ABSTRACT
This question implies that Luke knew that a Gospel had already been written. According to Gregory, there is ‘the very strong likelihood that Luke drew on written and/or oral traditions and the strong possibility (perhaps the probability) that Luke included in his narrative very little that was not known elsewhere’ (2005: 403). Gregory accepts the commonly held opinion that Luke drew ‘almost certainly’ from Mark and ‘very probably (or perhaps even most certainly)’ from Q (2005: 402). Nearly all scholars would accept this understanding of things, although there have always been a few who prefer that Luke also used Matthew. In any case, if Luke writes little that was not already known, then why does he bother to write at all?
