One of the greatest
ongoing debates in Biblical studies is the debate about how to explain the
common material between Matthew and Luke’s Gospel (see
Different theories
are considered. Assuming Luke and Matthew both used Mark’s Gospel as a source,
the most common explanations for the material common to Luke and Matthew are:
- Luke used Matthew
- Matthew used Luke
- Matthew and Luke used common oral traditions.
- Matthew and Luke used a separate undiscovered written source labeled Q, from the German Quelle, “Source.”
- Matthew and Luke used a combination of common oral traditions and Q (in this view, Q is much smaller).
My view is that 2.
above is possible. I date Luke soon after the end of Acts, so sometime in the early-mid
60s when the two works were complete. I prefer a date for Matthew later, so it
is possible Matthew used Luke. I could be wrong on this, and those who argue
for Matthew earlier and Luke later creates the possibility of Luke using
Matthew.
However, Luke
tells us that there were multiple writings about Jesus around at the time he
wrote (Luke 1:1–2). I presume he used some of them. One was clearly Mark. The other
may have been Matthew. Another possibility is the so-called Q.
Up until recently,
I was drawn to the view that where the Greek of Matthew and Luke are similar,
then we likely have a common written original source, i.e. Q. Whereas, where
there is divergent Greek, we have perhaps a different oral traditions.
Considering Acts
1:1–11 in relation to Luke 24 has made me rethink this and question the idea that
where there is strong verbal correspondence, we have Q and where not, we have
an oral source. In this passage, Luke is handling his own source; Luke 24.
Acts 1:1–11 is essentially a reworking of Luke 24. It is interesting to see how
free Luke is with his own source material.
This can be seen
when we look at the common material between Acts 1:1–11 and Luke 24
Acts 1:2/Luke
24:51
Acts 1:2: “the day
when he was taken up”— Luke 24:51: “While he blessed them, he parted from them
and was carried up into heaven.”
Acts 1:2/Luke
24:17, 19, 25, 36, 38, 41, 44, 46–49
Acts 1:2: “he had
given commands through the Holy Spirit”—the above Lukan references in which he
addresses the disciples after his resurrection.
Acts 1:3/Luke
24:26, 46
Acts
1:3: “After his suffering”—Luke 24:26, 46: “the Christ should suffer these
things;” “the Christ should suffer.” All three of these statements are summaries
of the Lukan account of his arrest, trial, beating, and crucifixion (Luke 22:47–23:49, cf. Luke 9:22; 17:25; 22:15; 24:46).
Acts
1:3/Luke 24:13–49
“by
many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom
of God”—see the whole section referenced above with appearances to Cleopas and
companion, Peter, and the disciples gathered together.
Acts
1:4–5/Luke 24:49
Acts
1:4–5: “And while staying with
them he ordered them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise
of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me; for John baptized with
water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now”—Luke
24:49: “And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in
the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”
Notably,
in Acts 1:5, Luke also blends into the promise a summary of Luke 3:16. Luke 3:16–17 reads as a whole (I have underlined the bits
in Acts 1:5 that summarize its content): I baptize you with water,
but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not
worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing
fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into
his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Luke then is blending
his own source in Luke 24 and 3:16 together in his summary.
Acts
1:6/Luke 24:21
Acts
1:6: “So when they had come
together, they asked him, “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to
Israel?”—Luke 24:21: “But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem
Israel.”
Acts 1:8/Luke 24:46–49
Acts
1:8: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you
will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end
of the earth”—Luke 24:46–49: “and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins
should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You
are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending the promise of my
Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on
high.”
Acts
1:9/Luke 24:50–51
Acts
1:9: “And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted
up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into
heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, “Men
of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up
from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”—Luke
24:50–51: “And he led them out as far as Bethany, and lifting up his hands he
blessed them. While he blessed them, he parted from them and was carried up
into heaven.”
Acts
1:12–14; 2:1, 46–47
Luke
24:52–53: “And they worshiped him and returned
to Jerusalem with great joy, and were continually in the temple blessing God—we
can see snippets from Acts 1 and 2 in these verses in the Gospel.
As we look at these
parallels it is clear Luke is drawing on his own source (assuming Luke was written
before Acts which is likely, see Acts 1:1). Yet, he feels free with his use of
them, drawing in Luke 24:52–53 from Acts 1 and 2; conflating, condensing, and
drawing on Luke 24 in different ways in Acts 1:1–11; while adding in a snippet from
Luke 3 and John the Baptist into Acts 1:4–5.
If Luke is so free
with his own source, then perhaps we have indication of how free he may have
been with Q (if it exists at all). It becomes perilous to assume where the Greek
is similar that we have evidence of a written source, and where it is not, it
may indicate an oral source. The common material at best tells us that there
may be a common written source.
Then again, if Luke
used Matthew, then the way he used it may have had the same freedom as with his
own source (especially if readers were familiar with Matthew as well).
Of course, we learn more about Luke's use of sources from his use of Mark. Also, Luke may have felt freer to use his own source more freely because Theophilus and the group he represents had access to Luke's Gospel. Anyway, comparing
Acts 1 with Luke 24 adds to our attempts to understand Luke's sources. It does not solve the Q dilemma, but it is another interesting
thread as we consider this ongoing question.
Comments