Criswell Theological Review 6

Criswell Theological Review 5.2 (1991) 183-201.

UNDERSTANDING LUKE'S TASK:

CAREFULLY BUILDING ON

PRECEDENT (LUKE 1:1-4)

DARRELL L. BOCK

Dallas Theological Seminary

Dallas, TX 75204

Introduction

There is only on~ Gospel where the writer spells out his purpose

and preparation in detail. That is the Gospel of Luke. The introduc-

tion of Luke's Gospel is significant because he not only tells us why

he writes and how he writes but also indicates the state of the tradi-

tion about Jesus at the time he writes. In addition, the meaning of the

passage is hotly debated, with virtually every phrase a matter of dis-

pute. This article seeks to examine the preface and its meaning.1

Structure, Genre, and Luke's Description of Narrative

Structure

Luke begins his work, as other ancient writers do, with a preface.

The entire paragraph is one long Greek sentence. Luke writes with

balance as he argues his connection to the past and his desire to give

his readers assurance about the instruction they have received. Luke

discusses the tradition he inherited in v 1. Then he traces the origin of

that tradition to eyewitnesses and servants who preach the Word in

v 2. Luke 1:3 is the main clause of the preface and discusses how Luke

wrote his account. The purpose of Luke's writing is found in the last

verse. He desires to give his reader, Theophilus, assurance about the

events surrounding Jesus. Theophilus had prior knowledge of these

1 This article represents a slightly reworked portion of a forthcoming two-volume

commentary on the Gospel of Luke by the author.

184 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

events, and Luke wishes to reassure his recipient that Jesus is the

fulfillment of God's promises. Luke 1:1 speaks of fulfilled events to

raise the note of God's activity at the very start. History makes it clear

that Theophilus was not the only one who benefited from Luke's la-

bor. The church is the major beneficiary of Luke's work.

The structure of Luke 1:1-4 reflects balanced Greek periodic style

with a protasis, vv 1-2 ("Inasmuch as'' or "since"), and an apodosis,

vv 3-4 ("so also it seemed good to me").2 BDF describes how the peri-

odic parallelism works: "many" is parallel to "also to me," while "to

compose a narrative" goes with "to write for you," and "even as eye-

witnesses and servants handed down" is tied to "in order that you

might have assurance." The parallelism in the third unit is not as

clear as in the first two units.3 Tiede notes how the period lays out in

parallel lines.4 He parallels the suggestion of BDF. So the parallelism

of Luke 1:1-4 goes as follows:

a) Inasmuch as many have undertaken (v 1a)

b) to compile a narrative of the things. . .(v 1b)

c) just as they were delivered to us by . . .(v 2)

a') it seemed good to us also. . .(v 3a)

b') to write an orderly account for you. . . (v 3b)

c') in order that you may know the truth (v 4)

The balance of the passage provides an aesthetic touch to the intro-

duction. The parallelism also reflects the effort Luke spent in trying to

create a culturally appropriate introduction to his work.

Ancient Parallels: Other Historical Prefaces

There are ancient parallels to the prologue. Some are in

Hellenistic-Jewish writings.5 Here one can note 2 Macc 2:19-31, which

parallels Luke in some particulars. The writer of 2 Maccabees cites a

predecessor and then explains what his own goal is in writing a new

summary work (v 23). He compares his work to painting an already

constructed house (v 29). He wishes to entertain and provide facts for

the profit of the reader (v 25). Josephus' prologue to Ant. 1.l. 1-4 and the

Ep. Arist 1. 1-8 should also be mentioned. There also is the prologue to

Sirach, where this writer also explains the rationale for his work.

2 BDF 464.

3 The main clause is in Luke 1:3. A stylistic parallel to the period exists in Acts

15:24-25.

4 D. Tiede, Luke (Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament; Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1988) 33.

5 W. Wiefel, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THKNT 3; Berlin: Verlagsanstalt, 1988)

38, n.l.

Darrell L. Bock: UNDERSTANDING LUKE'S TASK 185

Josephus says that he writes to set out events in which he took

part and to remove the prevailing ignorance that exists about impor-

tant events. Josephus' introduction in Ag. Ap. 1.1. 1-5 even has a dedi-

catory line to "most esteemed Epaphroditus" and describes the

quality of the witnesses on whom Josephus relies. He writes this work

to convict detractors of falsehood, to correct ignorance, and to instruct

all who desire to know the truth. Aristeas' prologue speaks of a "trust-

worthy" narrative of memorable matters (vv 1, 6). The author of Sirach

has simply tried to present to the outside world the legacy of Israel's

traditions of wisdom and discipline.

