, since the judge-
ment of God upon those who refuse to repent comes suddenly and without
warning. That the parables1 of the Fig Tree in the Vineyard and the Lost Son
can be used to illustrate other truths is self-evident, but irrelevant to our
point. Our point is that through a form-critical literary analysis it is possible
1
A formal distinction is to be made between sayings which begin with a rhetorical question and
those in the form of stories. In both the hearer may be expected to visualize some sort of comparison,
and thus both might be called ' parables'. But for the purpose of this essay the term ' parable' is used
to refer only to those developed sayings which could be called stories and which do not have the form
of rhetorical question and answer. This is a pardonable inconsistency which should occasion the
reader little trouble once his attention has been called to it. Luke uses the term 'parable' very
loosely. Cf. Luke v. 36.
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 307
to discern a pre-Lucan literary form in which these particular parables were
intended to illustrate and to assist in the elaboration of the truth or the theme
set forth in the sayings to which they were joined. These sayings in turn were
set forth in these literary units as coming in response to some concrete
historical situation in the life of Jesus.
In other words, these two parables are used in these literary units to
illustrate Chreiai.1 The definition of a Chreia given by Dibelius {op. cit. pp. 150-
1 [152-3]) is worth quoting: ' I t is a reproduction of a short pointed saying of
general significance, originating in a definite person and arising out of a
definite situation.' 'In the age of the Gospels,' writes Dibelius, 'rhetoricians
called such a small literary unit a " Chreia", as also did the Stoics in the first
century B.C.'
Some Chreiai are very concise, as for example this one concerning Antis-
thenes: ' One day when he was censured for keeping company with evil men,
he replied, "Physicians attend their patients without getting the fever them-
selves"' (Diogenes Laertius, vi, 6). Sometimes the Chreiai include action, as
in the Chreia concerning Anaxagoras: 'When someone inquired, "Have you
no concern for your fatherland?" he replied, " I am greatly concerned with
my fatherland", and pointed to heaven' (Diogenes Laertius, 11, 7). In other
Chreiai the sayings are more developed and involve both a question and
answer construction, as for example those quoted by Xenophon in his
Memorabilia of Socrates (in, 13).
The Chreia form as developed and used by the rhetoricians was admirably
well adapted to meet the needs of early Christian preachers. Dibelius was
correct in noting the similarity between the Hellenistic Chreia and his Marcan
paradigms. He was also correct in noting that in the synoptic tradition
peculiar to Luke there are true Chreia forms. He was wrong, however, in
regarding these as the result of a literary tendency of the evangelist to cast
tradition which came to him in the form of paradigms into the more concise
Chreia form. It happens that in the Hellenistic literature in which Chreiai are
found (notably in the lives of various famous men) the pattern is not for the
authors of these works to create Chreiai, but rather to incorporate them into

1
R. O. P. Taylor, in The Groundwork of the Gospels (Oxford, 1946), has conveniently collected the
most important texts from the Greek Rhetores (translated by T. Nicklin), pp. 82—90. These texts are
prefaced by an important introduction to the Chreia, pp. 75—81. The Greek texts are accessible in the
Teubner series, collected by Spengel, under the title Rhetores Graeci. Chreiai themselves may be con-
veniently found in (1) Lucian's life of Demonax, 12—67; (2) Plutarch's life of Marcus Cato, vn-ix;
(3) Diogenes Laertius' Lives of Eminent Philosophers: Socrates n, 30A—37; Aristippus n, 127—30;
Plato in; Xenocrates iv, 8-10; Diogenes vi, 32-69; Antisthenes vi, 3-9; Crates vi, 89-91; Metrocles
vi, 95; Zeno VII, 17-26; Aristonvn, 163; Cleanthesvii, 171-4; Sphaerus VII, 177; Chrysippus 182-3;
Heraclitus ix, 12; Xenophanes ix, 20; Zeno of Elea 27-39; Protagoras rx, 56; Anaxarchus rx, 58-60;
Pyrrho ix, 64-9; Timon rx, 113-15; (4) Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates m, 13. Important
bibliographical references will be found in Martin Dibelius's discussion of the Chreia in his Die
Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (3rd ed., Tubingen, 1959), pp. 150-64; English trans, of and ed., with
same discussion of Chreia as in 3rd ed. From Tradition to Gospel (New York, 1935), pp. 152—64. Robert
Grant treats the Chreia in The Earliest Lives of Jesus (New York, 1961), pp. 17—18, 99-101.
