Does Luke 1:2 allude to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark?

For those of us who contend that Luke’s Gospel leveraged Matthew and Mark, it is helpful to carefully work through Luke’s prologue, where Luke speaks of the narratives of Jesus that were available prior to his own account. Within the text of Luke 1:2 there are interpretive options that potentially align with a Matthew-Mark-Luke publication sequence, options that may not be obvious if one simply defers to modern English translations and commentaries.

¹ Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, ² just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 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, ⁴ that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught. (Luke 1:1–4 ESV)

The following article considers two issues: (1) What comparison is being made between Luke 1:1 and 1:2; and (2) To whom does the reference to “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” refer?

WHAT COMPARISON IS BEING MADE BETWEEN LUKE 1:1 AND 1:2?

The conjunction that begins Luke 1:2, kathōs (commonly translated, “just as”), indicates that some kind of comparison or contrast is being recognized between (1) recent compilations of the Jesus narrative by the “many” (1:1) and (2) whatever had previously been “delivered” by the “eyewitness and ministers of the word” (1:2). Culy, Parsons, and Stigall explain that “the subordinating conjunction, kathōs, draws an analogy between the work of those who attempted to compose an account and those who had earlier passed on the tradition.”¹ Unfortunately, Luke does not clarify the nature of that which was previously delivered by the “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.” Therefore, stepping into this lack of clarity, Marshall asserts that, “Luke distinguishes between the writers of the Gospels and the apostolic eyewitnesses on whose testimony they were dependent.”² Similarly, Bock confidently declares that “a clear allusion” is being made “to the original oral level of the tradition” as delivered by the eyewitnesses and the subsequent narrative accounts.³

Yet, these views presuppose that the earlier “eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” themselves did not deliver Gospels, a perspective that I contend is not necessitated by the passage. To start with, it is important to observe that variants of the word used here for “delivered” (root: paradidōmi) can indeed refer to the delivery of authoritative written materials. Luke employs variations of this word to describe how Paul and his team “delivered (root: epididōmi) the letter” from the Jerusalem council to Antioch (Acts 15:30) and again later, to describe how soldiers from Jerusalem “delivered (root: anadidōmi) the letter to the governor” in Caesarea concerning Paul (Acts 23:33). In addition, contemporary writers such as Philo,⁴ Josephus,⁵ and Plutarch⁶ employed similar verbs concerning the delivery of documents. Thus, although Luke 1:2 does not definitively assert that written documents are in view or not, I suggest that we should be open to the possibility that Luke could have in view here materials such as Gospels, as being previously delivered by the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.

TO WHOM DOES THE REFERENCE TO “EYEWITNESSES AND MINISTERS OF THE WORD” REFER?

In the Greek text of Luke 1:2, the “just as (kathōs)” is immediately followed by “have delivered to us (paredosan hēmin).” These words have been adequately addressed above. However, there is also debate over the proper translation and interpretation of the balance of the verse, given its ambiguous structure. Karl Kuhn allows for “at least three plausible translations:

1. ‘from the beginning those who were eyewitnesses and those who were ministers of the word’ (viewing ‘eyewitnesses” and ‘ministers of the word’ as two separate groups.) …
2. ‘the eyewitnesses from the beginning (or ‘original eyewitnesses’) who became ministers of the word.’ …
3. ‘those who from the beginning were (both) eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.'”⁷

The first option, though a minority position per Kuhn, understands Luke as identifying two distinct groups who had each delivered something, while the second and third options understand Luke as referring to a single group who could be acknowledged as both eyewitnesses and ministers of the word.

Given my premise that Matthew and Mark were both leveraged by Luke, this first option is intriguing. Could Luke 1:2 be acknowledging Matthew (and his Gospel), as one who had been an eyewitness (autoptai) from the beginning (ref. Acts 1:21–22), and Mark (and his Gospel), as one who was a minister (hypēretai) of the word? Significantly, Luke specifically names John Mark as a hypēretēn (Acts 13:5), using the singular form of the noun. Note that while most English translations supplement Acts 13:5 to identify Mark as an assistant to his traveling companions, “and they had John to assist them” (ESV), the Greek text merely states that they had Mark as hypēretēn. My point being that Luke distinguishes Mark as having a specific role and title in Acts 13:5, perhaps akin to other hypēretēs who had literary skills, such as the hypēretēs handling the Isaiah scroll in Nazareth (Luke 4:20) and the various hypēretēs mentioned in Plutarch’ writings.⁸ Granted, hypēretēs was a term more broadly used in biblical and contemporary texts for officials and attendants (BDAG), whether or not a literary role was involved. However, on my premise that Mark had already published his Gospel prior to the publication of Luke, I see particular significance in Luke 1:2’s reference to “ministers of the word.”

