{{Short description|Inferred oral tradition behind Luke's gospel}} [[File:Synoptic Theory 4SH en.svg|thumb|Visualisation of the [[four-document hypothesis]]. "L" is the term for material unique to the Gospel of Luke.]] In [[textual criticism of the New Testament]], the '''L source''' is a hypothetical oral or textual tradition which [[Authorship of Luke–Acts|the author of Luke–Acts]] may have used when composing the [[Gospel of Luke]].<ref name="5GIntro">{{Cite book|last1=Funk|first1=Robert Walter|url=https://archive.org/details/fivegospelssearc0000unse|title=The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. New Translation and Commentary|last2=Hoover|first2=Roy W.|last3=Jesus Seminar|date=1993|publisher=HarperSanFrancisco|isbn=978-0-02-541949-0|pages=1–30|language=en|chapter=Introduction|author-link3=Jesus Seminar}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Jones |first=Brice |url=https://wipfandstock.com/store/Matthean_and_Lukan_Special_Material_A_Brief_Introduction_with_Texts_in_Greek_and_English |title=Matthean and Lukan Special Material: A Brief Introduction with Texts in Greek and English |publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-61097-737-1 |access-date=2012-02-01 |archive-date=2014-05-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531180933/https://wipfandstock.com/store/Matthean_and_Lukan_Special_Material_A_Brief_Introduction_with_Texts_in_Greek_and_English |url-status=dead }}</ref> Support for a distinct L source has largely faded in modern scholarship.<ref name=":0" />
== Composition == The question of how to explain the similarities among the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke is known as the [[synoptic problem]]. The hypothetical L source fits a contemporary solution in which Mark was the first gospel and Q was a written source for both Matthew and Luke. According to the [[four-document hypothesis]], the author combined [[Mark's Gospel|Mark]], the [[Q source]], and L to produce his gospel.<ref name="5GIntro" /> The material in L, like that in M, probably comes from the oral tradition.<ref name="5GIntro" /> [[I. Howard Marshall]] (1994) stated: "Luke rightly regarded these sources as reliable".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Marshall |first=I. Howard |title=New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition |date=1994 |publisher=Inter-Varsity Press |isbn=978-0-85110-648-9 |editor-last=Carson |editor-first=D. A. |pages=979 |language=en |chapter=LUKE. Introduction |display-editors=etal}}</ref>
[[James R. Edwards]] (2009) equated the L source with the [[Hebrew Gospel hypothesis|Hebrew Gospel]] referred to by [[Church Fathers|patristic authors]].<ref name="Edwards 2009">{{Cite book |last=Edwards |first=James |title=The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition |publisher=Eerdmans |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-8028-6234-1 |publication-place=Grand Rapids, Michigan |oclc=368048433}}</ref> His thesis has not been accepted by other scholars.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Friedrichsen |first=Timothy A. |date=2010 |title=Book review: The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition |url=https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7382_8043.pdf |journal=Review of Biblical Literature |archive-date=2015-09-23 |access-date=2020-08-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150923193749/http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7382_8043.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sweeney |first=James P. |date=2010 |title=Book review: The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition |url=http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7382_8044.pdf |journal=Review of Biblical Literature |access-date=2020-08-12 |archive-date=2020-10-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201027050954/https://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/7382_8044.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Kloppenborg |first=John S. |date=2011-04-14 |title=The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition (review) |url=https://muse.jhu.edu/article/422277 |journal=Toronto Journal of Theology |language=en |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=109–111 |doi=10.1353/tjt.2011.0000 |s2cid=144873030 |issn=1918-6371|url-access=subscription }}</ref>
== Contents == {{See also|Authorship of Luke–Acts#Language}}According to Honoré (1968), the unique material in the third Gospel amounted to 35% of that gospel.<ref name="Honoré">{{cite journal | first = A.M. | last = Honoré | title = A statistical study of the synoptic problem | journal = Novum Testamentum | volume = 10 | issue = 2/3 | pages = 95–147 | year = 1968 | doi = 10.2307/1560364 | jstor = 1560364 }}</ref> Theissen (1998) went further, stating that the special material comprises nearly half of the Gospel of Luke.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Theissen |first1=Gerd |title=The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide |last2=Merz |first2=Annette |date=1998 |publisher=Fortress Press |others=Translated from German (1996 edition) |isbn=978-0-8006-3123-9 |language=en |chapter=Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.}}</ref>
L includes the [[Annunciation]], the [[Visitation (Christianity)|Visitation]], the Lukan account of the [[virgin birth of Jesus]] (including the [[Adoration of the Shepherds]], the [[Circumcision of Jesus|Circumcision]] and [[Presentation of Jesus at the Temple]]), the [[Finding in the Temple]], many [[parables of Jesus]], and [[Jesus at Herod's court]]. Like [[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]]'s unique source, known as [[M source|M]], the L source has several parables such as the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]] (Luke 10:25–37) and the [[Parable of the Prodigal Son]] (Luke 15:11–32).<ref name="5GIntro" />
According to [[E. Earle Ellis]] (1999), the L source material exhibits the highest prevalence of [[Semitism (linguistics)|Semitisms]] [[Authorship of Luke–Acts|within the Luke–Acts corpus]], so that Semitic sources were probably at the basis of L source verses such as Luke 1:5–2:40; 5:1–11; 7:11–17, 36–50; 8:1–3; 9:51–56; 11:27f.; 13:10–17; 14:1–6; 17:11–19; 19:1–10; 23:50–24:53.<ref name="Ellis">{{cite book|last=Ellis |first=E. Earle |authorlink=E. Earle Ellis |title=The Making of the New Testament Documents |chapter=The Origin and Making of Luke-Acts |chapter-url=https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/9789004496842/back-3.pdf |location=Leiden |publisher=Brill |date=1999 |pages=387–388 |isbn=9780391041684}} (PDF)</ref> By contrast, the portions of the Gospel of Luke that parallel the contents of the Gospel of Mark represented 'a more polished Greek' than Mark's, and show fewer Hebraisms.<ref name="Ellis"/>
==Decline== The study of hypothetical pre-Gospel sources is declining in scholarship, with the tendency most visible with the M and L sources. Interest in L and proto-Luke virtually disappeared by the latter half of the twentieth century, though Paffenroth's 1997 monograph renewed interest.<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Foster |first=Paul |title=The Oxford Handbook of the Synoptic Gospels |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=978-0190887452 |quote= While the study of pre-Gospel sources has in general seen a waning of interest among scholars, this tendency is nowhere more pronounced than in relation to the two proposed early sources M and L, and the early intermediary stage of Proto-Luke. Given the importance of these three hypothetical sources in theories of the solution to the Synoptic Problem during the late nineteenth century and for most of the twentieth century, it is instructive to trace the emergence of these source-critical hypotheses, to discuss the reasons for the demise of adherence, and to consider whether anything of value endures from these earlier theories.}}</ref>
==See also== *[[Authorship of Luke–Acts]] *[[Criterion of multiple attestation]] *[[Mary, mother of Jesus]] *[[M source]] *[[List of Gospels]] *[[Marcion hypothesis]]
==References== {{Reflist}}
{{Gospel of Luke|state=expanded}} {{Synoptic problem}}
[[Category:Biblical studies]] [[Category:Synoptic problem]] [[Category:Hypothetical Bible sources]]