Luke’s Preface
Luke’s Preface
Significantly, Luke-Acts also includes what appears very much like the prefaces found in histories.19 Granted, they also show some features similar to the scientific treatise tradition,20 a tradition that not surprisingly overlaps in some of its features with those of history works more narrowly defined (but not novels).21 But some proposed parallels to scientific prefaces seem questionable,22 and while Luke’s preface could fit this tradition stylistically (and most kinds of prefaces share some similarities),23 the stylistic criterion is inadequate without attention to the more important matter of content.24 David Aune points out that Luke-Acts “is obviously not a scientific or technical treatise”;25 moreover, its prefaces do speak of historical matters (Lk 1:1; Acts 1:1).
Loveday Alexander, who originally pointed out the parallels in technical treatises, has clarified her understanding of the value of these parallels. She agrees that Luke is not writing a technical scientific work; her appeal to such parallels in prefaces was not intended to delineate his work’s genre.26 She explains further:
Nor was I claiming that Luke did not intend his work to be read as ‘history,’ if by that we mean a reliable account of events in the recent past. In fact (paradoxically enough), casting Luke as a sober, pragmatic, writer of ‘scientific prose’ might give us a much more secure handle on his reliability. It is certainly evident (as I have made clear all along) that the preface shows a strong interest both in ‘reliability’ and in the preservation of authentic tradition.27
Where the conventions she cites appear in historiography, they appear in writers culturally marginal to the dominant Greek culture, such as Jewish authors.28 In view of his preface, Alexander argues that Luke is clearly not writing rhetorical history or epic history;29 if Acts is history, it is, she contends, the sort of history where scientific and historical traditions “intersect, i.e. on the more scholarly, less rhetorical side of history . . . , and perhaps especially where the author and/or subject is non-Greek.”30
If Alexander debates whether Luke’s preface is appropriate exclusively to history, nevertheless the majority of scholars argue that, in the most important respects, this preface is consistent with or even points to31 historiography. As Terrance Callan notes, a good introduction should summarize what is to follow; 32 and Luke’s summary of what will follow is explicitly historical: “an orderly narrative of the things fulfilled among us” (Lk 1:1, 3). Likewise, his explicit purpose is to confirm what Theophilus has learned about such events (1:4). “Given this statement of the question, it is almost obvious that the preface of Luke-Acts most resembles the prefaces of histories.”33 Luke focuses on “a narrative of events,” as Herodotus “writes of ‘the great and marvellous deeds done by Greeks and foreigners’ (1.1).”34
Just as Luke’s purpose is to confirm truth (Lk 1:4),35 Lucian emphasizes that history’s distinctive commitment is to truth.36 That Luke also sees his work as useful (Lk 1:4)37 would not conflict with this goal.38 Given Luke’s clear statements, especially in view of parallels to such claims in historical works, Luke-Acts would easily enough project a historical genre (especially in view of the following narratives) to a first-century audience.
Luke’s language otherwise fits historical prefaces, as numerous scholars point out. David Moessner shows that Dionysius of Halicarnassus, writing perhaps a century before Luke, “combines three technical terms that Luke will employ in his short prooemial period (Lk. 1.1-4),” and they share also four other key terms.39 Clare Rothschild40 and Todd Penner41 also list several comparisons with most historical prefaces. While not all these characteristics they note are limited to historiography, the conjunction of various features in historiography is significant.
Likewise, when possible Luke sets his events in the context of world history, just as historians (and almost exclusively historians) did in their histories (Lk 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12).42 Moreover, where we can check Luke against extrinsic data, he fits far better than novels set in the past, like Chariton’s romance or Judith. 43 Some have even found in Luke’s work specific stylistic echoes of Polybius and his successors in Hellenistic historiography, suggesting that Luke imitates not only the Septuagint but also the style of eastern Mediterranean historians.44
A more specifically Jewish approach could point in the same direction. After surveying Luke’s use of Old Testament historiography, Rosner suggests that Luke’s use of analogous features implies that he “was writing what he conceived to be a historical work.”45 Some scholars even argue that Luke sought to write salvation history as he knew it from the Old Testament.46 Certainly Luke cites the Septuagint far more than any other source, and it is in fact the only extant historical source (apart from Mark) that he quotes (and one that he in fact regularly quotes with marked citations). Nevertheless, as in the case of Josephus’ Antiquities, use of biblical information would not prevent one from writing Hellenistic history at the same time.47
Luke’s claims that have invited significant question are largely the sorts of issues on which we would expect Luke to have less information from his Christian sources (such as private conversations48 or some events most geographically and chronologically remote).49 Questions on such points should not be used to ignore Luke’s record on the many other points where we can expect him to preserve the best evidence (just as we would not ignore the value of other historians’ best evidence on account of their more questionable material). Indeed, in such places (for example, Acts’ we-narratives) difficulties of this sort appear rare.