The Gospel of Luke opens with a reflection in four verses on the evangelist's intentions concerning his Gospel and what he hope to achieve by writing it. He expresses his desire to construct a revised edition of the history of the life and ministry of Christ and his disciples; the author claims to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" and wrote an "orderly account" of the events as they occurred. There are undoubtedly many points about the character and potential purpose of the gospel as a whole that a detailed study of the preface brings to light, as well as many still unanswered questions about the gospel that a study of the prologue could help to resolve; as Parsons notes, "Luke's preface has been the subject of extensive analysis in the scholarly literature. However, many unresolved questions remain. Does the preface belong to the genre of historiography or does it fit better into the category of scientific treatises?... Does Luke intend to criticize the attempts of his predecessors to write an account of Is Jesus or is he in fundamental continuity with them?[1]' This essay aims to explore some central features of Luke's prologue and how these might provide a key to understanding the purposes and reasons for the composition by the author of another version of the Jesus story, given that at least one, most likely two, and likely three gospels were already circulating. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay First, it may be worth looking at the prologue very generally, elucidating what Luke says he is going to do. In doing so, more specific questions can be addressed. Luke begins the Gospel: "because many have undertaken to write an orderly account of the events which have taken place among us, as they have been handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1). Here Luke is referring to the Gospels already in circulation which he hopes to revise; the tone of this sentence is ambiguous since the term “undertaken” can sometimes be translated as “attempted”, which could perhaps add a dimension of perceived failure. Luke describes his sources as eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry; he uses the Greek name “autoptes”, “eyewitnesses, seeing with one’s own eyes”. However, in order to describe his eyewitnesses as being beyond mere spectators, he also uses the noun "huperetes" meaning "servants" or "ministers" of the word; Throughout the Bible, this title refers to the servants and soldiers of the high priest, the temple, and the king. The apostles are called servants of Christ twice in the New Testament, for example in Acts 26:16: “But arise and stand; for for this purpose I have appeared to you, to establish you to serve and to testify of the things in which you have seen me and of the things in which I will appear to you. By referring to “handed down” history, Luke establishes a kind of apostolic authority; he uses the verb paradidomi, which in this context is often translated as “to transmit to others what one knows, from oral or written tradition, to transmit, to transmit, to transmit, to tell, to teach”. Having provided some sort of validation of his account arising from this apostolic authority, Luke goes on to establish his "own credentials for the task of writing[2]"; he assures his audience that he has studied the stories that preceded him in depth, expanding upon them. As a physician (what most scholars believe to be the author ofLuc), one can imagine the meticulousness with which he investigated these stories. Luke sees the need for a different narrative ("I too, having carefully studied everything from the beginning, have decided to write down an orderly narrative for you, most excellent Theophilus"), arranged in the appropriate order in accordance with events such as they have happened, perhaps this suggests Luke's belief that it has not yet been achieved or achieved in the most complete way. We are told that Luke-Acts is intended for Theophilus, whose name translates as "friend of God" or "beloved of God" or "beloved of God"; Theophile's identity, however, remains a mystery among scholars. Luke honors him with the description “most excellent” (kratistos – “strong, mighty”); Although this superlative is often used in reference to important officials, it can also simply be used as a form of polite address. We cannot be sure if Theophilus was a real person; his name translating to “lover of God,” he could simply have been a figurative character representative of the pious individuals who would read the Gospel of Luke. However, it is widely suspected that Theophilus actually existed, perhaps as a literary patron of the Gospel. Luke wishes to write so that Theophilus may “know the truth concerning the things concerning which you have been instructed.” Luke wants his readers to have confidence in the teaching, hence perhaps his desire to reinforce it with new clarity within his Gospel. Having established, in a general way, what Luke says in the preface, it is appropriate to ask questions, in a general way. generally speaking, what type of prologue he intended to write. The type of prologue he intended to write could, in turn, illuminate what he was determined to accomplish in the gospel as a whole. The question really boils down to whether Luke composed a scientific or historical preface. Alexander notes that we must adopt a technique of examining the distinctive "formal and syntactic[3]" features of Luke's prologue and examining how these distinctive features parallel certain categories of prologue; she states that "Luke's preface is simply a short detachable passage in which the author briefly departs from his own narrative to explain who he is, what he does, why, and for whom." In its simplest form, it could be described as a label with an address: and this is the kind of preface whose origins should be sought[4]. Alexander takes a position that completely removes Luke from the realm of Greek historical prefaces, arguing