Chapter 87 of 404

More on “thorough familiarity”

Luke informs his audience that he “was thoroughly familiar with” the matters about which he writes (Lk 1:3). Although some translations render his verb parakoloutheō as if it denotes investigation or research, neither is necessarily implied, “although both these activities might be required in the process.”⁸³ Nevertheless, the term does indicate thorough acquaintance by one means or another.⁸⁴ In view of other ancient prologues using the same language, Luke’s wording suggests thorough familiarity with reports and that he is able to evaluate their accuracy.⁸⁵ One would use this terminology to display one’s “impeccable credentials” for writing reliably.⁸⁶

How extensive was Luke’s firsthand acquaintance and/or his investigation? As we have noted, Roman historians typically consulted records; Greek historians in the tradition of Polybius traveled and consulted with witnesses.⁸⁷ Although Luke himself was not a witness to the events in the Gospels (as potentially opposed to some later parts of Acts),⁸⁸ his travels allowed him to confirm many of the oral traditions circulating (Lk 1:2), traditions already known to his audience (Lk 1:4). Presumably this confirmation would have at least included interviewing Jerusalem followers of Jesus who could confirm and augment the stories circulating among Diaspora Christians.⁸⁹ Luke’s appeal to “eyewitnesses” (Lk 1:2)⁹⁰ fits the appreciation for research in Hellenistic historiography and has parallels in some histories.

The actual term autopsia (mentioned by Meister, above) is a rare one; but the convention of appeal to such sources is much more widespread.⁹¹ While the term may not be common, the emphasis on visual observation that it implied was;⁹² both Greek⁹³ and Roman⁹⁴ historians emphasized it. The ideal for ancient historians was to have seen events themselves;⁹⁵ since this was not always possible, they often had to depend on oral sources.⁹⁶ When they needed to defend their work, historians typically showed their reliance on oral sources and autopsy, from Polybius through the first century.⁹⁷ Tacitus sought information from witnesses where possible (and otherwise had access to imperial annals for numerous points).⁹⁸ When the term is used, it normally indicates “those with personal/first-hand experience: those who know the facts at first hand.”⁹⁹ Luke emphasizes eyewitness attestation not only in his preface, but commonly enough to reinforce the preface’s claim.¹⁰⁰

↑ Back to top