Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing

Author(s): Loveday Alexander

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 28, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1986), pp. 48-74
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560667 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 13:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Novum TestamentumXXVIII, 1 (1986)

LUKE'S PREFACE IN THE CONTEXT OF GREEK

PREFACE-WRITING

by

LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

Manchester

In 1899 P. Corssenwrotein a reviewof Blass's Philology

ofthe
Gospels:
"Mit dem Evangeliumdes Lukas istdas Evangeliumaus dem Dunkel der Con-
ventikelauf den Biichermarkt Beweis das Prooemium...Mit
hinausgetreten...
solchemRaffinement schreibtKeiner, der im Verborgenenbleibenwill,das ist
berechnetaufein grofiesPublikum".'

These wordsmarkeda turning-point in the scholarlytreatment of

theLukan preface:a retreatfromtheprimaryexegesisoftheplain
meaningofthetext(alreadydeclareda hopelesstaskby Aberlein
18632),thebeginnings ofa questforthemeaningbehindthewords.
And theysuggestalreadyone directionin whichthatquest would
lead. For Corssen,a certainliterary style("solchemRaffinement")
impliesa certainaudience("ein gro1fes Publikum")and pointsto a
particular social settingfor the work ("aus dem Dunkel der Con-
ventikelauf den Biichermarkt hinaus"). The preface,he reasons,
implies an intention on Luke's part to write'Literature'in the
morerestricted senseoftheword,'Hochliteratur' or 'Belles-lettres'
(theterms are inexact but for themoment useful).3Corssen'sobiter
dictathusconstitute whatis virtuallya programmeforthe subse-
quent studyofthe Lukan preface.

P. Corssen,Gittingische
Gelehrte 1899,pp. 305ff.
Anzeigen,
2 Theologische 45 (1863), p. 99: The only sure resultof recent
Quartalschrifi
researchon the prefaceis "die Mehrdeutigkeit aller entscheidener
W6rteund
Wendungenin denselben".Aberle'sownconclusionfromthisfactis thattheam-
biguityis deliberate,a sortof code necessaryin days of persecution:a rather
desperateexpedient!
3 For a pertinentand timelycritiqueofthe "Hochliteratur"/"Kleinliteratur"
dichotomy, see P. L. Shuler,A GenrefortheGospels(FortressPress,Philadelphia,
1982), pp. lff.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 49

Once the decision had been made thatthe prefacemarked Luke's

work as belonging, at least in aspiration, to the Greek literary
world, the next step was to locate it more precisely within that
world. Most criticsargued that the conventionallanguage and topoi
of the prefaceset it squarely withinone particularliterarytradition,
namely Greek historiography.This approach found its apogee in
the work of H. J. Cadbury, especially in his detailed commentary
on the preface appended to The Beginningsof Christianity vol. II
in
(1922),' and in the series of articles which he attemptedto work
out the implicationsofhis reading ofthe prefacefortheunderstand-
ing of Luke-Acts as a whole.5 Cadbury's workhas remained essen-
tiallyunchallenged. Most subsequent scholarshiphas simplytaken
it forgranted.6New readings of the prefacehave based themselves
on theological argument ratherthan on a refutationof Cadbury's
case.' Only in comparatively recent times has there been any
serious attemptto tackle Cadbury on his own ground, by looking
afreshat the literarybackground to Luke's composition.8

4 H. J. Cadbury,Commentary onthePrefaceofLuke,AppendixC to TheBeginnings

of Christianity,ed. FoakesJacksonand Kirsopp Lake, vol. I, ii, TheActsof the
Apostles,(London, 1922), pp. 489-510.
5
See especially:"The Purpose expressedin Luke's Preface", TheExpositor
(June 1921), pp. 431-41; "The Knowledgeclaimedin Luke's Preface", TheEx-
positor(Dec. 1922), pp. 401-420; "'We' and 'I' passagesin Luke-Acts",NTS 3
(1956/7),pp. 128ff.
6 Cf.
e.g. E. Haenchen,Die Apostelgeschichte
(G6ttingen,1965) on Acts 1:1, and
similarlyotherstandardcommentaries. Cadburyprovidestheunexpressedfoun-
dationforsuchworksas C. K. Barrett,LuketheHistorian inRecent Study (London,
1961),and E. Pliimacher, Lukasals hellenistischer (G6ttingen,1972),and
Schriftsteller
fortheinclusionofLuke's workin A. J. Toynbee,Greek HistoricalThought (London,
1924).
7 E.g. G. Klein, "Lukas 1:1-4 als theologisches Programm",in ZeitundGe-
schichte, Bultmann Dankesgabe zum 80. Geburtstag(Tiibingen, 1964), pp.
193-216.AgainstKlein,cf.H. Flender,St.Luke:Theologian ofRedemptive tr.
History,
R. H. Fuller(London, 1967), p. 65 n. 3.
8 This is not the place fora fullbibliography, but note especiallyW. C. van
Unnik, "Opmerkingenoverhetdoel van Lucas' geschiedwerk (Luc. 1:4)", Ned.
Theol.Tijdschrift9 (1954-5),pp. 323-33;idem,"Once moreSt. Luke's Prologue",
Neotestamentica 7 (1963), pp. 7-26; and Vernon Robbins, "Prefacesin Greco-
Roman Biographyand Luke-Acts",SBL Seminar Papersvol. II, ed. P. J. Achte-
meier(Missoula: ScholarsPress, 1978), pp. 193-207.Conzelmann,Die Mitteder
Zeit3(Tiibingen,1960),p. 7 n. 1 arguesthatprefacesbelongproperly to epideictic
literature,not historical,and thus mark a developmentfrom historyto
"monographs";but he makesno real attemptto examinetheuses and formsof
prefacesin Greekhistoriography. See also nowJ. A. Fitzmyer,TheGospel According
toLukeI-XI (AnchorBible: Doubleday,N.Y., 1981), pp. 287-302.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
50 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

