Luke 1:3

Ver. 3. Tradition emanating from the apostles was the common source, according to Luke 1:2, of all the first written narratives. The general accuracy of these accounts follows from καθώς, in conformity with that which. This conjunction can only refer to the principal thought of Luke 1:1, to compose a narrative, and not to the secondary idea πεπληροφορημἑνων, as Olshausen thinks, who translates, “fully believed in conformity with the account of the first witnesses.”

As the two substantives, αὐτόπται and ὑπηρέται, witnesses and ministers, have each certain defining expressions which especially belong to them (the first, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, and the second, γενόμενοι, become, and τοῦ λόγου, of the word), the most simple construction appears to us to be to regard οἱ, the, as a pronoun, and make it the subject of the proposition: they (the men about to be pointed out). This subject is defined by the two following substantives, which are in apposition, and indicate the qualification in virtue of which these men became the authors of the tradition. 1. Witnesses from the beginning. The word ἀρχή, beginning, in this context, can only refer to the commencement of the ministry of Jesus, particularly to His baptism, as the starting-point of those things which have been accomplished amongst us. Comp. Acts 1:21-22, for the sense; and for the expression, John 15:27; John 16:4. Olshausen would extend the application of this title of witnesses from the beginning to the witnesses of the birth and infancy of Jesus. But the expression became ministers of the word does not allow of this application. 2. Ministers of the word; become ministers, as the text literally reads. This expression is in contrast with the preceding. These men began afterwards to be ministers of the word; they only became such after Pentecost. It was then that their part as witnesses was transformed into that of preachers. The sense then is: “Those who were witnesses from the commencement, and who afterwards became ministers of the word.”

If ὑπηρέται, ministers, is thus taken as a second noun of apposition with οἱ, parallel to the first, there is no longer any difficulty in referring the complement τοῦ λόγου, of the word, to ὑπηρέται, ministers, alone, and taking this word in its ordinary sense of preaching the gospel. This also disposes of the reason which induced certain Fathers (Origen, Athanasius) to give the term word the meaning of the eternal Word (John 1:1), which is very forced in this connection. Only in this way could they make this complement depend simultaneously on the two substantives, witnesses and ministers The same motive led Beza, Grotius, and Bleek to understand the term word here in the sense in which it is frequently taken the thing related: “eye-witnesses and ministers of the Gospel history.” But in passages where the term word bears this meaning, it is fixed by some defining expression: thus, at Luke 1:4 by the relative proposition, and in Acts 8:21; Acts 15:6 (which Bleek quotes), by a demonstrative pronoun.

With the third verse we reach the principal proposition. Luke places himself by the κᾀμοὶ, myself also, in the same rank as his predecessors. He does not possess, any more than they, a knowledge of the Gospel history as a witness; he belongs to the second generation of the ἡμεῖς, us (Luke 1:2), which is dependent on the narratives of the apostles.

Some Italic MSS. add here to mihi, et spiritui sancto (it has pleased me and the Holy Spirit), a gloss taken from Acts 15:28, which clearly shows in what direction the tradition was gradually altered.

While placing himself in the same rank as his predecessors, Luke nevertheless claims a certain superiority in comparison with them. Otherwise, why add to their writings, which are already numerous (πολλοί), a fresh attempt? This superiority is the result of his not having confined himself to collecting the apostolic traditions current in the Church. Before proceeding to write, he obtained exact information, by means of which he was enabled to select, supplement, and arrange the materials furnished by those oral narratives which his predecessors had contented themselves with reproducing just as they were. The verb παρακολουθεῖν, to follow step by step, is not used here in the literal sense; this sense would require πᾶσιν to be taken as masculine: all the apostles, and thus would lead to an egregiously false idea; the author could not have accompanied all the apostles! The verb, therefore, must be taken in the figurative sense which it frequently has in the classics: to study anything point by point; thus Demosth. de coronâ, 53: παρακολουθηκὼς τοῖς πράγμασιν ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς. Comp. 2 Timothy 3:10, where we see the transition from the purely literal to the figurative meaning. The πάντα, all things, are the events related (Luke 1:1). Luke might have put the participle in the accusative: παρακολουθηκότα; but then he would only have indicated the succession of the two actions, the acquisition of information, and the composition which followed it. This is not his thought. The dative makes the information obtained a quality inherent in his person, which constitutes his qualification for the accomplishment of this great work.

Luke's information bore particularly on three points: 1. He sought first of all to go back to the origin of the facts, to the very starting-point of this res christiana which he desired to describe. This is expressed in the word ἄνωθεν, literally from above, from the very beginning. The author compares himself to a traveller who tries to discover the source of a river, in order that he may descend it again, and follow its entire course. The apostolic tradition, as current in the Church, did not do this; it began with the ministry of John the Baptist, and the baptism of Jesus. It is in this form that we find it set forth in the Gospel of Mark, and summarized in Peter's preaching at the house of Cornelius, and in Paul's at Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 10:37 et seq., Luke 13:23 et seq.). The author here alludes to the accounts contained in the first two Chapter s of his Gospel. 2. After having gone back to the commencement of the Gospel history, he endeavoured to reproduce as completely as possible its entire course (πᾶσιν, all things, all the particular facts which it includes). Apostolic tradition probably had a more or less fragmentary character; the apostles not relating every time the whole of the facts, but only those which best answered to the circumstances in which they were preaching. This is expressly said of St. Peter on the testimony of Papias, or of the old presbyter on whom he relied: πρὸς τὰς χρείας ἐποιεῖτο τὰς διδασκαλίας (he chose each time the facts appropriate to the needs of his hearers). Important omissions would easily result from this mode of evangelization. By this word πᾶσιν, all things, Luke probably alludes to that part of his Gospel (Luke 9:51 to Luke 18:14), by which the tradition, as we have it set forth in our first two synoptics, is enriched with a great number of facts and new discourses, and with the account of a long course of evangelization probably omitted, until Luke gave it, in the public narration. 3. He sought to confer on the Gospel history that exactness and precision which tradition naturally fails to have, after being handed about for some time from mouth to mouth. We know how quickly, in similar narratives, characteristic traits are effaced, and the facts transposed. Diligent and scrupulous care is required afterwards to replace the stones of the edifice in their right position, and give them their exact form and sharpness of edge. Now the third Gospel is distinguished, as we shall see, by the constant effort to trace the continued progressive development of the work of Jesus, to show the connection of the facts, to place each discourse in its historical setting, and to exhibit its exact purport.

By means of this information bearing upon the three points indicated, the author hopes he shall be qualified to draw a consecutive picture, reproducing the actual course of events: καθεξῆς γράψαι, to write in order. It is impossible in this connection to understand the phrase in order in the sense of a systematic classification, as Ebrard prefers; here the term must stand for a chronological order.

The term καθεξῆς is not found in the New Testament except in Luke.