The Gospel of Luke opens with a four-verse reflection on the evangelist's intentions regarding his Gospel and what he hopes to achieve by writing it. Expresses a desire to construct a revised edition of the history of the life and ministry of Christ and his followers; the author claims to have "carefully investigated everything from the beginning" and to have composed an "orderly account" of events as they occurred. There are probably many points about the character and potential purpose of the gospel as a whole that a detailed investigation of the preface highlights and numerous unanswered questions about the gospel that a study of the prologue might help to resolve; as Parsons notes, “Luke's preface has received extensive analysis in the scholarly literature. However, there are many unanswered questions. Does the preface belong to the genre of historiography or does it better fall into the category of scientific treatises?... Does Luke intend to criticize the attempts of his predecessors to write a story about Jesus or is he in substantial continuity with them? [1]' This essay intends to explore some central features of Luke's prologue and how these might provide a key to understanding the goals and reasons behind the author's composing another version of the Jesus story, given that at least one, most likely two and plausibly three Gospels were already in circulation. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay First, perhaps it is worth looking at the prologue very generally, clarifying what Luke says he will do. Once this is done, you can address more specific questions. Luke begins the Gospel: "for many have undertaken to recount in an orderly manner 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 refers to the Gospels already in circulation which he hopes to review; the tone of this phrase is ambiguous as 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 noun 'autoptes', "eyewitnesses, seeing with one's own eyes". However, to represent his eyewitnesses above and beyond mere spectators, he also makes use of the noun "huperetes" which means "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 twice referred to as officials of Christ in the New Testament, for example in Acts 26:16: 'But arise and stand; for for this purpose I have appeared to you, to appoint you to serve and to testify of the things in which you have seen me and those in which I will appear to you.' By referring to "handed down" history, Luke is establishing a kind of apostolic authority; uses the verb paradidomi, which in this context is often translated as 'transmit to others what you know, whether of oral or written tradition, pass down, hand down, transmit, tell, teach'. After providing some sort of validation for 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 thoroughly studied the stories that preceded him, investigating them in detail. As a physician (which most scholars believe the author of Luke was), one can imagine the meticulousness with which he investigated these accounts. Luca sees the need for a different story ("I too have decided, after having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, to write you an accountorderly, most excellent Theophilus"), arranged in the proper order according to the events as they occurred, this perhaps suggests Luke's belief that this has not yet been achieved or most completely achieved. 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'; The identity of Theophilus, however, remains a mystery among the academics. Luke honors him with the description of « most excellent" (kratistos- "strong, powerful"); although this superlative is often seen in reference to important officials, it can also be used simply as a form of polite address. We cannot be sure that Theophilus was a real person; translates as "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 existed, perhaps as a literary patron of the Gospel. Luke wishes to write so that Theophilus may 'know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.' Luke wants his readers to have confidence in the teaching hence, perhaps, the desire to strengthen it with a new clarity within his Gospel. Having established, in a general sense, what Luke says in the preface, it is worth asking, in a general sense, what kind of prologue he intended to write. The kind of prologue he intended to write could, in turn, shed light on 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 for examining the "formal and syntactic[3]" distinctive features of Luke's prologue and review how these parallel distinctive features of certain prologue categories; she argues that "Luke's preface is simply a short, detachable passage in which the author briefly steps away from his own narrative to explain who he is, what he is doing, why, and for whom." In its simplest form, we could describe it as a label with an address: and this is the type of preface whose origins we must seek[4]». Alexander adopts a position that takes Luke completely outside the realm of Greek historical prefaces, arguing that the preface presents formal characteristics ("author's name, dedication, themes, sources, and length of the preface[5]") that do not correspond to those of the historical tradition. Alexander tries to argue that Luke bears the greatest resemblance to prologues deriving from the scientific tradition; Luke presents the "syntactic structure" characterized by a scientific prologue, "the author's decision to write, the topic or content of the book, a dedication in a second-person speech, the nature of the topic, a reference to others who have written on this topic, the author's qualifications and general comments on the methodology, including