Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T06:51:20.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Terrance Callan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It has long been almost taken for granted that Luke-Acts is a historical work. Recently, however, C. H. Talbert has argued that Luke-Acts is biography rather than history, thereby re-opening the question of the genre of Luke-Acts. In what follows I will discuss one feature of Luke-Acts which does not support the contention that it is biography. I will argue that the preface of Luke-Acts resembles the prefaces of histories more than those of biographies or any other ancient prose writings. And I will further attempt to specify what historical prefaces it most resembles, and thus what sort of historian, on the evidence of the preface, the author of Luke-Acts was Comparison of prefaces cannot by itself settle the question of the genre of Luke-Acts, but it may make an important contribution. It is often true (and certainly true in the case of Luke-Acts) that the author speaks most directly in his preface. Because of this the preface may provide the best indication of the writer's own understanding of what he is doing, which is an important consideration in addressing the question of genre.

Type
Short Studies
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , October 1985 , pp. 576 - 581
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

[1] For example Barrett, C. K. (Luke the Historian in Recent Study [London: Epworth, 1961])Google Scholar says that ‘both the form and the matter of his work place Luke among the historians’ (9).

[2] Talbert, C. H., Literary Patterns, Theological Themes, and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS 20; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1974)Google Scholar; What Is A Gospel? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).Google Scholar

[3] Robbins, V. K., ‘Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts’, SBLSP (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1978) 2, 193–207.Google Scholar

[4] See for example Colson, F. H., ‘Notes on St. Luke's Preface’, JTS 24 (1923) 300–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cadbury, H. J., The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: MacMillan, 1927) 194–5Google Scholar; and Janson, T., Latin Prose Prefaces: Studies in. Literary Conventions (Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis: Studia Latina Stockholmiensia 13; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1964) 24–6, 158.Google Scholar

[5] Bauer, J., ‘POLLOI Luk 1, 1’, NovT 4 (1960) 263–6Google Scholar; Haenchen, E., ‘Das “Wir” in der Apostel-geschichte und das Itinerar’, ZTK 58 (1961) 362–6.Google Scholar

[6] All references to, and quotations of, ancient authors are based on the text and translation of the LCL.

[7] According to Lucian, the historian in his preface omits the appeal for a favourable hearing (eunoia) and seeks only to render the reader interested (prosochē) and ready for instruction (eu-matheia) (How to Write History 53). This may have been true for prose writers in general.

[8] Robbins (‘Prefaces’, 195–206Google Scholar) discusses the influence of rhetorical and epistolary conventions on the preface of Luke-Acts and argues that ‘since speeches and letters are standard components of biography, this influence is paralleled by other biographical prefaces’ (195). He does not recognize that the rhetorical nature of prefaces in general insures that the prefaces of all kinds of writing are quite similar in vocabulary and style.

[9] Lucian says that the historian makes the reader ready for instruction both by providing a summary of contents and by setting forth causes (aitiai) (How to Write History 53Google Scholar).

[10] This is true of Plutarch, Demosthenes 3.1; Theseus 1.1; Dion 1.1; Tacitus, Agricola 1.4, which, along with Philo, Life of Moses, are the biographies cited by Talbert (Literary Themes, 138, n. 41) as having prefaces like that of Luke-Acts. It is also true of the additional biographies cited by Robbins, (‘Prefaces’, 194, 198)Google Scholar: Eunapius, , Lives of the Philosophers and Sophists 454Google Scholar; Plutarch, Agis and Cleomenes and the Gracchi Compared 1.1; Aratus 1.3. Xenophon, Memorabilia and Plutarch, Larugus have no real preface.

[11] ‘Robins’ starting point is that the secondary preface of Acts does seem to summarize the content of Luke as a biography of Jesus, (‘Prefaces’, 193)Google Scholar. However, it remains a problem that the preface to the whole work does not summarize its content as a biography.

[12] Many historical prefaces give detailed summaries of contents, but some also have briefer summaries comparable to that found in Luke 1. 3. Cf. Diodorus Siculus ‘the affairs of the whole world, beginning from most ancient times … up to his own times’ (Library of History 1.3.6);Dionysius of Halicarnassus ‘the whole ancient life of the city (Rome)’ (Roman Antiquities 1.8.2); Livy ‘the achievements of the Roman people from the foundation of the city’ (Preface, 1).

[13] Cf. Diodorus Siculus ‘in it (history) words agree with facts’ (Library of History 1.2.7);Diony-sius of Halicarnassus ‘truth, the source of both prudence and wisdom, is enthroned (in history)’ (Roman Antiquities 1.1.2); Josephus.J.W. ‘(in history) it is necessary to speak the truth and laboriously collect the facts’ (1.16). This point is fully discussed by Mosley, A. W., ‘Historical Reporting in the Ancient World’, NTS 12 (1965–1966) 10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[14] Wehrli, F., ‘Die Geschichtsschreibung im Lichte der Antiken Theorie’, Eumusia. Festgabe für Ernst Howald (Erlenbach-Zürich: Eugen Rentsch, 1947) 54–71.Google Scholar

[15] Cf. Polybius 1.4.11; Dionysiusof Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 1.8.3; Herodian, History of the Empire 1.1.3. Lucian is wary of this purpose for writing history (How to Write History 9–13Google Scholar).

[16] For example, Wehrli, (‘Die Geschichtsschreibung’, 69)Google Scholar argues that Peripatetic history was of a very different sort and resembled the other main type of 4th century history, that influenced by Isocrates. On the other hand Fritz, K. von (‘Die Bedeutung des Aristoteles für die Geschichtsschreibung’, Entretiens sur l'Antiquité Classique 4. Histoire et Historiens dans l'Antiquité [Geneva: Van-doeuvres, 1956] 85–128)Google Scholar, after giving a good summary of the debate, suggests that Aristotle's ideas were taken up by this first type of historian, at least by Duris.

[17] Cf. Lucian's statement that ‘there is one task and end of history, what is useful, which comes only from the truth’ (How to Write History 9).

[18] Despite the statement quoted in n. 17 above, and some other references to the usefulness of history (How to Write History 9,42,53), it seems likely that Lucian also assumes that history is of this fourth type. He is much more emphatic about the need for factual accuracy in history than about its usefulness (cf. in addition to the passages mentioned on p. 578 above, 41, 42, 44, 47, 50, 61, 63). And the only time he explains what he means by the usefulness of history, he does so in direct dependence on Thucydides (42), suggesting that he includes this element in his understanding of the purpose of history mainly because he finds it in Thucydides.

[19] van Unnik, W. C. (‘Remarks on the Purpose of Luke's Historical Writing (Luke 1:1–4)’, Sparsa Collecta [NovTSup 29; Leiden: Brill, 1973] 6–15)Google Scholar comes to a similar conclusion on the basis of a comparison between the-preface of Luke-Acts and that of Josephus Ant. Van Unnik says that Luke's ‘work was not to serve the purpose of imparting benefit in a pleasing manner, to give examples or a lesson for life with or without a religious tendency. Luke wanted to bring to light the asphaleia tōn logōn.…’ (p. 13).

[20] Josephus, , J.W. 1. 1–2, 7–8Google Scholar; Tacitus, Annals 1.1; Arrian, , Anabasis of Alexander, Preface 2–3Google Scholar; Herodian, , History of the Empire 1. 1–2.Google Scholar

[21] Cadbury, H. J., ‘The Purpose Expressed in Luke's Preface’, The Expositor 21 (1921) 431–41.Google Scholar