Moore Perspective: Luke’s Prologues and the Making of the NT Gospels

Although each Gospel is unique, all of them share a common historical-sociocultural-literary environment and were likely produced in a similar manner. The combined prefaces of Luke’s Gospel and its sequel provide insights into how the process worked and how these documents came to be.

Inasmuch as many attempted to compose a narration concerning matters having been accomplished among us,¹ as the eyewitnesses and attendants of the word from the beginning delivered to us, it seemed to me also, having investigated accurately all [things] in order from the first, to write to you most excellent Theophilus, so that you might fully know the certainty of [the] words concerning which you were [orally] instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)²

The first narration I composed concerning all [things], O Theophilus, which Jesus began both to do and to teach until the day he was taken up, having ordered through [the] Holy Spirit the apostles he chose, to whom he also presented himself alive after his suffering with many proofs through forty days having been seen by them, and speaking the [things] concerning the kingdom of God. (Acts 1:1-3)

In line with the prologues of contemporary Greek historians,³ “Luke inherited the high traditions of Greek historical writing,” and with the amount of verifiable data he includes,⁴ “he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy.”⁵ How counterproductive it would have been to leave himself susceptible to legitimate accusations of falsifying his record.⁶ Long before he penned the “we” sections of Acts, Luke opened his two-volume work on a personal note by including himself with first person address in respect to “matters having been accomplished among us … delivered to us … It seemed to me also …. The first narration I composed …” Luke holds himself accountable for what he writes. His purpose was to validate the information and record it “accurately” (Luke 1:3),⁷confirmed by “many proofs” (Acts 1:3).⁸ As a reputable historian he did not invent the stories he recounts but simply conveyed the facts from the evidence he uncovered.

The allusion to “many”⁹ who had “attempted to compose a narration” evinces written accounts.¹⁰ These previous writings were not necessarily inaccurate, just incomplete.¹¹ They were based on eyewitness testimony and “the word” that had been communicated, a clear reference to divine truth.¹²

The single article (οἱ) preceding “eyewitnesses” and “attendants of the word” seems to describe the same persons rather than distinct groups.¹³ In its only other occurrence in Luke’s Gospel, the noun ὑπηρέτης is used for a synagogue attendant who handled the sacred scrolls (Luke 4:20).¹⁴ In the prologue Luke applies it to servants or ministers or attendants of “the word” who were also eyewitnesses. Kenneth E. Bailey argues that not just anyone would have been authorized to publicly transmit the oral traditions about Jesus and his teachings. One had to be an eyewitness to qualify as ὑπηρέτης τοῦ λόγου. “Thus, at least through to the end of the first century, the authenticity of that tradition was assured to the community through specially designated authoritative witnesses.”¹⁵

Corroborated written accounts in conjunction with the oral testimonies of eyewitnesses, shared with Luke, Theophilus,¹⁶ and others, formed the basis of Luke’s composition, “having investigated accurately all [things] in order from the first …” The verbal παρακολουθέω, occurring only three times in the NT,¹⁷ conveys the literal sense of following closely (ESV) and the metaphoric sense of investigating (NASB). It involves a concerted effort to give attention to or thoroughly examine. Luke had “brought himself abreast of” the events about which he writes “by careful investigation.”¹⁸ The adverb καθεξῆς (“in order”), used only by Luke in the NT,¹⁹ can refer to logical, rhetorical, spatial, or chronological order (BDAG 490). A rhetorical ordering appears to be the sense here, according to how Luke arranges his material for persuasive effect.²⁰

The material collected and preserved was not ancient history but embodied the recent past, within the lifetime of his contemporaries.²¹ His research was comprehensive, having investigated “all,” not leaving a stone unturned. In his second volume, where he combined the history of the church with Jesus as one continuous story, he even recounted a number of things he personally witnessed and experienced himself (Acts 16:8-17; 20:5-15; 21:1-18; 27:1–28:16).²²

Luke’s own explanation of the process can be explicated even more, abuses notwithstanding, by academic disciplines such as Form Criticism (giving attention to oral reporting), Source Criticism (giving attention to written reporting), and Redaction Criticism (giving attention to the collection and arrangement of materials). Canon Criticism²³ takes this a step further in highlighting the fact that the Gospels were recognized in the early church as having been produced under the supervision of God’s Spirit and preserved through critical thinking and reasonable faith.²⁴