But what about Kuhn’s other translation options, which are more popular among biblical scholars? A significant problem with both options two and three is that there is nothing in the sentence structure itself that definitively claims that the same people are in view, when eyewitnesses and ministers are being referenced.⁹ Many scholars leverage the plural article (the/oi) that stands at the beginning of the phrase to make the assertion that the “eyewitnesses (autoptai) and (kai) ministers (hypēretai)” should be understood as a singular collective group. For example, Bovon claims that, “The ‘eyewitnesses’ are the same as the ‘servants of the word’; since only one article (oi) appears in the text, it must refer to the same persons exercising two functions.”¹⁰ This approach appears to leverage the Granville Sharp rule, whereby it was found that singular nouns joined by kai refer to the same person, when following a singular article.¹¹ However, there are several conditions that limit the applicability of the rule; most significantly, that it does not apply to plural nouns! If plural nouns are involved, then some level of connection exists that may rise to the level of a common identity, but a common identity is not necessitated by the construct itself.¹² Furthermore, Wallace contends that in this particular passage, the article (oi) actually modifies (or substantizes) the following prepositional phrase (“from the beginning”/ap’ archēs), rather than pairing with the subsequent nouns (“eyewitnesses and ministers”), hence the article has no bearing on whether the nouns should be understood as referring to the same group or not.¹³ Culy, et al, make a similar observation, though pairing the article with a latter participle in the sentence (they were/genomenoi), rather than the prepositional phrase claimed by Wallace.¹⁴

The bottom-line is that any claim that Luke’s “eyewitnesses” and “ministers” must refer to a singular group, rather than to two groups (that may overlap), must be argued on some basis other than the immediate text at hand. Some scholars do in-fact make this argument based on various other passages where apostles are identified as witnesses and servants, such as Paul’s self-identification as an appointed “servant and witness (martys)” in Acts 26:16.¹⁵ Nevertheless, I suggest that Paul’s ability to wear both labels does not necessitate that the meaning of Luke 1:2 must also be restricted to a single group wearing both labels—especially since Paul himself would not fit within this Luke 1:2 group as “one who from the beginning” was an eyewitness!

SUMMARY

In summary, the text of Luke 1:2 leaves open the possibility that Luke may indeed have had the prior Gospels of Matthew and Mark in view, alongside other material both written and oral, produced by other eyewitness and ministers of the word. This perspective becomes particularly appealing if we presuppose the publication sequence and timing postulated in A Trustworthy Gospel and A Gospel for Cornelius.¹⁶

---

1. Mikeal C. Parsons, Martin Culy, and Joshua J. Stigall, Luke, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003), 2–3. ↩︎
2. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1978), 41–42. ↩︎
3. Darrell L. Bock, Luke: 1:1–9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), 58–59. ↩︎
4. For example, “when they arrived they delivered (root: anadidōmi) the letter.” Philo, Embassy 254; Philo, Philo: Volumes I-X, vol. 10, trans. F. H. Colson, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962). ↩︎
5. For example, “and [everyone] gives (root: didōmi) them letters to be carried to their familiar friends.” Josephus, Jewish War 7.353; Flavius Josephus, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged, trans. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987). Similarly, Josephus, Antiquities 7.136; 11.117, 122; etc. ↩︎
6. For example, “Alexander handed (root: epididōmi) him the letter.” Plutarch, Alexander 19.3; Plutarch, Lives, Volume VIII: Sertorius and Eumenes. Phocion and Cato the Younger, trans. Bernadotte Perrin, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres, 1919). ↩︎
7. Karl A. Kuhn, “Beginning the Witness: The Αυτοπται Και Υπηρεται of Luke’s Infancy Narrative,” New Testament Studies (Cambridge, UK) 49, no. 2 (2003): 237–38. ↩︎
8. A few other clear references to hypēretēs, as a literate servant or clerk, include Plutarch, Cato. Mi. 28.1; Art. 29.4; Caesar 65.1. See also B. T. Holmes, “Luke’s Description of John Mark,” Journal of Biblical Literature (Philadelphia, Pa) 54, no. 2 (1935): 63–72. ↩︎
9. Contra Marshall. I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1978), 42. ↩︎
10. François Bovon, Luke 1: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 1:1-9:50, trans. Christine M. Thomas, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2002), 21. Likewise, Robert H. Stein, “An Early Recension of the Gospel Traditions?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30, no. 2 (June 1987): 167–83, 174; Nicholas Perrin, Luke: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Westmont, IL: InterVarsity, 2022); Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and Notes, Anchor (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981), 294. ↩︎
11. Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 270–72. ↩︎
12. Ibid., 270. ↩︎
13. Daniel B. Wallace, Granville Sharp’s Canon and Its Kin: Semantics and Significance (New York, NY: Peter Lang, 2009), 142n14. ↩︎
14. Mikeal C. Parsons, Martin Culy, and Joshua J. Stigall, Luke, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2003), 3. ↩︎
15. For example, David E. Garland, Luke, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 53. Although, Garland recognizes the terminology as “slippery.” Ibid., 53n16. ↩︎
16. Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2024); Daniel B. Moore, A Gospel for Cornelius: Discovering Mark’s Affinity with Matthew (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2026). ↩︎

---

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)