that the preface has formal features ("author name, dedication, themes, sources, and length of the preface[5]") that do not correspond to those of historical tradition. . Alexander seeks to argue that Luke most closely resembles prologues from the scientific tradition; Luke expounds the "syntactic structure" characterized by a scientific prologue, "the author's decision to write, the subject or content of the book, a dedication to the second person, the nature of the subject, a reference to others who wrote. on this subject, the author's qualifications and his general remarks on the methodology, including the sources[6].' Additionally, scientific prefaces often use the first and second person in their self-introduction and are considerably shorter than other categories of prefaces due to the desire to devote more time and attention to the main body of the work . Furthermore, "the formalities that Luke uses to introduce the second person and for the reprise in Acts 1:1 are well paralleled in the scientific prefaces[7]", Luke and the style of the scientific prologue sharea preference for a “periodic style” in contrast. to a more paratactic style throughout the main body of the text. Additionally, one can observe distinct similarities in vocabulary between the two; specifically, Alexander highlights a shared preference for compound variations of words intended for writing and composition. Alexander therefore concludes that “all these factors lead us to conclude that of all the Greek prefaces available for comparison, that of Luke is closest to those of the scientific tradition; and that there is no point in Luke 1:1-4 or Acts 1:1 where it is necessary to invoke another Greek literary tradition.[8] forcefully refutes Alexander's theory, asserting that the Luke's prologue corresponds more precisely to the historical prefaces that were prevalent in the author's time. First, Adams points out that Luke begins his Gospel using perfect Hellenistic Greek while the rest of the work is littered with "Hebraisms[9]"; this technique was used by Greek historiographers who began their texts using a formal Greek style which then changed to informal as the text progressed. Adams argues that "by imitating these literary techniques, Luke associates himself and his work with the genre of Greek history of his time and informs his readers that his work must be read in a particular way."[10] . While Alexander argues that Luke's preface is too short to be considered belonging to the historical genre (consisting of a single sentence and forty-two Greek words), Adams notes that Luke actually falls squarely within the confines of the standard length of the historical preface when looking at a reasonable sample of other historical prologues, as opposed to that of Thucydides only, as Alexander seems to do. Thucydides' prologue is in fact the one that stands out most clearly in the 3,490-word sample of his History of the Peloponnesian War[11]; The Cumulative Works of Xenophon contain only a twenty-nine word prologue. Luke's forty-two words therefore obviously do not seem out of place as a historical preface. Luke also wants to make it clear that he has been investigating and researching his information thoroughly from the beginning in order to uncover the truth. Adams notes that "this search for truth is one of the main themes of historical works and is a key element of other historical prefaces." Historians generally discuss the value of history to those who come after them, and they view history as a means of teaching and enlightening future generations.[12] In addition to asserting his certainty about his facts, Luke also assures the reader of the legitimacy of his sources by specifying that they were initially transmitted by eyewitnesses; this technique is evident in the works of Thucydides and mentioned in Herodotus; “Luke fits squarely into historical tradition when he asserts that he obtained his information from outside sources who were eyewitnesses and participants in the events he wrote about.[13] » The majority of modern scholars would, I think, agree with Adams's position on Luke's prologue; Marshall, for example, argues that the preface "indicates a concern to provide a reliable history, confirming previous accounts and based on sound evidence." According to his own account, Luke wanted to be taken seriously as a historian.[14] Similarly, Shellard argues that "it must be emphasized that Luke seems to regard himself as a historian." Although the terminology of his prologue is to some extent conventional, it is nevertheless most suited to the purposes of a historian[15]... "At this point, then, it seems that Luke's prologue exhibits features whichcan be aligned with either a scientific or historical prologue style. However, it seems, as Adams points out, that Alexander, in paralleling Luke with other historical works, appears to be using only the work of Thucydides which does not necessarily represent the standard historical style. His dismissal of Luke as historical prologue is therefore perhaps unwarranted. Furthermore, the scientific style does not seem to summarize the rest of Luke's text; as Adams argues, "it is difficult to see how a scholarly preface captures the essence of Luke. In fact, Alexander admits that the text of Luke/Acts is not written in the form of a scientific treatise and that it is difficult to consider it as anything other than a historical work. From this perspective, it is difficult to assert that Luke's preface prepares the reader for scientific work and then transforms into historical work[16]. In order to correctly establish this statement, we must analyze the rest of the Gospel. If we can establish that the Gospel does indeed show signs of history, it might make it more likely that the prologue is also history. Unfortunately, the prologue presenting the features of a historical preface could be taken as significant evidence that the Gospel as a whole is a work of historiography; the