The Role of Divine Inspiration

Contrary to the mechanical-dictation concept of divine inspiration, which is not supported by biblical evidence and is clearly countered by the not-so-subtle variations among the Synoptics, Luke’s preface provides a clearer description of the process. Fairly early in the history of the church, the Gospel of Luke was regarded as “scripture” [γραφή] (1 Tim. 5:18)²⁵and therefore implicitly included in “all God-breathed [θεόπνευστος] scripture” (2 Tim. 3:16).²⁶

Luke did not receive through divine revelation the information recounted in Acts 16:11-17, for example, because he personally witnessed and experienced these events. Nevertheless, divine inspiration [θεόπνευστος] ensured that he recalled and reported these things correctly. The function of revelation was to provide the means through which God imparted facts and truths previously unknown, while inspiration was the means through which God ensured facts and truths were inerrantly conveyed. The preface of Luke’s Gospel shows that divine inspiration operated in conjunction with human processes.²⁷

The human element in scripture is evident in features such as first-person terminology, epistolary conventions (greetings, requests, etc.), varied linguistic styles and verbal expressions, and rhetorical techniques.²⁸ According to the collective testimony of the biblical documents themselves, the will of God has been disclosed through his Son and through human penmen, each of whom utilized his own background, resources, language, personality, and writing style, while supernatural governance ensured no mistakes were made in the process and that the recorded message was according to what God wanted communicated.²⁹ If all scripture is divinely inspired, then all scripture is necessarily infallible and inerrant.³⁰

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

¹ “The perfect passive of πληροφορέω leaves the reader asking an important question: what has been accomplished and by whom? Essentially, Luke’s Gospel sets out to answer that question by telling of God’s action and God’s self-revelation as the Father, the Son, and the Spirit” (J. Jackson, “The God Who Acts,” JETS 64.1 [2021]: 96).

² Author’s own translation, corresponding as closely as possible to the actual wording of the text as intelligible English translation allows.

³ B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction (4th ed.) 124-126; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 33-34; B. Witherington III, Acts of the Apostles 24-39.

⁴ Note, for example, Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-3; Acts 11:28; 18:2, 12; 24:27; cf. also Luke 23:1, 12; Acts 4:6; 5:34-37; 12:20-23; 13:7; 23:2; 24:1; 25:13. In Luke 3:1-2 alone, seven political figures and their territories are documented. In Acts there are references to thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands, plus the names of ninety-five people, sixty-two of whom are not named anywhere else in the NT (B. M. Metzger, The NT: Its Background, Growth, Content 171). “Luke points to evidence outside the Bible for believing what is inside the Bible” (T. Anyabwile, Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Luke 8, emp. in the text).

⁵ F. F. Bruce, NT Documents 81, 82, cf. also 93. On the alleged historical blunder of Luke 2:1-5, see K. L. Moore, “Luke’s Alleged Historical Blunder: Part 1,” Moore Perspective (16 Oct. 2019), <Link>; and “Part 2” (23 Oct. 2019), <Link>.

⁶ C. L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the NT 27-28.

⁷ The adverb ἀκριβῶς means “precisely,” “exactly,” “accurately,” “thoroughly” (Acts 18:25, 26; 23:15, 20; 24:22).

⁸ The noun τεκμηρίοις, used only here in the NT, is a technical term from logic, referring to that which causes something “to be known in a convincing and decisive manner, proof” (BDAG 994, italics in original).

⁹ The plural adj. πολλοί (“many”) does not necessarily imply profuseness but functions rhetorically to emphasize the importance of Luke’s work (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 2; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:291; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 37-38).

¹⁰ “The earliest Christians did not write a narrative of Jesus’ life, but rather made use of, and thus preserved, individual units—short passages about his words and deeds” (E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus 57).

¹¹ The verbal ἐπιχειρέω “does not imply the failure of previous attempts …. It is best, then, not to read any disparagement into Luke’s language, but rather to see it perhaps as a reference to the difficulty of the task” (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 2). See also J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 37. “Though ‘many’ have tried to write a narrative, only four have been recognized as Scripture” (T. M. Anyabwile, Christ-Centered Exposition: Exalting Jesus in Luke 10).

¹² Luke 4:32; 5:1; 6:47; 8:11-15, 21; 9:26; 10:39; 11:28; 21:33; 24:44; Acts 2:41; 4:4, 29, 31; 6:2, 4, 7; 8:4, 14, 25; 10:36, 44; 11:1, 19; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 26, 44, 46, 48-49; 14:3, 25; 15:7, 35-36; 16:6, 32; 17:11, 13; 18:5, 11; 19:10, 20; 20:7, 32.

