So far as Paul deviates from the common Jewish view, it is in the direction of disparaging the Law as essentially imperfect.

May it not seem that his remaining attachment to it was still exaggerated by old sentiment and patriotism?
I farther found that not only do the Evangelists give us no hint that they thought themselves divinely inspired, or that they had any other than human sources of knowledge, but Luke most explicitly shows the contrary.

He opens by stating to Theophilus, that since many persons have committed to writing the things handed down from eye-witnesses, it seemed good to him also to do the same, since he had "accurately attended to every thing from its sources ([Greek: anothen])." He could not possibly have written thus, if he had been conscious of superhuman aids.

How absurd then of us, to pretend that we know more than Luke knew of his own inspiration! In truth, the arguments of theologians to prove the inspiration (i.e.infallibility) of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are sometimes almost ludicrous.

My lamented friend, John Sterling, has thus summed up Dr.Henderson's arguments about Mark.