The Literature and History of New Testament Times

Alone among the Synoptists Luke gives his readers some direct information about the methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2. This information, which was barely touched upon in the Student's Text Book, must here be considered somewhat more in detail.

(1) Luke Not an Eyewitness from the Beginning.-From the prologue to the Gospel, Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events that he narrates-at least he was not an eyewitness "from the beginning."

(2) His Predecessors.-In the second place, it appears that he had had predecessors in his task of writing an account of early Christian history. Apparently, however, none of these previous works were produced by an apostle or by an eyewitness of the earthly ministry of Jesus. The previous writers, like Luke himself, were dependent upon the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The Gospel of Matthew, therefore, since it was written by an apostle, was not one of the works to which reference is made. This conclusion is amply confirmed by a comparison of Matthew with Luke. Evidently, at least, the two are entirely independent. If Luke refers to the First Gospel in the prologue, at any rate he made no use of it.

(3) Was Mark One of the Predecessors?-The Gospel of Mark, on the contrary, answers to the description of the previous works. It was written not by an eyewitness, but by one who listened to eyewitnesses. Perhaps, therefore, it was one of the many works to which Luke refers. If so, it may well have been used by Luke in the preparation of his own Gospel. This supposition is by no means excluded by a comparison of the two books. As a matter of fact, the great majority of modern scholars suppose that the writer of the Third Gospel made use of the Gospel of Mark. All that can here be asserted is that this view, though not required by what Luke says in his prologue, is perfectly consistent with it.

(4) Luke's Attitude Toward the Predecessors.-It should be observed that Luke attaches no blame whatever to the efforts of his forerunners. When he says that they had "taken in hand" or "attempted" to write accounts of certain things, he does not imply in the slightest that their attempts had been unsuccessful. He means simply to justify his own procedure by a reference to what had already been done. "My effort at writing an account of the origin of Christianity," he says in effect, "is no strange, unheard-of thing. I have had many predecessors." Such a reference to the work of predecessors was in antiquity a common literary form. At the very beginning of his work, Luke displays the effects of his Greek literary training.

Of course, however, although Luke attaches no blame to his predecessors, he would not have undertaken a new work if he had thought that the old satisfied all needs. Evidently he hoped to accomplish by his own book something that his predecessors had not accomplished or had accomplished only in part.

(5) The Subject of the Gospel.-Finally, therefore, Luke informs his readers what his own peculiar methods and purposes were. The main subject of the Gospel is not described with any definiteness in Luke 1:1-4, but it appears in the retrospect at the beginning of the second work. There the subject of the Gospel is designated as "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, until the day in which he was received up, after that he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit unto the apostles whom he had chosen." Acts 1:1,2. The subject of the Gospel, in other words, was the earthly life of Jesus.

(6) Completeness of the Narrative.-In treating this subject, Luke had striven, he says, Luke 1:3, first of all for completeness. In his investigations he had followed all things from the beginning. This feature appears plainly in the Gospel. Instead of beginning as Mark does, with the public ministry of Jesus, Luke first gives an account of the birth and infancy, and not content with that, he goes back even to events preceding the birth not only of Jesus, but also of his forerunner.

(7) Accuracy.-In the second place, Luke says that he had striven after accuracy. Here again the Gospel justifies the claim of its author. The effort after precision may be seen perhaps especially in such a passage as Luke 3:1,2, where there is an elaborate dating of the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry.

(8) Orderly Arrangement.-The effort at orderly arrangement, which forms a third part of the claim which the author makes, was, especially in the Gospel, limited by the material that was at hand. Evidently in Palestine in the early period, the memory of the earthly ministry of Jesus was preserved not in a connected narrative, but in isolated anecdotes. It was impossible, therefore, even for a historian like Luke to maintain a chronological arrangement throughout; where chronological arrangement was impossible he was obliged to be satisfied with an arrangement according to logical affinities. This logical method of arrangement, however, is not resorted to by Luke so much as by Matthew; and for considerable sections of his narrative he was able to gratify his historian's desire for recounting events in the order in which they happened.

(9) Luke a Historian.-Detailed examination of the prologue should not be allowed to obscure the outstanding fact that the sum of what Luke here attests is a genuine historical aim and method in the composition of his work. Of course, history in Luke's mind did not exist for its own sake. The Gospel of Luke is not a mere scientific dissertation. On the contrary, the history which is narrated was to the author a thing of supreme value. But it was valuable only because it was true. There is not the slightest evidence that Luke was a bad historian because he was a good Christian. On the contrary, he was a Christian just because he was a historian. In the case of Jesus, knowledge of the real facts is the surest way to adoration.

(10) Is Luke 1:1-4 a Prologue to both the Gospel and The Acts?-The first four verses of the Gospel of Luke may be taken as a prologue either to the Gospel alone or else to the entire work, including both the Gospel and The Acts. The latter view, since the subject is described in v. 1 only in very broad terms, is not to be rashly rejected. No doubt, however, in the prologue Luke was thinking especially of the former part of the work-the part for which he was dependent altogether upon the testimony of others. The first verses of The Acts link the two parts close together. Their connection has been obscured by the traditional arrangement of our New Testament books. But that arrangement is altogether advisable. The former part of the Lucan work certainly belongs among the Gospels; and of the Gospels the Gospel of John must certainly be placed last, as being supplementary to the others.