There have always been difficulties,however, in this "received

opinion". For the social historian of the early church there is a
degree of implausibilityin any view that would see Luke eitheras
settingout consciouslyto write"Greek history"or as presentingan
"Apology" for the new movement to Roman authority: either
would seem to imply a high level of rhetoricalculture for which
thereis littleevidence even in Luke's own work,let alone in the rest
of the New Testament.9And in literarytermsLuke's preface,while
it may look 'rhetorical' as against, say, the opening verses of Mark
or Matthew, is not actually very successfulrhetoric.It is obscure
and ambiguous, overburdenedwith heavy compounds imprecisely
used; the difficulty of interpretingit should in itselfwarn us against
placing it on too high a level of literarycompetence.10Formally,
too, thereare many differences between Luke's prefaceand those of
the Greek historians,differencesperhaps ignored because theyare
so obvious. Thus Luke's preface is one sentence long where
Thucydides' consists of 23 chapters, each at least four times the
length of Luke 1:1-4; Luke does not contain any of the general
moral reflectionswhich are a mark of the Hellenistichistorians;the
Greek historiansby conventionspeak ofthemselvesin the thirdper-
son ratherthan the first;and theynever open witha second-person
address.I
For all this therewas nothingfundamentallywrongwiththe line
of argument followed by Corssen and his successors. As Corssen

9 For a perceptiveanalysisof the social problems,see Tessa Rajak, Josephus

(London, 1983),p. 196and n. 25: "It is unlikelythat[Josephus']originspermitted
him to penetrateas an equal intoany favouredliterarycoterie." Luke's preface
has longbeen regardedas theliteraryhighpointoftheNew Testament:cf.besides
the standardcommentaries, Blass-Debrunner-Funk, A GreekGrammar oftheNew
Testament (Cambridge,1961) sect. 464; E. Norden,Agnostos Theos(Leipzig and
Berlin,1913),p. 316 n. 1: "diese Periode,die allgemeinals die beststilisierte
des
ganzenNTs gilt...". The implication is thattherestoftheNT failsto measureup
to thisstandard-evenLuke cannotkeep it up formorethanfourverses!On the
dangersof overestimating Luke's literary prowess,see A. Wifstrand, L 'Eglisean-
cienneetla culture
grecque(Paris, 1962), pp. 44ff;F. Blass, Die Rhythmen
derasianischen
und romischen Kunstprosa(Leipzig, 1905), p. 42.
10 Cf. van Unnik,"Once More", p. 9: "Had he sparedhimself thetroubleof
writingsucha master-sentence, he wouldhave savedhislaterreadersa nightmare
of exegeticalpuzzles". E. Haenchen,Der WegJesu (Berlin,1966), p. If: "Hiitte
[Lukas] den erstenVers einfacher schreibenwollen,dann hittees etwageheifien:
'viele haben die Dinge erzdihlt,die bei uns geschehensind".
11 Fullerdiscussionof thesepointsmaybe foundin myLuke-Acts in itscontem-
porary chap. II (see note 15 below). See also n. 24.
setting,

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 51

saw, literaryanalysis (of style,vocabulary and composition of the

preface) must lead inevitablyto certainconclusions about audience
and social setting; and as Norden"2 and Cadbury perceived, this
literaryanalysis must proceed by means of comparison with all the
available contemporary literature. The fault lies not in the
methodologybut in its application: even Cadbury's Appendix (which
at 21 pages is the longestas well as the most serious treatmentofthe
subject)'3 fails to spread the net wide enough. What is needed is a
new, thorough-goingappraisal of the literaryevidence, which takes
in as wide a range ofGreek prefacesas is possible, and makes use of
the recentadvances in the studyof Hellenistic style.14 From such a
studynew conclusions as to audience and social settingwill emerge
in due course; but the initial task is one forthe literaryhistorian.15

I. The literary ofLuke's preface16

affinities
Establishing the literaryaffinitiesof Luke's prefacemay be seen
as a exercise in mapping. The outerlimitsof the fieldcan be drawn
withoutmuch difficulty.We need to look at Greek prose prefaces
fromthe fourthcenturyBC (by whichtimethe classic literaryforms
were already established) down to the second centuryAD, thelatest
possible date forthe compositionof Luke-Acts. Within that period
only extant prefaces will be considered: notices and testimonia("x
wrote a book and dedicated it to y") are interestingbut only of use

12E. Norden,Agnostos Theos(Leipzig and Berlin,1913), p. 316 n. 1.

13Norden'soft-quoted remarkson thepreface(see precedingnote)occurin a
footnote to his treatment ofActs; Klostermann'sdiscussiontakesup only3 pages
ofhis commentary (Das Lukasevangelium:Handbuchzum NT, 2nd ed., Tiibingen
1929). It is perhapssignificant thatCadburyneveractuallystepsaside fromthe
work of exegesis to considerthe methodologicalproblemsbehind his use of
"parallels".
14 E.g. Jonas Palm, UberSpracheund Stil des Diodorosvon Sizilien (Diss. Lund,
1955). There are also insightsofa moregeneralnatureto be gainedfroman ap-
preciationof thenewerdisciplinesof stylistics and sociolinguistics.
is a revisedversionofa paperreadat TyndaleHouse, Cambridge
15 This article
in July 1983. I profitedfromthe discussionof myviewson thatoccasion,par-
fromthecomments
ticularly ofProfessorsF. F. Bruce,E. A. Judgeand I. H. Mar-
shall. My arguments presupposethedetailedworkofmyD.Phil. thesis,Luke-Acts
in its contemporary to theprefaces(Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1),
setting,withspecialreference
referred as LACS. This willbe publishedin revisedformas an SNTS
to hereafter
Monograph.
16 "Luke's
preface"shouldbe takento includeActs1:1 hereand wherever ap-
propriate.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

