Structure and Literary Form
III. Purpose of the task: to establish the reliability of the tradition and the certainty of faith (1:4)
2. Saving Events That Create a Community of Faith
By referring to “eyewitnesses,” Luke affirms the Christian faith is rooted in historical reliability and not the imagined speculations or myths that characterized the contemporary mystery religions.43 They are historically verified and are made public to all, not just to initiates. But mere historical research is insufficient to bring certainty of the truth. It also requires
“theological understanding.”44 That these events occurred “among us”
(1:1) and were delivered “to us” (1:2) indicates that a community is created by these events and is the framework for understanding them. The community is the place where they have saving significance and power.
There can be no relationship to the saving God outside the witness of a faithful community. We cannot establish a relationship to God on our own.
The purpose of the gospel is to give not information but certainty that will change lives. Erudition about Jesus is not the same as insight into Jesus. The history of Jesus is not to be divorced from the proclamation about Jesus, as if the two were somehow incompatible.
Since Luke does not indicate that he is compiling his narrative for a particular community or that he is responding to a particular community crisis, it is best to understand the “us” to refer to all Christians. This story cannot be consigned to the distant past as if it has nothing to do with us.
1. George A. Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism (Chapel Hill, NC: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1984), 107.
2. I. J. du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke I.
1 – 4),” NovT 16 (1974): 262.
3. See Henry J. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface to Luke-Acts,” in The Beginnings of Christianity, Part One: The Acts of the Apostles; vol II;
Prolegomena II: Criticism (ed. F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake; Grand Rapids: Baker, repr. 1979), 489 – 510.
4. Aune, The Westminster Dictionary, 368.
5. Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 167.
6. I. Howard Marshall, “The Preface to Luke’s Gospel by L. Alexander,”
EvQ 66 (1994): 373 – 76.
7. David E. Aune, “Luke 1:1 – 4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (ed. A. Christopherson et al.; JSNTSup 217; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic, 2002), 142 – 44.
8. For other arguments that Luke intended to write history, not biography or a novel, see Terence Callan, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography,” NTS 31 (1985): 576 – 81; and David L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?” SwJT 33 (1990): 5 – 19.
9. Aune, “Luke 1:1 – 4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” 147.
10. It must be pointed out that Plutarch’s essay is an imaginary account, so using this kind of preface does not guarantee historical veracity.
Historical accuracy must be judged on other grounds. The point is that Luke’s preface serves as an aside that expresses his intention to write a trustworthy account.
11. John Marincola, Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997), 14.
12. Cadbury, “Commentary on the Preface to Luke-Acts,” 494.
13. du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke I. 1 – 4),” 263 – 64.
14. In his Against Apion, Josephus bitterly counters those who disparaged the veracity of his previous histories, Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, and defends his historical accuracy with language that appears in Luke’s preface: “Surely they ought to recognize that it is the duty of one who promises to present his readers with actual facts first to obtain an exact knowledge ( ) of them himself, either through having close touch with the events, or by inquiry from those who knew them” (Ag. Ap.
1.10 §53).
He also asserts that he was an “actor” in many of the events and an
“eyewitness” of most. Alexander (The Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 123) claims that the term “eyewitness” ( ) does not always have the same meaning in Greek historical writing as it does in English, in which it tends to mean someone who was physically present at an event. It is related to
“autopsy.” Daryl D. Schmidt (“Rhetorical Influences and Genre: Luke’s
Preface and the Rhetoric of Hellenistic Historiography,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy [ed. D. P.
Moessner; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999], 29) explains,
“The implications are more of having traveled to the original site of the event, after the fact, than actually having experienced the event first hand.”
But Josephus’s use of the term reveals that it also refers to someone who actually witnessed events.
15. Paul uses the same verb “delivered/passed on” ( ) for his source for the Last Supper account (1 Cor 11:23) and the resurrection (1 Cor 15:1 – 3).
16. The terminology is slippery. John (Mark) is identified as an
“assistant” or “helper” ( ) to Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:5. In Acts 26:16, Paul recounts his call when Jesus commissioned him as “a minister and witness” ( ). In 1 Cor 4:1, Paul describes himself as a
“servant” ( ) of Christ and a steward of the mysteries.
17. Richard J. Dillon, “Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue,”
CBQ 43 (1981): 215 – 16.
18. Karl A. Kuhn, “Beginning the Witness: The of Luke’s Infancy Narrative,” NTS 49 (2003): 237 – 55.
19. Wayne A. Meeks (“Assisting the Word Making [Up] History: Luke’s Project and Ours,” Int 57 [2003]: 159) notes that in John, the word became
“flesh”; in Luke, the word became the story of Jesus.
20. Vernon K. Robbins, “The Claims of the Prologues and Greco-Roman Rhetoric,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy (ed. D. P. Moessner; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), 83.
21. Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1922), 4. David P. Moessner (“ ‘Eyewitnesses,’ ‘Informed Contemporaries,’ and
‘Unknowing Inquirers’: Josephus' Criteria for Authentic Historiography and the Meaning of ,” NovT 38 [1996]: 105 – 22) argues that the verb does not mean “investigate” but to “follow with the mind.” He interprets it to mean that he “stayed actively informed” about events.
22. John Gillman, “The Emmaus Story in Luke-Acts Revisited,” in Resurrection in the New Testament: Festschrift Jan Lambrecht (ed. R.
Bieringer, V. Koperski, and P. B. Latare; BETL 165; Leuven: Leuven Univ.
Press, 2002), 172 – 73.
23. David L. Balch (“ … [Luke 1:3]: To Write the Full History of God’s Receiving All Nations,” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy [ed. D. P. Moessner;
Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999], 229 – 50) argues that the adverb “closely” is governed by the verb “to write” and it has the connotation of “fully.” Luke is not claiming to write an accurate account so much as he is compiling a full narrative that includes the speeches. Mark Janse (“L’importance de la position d’un mot ‘accessoire’ [à propos de Lc 1,3],” Bib 77 [1996]: 93 – 97) provides strong arguments, however, that the adverb is governed by the participle “followed.”
24. Josephus uses it to refer to “exact knowledge” and “accuracy” in reporting actual facts (Ag. Ap.1.53 §10; J.W. 1.1.6 §1; 1.1.17 §6).
25. Richard Longenecker, “Acts,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:
Luke-Acts (rev. ed.; ed. T. Longman and D. E. Garland; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2007), 10:672.
26. Robert C. Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 10.
27. David P. Moessner, “Reading Luke’s Gospel as Ancient Hellenistic Narrative: Luke’s Narrative Plan of Israel’s Suffering Messiah as God’s Saving ‘Plan’ for the World,” in Reading Luke: Interpretation, Reflections, Formation (ed. Craig Bartholomew, Joel B. Green, and Anthony C.
Thiselton; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 134.
28. If Luke had access to the theoretical Q as a written source, it was perhaps only an amorphous collection of Jesus' sayings and incidents from his ministry. If he also had Mark, Papias is said to have complained about that gospel’s lack of order. David P. Moessner (“The Appeal and Power of Poetics [Luke 1:1 – 4],” in Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke’s Narrative Claim upon Israel’s Legacy [ed. D. P. Moessner; Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1999], 118) notes that three key terms (“to compile,” “followed,” and “closely”) in Luke’s preface appear in Papias’s comparison of Mark and Matthew (Eusebius, Eccl. hist. 3.39.15 – 16). He contends that Luke’s “ ‘proper’ narrative … has set the standard for the critique.”
29. Schmidt, “Rhetorical Influences and Genre,”32.
30. Martin Völkel, “Exegetisches Verstöndnis des Begriffs im lukanischen Prolog,” NTS 20 (1973 – 74): 293.
31. Schmidt, “Rhetorical Influences and Genre,”31.
32. F. H. Colson, “Notes on St. Luke’s Preface,” JTS 24 (1923): 304.
33. See Peter M. Head, “Papyrological Perspectives on Luke’s Predecessors (Luke 1:1),” in The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday (ed. P. J. Williams et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 30 – 71.
34. Ibid., 34.
35. Origen (Hom. Luc. 1) believed that the name symbolically represented the addressees who are or would become “lovers of God.”
While this assumption that Luke expected that the readers would become
“friends of God” as Moses did (Exod 33:11; Philo, Moses 1.156) is true, ancient writers addressed a specific recipient in their dedication while assuming that their work would receive a wider readership.
36. B. H. Streeter (The Four Gospels [London: Macmillan, 1930], 559) suggests that it was the secret name of Titus Flavius Clemens, a great nephew of the Emperor Vespasian, who along with his wife, Domitilla, Vespasian’s granddaughter, may have converted.
37. Hengel, The Four Gospels, 102.
38. du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke I. 1 – 4),” 270. Steve Mason (Josephus and the New Testament [Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1992], 216) notes that philosophers used this term to describe their efforts: “Their goal was to provide a sure basis for ethical action.”
Plutarch (Superst. 171E) “distinguishes philosophy from superstition on the ground that only philosophy offers a way of seeing the world that is
‘secure.’ ”
39. See Aune, “Luke 1:1 – 4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” 142.
Comparisons with other historical prefaces reveals that Luke intended to write history not biography nor a novel (see Terence Callan, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography,” 576 – 81; and David L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel, or Political History?” 5 – 19).
40. Eduard Schweizer, The Good News According to Luke (trans. David E. Green; Atlanta, John Knox, 1984), 10.
41. Du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke I. 1 – 4),” 271.
42. George W. MacRae, “ ‘Whom Heaven Must Receive Until the Time’:
Reflections on the Christology of Acts,” Int 27 (1973): 151.
43. E. Earle Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 65.
44. du Plessis, “Once More: The Purpose of Luke’s Prologue (Luke I. 1 – 4),” 271.