Using the tenet of literary criticism that ‘a writer’s use of sources and his or her purpose’ for writing are vitally linked, Barbara Shellard, in New Light on Luke, attempts to show that Luke had available a much larger corpus of source material than most scholars concede and that we can gain much information from the manner in which that material is presented (13). She claims that we can infer much of ‘[Luke’s] interests and his overall purpose’ by attending to his literary context (14).
Shellard places Luke-Acts within the bounds of ancient historiography. In other words, Luke-Acts as a ‘history’ adheres to historical detail but with emphasis on persuasion and plausibility rather than exact duplication of actual events. Luke considers himself a historian in the manner of ancient historians (20). As such, Luke was primarily a rhetorician, aiming ‘to convince the reader of the truth of [his] account of events’ (19).
In addition to genre, Shellard considers such aspects of the Gospel as date (c. CE 100), place of composition (Rome), and intended audience (increasingly Gentile). All of the evidence, however, she finds inconclusive. More substantive is her critique of the Griesbach and (primarily) the two-source hypotheses. She concludes that neither is correct; yet an approach that modifies but does not oversimplify the two-source hypothesis should be taken. For Shellard, ‘a significant part of the “synoptic problem” is solved if we accept that Luke knew and used Matthew as well as Mark … the Q hypothesis in its full form is unnecessary’ (83). This, however, is not to imply that Luke did not have access to other sources as well. In particular she believes that Luke shows strong affinity with the Johannine tradition (i.e. John’s Gospel, Revelation, and the Johannine epistles) and may have drawn on this tradition for source material.
Shellard begins her assessment with Luke’s travel narrative (Luke 9:51–14:35; 15:1–19:27). Three main points emerge from her commentary: (1) Luke exhibits connections to the Johannine tradition in varying degrees of similarity, (2) the material is most often arranged according to theme, and (3) there exists the need for a more flexible understanding of literary dependence in the Lukan corpus, particularly regarding eschatology and wealth as part of the wider inattention to the uniqueness of Lukan apocalyptic (according to C. Rowland, 149) and its relation to the Johannine tradition.
Based on her examination of verbal links, manuscript evidence, and the authenticity of Luke 24:12, Shellard concludes that Luke is secondary to John. She, however, quickly makes the concession that ‘it is hardly ever possible to be sure which came first’ (258). Whether her conclusion can be regarded as a step forward on this question is doubtful to this reviewer, given the research of D.M. Smith, which she notes (259). Rather than providing conclusivity as to the nature of the relationship of Luke to John, the strength of the conclusion lies with one of her overall aims—Luke’s sources are indeed many, not least of which is the Lukan motive itself.
For Shellard, Luke has a certain interpretive strategy and uses his sources according to this strategy. Her overall conclusion, in accord with that of E. Franklin, is that Mark ‘was the Gospel [Luke] knew best and valued most; his reaction to Matthew and John was much more critical and his use of them accordingly more sparing and hence less immediately apparent’ (288). For Shellard, truth, according to a specific purpose, is the result of Luke’s Gospel.
