ewish proselyte (Jerome, Quest. on Gen.,
chap. 46); and it adds various other legends which are not worth
repeating.

27. The evangelist himself, in his dedicatory address to Theophilus
(chap. 1:1-4), gives us clear and definite information respecting the
_sources of his gospel_. He does not profess to have been himself an
eye-witness, but has drawn his information from those "who from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." His
investigations have been accurate and thorough: "having accurately
traced out all things from the beginning" (as the original words mean),
he writes to Theophilus "in order;" that is, in an orderly and connected
way. He proposes to give not some loose fragments, but a connected
narrative; although, as we have seen above (No. 10), his order is not
always that of strict chronological sequence. From the long and intimate
connection of Luke with Paul it is reasonable to suppose that the latter
must have exerted an influence on the composition of this gospel. Luke,
however, did not draw the materials of his narrative from Paul (at least
not principally), but, as he expressly states, from those "who from the
beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word." He did not
write from Paul's dictation, but in a free and independent way; though
there is no reasonable ground for doubting that it was with Paul's
knowledge and approbation.

The "eye-witnesses and ministers of the word" are those who (1)
were from the beginning eye-witnesses of our Lord's public
ministry; (2) were intrusted with the work of preaching the
word; that is, the apostles and such of their associates as had
companied with them all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and
out among them. Acts 1:21. The words of Luke must not be
strained; for he records some incidents of our Lord's history
_before_ his public appearance which could have been learned
only from Mary and her circle.

The remarkable agreement between Luke's account of the
institution of the Lord's Supper (Luke 22:9, 20), and Paul's (1
Cor. 11:28-25) has often been noticed. It is most naturally
explained by the supposition that Luke recorded the transaction
in the form in which he had often heard it from the lips of
Paul. But there is nothing in the character of this gospel which
can warrant the supposition that the apostle exercised a formal
supervision over its compos