sources[6]." Furthermore, scientific prefaces often use the first and second person in their self-presentation and are noticeably shorter than other categories of prefaces due to the desire to focus more time and attention on the main body of the work. Furthermore, «the formalia that Luke uses to introduce the second person and for the recapitulation in Acts 1,1 find a good parallel in the scientific prefaces[7]», Luke and the scientific style of the prologue share a preference for a «periodic style» contrasted with a more paratactic style throughout the main body of the text. Furthermore, distinct similarities in vocabulary can be observed between the two; in particular, Alexander highlights a shared predilection towards compound variations on words for writing and composing. Alexander concludes, therefore,that «all these factors lead to the conclusion that among all the Greek prefaces available for comparison, Luke's is the closest to those of the scientific tradition; and that there is not a single place in Luke 1:1-4 or Acts 1:1 where it is necessary to invoke any other Greek literary tradition.[8]' However, Adams forcefully refutes Alexander's theory by arguing that the prologue of Luke corresponds more accurately to the historical prefaces 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 by making use of a formal Greek style which then transformed into informality as the text progressed. Adams argues that "by imitating these literary techniques, Luke associates himself and his work with the Greek historical genre of his time and informs his readers that his work should be read in a particular way[10]." While Alexander argues that Luke's preface is too short to be considered of the historical genre (consisting of only one sentence and forty-two Greek words), Adams notes that Luke is actually perfectly within the bounds of the standard historical preface length if one looks at a reasonable sampling of other historical prologues as opposed to just that of Thucydides, as Alexander appears to do. Thucydides' prologue is actually the one that emerges most clearly from the 3490-word sample of his History of the Peloponnesian War[11]; Xenophon's Cumulative Works contain only a twenty-nine word prologue. Luke's forty-two words, therefore, do not obviously seem out of place as a historical preface. Luca is also keen to specify that he investigated thoroughly and carefully researched his information from the beginning to get to the truth. Adams notes that "this search for truth is a major theme in historical works and is a key feature of other historical prefaces." Historians typically discuss the value of history for those who come after them and see history as a means of teaching and enlightening future generations.[12]' In addition to affirming the certainty of the facts, Luca also assures the reader of the legitimacy of his sources by specifying that they were initially handed down by eyewitnesses; this technique is evident in the works of Thucydides and alluded to in Herodotus; “Luke falls squarely within the historical tradition when he claims to have obtained his information from external sources who were eyewitnesses and participants in the events he was writing about[13].” Most modern scholars, I believe, would agree with Adams' 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 solid evidence." According to his own testimony, Luke wanted to be taken seriously as a historian[14]". Similarly, Shellard argues that «it should be emphasized that Luke seems to consider himself a historian. Although the terminology of his prologue is to some extent conventional, it is nevertheless better suited to the purposes of a historian[15]...'At this point, then, it seems that Luke's prologue presents characteristics which can be aligned with a style of scientific or historical prologue. However, it appears, as Adams points out, that Alexander, in comparing Luke to other historical works, appears to be using only the work of Thucydides which does not necessarily represent the standard historical style. His rejection of Luke as a historical prologue, therefore, is perhaps unjustified. Furthermore, the scientific style does not seem to encapsulate the rest of Luke's text; as Adams argues, “it is difficult to see how a scholarly preface captures the essence of Luke.Indeed, Alexander admits that the text of Luke/Acts is not written using the scientific treatise form, and that it is difficult to see it as anything other than a historical work. Bearing this in mind, it is difficult to say that Luke's preface prepares the reader for a scientific work and then moves on to the historical one[16]". To properly establish this statement, we must analyze the rest of the Gospel. If we can establish that the Gospel shows signs of being a story, that might make it more likely that the prologue is a story as well. Strangely, however, the prologue which shows the features of a historical preface could be considered significant evidence that the Gospel as a whole is a historiographical work; the two are inextricably linked. Shellard notes some factors in the Gospel that point in the direction of historiography; Luke, for example, "coordinates different chronographies[17]" at the beginning of the Gospel. Furthermore, the letters he includes are in line with the historical practice of the time. Marshall argues that we can glean 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 rose from the dead through some sort of vague argument based on Old Testament prophecy, Luke tells us that the resurrection was considerably disputed; for example in Acts 17:32 "when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some scoffed..." "It is not surprising, then, that the