A. J. B. Higgins, “The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts," W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.78-91. CHAPTER IV The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts A. J. B. Higgins [p.78] According to ancient tradition Luke both the Gospel and the Acts.1 While the identity of “Luke” is disputed, unity of authorship, including the “we” sections of Acts in their present form, is widely accepted on the basis of style and language.2 The Lukan writings also form a distinct theological unit within the New Testament, so that we can speak of the theology of Luke”.3 The most notable attempt to disprove unity of authorship on linguistic grounds was that of A. C. Clark,4 who tried to demonstrate that the linguistic differences between Luke and Acts are much more important than the resemblances; that they cannot be explained, as Hawkins thought, by the supposition that Acts was written considerably later than the gospel; and that they point, in fact, to different authors. But the complete unsoundness of Clark’s arguments was proved by W. L. Knox.5 The common authorship of the two Lukan writings may be regarded as established. I Does the Lukan preface (Luke 1:1-4) refer only to the gospel, or to both the gospel and Acts?6 The former view is supported by H. Conzelmann7 and E. Haenchen.8 [p.79] In 1953 R. Koh9 and C. S. C. Williams10 suggested independently of one another that the prîtoj lÒgoj in Acts 1:1 is not our third gospel, but a sort of Proto-Luke. The present Lukan 1 Muratorian Canon; Anti-Marcionite Prologue; Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1.1; etc. 2 This was established by A. Harnack, Luke the Physician (London, 1907), and J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopticae2 (Oxford, 1909), pp. 174-93. 3 H. Conzelmann, The Theology of Saint Luke (London, 1960). 4 The Acts of the Apostles (Oxford, 1933), pp. 393-405. 5 The Acts of the Apostles (Cambridge, 1948), pp. 2-15, 100-109; cf. É. Trocmé, Le “Livre des Actes” et l’histoire (Paris, 1957), pp. 38-41. 6 It has even been suggested (by J. L. Moreau, see R. H. Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study [London, 1963], p. 103) that the preface was originally prefixed to Acts, which was published by a different author subsequently to the gospel, and that when the two works were combined, it was transferred to the beginning of the gospel and replaced by a new introduction to Acts. But it is impossible to imagine how a preface which certainly alludes, at least in its first part, to the gospel, could originally have been intended only for Acts. 7 The Theology of Saint Luke, p. 15, n.1. 8 Die Apostelgeschichte12 (Göttingen, 1959), p. 105, n. 3; “Das ‘Wir’ in der Apostelgeschichte und das Itinerar”, ZThK 58 (1961), pp. 362-66 (Eng. trans., “We’ in Acts and the Itinerary,” Journal for Theology and the Church 1 [1965], pp. 95-99). 9 The Writings of St. Luke (Hongkong). A. J. B. Higgins, “The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts," W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.78-91. gospel was written after Acts. If so, the Lukan preface must have been prefixed to the former after the completion of both works. Doubtless the author intended his writings to be read in the correct chronological order: the ministry of Jesus recorded in his gospel, and the life of the church recorded in Acts. The preface could then have been planned to refer to both writings, although they had been composed in the reverse order. The case for the priority of Acts, however, is not strong, and prîtoj lÒgoj in Acts 1:1, seems a more apt description of the gospel of Luke than of a hypothetical first draft of it. The majority view is, in fact, that Luke 1:1-4 is a preface to both gospel and Acts as two parts of a single work.11 This accords with the practice in antiquity of dividing a work into volumes (especially when it would not all go on a single papyrus roll), with a preface prefixed to the whole, and with secondary prefaces introducing later volumes and summarizing briefly the contents of the preceding volume.12 An excellent example of this practice, including the renewed address to his patron Epaphroditus, is to be found in the two parts of the work of Josephus Against Apion.13 The striking similarities to the beginnings of Luke and Acts not only show that these too are really two parts of a single work, but also suggest that the Lukan preface is intended also for Acts. The difficulties arise when it comes to actual interpretation of the preface. Although this refers to Acts as well as to the gospel, it