Luke 1:2-4

“ Since, as is known, many have undertaken to compose a narrative of the events which have been accomplished amongst us, (2) in conformity with that which they have handed down to us who were eye-witnesses of them from the beginning, and who became ministers of the word, (3) I have thought good also myself, after carefully informing myself of all these facts from their commencement, to write a consecutive account of them for thee, most excellent Theophilus, (4) in order that thou mightest know the immoveable certainty of the instructions which thou hast received. ”

This period, truly Greek in its style, has been composed with particular care. We do not find a style like it in all the New Testament, except at the end of the Acts and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. As to the thought of this prologue, it cannot be better summed up than in these lines of Tholuck: “Although not an immediate witness of the facts that took place, I have none the less undertaken, following the example of many others, to publish an account of them according to the information I have gathered.”

The conjunction ἐπειδήπερ is found nowhere else in the New Testament; it has a certain solemnity. To the idea of since (ἐπεί), δή adds that of notoriety: “since, as is well known;” περ draws attention to the relation between the great number of these writings and the importance of the events related: It is so (δή), and it could not be otherwise (περ).

The relation between the since thus defined and the principal verb, I have thought good, is easy to seize: If my numerous predecessors have not been blamed, why should I be blamed, who am only walking in their steps?

The term ἐπεχείρησαν, have undertaken, involves no blame of the skill of these predecessors, as several Fathers have thought; the I have thought good also myself is sufficient to exclude this supposition. This expression is suggested by the greatness of the task, and contains a slight allusion to the insufficiency of the attempts hitherto made to accomplish it.

The nature of these older writings is indicated by the term ἀνατάξασθαι διήγησιν, to set in order a narrative. It is a question, as Thiersch says, of an attempt at arrangement. Did this arrangement consist in the harmonizing of a number of separate writings into a single whole, so as to make a consecutive history of them? In this case, we should have to admit that the writers of whom Luke speaks had already found in the Church a number of short writings on particular events, which they had simply united: their work would thus constitute a second step in the development of the writing of the Gospel history. But the expression, in conformity with that which they have handed down to us, hardly leaves room for intermediate accounts between the apostolic tradition and the writings of which Luke speaks. The notion of arrangement, then, refers rather to the facts themselves which these authors had co-ordinated in such a way as to make a consecutive narrative of them. The term diegesis designates not, as Schleiermacher maintained, recitals of isolated facts, but a complete narrative.

What idea should we form of these writings, and are they to be ranked among the sources on which Luke has drawn?

Certain extra-canonical Gospels, which criticism has sometimes regarded as prior to Luke's, may be thought of, that of the Hebrews, for example, in which Lessing was disposed to find the common source of our three synoptics; or that of Marcion, which Ritschl and Baur regarded as the principal document reproduced by Luke. But does not tradition exhibit itself in these writings in a form already perceptibly altered, and very far removed from the primitive purity and freshness which characterize our canonical Gospels? They are then later than Luke.

Or does Luke allude to our Gospels of Matthew and Mark? This is maintained by those who think that Luke wrote after Matthew and Mark (Hug), or only after Matthew (Griesbach, etc.). But however little Luke shared in the traditional opinion which attributed the first Gospel to the Apostle Matthew, he could not speak of that writing as he speaks here; for he clearly opposes to the writers of the tradition (the πολλοί, Luke 1:1), the apostles who were the authors of it. It may be affirmed, from the connection of Luke 1:2 with Luke 1:1, that Luke was not acquainted with a single written Gospel emanating from an apostle. As to the collection of the Logia (discourses of the Lord), which some attribute to Matthew, it certainly would not be excluded by Luke's expressions; for the term diegesis denotes a recital, a historical narrative. Hug, in his desire to save his hypothesis, according to which Luke made use of Matthew, explained Luke 1:1-2 in this sense: “Many have undertaken to compose written Gospels similar to those which the apostles bequeathed to us...” But this sense would require ὁποῖα (βιβλία) instead of καθώς, and has not been accepted by any one.

As to the Gospel of Mark, Luke's expressions might certainly suit this writing. For, according to tradition, Mark made use in his narrative of the accounts of an eye-witness, St. Peter. But still it may be questioned whether Luke would have employed the term undertake in speaking of a work which was received in the Church as one of the essential documents of the life of Jesus. For the rest, exegesis alone can determine whether Luke really had Mark before him either in its present or in a more ancient form.

It appears probable, therefore, to me, that the works to which Luke alludes are writings really unknown and lost. Their incompleteness condemned them to extinction, in proportion as writings of superior value, such as our synoptics, spread through the Church.

As to whether Luke availed himself of these writings, and in any way embodied them in his own work, he does not inform us. But is it not probable, since he was acquainted with them, that he would make some use of them? Every aid would appear precious to him in a work the importance of which he so deeply felt.

The subject of these narratives is set forth in expressions that have a touch of solemnity: “the events which have been accomplished amongst us.” Πληροφορεῖν is a word analogous in composition and meaning to τελεσφορεῖν (to bring to an end, to maturity, Luke 8:14). It signifies, when it refers to a fact, to bring it to complete accomplishment (2 Timothy 4:5, to accomplish the ministry; Luke 1:17, to accomplish [to finish rendering] the testimony); and when it refers to a person, it means to cause him to attain inward fulness [of conviction], that is to say, a conviction which leaves no room for doubt (Romans 4:21; Romans 14:5; Hebrews 10:22, etc.). With a substantive such as πράγματα, the second sense is inadmissible. Nevertheless, it has been defended by some of the Fathers, by some modern interpreters, as Beza, Grotius, Olshausen, and by Meyer, who concludes from 2 Timothy 4:17 that πληροφεῖσθαι may also be applied to things in the sense of being believed. But when Paul says, “In order that the testimony might be accomplished, and that all the Gentiles might hear it,” the last words plainly show that accomplished signifies not fully believed, but fully rendered. This term, which has more weight than the simple πληροῦν, is designedly chosen here to indicate that these events were not simple accidents, but accomplished a preconceived plan; the divine thought carried into execution was, as it were, a measure which filled up itself.

Doubtless, what has led many interpreters to prefer the sense of fully believed, is the complement amongst us. This is said that the facts of the gospel were accomplished not only in the presence of believers, but before the Jewish people and the whole world. This is true; but was not Jesus from the beginning surrounded by a circle of disciples, chosen to be witnesses of His life? It is with this meaning that John says, Luke 20:30, “Jesus did many other miracles in the presence of His disciples; ” and Luke 1:14, “He dwelt among us (ἐν ἡμῖν), and we saw His glory,” a sentence in which the last words limit the us to the circle of believers. The meaning is the same here. In Luke 1:2 the sense of the word us is more limited still. Here us denotes the Church with the apostles; in Luke 1:2, the Church apart from the apostles. Bleek extends the meaning of the word us, in Luke 1:1, to the whole contemporary generation both within and without the Church. But Luke, writing for believers, could scarcely use us in such a general sense as this.

In this expression, “the events accomplished amongst us,” did the author include also the contents of the book of the Acts, and did he intend the preface to apply to the two books, so that the Acts would be just the second volume of the Gospel? The words amongst us would be more easily explained in this case, and the mention made of the apostles as ministers of the word (Luke 1:2) might lead us to this supposition. It is not probable, however, that Luke would have applied to the facts related in the Acts the expressions παράδοσις, tradition (Luke 1:2), and κατήχησις, instruction (Luke 1:4). The subject of apostolical tradition and catechetical instruction could only be the history and teaching of Jesus. It is impossible, therefore, to infer from this preface, that when Luke wrote his Gospel he had in view the composition of the book of the Acts.