to us at a secondary level, since it is essential to our study to ex-

amine the actual formaliaof dedication, the author's ipsissimaverba.
It is not easy, however, to mark out a narrowerarea of relevance
withinthislarge field.Faced witha bewilderingamount ofpotential
comparative material, criticshave tended to opt for one of three
ways of narrowingdown the field. (1) They have foundparallels in
a single author and posited him as the direct model for Luke. (2)
They have pointed to parallels in an area withwhichLuke's literary
links are already well established,e.g. HellenisticJewishliterature.
(3) They have picked out a likely-lookingarea on the basis of content
(history, biography) and looked there for preface-topics (e.g.
discussion of sources, purpose of the work) similarto those foundin
Luke. All three of these approaches are vitiated by a failure to
establish a wider frameof referenceagainst which the significance
of such "parallels" can be assessed. Parallels in content or topic
can mask obvious or crucial differencesin form,as I have already
observed in my remarkson the comparative lengthof Luke's and
Thucydides' prefaces.Parallels withindividual authors" are mean-
ingless without the wider database which will enable us to say,
"Yes, Luke is like x, but he is morelikey". This is so even in the
case of HellenisticJewishliterature,where thereis a positiveprima
facie case for literaryinfluence. None of the survivingprefaces in
that literatureis close enough to Luke's to provide a clear model,
and thus we stillhave to ask whetherLuke in his prefacemay not be
closer to other areas of Greek literature.
This does not mean that the only course leftto us is to examine
every single Greek preface in turn within the allotted time span.
Such an examination would be virtuallyimpossible to assimilate,
and would be in any case inherentlyproblematic unless we have
some idea at the outset what we are looking for. We must begin
with a serviceable descriptionof Luke's preface. We need to draw
up a list of its characteristicsand to agree on the relativeimportance
of these characteristicsforthe purposes of establishingparallelism.
Since a preface is a formalliteraryconvention,formaland syntac-
tical characteristicsshould take precedence over topics. Style per-
forcecomes last, not because it is unimportantbut because we still

17 Exceptin therarecases wheretheparallelsare so overwhelmingas to make

thecase fordirectliterary
dependenceunassailable.Thereare no suchparallelsin
thecase of Luke's preface.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 53

lack an objective descriptivelanguage forthe nuances ofGreek style

in the sort of texts we will be dealing with. Terms like "literary"
and "rhetorical" are not precise enough, and it is difficultto pro-
ceed securelybeyond them, except by piecemeal comparisons with
other authors. However, styleprovides an essential fourthcompo-
nent once we have located points of contact in form, syntax and
content. Following this line of approach we can set out a hierar-
chical checklistof possible points of comparison, and thence pro-
ceed to draw up some kind of diachronic guide to the field under
review, on the basis of which we can build up a picture of the
generic and other relationships within the field, and so locate
Luke's true position in a methodologicallysound manner.

Luke's preface:A checklist

ofcharacteristics
An objective descriptionof Luke's preface, based on the hierar-
chy suggested, mightlook somethinglike this:
a) Form: 1. Short (one sentence)
2. First person
3. Second-person address: - name (inserted vocative)
- pronoun (sot)
- additional clause ("so that you may
know")
4. Detachable: no connection with the followingnarrative
5. Second volume: name repeated in vocative with brief resume of
firstvolume
structure:
b) Syntactical
6. Periodic
7. Main clause = author's decision to write
8. Causal clause preceding main verb = reason forwriting
9. Adverbial clause dependent on firstsubordinate clause = nature
of material
10. Participial clause dependent on main verb = informationabout
author
11. Final clause aftermain verb = purpose in writing
c) Topics: 12. Other writers(= 8)
13. Nature of material (= 9)
14. Author's qualifications (= 10)
15. Benefit fordedicatee (= 11)
d) Style: 16. Traces of rhetorical style - periodic, feel for sonorous diction,
impressive vocabulary; but rhetoricaleffectivenesslimited
17. Contrast with following text in style, vocabulary and subject-
matter (secular character)
18. Vocabulary cumbersome: multiple compound verbs, many
hapax legomena,lack of clarity
19. Compression: large number of topics compressed into single
sentence.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

How may such a prefacebe summarilycharacterized?Looked at

functionally,it has little to do with the precepts of the rhetorical
tradition as stated in the dictum that the aim of a preface is
"benevolos, attentos,dociles facere Luke's prefaceis
a
simply short, detachable auditores".,l
in
passage which the author stands brief-
ly aside fromhis own narrative to explain who he is, what he is
doing, why and forwhom. At its simplest,we mightdescribe it as a
labelwith an address:19and this is the kind of preface whose origins
we must seek.

The development
ofexplanatory in Greekliterature
prefaces
The fourth century BC was a period of transition in Greek
culture in many respects: one is of particular significancefor our
quest. Writing, though widespread by the fifthcenturyBC, was
still essentiallysecondary to oral expression: its functionwas still
seen as that of hypomneina and the classic literary
or aide-memoire,20
forms were still those of oral literature-epic and lyric verse,
drama, rhetoric. By the fourth century writing had become a
primary means of expression in its own right;21the classic forms
had begun to take on a new lifeas writtenset-pieces(as forexample
with Isocrates' "writtenspeeches""22),and new formswere emerg-
ing to meet the new situation. It was a transitionthat aroused
theoreticalinterestamong the thinkersof the day. Plato was par-
ticularlyalert to the change and its potential hazards:
"Once a thingis putinwriting,
thecomposition,whateveritmaybe, drifts
all over
theplace,gettingintothehandsnotonlyofthosewhounderstand it,butequallyof
thosewho have no businesswithit; it does not knowhow to addressthe right

18 Cicero,De InventioneI xvi, 22; De Oratore LACS chap. II. 1

II 323. See further
n. 15 (p. 273).
19 "Detachable" in literary terms,thatis. These prefacesshouldnot be con-
fusedwiththeprojectingtags 3upot)on whichthetitlesofbookscould be in-
scribed:see F. G. Kenyon,Books(aXandReaders inGreece andRome2(Oxford,1951),p.
62.
20 Plato, Phaedrus275d.
21 Kenyon,BooksandReaders, pp. 20-26,esp. pp. 24-5;P. Friedliinder,
Plato:an
translates
Introduction, and revised,BollingenFoundationLIX (New York, 1958),
vol. I, chap. V (pp. 109ff).
22 Friedlinder,PlatoI, pp. 112ff;on "writtenspeeches",pp. 110-111,and see
n. 6 p. 357. Cf. C. Eucken,Isokrates (Berlin/NewYork, 1983), chap. III, "Das
Problemvon Schriftlichkeit und Miindlichkeit",and pp. 272f;R. L. Howland,
"The Attackon Isocratesin the Phaedrus",Classical Quarterly31 (1937), pp.
151-9,esp. p. 158.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 55

people and not to address the wrong. And when it has been ill-treatedand unfairly
abused it always needs its parent to come to its help, being unable to defendor help
itself."23

