Luke’s Relation to Earlier Sources
Luke’s Relation to Earlier Sources
One of the Gospels, Luke, openly attests to the existence of a number of sources available before he wrote. Luke’s original prologue (Lk 1:1-4) probably introduces the entire two-volume work,35 although not necessarily every statement covers every section of his work equally. At least for his Gospel, Luke claims the availability of “many”36 written documents covering the same events that he covers (Lk 1:1). Some of these documents were probably among his sources;37 certainly they were not all written at once, and those he mentioned wrote before him, though we cannot say how early the first narratives were.38
Did Luke find most such first-generation sources about Jesus trustworthy or suspect? Luke’s mention of these earlier works does not denigrate their information. Historians often cited inadequacies in earlier writers as reasons for writing,39 though some explicitly disclaimed such reasons.40 Some rhetorical critics also offered this claim of unique superiority for select historians before their time.41 Many think that Luke thus finds fault with the work of his predecessors; thus elsewhere in Luke’s work, a cognate to asphaleia in Lk 1:4 can address distinguishing truth among “competing claims” (Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26).42
But Luke’s language is far less harsh than that of writers who genuinely criticized their predecessors, and need not imply that he is claiming that they lacked eyewitness sources that he has.43 Some writers noted that they simply had a fresh perspective to add to the work of their predecessors.44 Another writer could claim to prefer even his predecessors’ style to his own, but to regard his own selectivity as an improvement;45 or note that he has nothing new to add in terms of information, but offers it in a different way.46
Luke departs from the work of his predecessors not primarily in terms of accuracy of information but instead in terms of rhetorical superiority:47 in 1:3, he promises kathexēs, which was the proper sequencing of events in terms of cause and effect, necessary to an accurate account.48 The term need not specify chronological order, but rather logical and persuasive order;49 for a history, however, logical order would include as much chronology as possible. Luke does in fact follow Mark’s sequence closely, with two major exceptions.50 In contrast to some other genres (usually including biography),51 history should be written sequentially,52 though often allowing for completing narratives begun at different times.
Other elements of Luke’s prologue may point to a claim of either rhetorical or factual excellence. Some argue that his language in Lk 1:3 involves only literary completeness, providing an explanation for events.53 While this reading of Luke 1:3 is possible, Luke’s use of akribōs elsewhere could suggest accuracy instead of or in addition to completeness; accuracy was also part of the term’s nuance, 54 including in Luke-Acts.55 The term can suit an “exact” account elsewhere. 56
Luke’s rhetorical superiority to earlier Gospels of his day (though not to elite historians) is likely: as a comparison with our other extant Gospels may confirm, his Gospel is far closer to the general vein of extant Greco-Roman historiography. Nevertheless, his research and arrangement did not lead him to depart substantially from the facts of his predecessors; he saw his purpose as confirmatory (Lk 1:4). Their nearness in basic substance may reflect the relatively recent nature of the events they report.