 308 WILLIAM R. FARMER
their accounts from earlier collections of Chreiai. On the basis of a compara-
tive study of the nearest parallels in contemporary literature, it seems likely
that the Chreiai in Luke have been incorporated into that gospel from some
earlier source or sources. The attempt by Dibelius to show that the Chreia
forms in Luke are Lucan on the basis of Luke's assumed practice of reducing
some of the Marcan Paradigms to a more concise form falls short of its goal.
Sound procedure requires that we carefully examine each Chreia in Luke to
see whether there is evidence of Lucan composition. The results of such an
examination are very interesting. In every instance of a Chreia form in the
synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke we find the evangelist's characteristic
literary style and vocabulary noticeably non-existent.
The Chreiafirstof all was designed to be easily committed to memory; for
once committed to memory it could then be recalled and thus constituted a
well-structured text which thereafter could be quoted, paraphrased, illus-
trated, expounded, etc., at will, leaving the speaker (or preacher) free to
concentrate upon his task without either the encumbering handicap of
written notes or the embarrassing fear of being 'lost for words'. The gifted
public speaker might find such helps unnecessary, but for the majority they
proved to be very useful.1
Many Chreiai are preserved in the synoptic tradition. Of special interest is
one particular Chreia preserved in the tradition peculiar to Matthew, since it
is illustrated by a parable in the same manner as we have noted in the literary
1
The use of Chreiai in the schools of rhetoric was so widespread, and had such a firmly fixed place
in the educational system of the empire in the first century that Quintilian, though writing in Latin,
refers to the composition of Chreiai as a rudimentary activity for pupils who are preparing for the
schools of rhetoric (The Institutio Oratorio of Quintilian, Book i, ix, 3-6). Quintilian's dates are C.A.D.
35-100. He implies that this discipline was included among the first essentials of general education.
Although writing about the situation in Rome, Quintilian describes a situation which also prevailed
at the eastern end of the Mediterranean. Cf. the second century A.D. inscribed 'school texts' Ostraka
published and discussed by Grafton Milne in the J. Hellenic Stud, xxvm (1908), 121-32. An excellent
example of the way in which the copying of Chreiai was made a part of the schoolboy's written
exercises is provided by a papyrus notebook (dated third and fourth centuries—but assumed to be
representative of educational practice in the Graeco-Roman period from at least the time of Quin-
tilian), in which the Chreiai are preceded by written exercise in syllabification and followed by the
copying of moral maxims. See Papyrus Bouriant N. 1—to be conveniently found as N. 29 in Erich
Ziebarth's Aus der Antiken Schule (Bonn, 1910), in the Hans Lietzmann Kleine Texte series. Cf. also in
Ziebarth's collection, the third-century wooden tablet on one side of which is declined a Chreia con-
cerning Pythagoras, published originally in the J. Hellenic Stud, xxix (1909), 11. The point is not that
as public orators they would be called upon to create Chreiai, but rather, having written Chreiai
themselves, they would better understand the principles governing their composition, and thus be
better prepared to make the most effective use of those collections of Chreiai of philosophers and
famous men, whose example and words would carry weight in the minds of their hearers. To have
invented such Chreiai would have defeated the speaker's purpose, since it was essential that his hearers
acknowledge the authenticity of the Chreiai he used. For all Chreiai contain the words or refer to the
actions of known historical persons. It follows, therefore, that just as Chreiai concerning Jesus are not
to be regarded as having been invented by the evangelists while writing their gospels, neither are we
to think of them as having been created by early Christian preachers. But rather we should imagine
these early preachers drawing upon previously prepared collections of Chreiai, in which sayings or
actions of Jesus have been provided historical settings and against the background of which the
respective sayings or actions are to be understood and interpreted. Precisely how some of the early
Christian communities might have managed to provide themselves with such collections of Chreiai
will be touched on later in this essay.
