The Gospel of Luke begins with a four-verse reflection about the Evangelist’s intentions regarding Gospel writing and what he hopes to accomplish. He states his desire to rewrite the story of Christ’s life and ministry. An in-depth study of the preface will shed light on several points concerning the Gospel’s purpose and character. Parsons also notes that the preface to Luke has been thoroughly analyzed in the scholarly literature. There are still many questions unanswered. The preface is either a genre of historiography, or falls better in the category ?…of scientific treatisesDoes Luke mean to criticize the work of his predecessors to tell a story about Jesus or do they share basic continuity? This essay explores the key elements of Luke’s prologue. These might help us understand the motives and objectives of the author’s composition.
It is worth reading the prologue in its entirety to understand what Luke is saying. You can then address specific questions. Luke begins his Gospel by saying that many have promised to give an orderly account, much like the ones handed on to them from those who were servants and eyewitnesses of the word. 1:1). Luke is talking about Gospels he plans to revise. His tone is ambiguous, as the term undertaken’ can sometimes mean ‘attempted’. Luke describes his sources in the New Testament as eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry. He also uses the Greek noun autoptes’ to describe them; the term undertaken’ can sometimes be translated to ‘attempted’. This could possibly add an element of perceived failure. Luke calls the apostles officials of Christ twice, at Acts 26.16. You can imagine his meticulousness when examining these accounts. Luke believes that there is a need for another account. “I too decided to write an orderly account, having carefully examined all the details from the first,” he wrote. The arrangement was in line with the events and may suggest Luke’s belief that it hasn’t been done or completed in the most thorough manner. Luke-Acts is meant for Theophilus. His name translated as ‘friend by God’. Luke gives him the title’most exceptional’ (kratistos -‘stong and mighty’). This superlative is used to describe important officials but can also be used to address politely. It is impossible to know if Theophilus was real. His name translating as ‘lover God’ could be a figurative representation of the pious Christians who would read Luke’s Gospel. It is believed that Theophilus existed, possibly as the literary patron of The Gospel. It is widely believed that Theophilus did exist, possibly as the literary patron of the Gospel. This might help to clarify his goals for the Gospel in general. The main question here is whether Luke wrote an historical or scientific preface. Alexander notes that it is important to analyze distinctive syntactical and formal features of Luke’s prologue. This will allow us to compare these distinct features with other prologue types. She states that Luke’s preface is a short, detached passage that allows the author to briefly step aside from his own narrative in order for him explain who he and what he are doing. The preface can be described at its simplest as a label that has an address. Alexander claims that Luke’s preface does not have the same formal characteristics as historical prefaces. Alexander believes that Luke is most like prologues derived primarily from scientific tradition. Luke exhibits the syntactical’ structure, which is usually typified as a scientific prologue. It also includes a dedication, author’s name, theme, sources, length, and the author’s qualifications. The scientific prefaces [7] also contain the formalia Luke used to introduce the second person and for Acts 1:1′. Furthermore, Luke and the scientific prose style have a preference for a periodic style’ rather than a more paraatactic style throughout most of the text. There are also clear similarities between them in vocabulary. Alexander cites a shared preference for compound variations of the words used for writing and composing. Alexander states that all these factors lead to the conclusion that Luke’s preface is the closest of all Greek prefaces to the scientific tradition, and that Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1 are the only places where it is necessary for any other Greek literary tradition to be invoked[8].
Adams insists on rebutting Alexander’s claim, claiming Luke’s prologue corresponds more closely to the historical prefaces in Alexander’s day. Adams points out that Luke starts his Gospel in perfect Hellenistic Greek while the rest of his work is full of Hebrewisms[9].]; this was a technique used by Greek historians who started their texts with formal Greek and then eased into informality. Adams claims that Luke is attempting to imitate literary techniques and associating himself with the Greek history genre. Alexander contends that Luke’s preface is too brief to be considered historical. It consists of one sentence and forty-two Greek word. Adams points out that Luke is actually within the limits of the standard historical preface length when one examines a reasonable selection of historical prologues, rather than only Alexander’s. Thucydides prologue stands out most clearly from the sample of 3490 words in History of the Peloponnesian War[11]. Xenophon’s Cumulative Work contains only twenty-nine words. Luke’s forty-2 words seem appropriate as historical preface. Luke emphasizes that the information he provided has been thoroughly examined and researched from the beginning. Adams notes that Adams ‘this search to find truth is one main theme in historical works and a key feature on other historical prefaces. Historians discuss the importance history to the next generation. For them, history is a tool for teaching and educating the future. Shellard says that Luke claimed that he wanted to become a historian. His prologue, although it has some conventions, is best suited for historians [15 ]…’].
It seems that Luke’s prologue has features that can be compared to either a historical or scientific style. Adams points out that Alexander seems to be comparing Luke to historical works, but only because she uses Thucydides’ work, which is not the historical standard. Perhaps her rejection of Luke’s historical prologue is unjustified. Adams also stated that it was difficult to see how the scientific style could be used to summarize the rest Luke’s texts. Alexander also admits that Luke/Acts wasn’t written in scientific treatise and it is difficult for anyone to consider it a historical book. This makes it difficult to say that Luke’s preface prepares a reader for a scientific book and then changes into historical[16].] It is necessary to analyze the rest of Luke’s Gospel to verify this claim. The Gospel may be a history if it shows signs. The prologue with historical preface traits might, in a strange way, be taken to mean that the Gospel itself is a history. They are interconnected.
