The Title of the Gospel
Luke 1:1-4. The Prologue or Preface
The classical style of this opening, and its similarity to the. prefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, hardly amount to proof that Lk. was well read in classical literature, and consciously imitated Greek historians;
but there is nothing improbable in this supposition. Among the words which are classical rather than biblical should be noticed ἐπειδήπερ, ἐπιχειρεῖν, ἀνατάσσεσθαι, διήγησις, καθεξῆς. The construction also is classical, and in no way Hebraistic. We have clauses idiomatically interlaced, not simply co- ordinated. The modest position claimed by the writer is evidence of his honesty. A forger would have claimed to be an eye-witness, and would have made no apology for writing. Ewald remarks that “in its utter simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it is the model of a preface to an historical work.” Its grammatical construction should be compared with that of the preface to the synodical epistle in Act 15:24, Act 15:25: Ἐπειδὴ ἠκούσαμεν … ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν.
This prologue contains all that we really know respecting the composition of early narratives of the life of Christ, and it is the test by which theories as to the origin of our Gospels must be judged. No hypothesis is likely to be right which does not harmonize with what is told us here. Moreover, it
shows that an inspired writer felt that he was bound to use research and care in order to secure accuracy.
1. Ἐπειδήπερ. A stately compound, suitable for a solemn opening: freq. in class. Grk., but not found in LXX, or elsewhere in N.T. Quoniam quidem,
“For as much as,” Weil denn einmal.
πολλοί. The context seems to imply that these, like Lk., were not eye- witnesses. That at once would exclude Mt., whose Gospel Lk. does not appear to have known. It is doubtful whether Mk. is included in the πλλοί.
The writers of extant apocryphal gospels cannot be meant, for these are all of later origin. Probably all the documents here alluded to were driven out of existence by the manifest superiority of the four Canonical Gospels. The ἐπεχείρησαν cannot imply censure, as some of the Fathers thought, for Lk.
brackets himself with these writers (ἔδοξε κἀμοί); what they attempted he may attempt. The word occurs 2 Mac. 2:29, Mal 2:7:19; Act 9:29, Act 9:19:13; and is freq. in class. Grk. in the sense of “put the hand to, take in hand, attempt.” The notion of unlawful or unsuccessful attempting is sometimes implied by the context: it is not contained in the word. Luther renders unter wunden haben, “have ventured.” Lk. must have regarded these attempts as insufficient, or he would not have added another. Meyer quotes Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer), ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτον πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. It is doubtful whether ἐπιχειρ. necessarily implies a great undertaking.
ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν. “To draw up again in order a narrative”; i.e. to arrange afresh so as to show the sequence of events. The verb is a rare one, and occurs elsewhere only Plut. Moral p. 969 C, De sollert. animal. xii.
(Reiske, x. p. 36), in the sense of “practise, go over again in order,” Iren. iii.
21 2, and as v.l. Ecc 2:20. The subst. implies something more than mere notes or anecdotes; “a leading through to the end” (durchführen),“a
narrative” (Ecclus. 6:35, 9:15 ; 2 Mac. 2:32, Mal 2:6:17 ; Plat. Rep. 392 D;
Arist. Rhet. iii. 16, 1).
Versions vary greatly: ordinare narrationem (Latt.), componere narrationem (Beza), stellen die Rede (Luth.), “ordeyne the telling” (Wic.), “compyle a treates” (Tyn.), “set forth the words” (Cov.), “set forth the declaration”
(Cran.), “write the historie” (Gen.), “compile a narration” (Rhem.), “set forth in order a declaration” (AV.), “draw up a narrative” (RV.), composer une narration suivie (Godet), coordonner en corps de récit (Lasserre),
“restore from memory a narrative” (Blass).
τῶν πεπληροφορημένων. “Of the things which have been carried through to the end, of the matters which have been accomplished, fully established.”
Here again English Versions differ much; but “surely known” (Tyn.),
“surely to be believed” (Cran.), “surely believed” (AV.), cannot be justified.