is not to be expected that all its phraseology applies equally to both. The author himself says in Acts 1:1 that his prîtoj lÒgoj concerns the earthly ministry of Jesus. Acts itself does not. The crux in the preface is undoubtedly the phrase k¢moˆ parhkolouqhkÒti ¥nwqen p©sin ¢kribîj. According to Cadbury, parakolouqšw does not mean follow in the sense of investigate or inquire into, for which (he claims) there is no lexical support, but to observe, to be in close touch with, [p.80] or to participate in events.14 As an example he cites Josephus, Apion I. 10 (53).15 de‹ tÕn ¥lloij par£dosin pr£xewn ¢lheqinîn ØpiscnoÚmenon aÙtÕn ™p…stasqai taÚtaj prÒteron ¢kribîj, Ì parhkolouqhkÒta to‹j gegonÒsin ½ par¦ tîn e„dÒtwn punqanÒmenon. 10 “The Date of Luke-Acts,” ExpT 64, pp. 283 f.; Cf. The Acts of the Apostles (London, 1957), pp. 12 f.; also H. G. Russell, “Which was written first, Luke or Acts?” HTR 48 (1955), pp. 167-74, and P. Parker, “The ‘Former Treatise’ and the Date of Acts,” JBL 84 (1965), pp. 52-58. 11 So recently E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke (London, 1966), p. 62. 12 Cf. E. Norden, Agnostos Theos (Leipzig/Berlin, 1929 = 1913), pp. 311-13; H.J. Cadbury, BC 2 (1922), p. 491. 13 Apion I.1, kr£tiste ¢ndrîn 'EpafrÒdite (cf. Lk. 1:3, kr£tiste ¢ndrîn QeÒfile); I. 1 (3), ú»qhn de‹n gr£yai (Loeb edn., pp. 162 f.; cf. Lk. 1:3, œdoxe k¢moˆ . gr£yai); Apion II. 1, di¦ m•n oân toà protšrou bibl…ou, timiètatš moi 'EpafrÒdite (Loeb edn., pp. 292 f.; cf. Acts 1:1, tÕn m•n prîton lÒgon ™poihs£mhn perˆ p¦ntwn, û QeÒfile); F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: the Greek Text, etc.’ (London, 1962), p. 66. 14 BC 2 (1922), pp. 501 f.; The Making of Luke-Acts2 (London, 1958), pp. 345-47; “We’ and ‘I’ Passages in Luke-Acts,” NTS 3 (1956-57), pp. 128-32. In his full study of the word (“The Knowledge Claimed in Luke’s Preface,” Exp 8th series, 24 (1922), pp.401-20) Cadbury wrote (p. 408) of the former meaning, “For a century this semasiological impostor appears to have held practically absolute sway,” but pointed out that Hug in 1808 defended the same thesis as himself. He found an enthusiastic follower in J. H. Ropes, JTS 25 (1924), pp. 70 f., and The Synoptic Gospels2 (1960), pp. 63 f. 15 BC 2 (1922), p. 502; cf. Exp 24 (1922), p. 404; NTS 3 (1956-57), p. 130. A. J. B. Higgins, “The Preface to Luke and the Kerygma in Acts," W. Ward Gasque & Ralph P. Martin, eds., Apostolic History and the Gospel. Biblical and Historical Essays Presented to F.F. Bruce. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1970. Hbk. ISBN: 085364098X. pp.78-91. “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 been in close touch with the events, or by inquiry from those who knew them.”16 By using parhkolouqhkÒta Josephus refers to his first-hand experience of events in the war with the Romans, contrasted with inquiry from others. Similarly in Luke 1:3 the author, in employing this word in conjunction with the first person pronoun, is drawing a distinction between reports about Jesus which had reached him by tradition, and his personal knowledge of or participation in subsequent events, and in the latter case is referring to the second part of Acts, in which the “we” passages occur. Cadbury does, however, allow that Acts as a whole could be meant.17 A different interpretation is offered by Haenchen in the latter part of his article cited above.18 Luke 1:1 makes it clear “that the prologue is intended only for the gospel: there were several gospels... but not acts of the apostles.”19 The use in the main sentence (verse 3) of ¢kribîj with parhkolouqhkÒti shows that, although the verb can denote first-hand knowledge, in the sense of participation in events, the context does not favour that meaning here. What is meant is investigation from the beginning,20 and ¥nwqen is equivalent to ¢p' ¢rcÁj in verse 2. If Cadbury were correct in supposing that Luke meant that he had closely followed everything for some considerable time past, and that he was referring to the second part of Acts, “then the whole thing would be senseless; Luke in his foreword to the Third Gospel would only be indicating his qualification as a writer of history in the second half of Acts but would be saying nothing about his qualification as writer of the historia Jesu.”21 Haenchen, then, judges that Luke claims to be qualified to write a gospel, because he has accurately [p.81] investigated the matter in detail right from the beginning of the story of Jesus in the infancy narratives (¥nwqen p©sin).22 In his valuable study of the “we” and “they” passages,23 J.