Shellard points out certain aspects of the Gospel that point to historiography. For example, Luke coordinates different chronographies[17]” at the beginning of the Gospel. He also includes letters that are in line with historical practice. Marshall contends that Luke’s willingness to give historical facts can be seen by looking at his Acts presentation. Luke claims that Luke was trying to prove the definitiveness of his resurrection proof by using the word ‘convincing’. The apostles also ate and drank with the resurrected Jesus as additional evidence. Because the disciples are witnesses and give testimony to the resurrected Christ’s resurrection, it is important that their reliability be established. Luke may even mention them in his prologue. Luke-Acts has a distinct flavor. It is Luke trying to provide historical evidence that can be relied upon for Christ’s resurrection, just as historians would. Conzelmann claims Luke saw Jesus’ life as a part of redemptive historical, the central piece in the history to salvation. Furthermore, Conzelmann says that Luke wrote something similar to a biography. In addition, Luke’s integration of the life of Jesus and his apostolic years into one piece historical writing proves that he was conscious that he was acting as an historian[19].] Marshall thinks Luke’s role as a Theologian implies that he must write history. It’s not historicalizing; it’s simply interpreting a tradition. Luke saw his task as writing history. We will not be able to give justice to his work if this is not the case. Modern research has confirmed that he was an ordained minister. We know from evidence that he was a history-maker because he was a scholastic theologian. His view of theology led to him writing history. Luke was a historian as he was an evangelist first and foremost. He knew that the history of Jesus, the early church and his faith would decide whether or not he could proclaim it. The evidence seems to support the idea that Luke’s entire Gospel is a historical work. The prologue seems to be a historical work. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to believe that the rest of the text is not historical. The question is still open as to what Luke’s historical writing style tells us about Luke’s purposes and aims for writing this Gospel.
Many would argue that Luke wants to tell the story of Jesus within a context appropriate for his time. Luke adheres to the historical writing rules. His writing can be considered credible and taken seriously. Luke appears to be trying reinforce the story, which may indicate something about his motivations. It is unlikely that the story about Christ needs to be presented in a convincing and legitimate way if the intended audience are Christians. Marshall says that Luke may have used the standard literary form of his era to express his individual thoughts. Luke was making a claim for his work to be included in contemporary literature and thus recommending it. Although he is revealingly writing a piece, he was clearly intending to reach a wider audience than those in the Christian Church. [21] Luke may be attempting to convert non Christians to Christianity. To do this, he must convince others and prove himself to be a credible historian with reliable sources.
Luke may be simply keen to keep his faith in his Christian community. Some have suggested that Luke felt very concerned about the church’s concerns and felt very afraid during his time of writing. In an effort to comfort potential apostates, strengthening the credibility of Christian faith may have been done. Some believe there was a lapse in faith in response to the delay in Jesus’ second-coming. Shellard suggests that there may have been a loss of faith due to the delay in the second-coming. Many have recognized a distasteful tone in Luke’s prologue towards his predecessors. He says that they’merely attempted’ to create their narratives. Luke, however, continued to do so and he continues to use the same order as Mark. However, it does appear that Luke is criticizing their writing skills. Parsons says that Luke’s critiques of his predecessors’ writing abilities are loud and clear in light of the Hellenistic period’s rhetorically complete narrative. This was based on the Hellenistic progymnasmata traditions at work in the Hellenistic era. [23]
According to Luke’s Gospel, Luke was trying to create a historical gospel. Luke appears to have made stylistic, chronological, and tonal changes to make his work more compelling and historically convincing. There are many theories about why Luke believed he needed to tell the story again. Perhaps he was worried about apostasy, or perhaps he wanted to convert more people. Even though it isn’t clear what his purpose was, I think there are convincing signs that it was to create gospel that was appropriate for his context and legal by historical standards. This would make his Gospel more appealing to whomever he intended.
[1] Parsons, M.C., 2007. Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson). [2] Marshall, I.H., 1970. Luke: Historian/Theologian (Exeter, Paternoster Press). [3] Alexander. Loveday. Novum Testamentum 28.1 (1986) – “Luke’s Preface in The Context Of Greek Preface-Writing” [4] Ibid. [5] Adams, Sean. “Luke’s Preface: Its Relationship with Greek Historiography: A Response To Loveday Alexander,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity (Judaism) 3 (2006) [6] [7] Alexander, Loveday. ‘Luke’s Preface In The Context Of Greek Preface-Writing’, Novum Testamentum 28.1 (1986). [8] Ibid. [9] Adams, Sean. “Luke’s Preface: Its Relationship To Greek Historiography. Loveday Alexander Response,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity. [11] ibid. [12] ibid. [13] ibid. [14] Marshall, I.H., 1970. Luke: Historian-Theologian (Exeter; Paternoster Press). [15] Shellard., 2002. New Light on Luke (JSNTSS 225, London and New York Shefeld Academic Press) [16] Adams. “Luke’s Preface & Its Relationship To Greek Historiography: Loveday Alexander,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity And Judaism 3, 2006 [17] Shellard B., 2002. New Light on Luke (JSNTSS 215, London and New York: Shefeld Academic Press), [18] Marshall I.H., 1970. Luke: Historian/Theologian (Exeter : Paternoster Press). [19] [20] Marshall, I.H., 1970. Luke: Historian/Theologian (Exeter : Paternoster Press). [21] ibid. [22] Marshall, I.H., 1970. Luke: Historian/Theologian (Exeter : Paternoster Press). [23] Parsons M.C. 2007, 2007. Luke: Storyteller, Interpreter, Evangelist (Peabody: Hendrickson).