The verb when used of persons may mean “persuade fully, convince,” and in pass. “be fully persuaded” (Rom 4:21, Rom 14:5) ; but of things it means
“fulfil” (2Ti 4:5, 2Ti 4:17). Here we may render “accomplished.” Others less well render “fully proved.” See Lightfoot on Col 4:12. The ἐν ἡμῖν probably means “among us Christians.” Christendom is the sphere in which these facts have had their full accomplishment. The ἡμῖν in ver. 2 shows that contemporaries are not meant. If these things were handed down to Lk., then he was not contemporary with them. The verse is evidence that the accomplished facts were already fully established and widely known, for they had already been narrated by many. See Westcott, Intr. to Gosp. p. 190, 7th ed.
2. καθὼς παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν. “Even as they delivered them to us.” The difference between ὡς, “as,” and καθώς, “just as,” should be marked in translation : the correspondence was exact. Lk. implies that he himself was among those who received the tradition. Like the πολλοί, he can only
arrange afresh what has been handed down, working at second hand, not as an eye-witness. He gives no hint as to whether the facts were handed down orally or in writing. The difference between the πολλοί and these αὐτόπται is not that the πολλοί wrote their narratives while the αὐτόπται did not, but that the αὐτόπται were primary authorities, which the πολλοί were not.
ὑηρέται γενόμενοι τοῦ λόγου. They not only had personal knowledge of the facts (αὐτόπται) they also had practical experience of the effects. They had preached and taught, and had thus learned what elements in the Gospel were of most efficacy for the winning and saving of souls. That τοῦ λόγου belongs to ὑπηρέται only, not to αὐτόπται and means “the doctrine,” i.e. the Gospel (Act 6:4, Act 8:4, Act 14:25, Act 16:6, Act 17:11), is manifest from the context. Origen and Athanasius are wrong in making τοῦ λόγου mean the personal Word, the Son of God, a use which is peculiar to Jn. The ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς refers to the beginning of Christ’s ministry. (Joh 15:27, Joh 16:4).
For ὑπηρέτης see on 4:20 and comp. Act 13:5.
3. ἔδοξε κἀμοί. This is the main sentence, the apodosis of ἐπειδήπερ πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν. It neither implies nor excludes inspiration: the ἔδοξε
may or may not have been inspired. The wish to include inspiration caused the addition in some Latin MSS. of et spiritui sancto (Act 15:28), which makes what follows to be incongruous. With ἔδοξε comp. the Muratorian Fragment: Lucas iste medicus … nomine suo ex opinione conscripsit—
Dominum tamen nec ipse vidit in carne—et idem, prout assequi potuit, ita et a nativitate Joannis incepit dicere. The κἀμοί shows that Lk. does not blame the πολλοί: he desires to imitate and supplement them. It is their attempts that encourage him to write. What they have done he may do, and perhaps he may be able to improve upon their work. This is his first reason for writing a narrative. See Blass, NT. Gram. p. 274.
παρηκολουθηκότι. This is his second reason for writing, making the
argument á fortiori. He has had special advantages and qualifications; and therefore what was allowed to others may be still more allowed to him.
These qualifications are fourfold, and are told off with precision. In the literal sense of “following a person closely so as to be always beside him,”
παρακολουθεῖν does not occur in N.T. Here it does not mean that Lk. was contemporaneous with the events, but that he had brought himself abreast of them by careful investigation. Comp. the famous passage in Dem. De Cor. cap. liii. p. 285 (344), παρηκολουθηκότα τοῖς πράγμασιν ἐξ ἀρχῆς:
also De Fal. Leg. p. 423.
ἄνωθεν. This is the first of the four qualifications: he has gone back to the very beginning, viz. the promise of the birth of the Forerunner. “From the first” is the meaning of ἄνωθεν here, not “thoroughly,” radicitus, as in Act 26:5, which would make ἄνωθεν almost the same as πᾶσιν. Vulg. has a principio, and d has desusum (comp. the French dessus). It is the πᾶσιν which implies thoroughness; and this is the second point. He has begun at the beginning, and he has investigated everything. The Syriac makes πᾶσιν masc., but there is little doubt that it is neut., and refers to πραγμάτων in ver. 1.
ἀκριβῶς. This is the third point. He has done all this “accurately.” There is no idle boast in any one of the three points. No other Gospel gives us this early history about the Baptist and the Christ. No other is throughout so full, for of 170 sections contained in the synoptic narrative 48 are peculiar to Lk.