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 309
units from the thirteenth and fifteenth chapters of Luke (although there is no
indication that it is from the same source). Matt, xviii. 21-2 is a Chreia con-
sisting of an introduction (v. 21), and a saying ofJesus (v. 22). Then immedi-
ately following is the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (vv. 23-35). That this
parable is intended to illustrate the saying in the Chreia to which it is joined is
clear from the connective formula 5id TOOTO with which the parable is
introduced. That is to say, the connexion between the parable and the preced-
ing Chreia which is implicit in the two Lucan literary units is here made
explicit by this formula. In the context of this literary unit this parable is
intended to illustrate the point that we cannot offer our forgiveness to the
brother who sins against us on any calculating basis, but rather must be pre-
pared to forgive him 'from the heart' (that is, 'unconditionally'—without
the limitation that he sin not against us again), precisely because God has
forgiven us a debt of sin infinitely great and humanly impossible to repay.
In the twelfth chapter of Luke is another Chreia which is illustrated by a
parable (Luke xii. 13—21). The point made in this Chreia, that a man must
guard himself against all forms of covetousness, is aptly illustrated in the
Parable of the Rich Fool. The editors of the Huck-Lietzmann Synopsis cor-
rectly perceive that the whole is a single literary unit.
Having discussed briefly the purpose in the early church of tradition in this
particular literary form, namely, to serve the catechetical and homiletical
needs of early Christian communities, we are now in a position to examine a
matter of some importance.
Granted that there is no evidence that Luke is responsible for this literary
phenomenon of attaching a parable to a Chreia, such a possibility is none the
less to be considered. In this connexion chapter xvi of Luke presents an
interesting phenomenon. Verses 14-15 constitute a Chreia, and vv. 19-31 a
parable (that is, Dives and Lazarus). Plummer notes that the parable of
Dives and Lazarus 'illustrates in a marked way' the saying of Jesus in v. 15,
and W. L. Knox writes '. . .it is exactly appropriate to the theme of 14 as
showing how Dives, though exalted in the sight of men, was abominable in
the sight of God'. 1
This being the case, it seems plausible to suppose that the three unrelated
sayings in vv. 16-18 which separate the parable from the Chreia may have
been inserted at some later time (so W. L. Knox, op. cit. p. 98) into a more
original literary unit made up of a Chreia illustrated by a parable. The fact
that Harnack, on the basis of his literary analysis of these three sayings, could
deem them all to be Lucan modifications of' Q,' (preserved more originally
in their Matthean parallels), increases the plausibility of this hypothesis and
suggests that Luke may have been the one responsible for inserting them
1
Plummer, The Gospel According to St Luke, ICC (New York, 1914), p. 390. Knox, The Sources of the
Synoptic Gospels (Cambridge, 1957), n, 96-7. The thread of teaching which J. D. M. Derrett is able to
trace through the whole of ch. 16 is least apparent in vv. 16-18, 'Dives and Lazarus and the
Preceding Sayings', N.T.S. vn (July 1961), 364-80.
3IO WILLIAM R. FARMER
between the Chreia and the parable. In any case this evidence weighs against
the notion that Luke is responsible for the literary phenomenon of parables
attached to Chreiai, found elsewhere in his gospel. For, on the one hand, if
Luke were responsible for inserting these three unrelated sayings into a more
original literary unit consisting of the Chreia and the parable, this would argue
against his having the literary interest presupposed by the view that he has
elsewhere consciously joined together Chreiai and parables. Why would he
tear down in one place that which he has carefully built up in another? Or,
on the other hand, if this particular Chreia was not joined to this particular
parable in a source before Luke, how can we explain his failure to join them in
his gospel? We can only conclude that here in a test case, Luke fails to make
evident the kind of literary concern presupposed by the view that he has else-
where carefully matched particular parables with particular Chreiai.