Among the side-effectsof the change fromoral to writtenexpres-

sion, in otherwords, are an increased need forexplanation and a feel-
ing that it may be desirable to name a specificaudience.
There were several possible responses to the need for explana-
tion. The use of a preface for personal explanation was already
established as a possibility in the work of the fifth-century
historians,but we can perceive here a marked reluctance to break
the mould ofimpersonalnarrativeinheritedfromthe epic tradition.
There is no second-personaddress, and the classical historiantends
to speak ofhimselfin the thirdperson, not the first.24Where thereis
a lapse into first-personexplanation, as in Thucydides I 22 or
Herodotus I 5, this is in no sense a detachable "label". It is often
forgottenthat Herodotus' first-personremarks on sources and
methodologyoccur not in the preface but as obiterdictaattached to
specificitems of information.25 Xenophon provides a much better
example of an explanatory personal preface in the De equitandira-
tione,which begins witha discussion of the author's own experience
of horsemanship, a descriptionof his subject and readership, and
an explanation of the relationshipbetweenhis own workand thatof
his predecessors.This is an isolated literaryphenomenon,however;
the otherScriptaMinorafavoura more generalkind ofopening gam-
bit, perhaps owing somethingto epideictic oratory. Isocrates ex-
hibitsa more artlessresponse to the need forexplanation in theAn-
tidosis,which begins with a briefpersonal passage external to the
normal exordium of the speech itself;26but this again is an isolated
phenomenon.
23 Plato, Phaedrus275 d-e.
24On thethird-person
"sphragis" see E. Herkommer, Die TopoiinderPromrnien
derRomischen (Diss. Tiibingen,1968),pp. 46ff.On thelackofsecond-
Geschichtswerk
person address, ibid. p. 48 n. 1: "... daBfim Geschichtswerkim Gegensatz zum
Brief kein 'Du' angesprochen wird"; further, p. 25: "Die Widmung von
Geschichtswerken war bei den Griechen nicht iiblich ... Auch zum Wesen der
r6mischen Geschichtsschreibunggeh6rt keine Widmung".
25 E.g. Herodotus II 29.1, III 115.2, IV 16.11.
26 Isocrates, Antidosis
(Or. XV), 1: "If this discourse which is about to be read
had been like the speeches which are produced either for the law-courts or for
oratorical display, I should not, I suppose, have prefaced it by any explanation.
Since, however, it is novel and differentin character, it is necessary to begin by set-
ting forththe reasons why I chose to write a discourse so unlike any other, forif I
neglected to make this clear, my speech would, no doubt, impress many as curious
and strange".

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

Solutions to the problem of definingan audience were equally

varied. Plato's own was a characteristicallysubtle one. The
philosophical writingswhich he intended for the general public
were presentedas dramatic dialogues, in an attemptto provide an
inbuiltdialectic and so simulate the living master-pupilinteraction
which Plato saw as essential to real philosophy." The Dialoguesin-
evitablystillrequired some sortof 'scene-setting',but thiswas pro-
vided by an introductoryor framework dialogue so that the
dramatic mould of the whole was not broken.2" Another (and
simpler) solutionwas to adopt a literaryformwhich allowed one to
name a specificaudience. The fourthcenturysees the beginningof
a long traditionof protrepticand moral discourses and of substan-
tial open "letters" addressed to named, real individuals. Both
formscontain a personal address, but in both cases the address, to
borrow a phrase of Werner Jaeger's, is "organic to the style as
such"."9 Similarlypoetic dedication could use the formof a lyricor
didactic poem addressed to a named individual, but again in this
case the address is integral to the form, not set in a detachable
"label" .30
It is perhaps significantthat classical literatureshows this reluc-
tance to step outside the bounds of a given literaryformto add the
simple kind of explanatorylabel which we findin Luke 1:1-4. Cer-
tainlyit is outside the normal canon of that literaturethat we first
findevidence of thisphenomenon, in the long and multiformtradi-
tion of technical prose('Fachprosa') which I have called
or professional

Plato I, p. 113.
27 Friedldnder,
28 On prefaces to dialogues, see M. Ruch, Le Prooemium chezCiciron
Philosophique
(Strasbourg,1958). Aristotleappearsto have adoptedan "explanatory"typeof
prefaceforhis dialogues(Ruch, pp. 41-3,325ff).Cicero,as Ruch argues,moves
back more closelyto the dramaticform(approachednow withthe eye of the
p. 332); however,in hisadditionofdedicationCicerobreakscompletely
historian,
withdramaticconvention(pp. 330ff).
29
W. W. Jaeger, Aristotle:Fundamentals
of theHistoryof his Development,
revised
and tr. (Oxford,1948), p. 56.
30 Many of the classicpoeticformsinvolvea personaladdress-e.g. didactic

verse,lyricverse;but to call such poems "dedicated" would be to devalue the

word to the pointof emptiness.It seemsreasonableto restrict"dedication" to
describing whata poetmightdo witha bookas such(Catullusprovidesa good ex-
ample), and to excludean addressintegralto a particularform.On thiscriterion
DionysiusChalcus (see O.C.D.2 art."Dedications") failsto qualifyas the first
"dedication"; Athenaeus,Deipnos.XV 669 d-e speaksofsendingrounda poemas
a "toast" (in a sympoticcontest),notofa book. Cf. T. Janson,LatinProsePrefaces,
Acta Univ. Stockholm,Studia Latina Stockh.13 (1964), p. 18 n. 14.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 57

"the scientific tradition".31 It covers all subjects: medicine,

philosophy, mathematics,engineering,rhetoric,rightdown to the
magical sciences of the second century AD with treatises on
astrologyand the interpretationof dreams. Not unexpectedly,this'
is exactlywhere Plato had seen the problemarisingin its most acute
form.The Platonic dialogue was one solution, but Plato's example
did not affectthe vast output of technicalliteraturein all these sub-
jects which was notintendedas "Literature", notinitiallyforpublic
consumption: in Aristotelianterms, the "esoteric" as opposed to
the "exoteric" works. It is here thatthe prefaceas "label", withor
withoutaddress, comes into its own.