¹³ J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:294. “Semantically, the two nouns portray this group as those who had firsthand knowledge of the events (αὐτόπται) and passed that knowledge on to others (ὑπηρέται … τοῦ λόγου)” (M. M. Culy, M. C. Parsons, and J. J. Stigall, Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text 3).

¹⁴ Elsewhere ὑπηρέτης is also applied to Christ’s immediate disciples (John 18:36), to John Mark (Acts 13:5), and to Paul along with the term “witness” [μάρτυς] (Acts 26:16).

¹⁵ “Informal Controlled Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels,” Themelios 20.2 (Jan. 1995): 10.

¹⁶ The verbal κατηχέω in Luke 1:4 refers to oral reporting or instruction (Acts 18:25; 21:21, 24; Rom. 2:18; 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6).

¹⁷ Luke 1:3; 1 Tim. 4:6; 2 Tim. 3:10.

¹⁸ A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke ICC 4.

¹⁹ Luke 1:3; 8:1; Acts 3:24; 11:4; 18:23.

²⁰ J. A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke 1:298-99; J. B. Green, The Gospel of Luke NICNT 38, 43-44.

²¹ A distinction can be made between “oral tradition,” which is usually anonymous and spans an extended period of time, and “oral history,” which includes eyewitnesses and is more current (see R. Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony 15-34, 202-204).

²² Luke shares much in common with the Greek historian, who often traveled to the places he writes about, observed the events he records, and presents a neutral account of the acts and persons he describes (see B. Witherington III, Acts of the Apostles 25-36). Colin Hemer, in his The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, views Luke’s writings according to the various methods of ancient historiography and identifies Luke as a traveling investigator in the same category as Polybius (cf. B. D. Ehrman, The NT: Historical Introduction [4th ed.] 124-26). Representative of other historical works of the time, “Editing can include clarification or unpacking that does justice to what actually happened. All Luke’s material can be thought of as redactional …. Something can be both redactional and historical” (C. L. Blomberg, “I. H. Marshall’s View of Redaction and History in Luke-Acts,” ETS 73rd Annual Meeting, 17 Nov. 2021).

²³ See esp. M. J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the NT Books (2012); cf. also C. L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (2nd ed.) 107-109.

²⁴ “It was not so much that the church selected the canon as that the canon selected itself…. The church’s role is not to establish what books constitute Scripture. Rather, the scriptural books make their own way by widespread usage and authority, and the church’s role is to recognize that only certain books command the church’s allegiance and obedience, and not others – and this has the effect of constituting a canon, a closed list of authoritative Scripture” (D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 735-41).

²⁵ The quotation is from Luke 10:7, though liberal critics might deny Luke as the source or dismiss the evidence by claiming the Timothy letters are pseudonymous. The early church would disagree: “the external attestation for the [Pastoral] Epistles … is as strong as that for most of the other Epistles of Paul, with the exception of I Corinthians and Romans” (D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 585-86).

²⁶ Variously rendered “inspiration of/inspired by God” (NASB, N/KJV, N/RSV), “breathed out by God” (ESV), “God-breathed” (NIV). As applied to the biblical writings, the term “does not imply a particular mode of inspiration, such as some form of divine dictation. Nor does it imply the suspension of the normal cognative (sic) faculties of the human authors,” although it would be “an error to omit the divine element from the term implied by theopneustos” (N. L. Geisler and W. E. Nix, General Introduction 33-34).

²⁷ The relation between divine and human collaboration probably varied among different genres, with the “scribal mode” of Luke involving “a complex contributory process” that included “the critical study and use of many sources” (L. I. Hodges, “Evangelical Definitions of Inspiration,” JETS 37.1 [March 1994]: 103-104).

²⁸ P. J. Achtemeier, Inspiration and Authority 20-21.

²⁹ J. I. Packer observes that God was “always adapting His message to the capacities of His chosen messengers that it never overran their powers of transmission, but within the limits set by their own mind, outlook, culture, language, and literary ability, could always find adequate and exact expression!” (God Has Spoken 100).

³⁰ The English word “scripture,” corresponding to the Greek γραφή in the NT, is a transliteration of the Latin scriptura with reference to “a writing” or “something written.” The above statement pertains to the divine message that has been transmitted and preserved in written form, irrespective of the plethoric, albeit insignificant, variants occurring throughout the extensive copying process (the concerted focus of textual criticism) that do not effectively change the message itself. Inerrancy means the Bible does not affirm or endorse error, whereas infallibility means the Bible, although transmitted by fallible human beings, is itself (in its original form) incapable of erring.