The question now arises, Which author has copied from the other? Three theories are possible. 1. "James" copied the story from Luke, the companion of Paul. 2. James copied the story from "Luke," of a later date. 3. Luke copied from James. 1. Bishop Lightfoot is angry that an "evangelist" should be accused of copying from an "apocryphal gospel." But there is the difficulty here, that the Zacharias of both stories is plainly the Zacharias of the Talmudic narrative. So that, if the bishop could prove that "James" had stolen from Luke, there would still be an "apocryphal" document behind both. And if "Luke" was the first to use the Talmudic story, how is it that he misses the point of that story, and James copying him, hits it? That point is the avenging blood. 2. The details of the picture and the whole local colour point plainly to an age when past events have so faded away from the memory of living people that a writer can afford to play tricks with them. The huge animosity with which dominant Israel viewed spiritual Israel would have made even Torquemada feel lukewarm. Christ called the two the "wolves" and the "lambs." And yet a chief "wolf," on being informed that his son is to be a water-drinking Nazarite, a leader of the abominable schismatics who prated about the "power of Elias," and called themselves a "people prepared for the Lord," feels ecstasy rather than wrath. Imagine Philip of Spain learning that a son of his had helped to steer the English fire-ships at the great battle of Gravelines. Imagine Legree composing an original song of triumph on learning that Uncle Tom was a free citizen. If there was a historical Luke, and he was the genuine companion of Paul, he of all men would know of the "haling men and women and committing them to prison," of the "havoc and the slaughter." He would have known how the priestly party in Jerusalem would view a proposal to annul the eternal covenant of Yahve with a better, a more "holy covenant," and substitute remission of sins by penitence for remission of sins by the bloody sacrifice. 3. If the opening chapters of Luke are historical, many events in his own and the other gospels are plainly unhistorical. If John the Baptist was the cousin of Christ, brought up with him from childhood, how is it that he failed to recognise him on the Jordan (John i. 33) until the First Person of the Trinity intervened, and performed the miracle of sending down a dove to indicate him? Why, too, should he have sent, as Luke himself announces (vii. 19), messengers to his cousin to ask if he was the coming Messiah, when he must have known from his mother the announcement of the angels that his cousin was the "Son of the Highest," destined to "reign over Jacob for ever"? Why, too, did Mary, knowing all this, forget it when the boy-Christ disputed in the temple? and why did Luke forget it too? (Luke ii. 48.)