Greek"scientific"prefaces
The earliestexamples of thisscholasticliterature(up to the end of
the fourthcenturyBC) have no explanatoryprefaces:theywere not
designed for circulation outside the school which produced them,
and their Sitz im Lebenis defined externally-i.e. the people who
used them knew what theywere. With the growthin complexityof
the world of books in the third centurywe find more explanatory
elements coming in: where the Aristoteliantreatisetypicallybegins
with a bald general statementintroducingthe subject of the book,
Theophrastus tends to spend an extra sentencedefiningthe position
of the subject within the total corpus.32Many scientifictexts con-
tinue to be writtenin thisway, eitherwithno prefatorymaterial, or
with a purelybibliographicalintroductorysentence,rightup to the
fourthcenturyAD.33
However the traditionalso contains a group of texts which do
have the kind of "label + address" prefacewe are looking for,that
is, theyhave briefpersonal prefaces in which the author speaks of

31 The term"scientific" is notideal. I use itherenotin itsmodemsenseto ex-

clude "Arts" subjects,but in a sense closerto the German "wissenschaftlich".
"Academic", "technical", "specialist" and "professional"would all be ap-
propriatein certainrespects,but no one Englishwordcoversall theground.It is
important notto determinein advancewhetherthesetextsbelongto thearea we
mightcall "trade" or "professional"manualsor to themore"academic" sphere:
each case mustbe decidedindividually.
32 E.g. Hist. Plant. III. 1 init. (Wimmerp. 32); De Causis Plant. I. 1 init. (Wim-
merp. 165), II. 1 init.(Wimmerp. 192).
33 E.g. Asclepiodotus, Tactica;DionysiusThrax,ArsGrammatica; Cleonides,In-
troductio
Harmonica;Demetrius, De Elocutione;Hephaestion, Encheiridion;Albinus,
Introductio
and Epitome.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

himselfin the firstperson and (frequently)addresses a second per-

son by name. These prefacesare by no means uniform,but theydo
reveal a discernible pattern.34The criticalfactorin theirdevelop-
ment is the emergence of the second-personaddress, which here is
notintegralto the formofthe treatiseas such: the scientifictradition
did not adopt the didactic conventionof addressinga pupil directly,
and the personal address never penetratesthe treatiseitselfto any
great extent.35 Behind it lie two initially separate sets of cir-
cumstances, both characteristicof the Hellenistic age: the fact of
patronage (generally royal), which produced dedication proper;
and the fact of geographical distance between cultural centres,
which produced writtencorrespondence. I say "initially separate"
because in the earlier textsthere is a clear distinctionbetween the
two. Dedication to a patron uses the rhetoricalform of address
(vocative insertedafterthe firstfewwords);36correspondencewith
a peer, a friendor colleague, uses letter-form."7 Archimedes pro-
vides clear examples of both: on the one hand, the letters(and they
are genuine letters)addressed to fellow-mathematicians in Alexan-
dria to whom he was literally'sending' his work; and on the other,
the Psammites(Arenarius),dedicated in rhetorical fashion to the
young prince Gelon of Syracuse.38However, the two formsmerge
remarkablyquickly. The second-centuryBC astronomerHippar-
chus vacillates between rhetorical and epistolary address to his

34 For fullanalysissee LACS. The authors

discussedin thatstudyare: Dioclesof
Carystus(LettertoAntigonus);Archimedes;ApolloniusofPerge; Hypsicles,On the
Dodecahedron
and Eicosahedron
(= Euclid Bk. XIV); Hipparchus, Commentary on the
'Phaenomena'ofAratusand Eudoxus; Bito, Kataskeuai;Philo of Byzantium, Belopoeica
and Pneumatica;Vitruvius;Hero ofAlexandria;"Demetrius", TypoiEpistolikoi;
Ps-
Scymnus;DionysiusCalliphontisfilius;Apolloniusof Citium;Dioscorides;Ero-
tian; Galen; HermogenesofTarsus; Ps. Thessalus;ArtemidorusDaldianus; Vet-
tiusValens; and Serenus.
35 The extentto whichthe textsare affected by the personaladdressvaries;
sometimesthe "you" is repeatedspasmodically throughout,sometimesit never
reappearsafterthepreface.
36
E.g. Bito, Kataskeuai,Preface 1 (E. W. Marsden, Greekand RomanArtillery,
II
(1971), p. 66.1 = Wescherp. 43); ApolloniusofCitium,In Hippocratis De Articulis
Commentarius, ed. F. Kudlien,C.M.G. XI 1.1 (1965), PrefacestoBksI, II, III. Our
earliesttext,Diocles of Carystus'Letter toAntigonus(ed. W. Jaeger,Dioklesvon
Karystos[1938] pp. 75ff)is in factan exceptionto thisrule.
37 E.g. Apolloniusof Perge, Conica(ed. Heiberg,Teubner 1891-3),Bks I, II,
IV. There is no reasonto supposethatthisAttalusbelongedto theroyalhouseof
thatname.
38 Archimedes, OperaOmnia,ed. Heiberg(Teubner 1910-15,repr.1972). Let-
ters:vol. I, pp. 2, 168, 246; vol. II, pp. 2, 262. Psammites:
vol. II, pp. 216, 258.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 59

