Prologue (1:1-4)
1:1 Inasmuch as many took it in hand to compile a narrative concerning the things that have been accomplished among us--
The anonymous author (whom I will call "Luke" for convenience) starts by indicating that he is not the first to present the story of Jesus. [1] The vast majority of scholars would agree that Luke actually used the Gospel of Mark as a source, for reasons that will soon become clear. Many also think that he knew the Gospel of Matthew. Still others think he may have had a collection of Jesus's sayings, sometimes referred to as Q from the German word for "source" (Quelle). In the pages that follow, I will conclude that Luke did indeed use Mark and a collection of Jesus' sayings, yet also lean toward the idea that Luke knew the Gospel of Matthew as well.
Luke is a "narrative." It is a storyline. As we concluded in the introduction, it is probably more of a history than a biography, although there are clear similarities between the two genres.
The "things that have been accomplished" is language that focuses on what Jesus did and that God did through Jesus. The Greek perfect tense is used, which suggests that these things remain accomplished. Although for those of us who are Protestants it is tempting to focus on the personal and eternal salvation that Jesus brought about, the Gospel of Luke does not focus on these aspects of Christ's mission. Indeed, the Gospel of Luke focuses on the liberation that Jesus proclaimed to the poor, the blind, and the enslaved (e.g., Luke 4:18-19). [2]
2. just as the eyewitnesses from [the] beginning and ones who became servants of the word delivered to us--
Luke mentions two groups as sources of his Gospel. First, he mentions eyewitnesses. If Luke were writing in the early 80s, any remaining disciples would be quite old. However, Luke may have known them from the time when he first joined the Jesus movement. If the author was a sometimes traveling companion of Paul in the 50s, he would likely have met several eyewitnesses in that decade. [3]
Meanwhile, individuals like Paul, Barnabas, and Silas would be examples of individuals who later became servants of the word. The author of Acts appears to first meet Paul when Paul arrived in Troas around the year AD50 (Acts 16:10). We do not know if Luke had heard the good news prior to that meeting, but at the very latest Paul then passed on the word to him.
3. ... it seemed also to me, having followed from the beginning all things accurately, to write to you in an ordered way, most excellent Theophilus...
Luke has done his homework. Theophilus can trust him as an accurate presenter of the good news. Luke indicates that he will convey this message "with method." The word does not necessarily mean that he is giving everything in chronological order. As we will see, Luke actually seems to rearrange some events to make the message as clear as possible. [4]
We do not know exactly who Theophilus was. Some have wondered if the name is symbolic, "lover of God." But the adjective, "most excellent," may suggest that he was a Roman governor or official (cf. Acts 23:6; 26:25). We know from Acts 13:12 that even Roman proconsuls could be attracted by the good news.
We have wondered if Theophilus might have been a patron to Luke's work. The Roman poet Virgil wrote his Aeneid for a patron named Maecenas, who was also a friend of the Roman emperor Augustus. Maecenas would invite friends over for a luxurious dinner and then have Virgil read the latest installment of his work. Perhaps Theophilus invited Luke to do the same in honor of a much more important Lord.
In any case, it is likely that Theophilus was a person of some means. This fact would make the sternness of the Gospel of Luke toward the wealthy quite pointed. It is at least possible that one of the subtexts of the Gospel is the importance of wise stewardship of the resources one has.
If the devotee of Luke-Acts was a Roman official, this would also explain the great care Luke took, especially in Acts, to indicate that Christians were not troublemakers. Trouble often followed them, but not because they were by nature subversive or problematic. It was rather their jealous "competitors" who stirred up controversy, whether it be Jews who did not believe or idol-makers undermined by faith in the one true God.
The ordered narrative, as we mentioned in the introduction, is more of a history than a biography. This is particularly the case since the volume of Acts largely takes place after Jesus has ascended to heaven. In our notes on Acts, we have argued that the two volumes are something like "apologetic history," providing a defense of the faith that they proclaim.
4. ... that you might know the certainty of the words about which you were informed.
With this verse ends the lovely "period" sentence with which Luke begins his work. A periodic introduction is one long sentence with sophisticated words and high grammar. It is quite clear as one reads the Greek of Luke that the author is a person of high education. Only Hebrews comes close in the New Testament to the beauty of Luke's Greek.
Theophilus has heard about Jesus. Likely he has also put his faith in Jesus. The Gospel of Luke will confirm and extend the certainty of Theophilus' faith.
[1] We do not know for certain that that author was male, but this guess is most likely simply given the culture of the world in which the Gospel was written. However, the noticeable attention given to women in the narrative has led at least one person to suggest that the anonymous author may have been a woman. See ***
[2] In fact, as we will see, Luke modifies Mark's statement that "the Son of Man came to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Mark 10:45) to say that "the Son of man came to seek out and save the lost" (Luke 19:10), where the lost in question in Zacchaeus, now restored to the people of Israel. Yes, his sins are no doubt forgiven, but the story says nothing about this fact.
[3] Acts 21:17 indicates that the author of Acts went to Jerusalem with Paul in around the year AD58 and met the leaders of the Jerusalem church.
[4] Luke uses the same word in Acts 11:1 when Peter gives an orderly account of what had previously happened in chapter 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment