Forasmuch, &c.— Forasmuch as many have undertaken to compose a narrative of those things which have been accomplished amongst us, Luke 1:2 as they who were from the beginning eye witnesses, and afterwards ministers of the word, delivered them to us; Luke 1:3. I have also determined, having exactly traced every thing from the first, to write, &c. "This must refer," says Dr.
Doddridge, "to some histories of the life of Christ which are now lost; for Matthew and Mark, the only evangelists who can be supposed to have written before Luke, could not with any propriety be called many; and of these two, Matthew at least wrote from personal knowledge, not the testimony of others. One must readily conclude, that the books referred to are lost, as none of the apocryphal gospels now extant, published either by Fabricius, in his Cod. Apocryph. Nov. Test. or by Mr. Jones in his History of the Canon, can with any shew of reason pretend to equal antiquity with this of St. Luke; but I cannot suppose with some of the ancient fathers, that the evangelist here intends the gospels of Basilides, Cerinthus, and some other early heretics, since he seems to allow these histories, whatever they were, to have been at least honestly written, according to information received from the most capable judges; and it is strange that Eusebius should imagine the words to be intended as a severe censure on the now-unknown compilers of these histories, whoever they were." This appears to be a fair and candid state of the case: Dr. Macknight however observes upon this preface, that, at first sight of it, one would be apt to think, that Luke speaks here of the other gospels, and their authors; yet the character which he gives of the writers whom he had in view, makes it evident that they were historians of a different kind from the evangelists, properly so called; for theywrote according to the information they had received from the eye-witnesses and ministersoftheword;whereastheevangelists,being eye-witnesses themselves, wrote from their own personal knowledge, improved by inspiration; at least Matthew and John were in both these respects writers of this character; and as for Mark, though he was not an apostle, he was most probably an early disciple, and consequently an eye-witness of the greatest part of the things which he has related. Epiphanius affirms, that he was one of the seventy. But, to set the matter in another light, if we interpret St. Luke's preface of the evangelists, we must allow, that he had none but Matthew and Mark in view, since, by the acknowledgment of all, John did not write his gospel till long after Luke's was published;—but that he should call two historians many, is hard to be conceived. Further, if the gospels of Matthew and Mark were abroad when Luke was writing, we may be assured that he would peruse them; and as he speaks of persons who had composed histories of Christ's life, he could not by any means overlook authors of their character. On this supposition, can it be imagined, that while his own gospel was penned under the direction of the Spirit, according to the information that he had received from those who were eye-witnesses, he would only say, of an eye-witness, and an apostle, on whom the Spirit hath descended, or even of an apostle's companion, that they had taken in hand to give the history of Christ's life, and not rather have mentioned both them and their works with particular approbation. The probability of this opinion is heightened by the following consideration: It makes the gospels appear with a noble and beautiful propriety; for, on a supposition that St. Luke wrote before the rest, we conceive the reason why theyhave passed over in silence the many miraculous circumstances with which the conception, birth, and circumcision both of the Messiah's forerunner, and of the Messiah himself were honoured, together with the prophesies of Simeon and Anna uttered at our Lord's presentation in the temple, as also the history of his childhood and private life: Luke had accurately, and at great length related all these things, without omitting any particular that deserved to be mentioned. On the other hand, if we think that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, their gospels will appear defective in these important points, and no reason will offer itself to justify such material omission. Instead of have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration, Heylin, Doddridge, &c. read, have undertaken to compose a history. The word πεπληροφορημενων, Dr. Doddridge renders, confirmed with the fullest evidence: it implies both that fulness of evidence by which any fact is supported, and likewise that confidence, or fulness of assent, by which facts so supported are believed. Compare 2 Timothy 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:7 in the Greek.