What to Make of the Prologue to Luke’s Gospel

I wrote this for class today. What to you think about the prologue to Luke's Gospel?

           Luke 1:1-4, NASB: “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.”

            The matter of foremost importance in consideration of the introduction to Luke’s Gospel account is that of to whom it is addressed. It is here that Luke presumably differs from the other Gospel writers; addressing someone as “most excellent Theophilus” implies that this Theophilus was likely a person of high importance and was the person for whom the Gospel account was written. The logical conclusion, at least on face value, is that Theophilus was in fact Luke’s patron and Luke was hired as a historian to collect Gospel accounts and write them down in a consecutive, orderly, and manageable format. However, in the Greek, Theophilus means ‘friend of God’ or ‘loved by God, ’ so it is possible that the name refers to a specific person named Theophilus, to a person addressed by that title, or a general, anonymous ‘person,’ or just a general reader. Whatever the case, Luke is clearly writing the book (referred to as a ‘book’ in Acts) to and for this person or persons. In fact, Luke basically identifies this as his prerogative; the above passage can be paraphrased as such: “many people have set about writing down the events of Jesus’ ministry and what He did, and I intend to do the same. I’ve investigated the accounts and the history of His ministry, and now I am going to write them out in an orderly, chronologically correct fashion so that you, Theophilus, and many others that have already heard about Jesus can have a more concrete grasp on the facts.” Clearly, Luke’s stated intent is to act as a researcher and a historian and record an ‘objective’ account of Jesus’ ministry. A reading of the entire Gospel account shows that it is not in fact ‘objective’ by modern historical standards, a point worth making for the sake of contrasting modern to ancient biographical/historical techniques. In the ancient world, historical accounts were written to tell about the major events and purposes of a person’s life, and were generally written to a specific audience or people group rather than some ambiguous objective editor. That is, part of the purpose of the introduction is to state Luke’s objective for writing and affirming his relationship to the project, for the purpose of offering a clear, historically correct account of the Gospel of Jesus and that he is a historian.

            The idea of Luke investigating things “from the very first,” or “from the beginning” (NRSV and NASB, respectively) in verse three probably refers to any prior gospel accounts, likely including Matthew and Mark, being that they are historically attributed to be prior to the writing of Luke’s account. Perhaps more important than this consideration is Luke’s experience being a travelling and ministry companion of Paul of Tarsus. We know from Luke’s account in Acts of the Apostles that he probably joined Paul in Troas (Acts 16 marks the beginning of the ‘we’ language), the stayed behind at Philippi (Acts 17), and then rejoined him on his way to Troas (Acts 20). Luke is also mentioned being with Paul in Colossians, Philemon, and 2 Timothy. Because these things can be inferred from other parts of scripture, we know that Luke spent a lot of time being with and presumably learning from Paul. By examining Luke’s writing through this lens, it can be concluded that Luke not only researched accounts of Jesus’ sayings (if one accepts Q-source theory) and full Gospel accounts (Matthew and Mark were widely available, especially Matthew), but also learned much in speaking with Paul and those that he travelled with, maybe including Peter, John, and various other Apostles.

            It is worth noting that Luke was written in conjunction with Acts. This is significant because it offers more insight into Luke’s method and purpose for writing the Gospel account to begin with. Throughout all of Luke’s writing there is a theme of continuity and a tradition being deeply rooted and established. It is perhaps for this reason that Luke records the beginning of John’s ministry, a lengthy depiction of Mary’s interaction with God during pregnancy, prophecies being fulfilled, Jesus as a boy, and, perhaps as a thematic capstone, when all is completed and He is resurrected, he records Jesus teaching two men on the road to Emmaus about the Gospel, beginning with Moses and the Prophets. Luke, writing presumably to a Greek audience, wants them to know that he has checked out the facts, verified and substantiated claims, and written them down in a trustworthy manner, all of which were important to a Hellenistic culture. It is also presumably for this reason that he notes many Old Testament references and fulfilled prophecies to an audience that would have to do their own research to confirm these references since they were not steeped in Jewish tradition as Matthew and Mark’s audiences most likely were. The comparison with Acts is important because in Acts Luke also records from the beginning, learning from Paul and experiencing himself the beginning of the Church, and therefore recording those events chronologically, consistent with Paul’s letters and ministry, and in direct continuity from Jesus’s own ministry and resurrection. This, obviously among many other themes, is part of the heart of Luke’s writing: consistency, truth, continuity, and historicity. It would seem that Luke was successful in his endeavor to write out the Gospel account in order and in line with other historical traditions. It also seems fitting to use Luke as the capstone for the synoptic Gospels in that it serves as a Greek-oriented historical account and caters to a more Greek audience, which was the movement of the Church at the time of his writing.