Greek parallels also exist for this form. Tiede mentions a later

work by Lucian of Samosota (c. AD. 125-180), who wrote in his treatise,

How to Write History 53-55 that unlike the orators, he will not appeal

for a favorable hearing. He desires to interest his audience and in-

struct them. Earlier, he had said that the only task of an historian is to

tell the truth (39-40).6 Fitzmyer notes that the ancients knew how to

distinguish between fact and fiction.7 The goals in many Greek writers

are like those of the author of 2 Maccabees and the other Jewish

historian-theologians. Lucian argues if what is said is important and

essential, it will receive attention. The goal is to be clear, set forth

causes, and outline the main events. Luke is written with similar goals.

Alexander argues that Luke is a writer in the classic "ancient

scientific" mold.8 This places Luke in the "middle brow" of classical

writing. In Alexander's view, such a work respects tradition, uses

sources, but also has some reworking of tradition.

Luke's Term: Narrative Account

Among the ancients, there are various terms tied to writing his-

tory. The term, yuxagwgi<a (psychagogia, "persuasion") is often nega-

tive.9 It refers to the goal of some writers, while others refuse to adopt

it. Another term is u[po<mnhma (hypomnema, "records," "memorial,"

"commentary," or "minutes").10 Still a third idea is i[stori<a (historia,

6 Tiede, 34-35.

7 J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (AB 28, 28a, 2 vols.; Garden City, NY:

Doubleday, 1981,1985) 16. .

8 L Alexander, "Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing," NovT

28 (1986) 48-75, esp. 60-63. F. Bovon (Das Evangelium nach Lukas: Lk 1, 1-9, #50

[EKKNT 3.1; Zurich/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger/Neukirchener Verlag, 1989], 30, n. 1)

notes that these comparisons with ancient prologues date back to the 18th century with

G. Raphelius and J. J. Wettstein. C. F. Evans (St. Luke [TPI New Testament Commentar-

ies; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990] 116-19) cites several of these "scientific prefaces."

9 LSJ 2026.2.

10 LSJ 1889.2.4. These are often unpolished materials. Lucian On How to Write

History 47-48.

186 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

"inquiry," "information," "narrative," or "history").11 The absence of

references to these other terms in BAGD show that Luke chose none

of these terms to describe his work. His term is dih<ghsij (diegesis, "nar-

rative account").12

Buschel in TDNT notes that the term dih<ghsij simply means "nar-

rative" and does not refer to some form of an incomplete literary work

that one could compare to the individual, detached traditions of mod-

ern form criticism.13 Luke has longer materials in mind than individ-

ual pericopes. His note 3 gives some extra-biblical texts using the term.

Some texts describe oral reports. Others refer to written reports or to

historical accounts: Sir 6:35 (oral); 9:15 (oral); 22:6 (oral); 27:11, 13 (oral);

38:25 and 39:2 (concerning discourses of famous men); Ep. Aris. 1. 8.322

(written); 2 Macc 2:32 (written); 6:17 (historical narrative). LSJ adds

Plato Rep. 392d; Phaed. 246a, and LXX-Hab 1:5.14 The term in the NT

speaks of both oral and written accounts: (oral)--Luke 8:39; 9:10; Acts

8:33; 9:27; 12:17; (written)--Mark 5:16; 9:9; Heb 11:32. So whatever type

of narrative Luke alludes to in v 1, it is not clear whether the sources

are oral, written, or both. What is clear is that these accounts are long

and that Luke's work is similar to them, as v 3 makes clear.15 This as-

sociation might suggest written sources but does not guarantee it.

Major Themes

So Luke explains why he has written and establishes that his

work has precedent. However, Luke makes other points as well. He

highlights the eyewitness origin of tradition; he points out his account

is the result of a careful consideration of the events; and he notes that

the study was carefully done. In fact, the account begins at the start

and is thorough. Luke's contribution is significant not only because of

his careful work, but also because only he writes a second volume in

which he ties fulfillment in Jesus to God's work in the church.

So the basic outline of Luke 1:1-4 is as follows:

Carefully Building on Precedent: Luke 1:1-4

A. The Precedent (1:1-2)

1. What Came Before (1:1)

2. The Source of Earlier Accounts: Apostolic Eyewitnesses (1:2)

11 LSJ 842.2.

12 BAGD 195; Bauer, 6th ed., col. 392; LSJ 427, defines it broadly as "recount."

13 TDNT 2.909.

14 F. Buchsel's reference to Hab 2:16 is incorrect

15 R Tannehill, The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts: A Literary Interpretation vol. I

(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) l.lO.

Darrell L. Bock: UNDERSTANDING LUKE'S TASK 187

B. Luke's Contribution (1:3-4)

1. Luke Describes His Work (1:3)

2. Luke's Purpose (1:4)

Translation

(1) Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of

the things which have been fulfilled among us, (2) even as those who

were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word de-

livered to us, (3) it seemed good also to me, having followed all

things carefully from the beginning to write an orderly account for

you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) that you might know certainty

concerning the things about which you were instructed.

Meaning: Luke Carefully Builds on Precedent

The Precedent (1:1-2)

What Came Before (1:1). Luke's work is not novel. His Gospel be-

gins by noting the precedent of others in recounting what Jesus did.

The term e]peidh<per (epeideper, "inasmuch as'') gives a condition and is

usually causally related to the action in the main clause, so "since

many have undertaken."16 The accounts of others laid the groundwork

for why Luke writes. Ancient writers loved to show how what they

were doing had precedent.

Luke also produces an introduction with stylistic parallels in other

ancient writings. Fitzmyer cites similar beginnings from Josephus J. W.

1.6.17 and Philo Legatio ad Gaium 164.17 No LXX usage exists for the

introductory term e]peidh<per ("inasmuch as''), but this style of introduc-

tion is common. The causal nuance is defended by Marshall and

Schneider.18

So Luke is not the first to write about Jesus. "Many" (polloi<, pol-

loi) refers to his literary and or oral predecessors. For most scholars

today, this would allude, at least, to Mark and Q. Q is a posited source

or set of sources that contained teaching material from Jesus to which

both Luke and Matthew had access. Those who hold to the existence

of Q usually think that Mark was the first Gospel. For those who think

Mark is first, Luke uses Mark, Q and a set of special traditions called

"L." Others believe that Matthew is a source that precedes Luke, and

16 BDF 456.3.

17 See above for more examples, also cr. Fitzmyer, 290-91.

18 I. H. Marshall, Commentary on Luke (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 41;

G. Schneider, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Okumenischer Taschenbuch Kommentar

zum Neuen Testament 3; 2 vols.; Gerd Mohn: Gillersloher Verlagshaus, 1977) 38.

188 CRISWELL THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

some who hold to Matthew as a source do not think an appeal to Q is

necessary. When scholars hold to the Griesbach or Augustinian hy-

pothesis, then Matthew is the first Gospel, and Luke's sources depend

on which variation is preferred (Griesbach: Matthew, Luke, then

Mark; Augustinian: Matthew, Mark, then Luke). Regardless of the

view preferred, and good arguments exist on each side of the debate,

Luke does tell us that he had predecessors, even if he does not name

them for us.19

"Epexei<rhsan (epecheiresan, "have set their hand," "attempted")

describes the work of Luke's predecessors. The idea of "setting the

hand" to tell a story might well suggest written accounts here, except

that other terms in the context can suggest organized oral reports. So

Luke's remark suggests the presence of written materials but need

not be limited to such sources. Is this term neutral or pejorative? Did

Luke think Jesus' story was well served by previous accounts? First,

the term is the natural term to use for composing an account.20 The

use of ka]moi< (kamoi, "and I also") in v 3 looks as if Luke joins himself

to his predecessors.21 But Fitzmyer argues that the stress on accuracy

and research shows Luke still thought work needed to be done. Klos-

termann also views a critique as implied.22

However, another fact complicates the discussion. Luke's sequel

makes his task unique as he seeks to join Jesus tradition and church

history together. Luke adds to the recorded accounts of Jesus' ministry

with more detail and includes the additional discussion of the

church's rise (a third of the Gospel contains "L" material). He does so

without necessarily downgrading his predecessors, who blazed a diffi-

19 G. Caird, St Luke (Pelican Gospel Commentaries; Baltimore: Penguin, 1963) 23-

27. For evaluation of this issue, see the introduction and the excursus in the introduc-

tion to Luke 3:7-9 in D. L Bock, Luke (forthcoming). See also S. McKnight, Source Criti-

cism," in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation (D. A Black and D. Dockery eds.;

Grand Rapids: Zondervan, forthcoming, 137-72); and R Stein, The Synoptic Problem: An