And, in spite of the severest scrutiny, his accuracy can very rarely be
impugned. We cannot be sure whether he means to imply that ἀκριβῶς was not true of the πολλοί, but we may be sure that none of them could claim all three of these points. In any case we have an inspired historian telling us in his inspired writings that he is giving us the results of careful investigation.
From this it seems to follow that an inspired historian may fail in accuracy if his investigation is defective.
καθεξῆς. This is the fourth point, resulting from the other three. He does not propose to give a mere collection of anecdotes and detached sayings, but an orderly narrative systematically arranged. Chronological order is not necessarily implied in καθεξῆς, but merely arrangement of some kind.
Nevertheless, he probably has chronological order chiefly in view. In N.T.
the word is peculiar to Lk. (8:1; Act 3:24, Act 11:4, Act 18:23), as is also the more classical ἑξῆς (7:11, 9:37, etc.); but ἐφεξῆς does not occur.
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε. The epithet κράτιστος, often given to persons of rank (Act 23:26, Act 24:3, Act 26:25), is strongly in favour of the view that Theophilus was a real person. The name Theophilus was common both among Jews (= Jedidiah) and among Gentiles. But it was a name likely to be used to represent any pious reader. See Lft. on “Acts,” D. B.2 pp. 25, 26.
The word κράτιστος occurs in N.T. only here and in the Acts, where it is evidently a purely official epithet, for the persons to whom it is applied are of bad character. See Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 19 for the name.
4. ἴνα ἐπιγνῷς περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. “In order that thou mightest fully know the certainty concerning the words wherein thou wast instructed.” The λόγοι are not the πράγματα or historic facts, but the details of the λόγος or Gospel (ver. 2), which “ministers of the word” had communicated to Theophilus. The compound ἐπιγνῷς indicates additional and more thorough knowledge. It is very freq. in Lk. and Paul: see esp.
Rom 1:28, Rom 1:32 ; 1Co 13:12 ; Lft. on Col 1:9; Trench, Syn. lxxv. In N.T. κατηχεῖν, “to sound down into the ears, teach orally,” is found only in Lk. and Paul. The position of τὴν ἀσφάλειαν gives it solemn emphasis.
Theophilus shall know that the faith which he has embraced has an impregnable historical foundation. Hastings, D.C.G. ii. p. 726.
The idiomatic attraction, περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων, is best resolved into περὶ τῶν λόγων οὓς κατηχήθης, not περὶ τῶν λόγων περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης.
Only of persons does περί τινος stand after κατηχεῖν (Act 21:21, Act 21:24): of things we have the acc. (Act 18:25 ; Gal 6:6). These attractions are very freq. in Lk. See Blass, Gr. p. 170.
On the superficial resemblance between this preface and Jos. Con. Apion. i.
9, 10, see Godet, i. pp. 92, 93, 3ème ed. 1888. The resemblance hardly amounts to remarkable coincidence, and such similarities are common in literature. It is more interesting to compare this preface with that of the medical writer Dioscorides. The opening words of Dioscorides’ treatise, περὶ ὄλης ἰατρικῆς, run thus: Πολλῶν οὐ μόνον ἀρχαίων, ἀλλὰ καὶ νέων συνταξαμένων περὶ τῆς τῶν φαρμάκων σκευασίας τε καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ δοκιμασίας, φίλτατε Ἀρεῖε, πειράσομαί σοι παραστῆσαι μὴ κενὴν μηδὲ ἄλογον ὁρμὴν ἐσχηκέναι πρὸς τήνδε τὴν πραγματείαν. The date of
Dioscorides Pedacius is uncertain; but, as Pliny does not mention him, he is commonly assigned to the first or second century a.d. He is said to have been a native of Anazarbus in Cilicia, about fifty miles from Tarsus; and in that case he would almost certainly obtain his medical knowledge in the great school at Tarsus. That he and S. Luke may have been there at the same time with S. Paul, seems to be a not impossible conjecture. The treatise περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς, commonly attributed to Hippocrates (c. 460-350 b.c.), begins; Ὁκόσοι ἐπεχείρησαν περὶ ἰητρικῆς λέγειν ἢ γράφειν, κ.τ.λ.