‘It seemed good to me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus, that you might know the certainty concerning the things in which you were instructed.'
So Luke tells us that, unsatisfied with other writings, he went back to basics. As a genuine historian he ‘traced all things accurately from the first', so that Theophilus and his readers may be able to be sure that what he tells them are facts, and might ‘know the certainty concerning the things in which they were instructed'. ‘From the first' is probably intended to signify that he began at the beginning with the birth of John and what led up to it. For that is where this new activity of God had begun. In view of his accuracy where it can be tested historically we have every reason to accept that he meant this to be taken literally. He was that kind of writer. Thus it is not reasonable to suggest that he meant that he merely accumulated traditional material. That would not have satisfied Luke.
‘Most excellent Theophilus.' ‘Most excellent' was a title used of Roman procurators. Compare the ‘most excellent Felix' (Acts 23:26). But it could also be used as a title of respect, and it may thus be that Theophilus was an influential man who had become, or was on the verge of becoming, a Christian. But however that may be, we must not see this as a personal communication with Theophilus, although a copy might well have been sent to him, and he may well have offered to have it reproduced and sent out. As with Josephus's work the idea was that it be read widely. Indeed Luke may well have chosen his patron because his name ‘lover of God' adequately depicted those by whom he wanted his Gospel to be read.
‘To write to you in order.' This does not necessarily mean in strict chronological order, although clearly the general outline is chronological. Much of the teaching would not have been given only once. Much must have been spoken again and again as Jesus went everywhere preaching the word, and some would have been remembered in differing contexts, and other would have been remembered without a context. We must always remember this when we speak of similar sayings in the Gospels having different contexts, as though that meant that one writer must be wrong. For the truth was that some of the sayings had many contexts. And others were well remembered but had no context. Luke would fit these latter in as it suited the message he was conveying. And we must remember that Luke was not writing for twentieth century man who is obsessed with time. He was writing for 1st century man who was more interested in meaning and significance, and portraying a total picture.
The people of Palestine in the first century AD depended a good deal on memory. And as the Sermon on the Mount brings out vividly, Jesus deliberately catered for that by speaking in a memorable way. What He said was spoken in a way helpful for memorising, and the deliberate continual repetition would fix it in the mind.
And all would know who were the ones who had the most reliable memories. It was to them that Luke would go. Whether there was a Q document of sayings or not, we would be doing Luke an injustice to suggest that he relied on that alone when he came across so many who had actually heard Jesus speak a good number of times. We are thus assured that Luke actually heeded the eyewitnesses.