The way is now clear for a consideration of those parallel literary forms
which are most relevant in a form-critical analysis of Luke xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-
32. To begin with we should note that the use of a parable to illustrate a
saying in a Chreia was one of the prescribed ways in which the rhetoricians
were trained to use Chreiai in public speaking.1 We even have copies of style
manuals drawn up by the Greek-speaking rhetoricians, Hermogenes and
Aphthonius, in which examples are given where a particular Chreia is
illustrated by an appropriate parable. But these manuals were designed to
demonstrate to the student how he should develop a Chreia. Each person
using a Chreia was free to select whatever parable he thought best illustrated
the point made in the Chreia. Furthermore, there were other ways prescribed
for developing a Chreia, as for example by paraphrasing it freely, and by
bringing out the general principle entailed in it, and where appropriate, by
ending with an exhortation to the hearers to act in accordance with this
general principle. It is obvious that all of these prescriptions would have
been useful to the early Christian preachers in making use of the Chreiai con-
cerning Jesus. In Hellenistic literature, outside of these style manuals,
Chreiai are not developed according to this pattern, since by definition this
development was designed to enable a speaker to make more effective use of
them in oral communication. When, therefore, we find in the synoptic tradi-
tion Chreiai illustrated by parables we are in direct touch with a particular
form of oral tradition. Not that these literary units were first conceived in the
mind of some early Christian who then, without ever having written them
down, passed them on orally to others who repeated the process until they
were finally written down in our Gospels. There is scant evidence for that
kind of oral tradition. But rather we are to imagine early Christians creating
Chreiai from the sayings of Jesus, and in so doing possibly drawing directly
upon oral tradition proper. These Chreiai, we may presume, would have been
1
'Quintilian i. 9 and the " C h r i a " in Ancient Education', by F. H . Colson in the Classical Rev.
(Nov.-Dec. 1921), pp. 86—7; Quaestiones Progymnasmaticae, Georgius Reichel (Leipzig, 1909).
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 311
written down, and circulated singly or in collections for the use of teachers
and preachers in an expanding Christian community.1 It is perfectly possible
that in some cases the same person responsible for formulating a particular
Chreia might also have been responsible for selecting a particular parable to
attach to it for purposes of illustration. But this point need not be pressed.
Perhaps this was due to a later development, reflecting the experience of
Christian preachers who found certain parables uniquely well suited to
illustrate certain Chreiai. In this case it obviously would be wrong simply to
assume that all such parables were necessarily parables ofJesus. On the other
hand, one can well imagine that if a man writing down a Chreia also knew of a
parable of Jesus which aptly illustrated that Chreia, he would be rendering a
unique service to those who were to use the Chreia, by writing down the parable
also.
It so happens that the parables in the synoptic tradition which illustrate
Chreiai have a distinctively Palestinian cast, and in no case is there any
particular reason to doubt that they are authentic parables of Jesus. This is
altogether consonant with these parables having become attached to their
companion Chreiai at an early date. It is noteworthy that these Chreiai,
including both their sayings and their introductions, are also free from signs of
later Hellenistic influence. Equally important is the fact that these literary
units are singularly free from all traces of the influence of the special needs
and interests of the Jewish-Christian community, which was exerting pressure
not only in Palestine but even in churches as far away as Antioch in Syria as
early as the end of the second decade of the life of the Christian movement.
