τον 3588 T-ASM μεν 3303 PRT πρωτον 4413 A-ASM λογον 3056 N-ASM εποιησαμην 4160 5668 V-AMI-1S περι 4012 PREP παντων 3956 A-GPN ω 5599 INJ θεοφιλε 2321 N-VSM ων 3739 R-GPN ηρξατο 756 5662 V-ADI-3S ο 3588 T-NSM ιησους 2424 N-NSM ποιειν 4160 5721 V-PAN τε 5037 PRT και 2532 CONJ διδασκειν 1321 5721 V-PAN
Vincent's NT Word Studies
1. The former (ton prwton). Lit., the first. Luke refers to his Gospel. Treatise (logon). Or narrative.Began (hrxato). This is interpreted in two ways. Either, (1), as a simple historical statement equivalent to "all that Jesus did and taught." In favor of this is the fact that the synoptists often record that which is done or said according to its moment of commencement, thus giving vividness to the account. See Matt. xi. 20; xxvi. 22, 37; Mark vi. 7; xiv. 19; Luke viii. 38, etc. According to this explanation the word serves "to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several incidents and events, up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as doer and teacher" (Meyer). Or, (2), as indicating that the Gospel contains the beginning, and the Acts of the Apostles the continuation, of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The earthly life of Jesus, concluded with the ascension, has its fruit and continued efficacy; and his heavenly life, commencing with the ascension, has its manifestation and proof in the acts and experiences of the apostles and first churches. The history of the Church was under the immediate control of the exalted Redeemer, and may justly be considered as the continuation in heaven of the work which he had begun on earth" (Baumgarten and Gloag).
While the truth and importance of this statement are admitted, it is objected that such an intention on Luke's part would have been more clearly intimated, and not left to be inferred from a single doubtful phrase. As regards Luke's intention, I think the first explanation is more likely to be correct. The second, however, states a truth, the value and importance of which cannot be overestimated, and which should be kept in mind constantly in the study of the book of Acts. This is well put by Bernard ("Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament," Lect. IV.): "Thus the history which follows is linked to, or (may I not rather say) welded with, the past; and the founding of the Church in the earth is presented as one continuous work, begun by the Lord in person, and perfected by the same Lord through the ministry of men.... 'The former treatise' delivered to us, not all that Jesus did and taught, but 'all that Jesus began to do and teach until the day when he was taken up.' The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus continued to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up."
Robertson's NT Word Studies
1:1 _The Title_ is simply _Acts_ (praxeis) in Aleph, Origen, Tertullian, Didymus, Hilary, Eusebius, Epiphanius. _The Acts of the Apostles_ (praxeis apostolwn) is the reading of B D (Aleph in subscription) Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodoret, Hilary. _The Acts of the Holy Apostles_ (praxeis twn hagiwn apostolwn) is read by A2 E G H A K Chrysostom. It is possible that the book was given no title at all by Luke, for it is plain that usage varied greatly even in the same writers. The long title as found in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) is undoubtedly wrong with the adjective "Holy." The reading of B D, "_The Acts of the Apostles_," may be accepted as probably correct.
{The former treatise} (ton men prwton). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. this use of prwtos where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (#Joh 1:15), John and Peter (#Joh 20:4). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 662, 669). The use of men solitarium here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that men requires a following de by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of mn=surely, indeed. The reference is to the "first treatise" and merely emphasizes that. The use of logos (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (_Phaedo_, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between muqos and logos. {I made} (epoiesamen). Aorist middle indicative, the middle being the usual construction for mental acts with poiew. {O Theophilus} (o qeofile). The interjection o here as is common, though not in #Lu 1:3. But the adjective kratiste (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on Lu 1:3. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus. {Which Jesus began} (hwn erxato iesous). The relative is attracted from the accusative ha to the genitive h"n because of the antecedent pantwn (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus "began"both to do and to teach" (poiein te kai didaskein). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of te--kai binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it "The Acts of the Holy Spirit," and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. "The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus _continued_ to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up" (Bernard, _Progress of Doctrine in the N.T._).
