The Literature and History of New Testament Times

methods of his work. Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1,2. This information, which was barely touc

Luke 1:1-4, it appears, in the first place, that Luke was not an eyewitness of t

itness 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 w

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 majori

ot 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,

n a new work if he had thought that the old satisfied all needs. Evidently he hoped to accomplish by

e 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

owed 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 g

ustifies the claim of its author. The effort after precision may be seen perhaps especially in such a pa

s 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 arrangeme

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. Ther

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 ha