"Aischrion", who could be equally friendor patron;39and at the

same period one of the most "rhetorical" of all our prefacesis ad-
dressed by the mathematician Hypsicles to an equally unknown
"Protarchus", not as we mightexpect to a monarch.40
Both formsof address can be seen to functionalso as explanatory
prefaces from an early date. The letters of Archimedes, though
clearly real letters,contain invaluable and detailed bibliographical
and methodological information;it is presumably this doubling
with the Theophrastean type of explanation which accounts for
theirpreservation.By the firstcenturyAD we are findingshortex-
planatory prefaceswithout address which yet followexactly the for-
mulaic patternof addressed prefaces-as forexample in Hero (1st
or 2nd centuryA.D.) and Galen (end 2nd centuryA.D.), wherethe
closing personal clause "so that you may learn" becomes a
generalized "so that whoever wishes to may learn".41

Luke's prefacein thecontext

of Greekpreface-writing
We have now in principle isolated a group of explanatory
prefacesin scientifictextsas meritingparticularattention.The next
step must be to institutea detailed comparisonwithLuke's preface.
I have carried out such a comparison elsewhere42 and need not
repeat the exercise here. For the presentargumentit will be enough
to point out the most strikingsimilaritiesin termsof the checklist
given above.
As toform:I have already indicated that these prefacescombine
first-person explanation with second-person address in the
detachable 'label + address' manner of Luke 1:1-4; the formalia
Luke uses forintroducingthe second person and forthe resumption
in Acts 1:1 are well paralleled in the scientificprefaces. In length
scientificprefaces vary: one of Archimedes' letters runs to eight
pages, but thereare many prefaceson the same scale as Luke's. In
general thereis a tendencyforscientificprefacesto become shorter

39 Hipparchus, Comm.in AratietEudoxi Phaenomena, ed. C. Manitius (Teubner,

1894), pp. 2, 120, 216.
40
Hypsicles = (Euclid), ElementsXIV, ed. Heiberg vol. V (Teubner, 1894),
p. 2.
41 Hero of Alexandria, Pneumatica I Pref. 7-9, (ed. Schmidt, vol. I (Teubner,
1899), p. 2, 7-9); Galen, De typis,Pref. = Kiuhn VII, p. 463 3ff.
42
See LACS chaps 11.3 and 111.2.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

and more compressed, while historicalprefacesin the same period

are gettinglonger. Scientificwritersshow a marked preferencefora
periodicstylein theirprefaces,contrastingwiththe normallyparatac-
tic styleof the main text,and the vocabulary of theirprefacesis very
similar to Luke's; they share a fondness(among other things) for
compound variations on the words for writing and composing.
There is a contrast here with the prefaces found in Hellenistic
Jewish literature,which display some similarformalcharacteristics
but a more flowery,'Alexandrian' vocabulary.
It is in factpossible to go throughLuke's preface word by word
and find parallels in the scientifictradition for virtually every
feature(and I have argued that the fewfeatureswhich cannot be so
paralleled are Lucan or Christian idiosyncrasiesrather than links
with any other Greek literary tradition). But the most striking
parallels are surelythose to be foundin the syntactical which
structure
appears in these prefaces with surprisingconstancy, and in the ar-
of
rangement topics within that structure.It is the constancy of this
patternthat encourages me to speak of "the scientifictradition" as
a unity, despite the vast range of subjects covered by the different
writers.I have chosen some of the clearestexamples to set out in an
appendix below, as the quickest way of demonstratingthis point.
All these factors point to a conclusion that of all the Greek
prefaces available forcomparison, Luke's is closest to those of the
scientifictradition;and thatthereis no singlepoint in Luke 1:1-4 or
Acts 1:1 where it is necessary to invoke any other Greek literary
tradition.It remains to consider what this conclusion enables us to
say about Luke-Acts as a whole and its author's place in the literary
and social world of his time.

II. Luke's prefaceand theliterary

and socialsetting
ofLuke-Acts
What does it mean to say that Luke 1:1-4 is a "scientific
preface"? Potentiallythis conclusion is one of great significance.If
we can firmlysay that Luke's work "belongs" to this categoryof
"scientificliterature" or "technical prose", then we have an im-
mediate link in to a large and neglected area of "middlebrow"
literatureof the firstcenturyAD. The importanceof thisFachprosa
for New Testament linguisticshas already been underlined by the
work of Albert Wifstrandand more especially by his pupil Lars
Rydbeck, whose studyFachprosa,vermeintliche VolksspracheundNeues

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 61

Testamentappeared in 1967.43Rydbeck shows that the New Testa-

ment writersuse a language identical neitherwith the vernacular
Koine of the papyri (probably as near as we can get to the spoken
Koine of the streetsand market-placesof the Eastern Empire), nor
with the classicizing prose of the literati.It is a "Zwischenprosa",
literatebut not literary," a writtenlanguage designed primarilyfor
conveying factual information; and it is chieflypreserved in the
technical treatisesof the scientificwriters.As Abraham Malherbe
has noted,45"almost halfof Rydbeck's references(in the NT) are to
Luke and Acts"; but Rydbeck does not discuss the preface itself,
and he insists(p. 16) that his study is concerned with "linguistic-
grammatical facts" and not with a "technical prose styleas such".
My analysis of the Lucan preface (which was completed in all
essentials without a knowledge of Rydbeck's work) thereforepro-
vides a separate and independentlink with this body of literature.
I would thus present my work as a contributionto the long-
overdue task of "broadening our definitionof literature",'6 thatis,
of widening the canon of contemporaryliteraturewith which the
New Testament writingscan properly be compared. It scarcely
needs demonstratingthat such a widening of the canon will shed
light not only on literaryand linguistic issues, but on the whole
question of the social contextof the New Testament as well. For the
sociolinguist, "any use of language displays certain linguistic
features which allow it to be identifiedwith one or more extra-
linguisticcontexts".7 In the case of the New Testament writings,
thiskind of evidence has a peculiar importance,fordespite our best
endeavours it remains truethatthereis a depressinglack ofexternal
evidence forthe social historyof the Church in the firstcenturyof
its existence, and that the primarydata for investigationmust be
the New Testament writings themselves. That is to say, these
writingsmust be viewed not only as sources fornuggetsof "social"
informationforthe New Testament historian,but also as objects of