All this points to the close kinship of the tradition preserved in these literary
units with that of the most primitive strata of tradition in the earliest (pre-
Pauline) Palestinian Christian communities. Perhaps we should ask, would
there have existed at this early date in Palestine the need for tradition in this
particular form? The answer is yes, and that almost from the beginning. The
earliest Christian communities in Palestine would have found these literary
units useful. For even if we were to grant, only for the sake of argument, that
orthodox Jewish circles in Palestine may have been uninfluenced by the
educational system of the empire (an historical absurdity), we must allow that
the influence of Hellenistic culture upon some Jewish circles in Palestine
was not non-existent in the first century.2 We must further allow for the
1
Note that Chreiai were written down in order that they might be committed to memory. The rela-
tionship between oral and written tradition is more complex than is usually imagined and deserves
more thought than it is usually given. Our difficulties are further compounded when we must
reckon with the problematical effects of translation upon the transmission of oral and/or written
tradition. Cf. Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript, Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in
Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Acta Seminarii Neotestamentici Upsaliensis xxa (Uppsala,
1961).
2
We should not have needed the monumental work of Erwin Goodenough to teach us this. It
should have been apparent to us as the only adequate irritant to account for the frenzy of orthodoxy
and zealotism within conservative Jewish circles at this time. See volume 1, The Archaeological Evidence
from Palestine, in Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 8 vols., Bollingen Series XXXVII (New York,
312 WILLIAM R. FARMER
non-Jewish Greek-speaking population of Palestine and ponder its potential
interest in Christian preaching. Precisely when the number of Greek-speaking
Christians in Palestine grew to the point where regular preaching was carried
on in that language it is not possible to say. But there is no reason to think
that Christian preaching in Palestine was restricted to Aramaic [and/or
Hebrew] for very long, if indeed such a restriction ever existed. And in circles
where the Greek language was spoken, there were felt, however imperceptibly,
the standards of Hellenistic culture, including what the Greeks described at
this time as eyKUKAios -TrociSeioc or general education. The Chreia was a well-
known literary form, which because of its place in Hellenistic rhetoric prob-
ably exerted an influence even beyond the educated classes.1 We are not
necessarily to imagine early Christians consciously conforming to rhetorical
standards; but if the synoptic tradition reflects the influence (whether con-
scious or subconscious) of Hellenistic rhetorical practice upon the form of
some very early literary units, this should occasion no surprise. All the pre-
conditions for this were in existence in Palestine before, indeed some time
before, the birth of Christian preaching.
Of course we must reckon with the possibility that even among orthodox
Jews at this time, sayings of the rabbis were remembered by being formulated
in Chreia-like constructions. For example, some sayings of Hillel, preserved in
Pirke Aboth, are in a form somewhat parallel to the synoptic Chreiai. To the
synoptic phenomenon of parables used to illustrate Chreiai one may also com-
pare a similar use of parables in rabbinic literature.2
1953-8). See also the Schweich Lectures for 1942, Some Hellenistic Elements in Primitive Christianity,
Wilfred L. Knox, (Oxford, 1944); see especially pp. 30-1. Even more important are the two works
by Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), and Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New
York, 1950). David Daube, in 'Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric',
H.U.C.A. XXII (1949), 239-64 and 'Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis' in
Festschrift Hans Lewald (1953), pp. 27-44, offers convincing evidence of the influence of Hellenistic
rhetoric on the rabbis. Cf. S. Stein, 'The Influence of Symposia Literature on the Literary Form of
the PessahHaggadah',^. Jewish Stud, vm (1957), 13-44; Morton Smith, 'Palestinian Judaism in the
First Century', Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. Mosche Davis (New York, 1956), pp. 67-81; V.
Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (translated from the Hebrew, 1959); P. Benoit, O.P.,
Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, II, Les Grottes des Murabba'at (Oxford, 1961), pp. 209—10. That the
Greek language was in general use among the Jewish population of Palestine during the Roman
period has now been put beyond reasonable doubt by the recent manuscript discoveries in the
Judaean wilderness. For a balanced overall judgement cf. Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek
Paideia (Cambridge, 1961), pp. 5-21.
1
Tacitus, writing at the end of the first century and in another part of the empire could say: 'But
now all of these rules of rhetoricians. . . are common property and there is scarcely a bystander in the
throng but who, if not fully instructed, has at least been initiated into the rudiments of culture'
{Dialogue 19).