pivot in the Christian case, as presented by Luke, lay in the provision of evidence for the resurrection[ 18]...", for example, at the beginning of the Acts, Luke states that "he presented himself alive to them with many convincing proofs, appearing to them for forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God". By using the adjective 'convincing', Luke evidently attempts to demonstrate the firmness of the proof of the resurrection. As further proof, the apostles eat and drink with the resurrected Jesus. For the disciples are those who bear witness to and bear witness to the risen Christ, the. reliability as witnesses must be firmly established, hence, perhaps, their treatment in Luke's prologue. The flavor of Luke-Acts is that of Luke attempting to establish reliable historical evidence, as a historian would, for Christ's resurrection. Conzelmann states that «Luke saw the life of Jesus as a piece of the history of redemption, indeed the central part of the history 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 age in a single historical writing shows that he was aware of acting as a historian[19]". For Marshall, however, Luke's nature as a theologian necessarily means that he is also destined to write history; no "historicization" occurs, but simply an interpretation of a handed down tradition. This means that Luke conceived of his task as the writing of history and that we would not be doing his work justice if we did not consider him a historian. Modern research has emphasized that he was a theologian. The evidence we considered showed that, since 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 first of all an evangelist: he knew that the faith he wanted to announce stands or falls with the history of Jesus and the primitive Church [20] . It seems, then, that the evidence seems to point to the entire Gospel of Luke being framed as a historical work. Or, perhaps more accurately, there seems to be no reason to reject the heavily documented claim that the prologue is historical, and if the prologue is historical, it seems a little strange to think that the rest of the text wouldn't be. Having established this, the question remains of whatLuke's historical writing style can tell us about his aims and purposes behind composing such a Gospel. Many simply argue that Luke simply wants to frame the story of Jesus within a narrative. appropriate for the time and which met the criteria for a good and convincing piece of writing in its context. This would explain Luke's strict adherence to the "rules" of historical writing; he is following the right path to have his writing recognized as something to be taken seriously and historically convincing. It seems that Luke is attempting to reinforce the story of Christ into an acceptable context within his literary context; this might tell us something about why he is writing. Surely, the story of Christ would not need to be represented in a “historically convincing” or particularly legitimate way if the intended audience were already followers of the Christian faith. Perhaps it is as Marshall claims: Luke has… made use of the common literary model of his time to express his particular feelings. The point in adopting the conventional form is that Luke was claiming a place for his work in contemporary literature, thus recommending it to the attention of readers. He is confessing to writing a piece of literature, no doubt intended for a wider audience than would be found within the Christian Church.[21] It may be the case, then, that Luke's aim is the conversion of non-Christians to Christianity; he needs to be convincing and establish himself as a reliable historian with reliable sources, hence the way he goes out of his way to point this out in his prologue. Alternatively, Luke may simply be eager to maintain the faith of his Christian community; it has been suggested that Luke felt the concerns of the church very strongly and the fear of apostasy was very strong during the time he was writing. Strengthening the legitimacy of the Christian faith and the certainty behind its historical facts may have been an attempt to reassure potential apostates. Some have even suggested that there may have been a wavering in faith due to the delay in the second coming. As Shellard points out, perseverance is a very specific theme in Luke; adds it, for example, to his source Marcona in 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 patience." While we cannot necessarily know the purpose behind Luke's writings, it seems that whether he is attempting conversion or simply the prevention of apostasy, his overall purpose is to offer a compelling and convincing account of Christian history; this could potentially explain why Luke often seems to be a rather corrective gospel in terms of rectifying his sources or, at least, rectifying the way they convey the story of Jesus. Many have recognized a rather derogatory tone in Luke's prologue towards his predecessors; "they simply 'attempted' to compose their own accounts , and the fact that Luca continued to compose their tales, and the fact that Luca continued to compose a new one indicates that he found fault with their attempts[22]." However, Luca evidently does not think that there is much wrong with his predecessors as it retains most of the content therein and apparently largely follows Mark's order. However, it seems like Luke is criticizing their skills as compelling writers; as Parsons notes, in light of what constituted a rhetorically complete and well-ordered narrative in the ancient tradition of the progymnasmata operating in the Hellenistic period, the author's audience would have heard Luke's criticisms of his attempts to).