13 Lars Rydbeck, Fachprosa,vermeintliche und Neues Testament,

Volkssprache Acta
Univ. Upsal. (Studia.GraecaUpsal. 5), 1967.
4 Cf. F. C. Grant,"not illiterate,
butcertainly
nonliterary":TheGospels:
their
originand theirgrowth(New York, 1957), p. 28.
45 A. J. Malherbe, SocialAspectsofEarly Christianity
(Louisiana University
Press,
1977), p. 41, n. 28.
46 Malherbe, Social Aspects,p. 19.
47D. Crystaland D. Davy, Investigating
EnglishStyle(London: Longman's
Paperback,1969), p. 11.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

socio-historicalinvestigation in theirownright.We needto ask

themconcrete questions: What arethesocialdynamics impliedin
therelationship between theauthorandhisreadership? Whatare
thesocialfunctions ofthewritings insidetheirowncommunities?
Howdo thesewritings interact withtheworldatlarge?Whatkinds
ofpeopleproduced writings likethese,andforwhom?
The importance of thispointhas been rightly stressedby
Malherbe,48 but otherwise ithas received comparatively little
atten-
tionin therecentspateofworkon thesocialhistory oftheearly
Church.49 The New Testament writings havebeenquarriedfor
itemsof information forthesocialhistorian, witha remarkable
of but
degree success; they have noton the whole beenstudied as
objectsof social history themselves. It now seems clear that a
significantelement in manyfirst-century congregations was com-
posed of craftsmen or tradesmen, artisans, businessmen or
businesswomen on a smallor moderate scale.Listsofsuchcrafts
and tradesfigure bothin Tertullian and in Celsus,soand on the
evidence oftheEpistles andActs(suchas itis) thesekindsofpeople
playeda significant part,at least in the Pauline churches.5'
Howevertheevidence as tothebalanceofsocialforces intheearly
churches maybe addedup,52thereis surprising unanimity among
scholarsas tothemajorcomponent intheir composition, rightfrom
C. H. Robertsin 1954 ("the circlein whichMark movedin
Rome- Jewish-Gentile traders, smallbusinessmen, freedmen, or
slaves..."), through Kreissigin 1967("den staidtischen Kreisen
wohlsituierter Handwerker, Hiindler und Angehorigen freier
Berufe..."), and on to
up Wayne Meeks in 1982 ("the 'typical'
Christian...is a freeartisanor smalltrader...").53 The question

48 Malherbe, Social Aspects,pp. 16-17.

49 See thesurveyarticlesby Robin Scroggs(NTS 26 [1980], pp. 164-179)and
J. Z. Smith(ReligiousStudies
Review1 [1975],pp. 19-25),andJohnSchiitz'sIntro-
ductionto the English translationof Gerd Theissen, TheSocial Setting
ofPaulineChris-
(FortressPress/T.and T. Clark, 1982). Bibliography
tianity in WayneA. Meeks,
The First UrbanChristians(Yale, 1983).
50 Origen,C. Cels.III 55; Tertullian,
De Idol.VIII 2-4. See forfurther
references
Wayne Meeks, FirstUrbanChristians, chap. 2 notes 1-4 (p. 214); and cf. le Pere
Hamman, La Vie Quotidienne
despremiers
Chritiens
(Paris, 1971), pp. 54ff.
51 E.g. Acts 16:4ff,18:3; II Tim. 4:14; Col. 4:14.
52 See WayneMeeks, "The Social ContextofPaulineTheology",Interpretation
36 (1982), pp. 267ff.
53 C. H. Roberts,"The Codex", Proceedings oftheBritish 1954,p. 187;
Academy,
H. Kreissig,"Zur sozialenZusammensetzung derfriihchristlichen
Gemeindenim

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 63

that has not been asked (or not seriouslypursued) is: How does this
picture relate to our literaryremains? What kinds and degrees of
literacywould we expect to findamong these classes? What sortof
education did theyreceive? Did theyproduce-or even read-any
literatureof theirown? If so, what was it like? Were theirtastesthe
same as those of the dominantintellectual61ite,or were theyable to
pursue theirown interestsand set theirown standards?54
It is preciselyhere that I believe the New Testament critichas
much to gain fromtakinga closer look at the "scientifictradition"
of technical prose. This will of course be a long-termproject; the
study of Fachprosahas been neglected even on the classical side,
5

and in particularwe stilllack a thoroughinvestigationof the social

context of the scientificwriters. In this essentiallyprogrammatic
essay I can do littlemore than raise the questions, and tryto tackle
a preliminaryproblem which must strikeany studentof Luke-Acts
presented with my rather paradoxical conclusions. I have argued
that Luke's preface is evidence of a positive connection with the
scientifictradition. But in what sense can Luke's two-volumenar-
rativebe described as "a scientifictreatise"? I shall explore this
problem with the aid of three models: (1) Luke as an imitatorof
scientificprefaces; (2) Luke as a reader of scientifictexts; (3) Luke
as a writerwithinthe scientifictradition.What I am interestedto
discoverthroughthisseriesofmodels is just how farwe can take the
observation that Luke's preface is most like the prefaces of the
scientifictradition.

Luke as an imitator
ofscientzfic
prefaces
The simplest kind of literarydependence is that of copying a
single model. This was put forwardas an explanation of Luke's

erstenJahrhundertu.s.w.", Eirene6 (1967), p. 99; Meeks, "Social Context" (In-

36 [1982]), p. 270. Meeks' conclusions are developed more fullyin his
terpretation
First UrbanChristians,chap. 2.
54 The question of literary style in relation to social class is raised (in
Deissmann's terms)but not pursued by Meeks, FirstUrbanChristians, p. 52. Meeks
does elsewhere mention brieflythat Paul occasionally uses commercial language.
John Schiitz has recognized the urgent need for refinement of Deissmann's
categories: see G. Theissen, The Social SettingofPaulineChristianity,
Introductionp.
4.
55
Cf. M. Fuhrmann in Gnomon38 (1966), p. 467: "Die Untersuchung
beriicksichtigtsamtlicheGattungen der Prosaliteratur;inbesondere schenktsie den
sonst von der Forschung nicht selten vernachliissigten fachwissenschaftlichen
Schriftenhinlinglich Beachtung".