2
Cf. especially nos. 3a, 9A, 10, 166, ig, QI, 22, 23, 24, 27 in Paul Fiebig's Die Gleichnisreden Jesu
(Tubingen, 1912). To what extent such parallel forms in rabbinic literature represent Hellenistic
influence upon Jewish literary practice is difficult to decide. Daube rightly calls for a thorough
inquiry into the debt of Talmudic jurisprudence to Hellenistic rhetoric (op. cit. p. 263). In the same
way one can call for a full-scale investigation of the dependence of rabbinic literature in general upon
Hellenistic rhetoric. Perhaps such an investigation would establish that the synoptic CTireia-forms can
be adequately explained solely in terms of a Jewish literary development which by the formative
period of the gospel tradition was quite independent of the direct influence of Hellenistic rhetorical
practice. As the careful reader will discern, the conclusions concerning the history of the composition
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 313
When we compare with one another the literary units from the synoptic
tradition in which Chreiai are illustrated by parables, we note that Luke xiii.
1-9 and xv. 1-32 are distinguished from the others (Luke xii. 13-20 and
Matt, xviii. 21-35) by the internal structure of their respective Chreiai. The
Chreiai preserved in Luke xiii. 1-5 and xv. 1-10 are characterized by the fact
that each exhibits two closely parallel sayings. A survey of Chreia forms in
Hellenistic literature fails to produce any parallels to this literary pheno-
menon. The nearest parallel (though with some differences) is to be found,
significantly enough, elsewhere within the synoptic tradition peculiar to
Luke.1
In the fourteenth chapter of Luke (vv. 28-32), there are two closely parallel
sayings, set forth in a form strikingly similar to the two parallel sayings in the
Chreia in chapter xv (vv. 4-10).
Which one of you, wanting. .. ? Or, what king, going. . . ?
(Luke xiv. 28-32)
Which one of you, having... ? Or, what woman, having... ?
(Luke xv. 4-10)
Note: (a) that in both passages there are two parallel sayings, (b) that in
each instance the parallel sayings begin with rhetorical questions, (c) that
these questions are introduced respectively by identical formulas, (d) that
these formulas are followed immediately by a participial construction, (e) that
both pairs of parallel sayings are joined by the same simple conjunction 'or'.
Both Harnack and Cadbury note that Luke tends to avoid the use of
rhetorical questions (Harnack, op. cit. p. 9 [6]; Cd. pp. 81-2). It is all the
more striking, therefore, that the rhetorical question is found three times in
both Luke xiii. 2-9 and xvii. 7-10; twice in Luke xii. 13-21; xiv. 28-32 and
xv. 4-10 respectively; and once each in Luke x. 38-42; xiv. 5 and xvi. 1-9.
These eight passages all belong to the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke. It
is beyond the scope of this essay to outline the significant literary and histori-
cal interrelationships between these and certain other literary units within the
synoptic tradition found only in Luke. But we are able, at this point, to make
one important preliminary observation. We have thus far found nothing to
suggest that the evangelist Luke originated the striking similarities between
the formal structures of Luke xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-32. On the contrary, the
hypothesis that Luke has faithfully worked into the texture of his gospel
and transmission of certain literary units in Luke, to be found at the end of this study, are in no sense
dependent upon the several problematical aspects of our discussion of Hellenistic Chreiai. These con-
clusions have been restricted solely to results reached through our form-critical and literary analysis.
Our purpose in discussing the Hellenistic Chreia has not been to strengthen the results of our form-
critical and literary analysis, but rather to stimulate the reader's interest in a literary form which has
been largely neglected, to the detriment of synoptic criticism. See also Birger Gerhardsson, op. cit.
pp. 140 ff.
1
Matt. xii. 1-8 might also be noted, though it is in no sense a close parallel. That the phenomena
of parallelism in Luke xiii. 1—5, and xv. 1—10 is Jewish in origin seems likely since a similar kind of
parallelism is found in rabbinic literature, though not in the form of a Chreia. Cf. B. Talmud,
'Abodah £arah 546, for an example.
