Appendix
on Lukan characteristics and sources – see also the full
paper and the summary and diagrams.
SOME FURTHER DETAILS CONCERNING LUKE
THE FOUR CHARACTERISTICS WHICH LUKE CLAIMS FOR HIS BOOK:
He has, he says, from the beginning investigated everything
accurately and written an orderly account.
(a) ἀνωθεν,
"from the beginning", indicates that in his investigation he has
traced back to the earliest happenings connected with the coming of Jesus. Thus
we see that in his Gospel he commences prior to the birth of John. What Luke
says here connects up with his earlier comment and suggests that
"investigating everything accurately from the beginning" involved him
in first-hand discussions with those who were "eyewitnesses from the
beginning”, both apostles and others.
(b) πασιν, "everything”, shows
the scope of his investigation. He wanted to find out all that could be known
about Christ's life and teaching Thus we see that Luke's Gospel commences at an
earlier point in time than any of the others, and carries through to a later
point in time, and includes a great deal of Jesus's teaching (especially in parables)
and a number of His miracles and other happenings which we do not find
elsewhere. Luke's interest in tracing the course of everything from the
beginning raises a question about the Markan Priority theory: Why would Luke
have omitted so much of the detailed information of Mark's Gospel if he used it
as his source? And in particular, why would he have left out completely a
number of Mark's pericopae, including the entire section Mark 6:45 to 8:26
("the Great Omission")? Advocates of Markan Priority have suggested a
number of possible explanations, in particular that Luke was not interested in
points of detail, that he already had stories rather similar to some that he
omitted, that he cut his Gospel to a length that would fit into a single roll,
that he considered some of Mark's material irrelevant or theologically
objectionable, and that the edition of Mark from which he was working lacked
the Great Omission. But the question is raised in an even more acute form if
one is forced to conclude (as many scholars do) that the most valid explanation
of much of the material which Luke shares with Matthew but not with Mark is
that Luke had access to Matthew's Gospel. If one seeks to avoid this problem by
saying that Luke had access only to some portions of Matthew this is in fact to
adopt a view similar in its essentials to the Progressive Publication
hypothesis. But the various other explanations virtually amount to a denial of
Luke's expressed interest in tracing every aspect of Christ's Life.
(c) ἀκριβως,
"accurately”, draws attention to the third of Luke's concerns - he is no
mere uncritical collector of traditions of untested veracity. He brought to
bear upon his work a critical judgement, assessing and weighing the traditions
he was able to collect, checking out his information and authenticating his
facts before including material in his Gospel. The other compilers of
narratives were, as we have seen earlier, engaged in assembling isolated (and
frequently quite short) traditions into a connected sequence. Now, it is
unreasonable to hold that Luke knew of the collections of material which others
had made, and refers to this other material, and yet did not look at these
narratives he mentions, and would then claim to have checked out “everything”. But
in the nature of the case his statement that he investigated everything
would of necessity mean that he became involved in an evaluation of the
order
into which these others cast their pericopae. That is to say, "an
accurate investigation of everything" inevitably involves the question of
the order in which he is going to assemble his material, from all his sources,
and thus of the order in which events took place. Which in fact is the next
aspect that Luke mentions.
(d) καθεξης, "in
order", underlines Luke's concern with this question of sequence
of events. The commentators are divided as to whether
καθεξης indicates chronological order or
means some other kind of order. To a significant extent their opinion on this
point correlates with their overall conclusion as to whether Luke's Gospel does
or does not set out everything in chronological order (or whether, for
instance, Mark is to be regarded as more chronologically accurate where it
diverges from Luke). I think it is reasonable to say that καθεξης
may
mean “chronological order” but does not necessarily do so: the
kind of order that is meant is best ascertained by looking at the actual
contents of Luke.
It is to be noted how, throughout his Gospel, Luke shows a
constant concern with questions of the time, place, and sequence of the events
he records. This is shown in the dating of the commencement of his account
(1:5; 3:1-2), his giving of the best estimate of Jesus's age which he had been
able to find (1:23), and the way in which virtually every separate incident he
records is linked with the previous one by some note of time and place
transition. And where he cannot ascertain this information, he says so: for
example, 5:12, "While he was in one of the cities'; 5:17, "On one of
those days"; 13:10, “Now he was teaching in one of the synagogues on the
sabbath”. All in all, it seems to me that the evidence in Luke's Gospel itself
indicates that he intended to write in chronological order to the extent to
which, in his investigations, he was able to discover what that order was. He
may or may not have succeeded in his intention at all points and this is a
matter open for further investigation and discussion (there are for instance a
few places where I think Matthew's order is clearly to be preferred), but there
is good reason for taking καθεξης in 1:3 to
be a statement of Luke's plan to give a chronological account.
The significance of Luke's fourfold claim - that he
investigated and traced the course of everything accurately from the beginning,
and wrote his account of everything in order - is reinforced by his final comment.
He is writing so that Theophilus may be enabled to know for certain (ἐπιγινωσκω)
the truth, the reliability, and the certainty (all conveyed by the word ἀσφαλεια)
of the λογοι of which he had been informed. Luke is
giving an assurance to Theophilus (and of course other readers) that the
account which he has produced can be depended upon completely to convey the
message of which they had heard. This indicates the measure of Luke's confidence
that in what he had written he had carried through the standards and the
program which he set out in the previous verse.
So we may conclude, I suggest, that while Luke was in
Palestine he collected the material for his Gospel, and took it with him to
Rome.
THE MATERIAL WHICH
LUKE USED IN HIS GOSPEL COMPRISED:
(a) Numerous pericopae of varying
lengths which had originally been written by Matthew: some of which Matthew
wrote in Greek, and some of which he originally wrote in Aramaic (i.e., the
λογια to which Papias referred). Of those in Aramaic,
numbers were translated into Greek by Luke himself for inclusion in his Gospel;
while other accounts that Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic had already been
translated by others into Greek, for the use of Greek-speaking Christians,
before Luke came across them;
(b) Numerous pericopae of varying
lengths written by others again, some probably in Aramaic (and translated by
Luke), and some in Greek.
(c) Copies of written (but unpublished) notes made of various
teachings and incidents by some who were present at the time. The existence of
such eyewitness notes, privately preserved, is conjectural, I acknowledge, but
I consider that when Gerhardsson suggests (pp.201f.) the existence of
"notebooks in codex form which contained notes of gospel material at an
early stage in the history of the Church”, he has probability on his side. Many
who were deeply impressed by what they heard and saw during the ministry of
Jesus would have been motivated to preserve a record of it - I think the
argument has been overstated that in the first century people all had such
excellent memories that even those who could write would not trouble to write
down those things that they wanted to remember accurately and permanently.
During his research for his Gospel, Luke would have had ample opportunity to
learn about the existence of such private records, and to track them down in
order to copy them.
(d) Oral tradition not committed to writing prior to the
time Luke himself recorded it.
(e) Information which Luke was himself able to obtain in
Palestine through his own investigation and interviews (including details of
time, place, circumstances, response, and so on).
Appendix
on Lukan characteristics and sources – see also the full
paper and the summary and diagrams.