two are inextricably linked. Shellard notes certain factors in the Gospel that are consistent with the historiography; for example, Luke “coordinates different chronographies[17]” at the beginning of the Gospel. Additionally, the letters he includes correspond to historical practice of the time. Marshall argues that we can understand Luke's interest in providing historical facts from a study of his presentation of the resurrection in Acts. Preachers had often established the claim that Jesus had risen from the dead through some sort of vague argument based on Old Testament prophecy. Luke tells us that the resurrection was greatly contested; for example in Acts 17:32: “When they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed. » “It is therefore not surprising that the linchpin of the Christian case, as presented by Luke, lies in the provision of evidence. for the resurrection[18]...' For example, at the beginning of Acts, Luke states that 'he presented himself alive to them by many convincing proofs, appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God'. (1:3) By using the adjective “convincing,” Luke is obviously attempting to demonstrate the decisiveness of the evidence for the resurrection. As further proof, the apostles eat and drink with the resurrected Jesus. Since the disciples are those who testify and bear witness to the resurrected Christ, their reliability as witnesses must be firmly established, hence perhaps their treatment in Luke's prologue. The mood of Luke-Acts is that of Luke attempting to establish reliable historical evidence, as a historian would, for the resurrection of Christ. Conzelmann asserts that “Luke viewed the life of Jesus as a piece of the story of redemption, indeed the central part of the story of salvation, and that he wrote something resembling a biography of Jesus. Furthermore, the way in which Luke articulated the life of Jesus and the apostolic times in a single historical writing shows that he was conscious of acting as a historian.[19] For Marshall, however, Luke's nature as a theologian necessarily means that he is also required to write history; no “historicization” takes place, simply an interpretation of a transmitted tradition. This means that Luke conceived his task as that of writing history and that we will fail to do justice to his work if we do not consider itlike a historian. Modern scholarship has emphasized that he was a theologian. The evidence we looked at showed that because he was a theologian, he must have been a historian. His vision of theology led him to write history... Luke was a historian because he was above all an evangelist: he knew that the faith he wished to proclaim depends on the history of Jesus and the early Church.[20] . So it seems that the evidence seems to indicate that the entire Gospel of Luke is presented as a historical work. Or, perhaps more precisely, there seems to be no reason to reject the widely supported claim that the prologue is historical and, if the prologue is historical, it seems a bit odd to think that the rest of the text does not. would not be. With this established, there remains the question of what Luke's historical writing style can tell us about his purposes and the purposes behind the composition of such a Gospel. Many would simply say that Luke simply wants to frame the story of Jesus within a narrative. appropriate to the times and which met the criteria of good and compelling writing in its context. This would explain Luke’s strict adherence to the “rules” of historical writing; he follows the right channels so that his writings are recognized as something to be taken seriously and to be historically compelling. It seems that Luke is attempting to reinforce the story of Christ within a framework acceptable within his own literary context; this might suggest to us something about why he writes. Surely, the story of Christ would not need to be described in a “historically compelling” or particularly legitimate way if its intended audience were already followers of the Christian faith. Perhaps it is as Marshall argues: Luke...made use of the common literary model of his day to express his own particular feelings. The point of adopting the conventional form is that Luke claimed a place for his work in contemporary literature and thus recommended it to the attention of readers. He is writing a piece of literature, undoubtedly aimed at a wider audience than one would find within the circle of the Christian Church.[21] It could therefore be that Luke's goal is the conversion of non-Christians to Christianity; he must be convincing and establish himself as a trustworthy historian with reliable sources, hence the efforts he makes to emphasize this in his prologue. Alternatively, Luke might simply want to maintain the faith of his Christian community; it has been suggested that Luke felt the concerns of the Church very strongly and that the fear of apostasy was very strongly felt during the period in which he was writing. Reinforcing the legitimacy of the Christian faith and the certainty behind its historical facts was perhaps an attempt to reassure potential apostates. Some have even suggested that faith may have wavered due to the delay in the second coming. As Shellard points out, perseverance is a very specific theme in Luke; he adds it, for example, to his source Markan at 8:15 'But as for this in the good land, these are they who, when they hear the word, hold it fast with an honest and good heart , and bear fruit.' with patient endurance. Although we cannot necessarily know the purpose behind Luke's writings, it seems that whether he was attempting to convert or simply prevent apostasy, his overarching goal was to offer a compelling and convincing account of the Christian history; this could potentially explain why Luke often appears to be a rather corrective gospel in terms of rectifying its sources or, at least, rectifying the way they convey the story of Jesus. Many have).