Lukes Sources for his gospel & Acts

What are Luke’s sources & his stated method of production for Luke-Acts?
Luke clarifies his method of production utilizing a collection of sources for his two-volume work (Howell, vii-viii):

---

1. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of things that have been accomplished among us,...” (Luke 1:1). Luke admits that a series of accounts/records produced by other 2nd generation Christians were available at the time of his writing (60-70AD). Marcan priority, the widely accepted notion that Luke (and Matthew) used substantial portions of Mark's gospel (often times word-for-word) in composing his own, supports this claim (note: a significant number of scholars reject this theory for Lucan priority). Furthermore, the lost “Q” document (whether oral or written) would also be one of Luke's 2nd generation sources since both he and Matthew share nearly 230 verses that do not appear in Mark's gospel (Elwell, 802)1. However, these piecemeal accounts alone were inadequate for new believers such as Theophilus, to whom Luke addressed his two-volume work (Howell, vii).
   
   
2. “...just as those who from the beginning were eyewitness and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,...” (Luke 1:2). The remaining material in Luke's gospel, often labeled “L,” reference Luke's additional collected accounts from other eyewitness and servants of the word, both oral and written. The fact that Luke is the only gospel writer to include detailed accounts surrounding Christ's virgin birth “is one of the strong indications that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was a principal source of Luke's information found in the early chapter of his gospel” (Thomas/Gundry, 37 footnote)2. In addition, many New Testament scholars doubt that Luke would rely on any one person for his information to include: the disciples of John the Baptist, Manaen (an early disciple, Acts 13:1), Cleopas (Luke 24:18), and others (Elwell, 802).
   
   
3. “...it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus...” (Luke 1:3). Some have questioned the historical accuracy of Luke's accounts due to alleged discrepancies with the other gospels, but modern readers must remember that ancient historical records allowed for paraphrasing so long as it recorded what actually happened (and Luke was not present with Jesus to record His words), and none of the gospel accounts claim to tell the entirety of Christ's story (John 21:25)(Elwell, 803). Thus, modern readers may accept Luke's claims to make a careful historical investigation with sound criteria to distinguish between those accounts which are true/accurate and those that are fanciful/false (Howell, vii-viii), just as they would any other historian of antiquity.
   
   
4. “...that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:4). Despite Luke's statement of purpose, some scholars have proposed that Luke actually wrote to edify the church and promote his own theology. However, this claim can be made of all history writing, since historians are automatically interpreters by which themes they emphasize. So while Luke obviously would have had his own theology (in fact Luke is often described as a theologian of salvation history) it is illogical to conclude that Luke's accounts did not happen (Elwell, 803). Instead, Luke can be recognized for bringing multiple historical sources into an orderly account (though not strictly chronological) (Howell, viii), for the benefit of those who participate in salvation history.
   

• Howell Jr., Don N.. The Passion of the Servant. Eugene: Wipf & Stock - Resource Publications. 2009.
  
• Elwell, Walter. A.. Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. 1989.
  
• Thomas, Robert L.. Gundry, Stanley N.. The NIV Harmony of the Gospels. New York. Harper Collins. 1988.