Rethinking Luke's Prologue
by Thomas Randolph, Vice Chancellor of Oxford University
Many today think it appears from the beginning of Luke’s Gospel that he was not an eyewitness of what he has recorded, and so indeed the words, as they stand in recent translations seem to convey. But this interpretation seems to be attended with great difficulties. If so many had set forth declarations of these things, even as they received them from eyewitnesses, why did Luke decide to set forth a new declaration? The reason just given, why it seemed good to him to write this Gospel, seems rather to prove the contrary, that he had no good reason to write it. Again, what further certainty could he impart to Theophilus, or other Christians, than those who had written before him?
Another question, which here naturally arises, is how such a person as Luke was induced, or employed, to write his Gospel. There were twelve Apostles, and several others, who had attended our Lord during his ministry who had been eyewitnesses to the greatest part of his transactions. Why then was Luke chosen to record those transactions, since he could only provide hearsay evidence. In fact, according to some, he wasn’t even converted to the Christian faith until some years after Jesus’ ascension. I am sensible indeed that God may employ what instruments he pleases, and that it little becomes us to prescribe to the divine wisdom. But we may be allowed, with humble submission, to say that on the grounds of common probability, it seems rather unlikely that, when there were so many eyewitenesses of the word (Lk 1:2), God should commission someone to record the story of Jesus who received his knowledge only from the reports of others. These reasons incline me strongly to doubt of the common interpretation of the prologue, and to inquire whether Luke’s words cannot be interpreted differently, in a way that is more free of difficulties.
Luke makes clear from the outset that his aim was to write a narrative that was accurate and authentic. Just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants delivered to us, so too Luke writes that, “It seemed good also to me…to write an orderly narrative” since he had “attended all these things from the very beginning” (παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν; Lk 1:3). I am sensible that the word παρηκολουθηκότι may, and often does bear an inferior significance—to trace out things by inquiry. But the sense here given is the primary, and most natural signification of the word. And it is observable that Josephus makes the same apology for the truth of his history, as Luke does here for his Gospel. In the following passage, he sets forth himself as worthy of credit in the following manner:
Everyone that undertakes to deliver the history of actions truly, ought to know them accurately himself in the first place, as either having been personally involved (παρηκολουθηκότα) in them himself, or been informed of them by such as knew them.
— Josephus, Against Apion, 1:53
The Greek word Josephus uses above related to personal involvement is the same one we find in Luke’s prologue, and it is opposed to knowledge acquired by inquiry of others. If the word in Luke 1:3 is interpreted in this way, it answers to the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word in the previous verse and makes the sense more clear. It gives us a reason why it seemed good to Luke to write his Gospel, and how Theophilus and other Christians could have certainty about the events he records. It also corresponds to the qualifcations required of an Apostle in the first chapter of the Acts. “Having attended all these things from the very beginning” (Lk 1:3), is the same as, “having been among the company of the Apostles all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among them” (Acts 1:21). This seems to be as necessary a qualification for an Evangelist, as for an Apostle.
None of the Evangelists were eyewitnesses of everything which they relate. The circumstances of Jesus’ birth, circumcision, baptism, etc., they learned, I presume, from the testimony of others. But they were witnesses of most of the facts which they relate, including many, or most of his miracles. I believe this is what Luke is claiming in his prologue. I will not indeed go so far as to say that this passage will not admit of any other interpretation, but I humbly apprehend that this is a sense the words will very well bear, and is free from those difficulties and objections which attend the common understanding of Luke’s role. And if this interpretation is admitted, it will appear that Luke was an eyewitness of the transactions which he records; probably one of the seventy disciples whom our Lord commissioned (Lk 10:1-24), and it is remarkable that he alone of all the Gospel writers has recorded this fact.
This brief selection was taken from Thomas Randolph’s book, A View of Our Blessed Savior’s Ministry, Vol. 1 (Oxford: J & J Fletcher, 1784), pages 2-9. This version has been mildly edited and abridged for contemporary readability. In 1748, Randolph was elected president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and later served as Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University from 1756 until 1759.
St. Louis Area Residents!
If you’re interested in learning more about forgotten views like this, I’ll be giving a talk titled “Rethinking Luke” Monday night, May 18th at St. Paul’s Evangelical Church in Creve Coeur. This event is hosted by Reasonable Faith and begins at 7 PM.