314 WILLIAM R. FARMER
certain literary units from a particular source now appears to be less inade-
quate than any alternate hypothesis to explain the particular concatenation
of literary phenomena that has emerged from our study. We may with some
confidence identify Luke xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-32 as two such literary units, that
is, as tradition Luke has copied from the same source.
If, as seems likely on the basis of our analysis, Luke xiii. 1-9 and Luke xv.
1-32 are from the same source, we would expect an analysis of the literary
style of Luke xiii. 1-9 to reveal at least some stylistic features similar to those
found in Luke xv. 1-32. Such an analysis may be regarded as a test of the
correctness of the hypothesis we have been led to posit.
First, however, let us note those Lucan peculiarities of style which indicate
Lucan editorial influence. (1) EV OCUTW TG3 Kocipco in v. 1 may be a Lucan sub-
stitution for the more usual EV EKEJVCO TU Kocipco (cf. Luke x. 21 and its parallel
Matt. xi. 25). (2) While gAeyev may sometimes be corrected by Luke to EITTEV
(Cd. p. 160), none the less EAeyEV 8E TOUTTIV TT)V Trapoc|3oAf|v at the beginning
of v. 6 has the appearance of Lucan influence for the same reasons noted in our
analysis of Luke xv. 3 (note the use of EAeysv 6e. . . Trapa(3oAr|v... in the
Lucan insertion in Luke v. 36). (3) EITTEV 6E in v. 7 may be Lucan (Cd. p. 169).
(4) yE in v. 9 added to EI 5E ur) is characteristic of Luke (cf. v. 36, 37 and x. 6).
The stylistic features which seem unlikely to have been due to Luke, and
are, therefore, presumably representative of the literary style of the source
from which Luke copied, are as follows:
(1) The use of the periphrastic imperfect at the beginning of a sentence
introducing a literary unit, as in v. 1, is non-Lucan. Compare the discussion
of this phenomenon above in the analysis of Luke xv. 1. Elsewhere in Luke
this phenomenon is found only in the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke (cf.
xiii. 10; xxi. 37).
(2) W. L. Knox thinks that c5v. . . CCUTGOV in v. 1, and £9' oOs. . . CCUTOVS in
v. 4 indicate the pre-Lucan and Semitic origin of these verses (op. cit. p. 76).
(3) The use of the simple dative case of the personal pronoun after EITTEV in
v. 2 is not typical of Luke. He strongly prefers the use of the preposition irpos
with the personal pronoun in the accusative case (Cd. p. 202). Also, AsyEi
ocOrcp in v. 8 is atypical of Luke, who prefers EITTEV irpos CCUTOV (cf. Cd. pp. 160,
202). Note AdyEi OUTCO occurs elsewhere in Luke-Acts only in parables belong-
ing to the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke (Luke xvi. 7; xix. 22).
(4) The use of Trapd in both vv. 2 and 4 may be a Semitism (cf. Moulton
and Howard, A Grammar of N.T. Greek [1929], 11, 467). This use of irapd is
found elsewhere in Luke-Acts only in Luke iii. 13 and xviii. 14 (both from
literary units belonging to the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke).
(5) 6q>eiAETT|s in v. 4 used as the equivalent of dcuccpTcoAos is probably an
Aramaism.
(6) iSou Tpioc ETT| in v. 7 is an Aramaic construction (Creed, op. cit. p. 181;
Moulton and Howard, op. cit. p. 447). A close parallel is t5ou SEKCC KOCI OKTCO
FORM-CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF SOME SYNOPTIC MATERIAL 315
6Tn in Luke xiii. 16 (again from the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke, cf.
also !5oO ToaaOroc ETT) in Luke xv. 29). Note that the numerals in these cases
come before the noun, which is not characteristic of Luke (Cd. p. 153). The
same phenomenon was noted in Luke xv. 4, 7, 10 and 11. Within the synoptic
tradition peculiar to Luke, this phenomenon may also be found in Luke
vii. 41; x. 35; xi. 5; xiii. 16; xvi. 6, 7, 28; xvii. 12; xix. 13, 16, 17, 18, 19. (The
non-normal order in xiii. 16; xvi. 6; and xvi. 7 might be explained as due to
Luke's desire to emphasize.)
(7) The use of the present indicative (epxouoci) in v. 7 is distinctive and may
be compared to the similar use of the present indicative (6OUAEUCO) in Luke
xv. 29. In both cases there is a similar accompanying expression denoting
duration and referring to past time, while the present indicative is used to
describe an action beginning in past time and still in progress at the time of
speaking (cf. E. DeW. Burton, op. cit. p. 1 o. Burton cites also Acts xv. 21 which,
however, presents characteristics distinguishing it from the closely parallel
phenomenon in Luke xiii. 7 and xv. 29). Note in both cases this literary
phenomenon is introduced by the same demonstrative particle (ISou).The use
of this particle is not atypical of Luke. But keeping in mind what has just been
pointed out above, its use in this particular construction in both xiii. 7 and
xv. 29 increases the likelihood that this is a literary construction representative
of the author (or translator) of the source from which Luke copied these
literary units.
(8) The use of the historic present (A£yei) in v. 8 may be non-Lucan, since
Luke seems to prefer the use of the aorist (cf. Jeremias, op. cit. p. 151 [128]).
(9) EGOS OTOU in v. 8 is found elsewhere in Luke-Acts only in the synoptic
tradition peculiar to Luke, and was probably in the source Luke copied (cf.
Friedrich Rehkopf, Die Lukanische Sonderquelle, Ihr Umfang und Sprachgebrauch
[1959], p. 94). Note ECOS o5 in xv. 8 with variant ECOS OTOU.
(10) The adversative conditional construction found in v. 9 is found only
two other times in Luke-Acts. It is found in Luke x. 6 and xiv. 32. But Luke
x. 6 is parallel to Matt. x. 13. This means that the only place in Luke-Acts
where we find this construction, besides the one case in x. 6 (where we know
Luke copied it from his source), is in the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke.
(This phenomenon provides a further link in the chain of evidence binding
Luke xiv. 28-32 to the two literary units from chapters xiii and xv which
we have identified as coming from the same source.)
When the results of the analysis of the phenomena of literary style in Luke
xiii. 1-9 are studied carefully it will be seen that they confirm the view that
xiii. 1-9 (like xv. 1-32) is essentially tradition Luke has copied from a source.
Moreover, in the light of the similarities between some of the phenomena
within this particular sampling of literary characteristics, and some of the
phenomena found in the corresponding sampling in Luke xv. 1-32 (note
especially items 1, 6, 7 and 9 above), the appropriateness of the suggestion
316 WILLIAM R. FARMER
that Luke has copied both xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-32 from the same source is
readily apparent. Therefore, in view of the striking and unprecedented
similarities in form and structure between Luke xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-32, there
seems to be no reason to doubt that these two literary units are from the same
source. This unique formal structure may be summarized as follows: an
introduction followed by three sayings: the first two short and parallel, and
the third long. Or we might describe the literary form in this manner:
a Chreia consisting of a concise introduction and two developed parallel say-
ings, followed by a parable illustrating the point of the sayings.
To say that Luke xiii. 1-9 and xv. 1-32 were taken by Luke from the
' same source' in this case does not necessarily entail the conclusion that Luke
copied these literary units from the same manuscript, though this he may well
have done. But what is perhaps more important, it entails the proposal that
these two literary units came to the evangelist in some form consonant with
their having once been a part of a cycle of tradition in a particular Christian
community; and that within that cycle of tradition these two literary units
had a common history of composition and transmission.
Which other literary units within the synoptic tradition peculiar to Luke
might be identified as belonging to this same source; what the most likely date
and provenance for this source might be; and what bearing this source might
have on various historical and theological problems which face the New
Testament critic and the systematic theologian, are all questions which will
need to be answered.