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

preface as long ago as 1874, in Lagarde's suggestion that Luke

1:1-4 is a rather incompetent imitation of the preface of
Dioscorides' De MateriaMedica.56 But my observationsdo not con-
firmthis. I have located not strayresemblances to one preface or
another, but rather a nexusof parallels which add up to a family
resemblance. There are too many affinitieswith too wide a variety
of scientificprefacesto make the hypothesisof a single model (even
a lost one) convincing; and, afterall, Luke's preface does make
sense in its own way. I would not see him, then, as an imitator;he
is composing freely,but in a certain styleand withina certainpat-
ternwhich is distributedwidely throughoutthe scientifictradition.
The whole traditionmay thereforebe treatedas a matrix in which to
pursue the investigationof Luke and his work.
More subtle, but equally unsatisfactory,is the suggestion that
Luke mightdeliberatelyhave chosen "a scientificpreface-style"as
some kind of signal to his readers about the kind of book his Gospel
was going to be. On the face of it the idea is not entirelyridiculous.
The scientificwritersaimed at a sober, non-rhetoricalpresentation
of fact, unembellished by literaryallusion or rhetoricaldecoration
(see furtherbelow). Such a stylewould be no more intrinsicallyin-
appropriate for Luke's Gospel than it is, say, for Vettius Valens'
horoscopes or Thessalus' astrologicalherbal, given the highlevel of
commitmentof each author to his material.
What is inappropriate here is not the idea of presenting the
Gospel in "scientific style" as such; it is the whole notion of the
conscious adoption of this stylethat rings false. It is as if we were
imaginingLuke runninghis eye along his (anachronistic)bookshelf
and pickingout one stylefromamong the many displayed-a pro-
cedure which would imply a very high level of literary self-
consciousness."7The linguistsand sociolinguistshave taughtus (or
taught us to put into words what we had intuitivelyknown all
along) that the choice of stylecan operate at a much deeper level of
a writer'sconsciousness. "The type of language we are using," in
the words of Crystal and Davy's classic Investigating EnglishStyle,
"changes fairlyinstinctively withthe Or compare this
situation".",
observation on present-dayscientificlanguage:

56P. de Lagarde,PsalteriumHieronymi(1874), p. 165.

57Cf. Morton Smith in JBL 90 (1971), p. 196: "Nobody thinksof any
evangelistas a literary
man sittingdownto producea composition
ofa recognized
form,in theway one mightsitdown to writea doubleballade ..."
58 EnglishStyle,p. 4.
Crystal and Davy, Investigating

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 65

"Whetheror nota scientist ofimportance

has anything tosayabouthissubject,his
wayofsayingit is to a verygreatextent in style-books,
laiddown-sometimes
sometimesin his unconsciousawarenessof 'how scientific write'.A scien-
writers
tificjournalwillnotacceptan articleunlessitis written
in whattheeditorialboard
believesan appropriatestyle;and thisin theend comesdownto following a large,
numberof specificrulesabout grammar,vocabularyand generallay-out.'"59

It is along these lines-of the "unconscious", the "fairly instinc-

tive"-that I suggestwe approach the question of Luke's choice of
style.

texts
Luke as a readerofscientific
The "instinctive" or "automatic" choce I have suggestedcan, of
course, still be made out of a wide range of options. An accom-
plished rhetorlike Hermogenes would choose the "plain" styleas
suited to his teaching manuals, ratherthan the decorated styleof
full-blownrhetoricalcomposition which he could command when
he wished. Similarly, we might argue, perhaps Luke could have
writtenin a more loftystyle had he so desired; certainlyit is not
possible to prove otherwise. Nevertheless, it seems more
economical to work 'from the ground up'. We know that Luke
could command a biblicalGreek stylewhich is outside the range of
Greek literarytaste; but we have no evidence to suggest that he
could command any more elevated literary Greek than he displaysin
the preface. Like so many of the non-rhetoricalscientificwriters,he
seems to be constrainedby inadequate controlof literaryresource,
rather than by any need for deliberate obscurityor literaryam-
biguity. It seems most natural to suppose that the preface
representsthe upper limitsof Luke's literarystyle,not a deliberate
adoption of the "lowbrow".
Working fromthis 'minimal', economical view, I would suggest
that Luke's choice of styleshould be seen in the firstinstance not as
"scientific" but as formal.Faced with the daunting task of compos-
ing a formal opening to mark the presentation of his book to
Theophilus, he draws on the only stylehe knows which is at all ap-
propriateto the occasion. If we suppose thathis experience of non-
biblical literature(apart fromthe remoteand impracticalclassics of

59 D. Crystal,Linguistics(Penguin, 1971), p. 29. Cf. MortonSmith,JBL 90

cast in similarform..." (my italics).
(1971), p. 196: "... automatically
60
Crystaland Davy, InvestigatingEnglishStyle,p. 5.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

schooldays) was limited to the technicalwritingsof a trade or pro-

fession,this preface-stylewould seem to him simplythe "correct"
style to use for a formal opening paragraph, the appropriate
"linguistic manners" for the occasion.60 Beginning a book is
notoriouslythe most difficultpoint in its composition,especiallyfor
the inexperienced author; what more natural than to fall instinc-
tivelyinto the styleused for such openings in the books he knows
best?
The establishmentof this point-that Luke is to be seen at the
veryleast as a readerof some kind oftechnicalmanuals-is sufficient
of itselfto provide a secure jumping-offpoint for a betterunder-
standing of the man and his world. We need not trouble ourselves
with the vexed and probably insoluble question of whether the
author of Luke-Acts was or was not the physicianof Col. 4:14. The
mere factofthe prefaceimmediatelyprovidesus witha firmlink in-
to the world of the craftsand professionsofthe Greek East ingeneral,
and makes all the more urgenta thoroughinvestigationofthe social
dynamics of that world. Moreover, if the perceptionof the preface
as the appropriatelinguisticmanners forthe opening of Luke-Acts
tellsus somethingabout the author,thenpresumablyit will also tell
us somethingabout his readership-at least about his primaryand
named reader, Theophilus. It seems reasonable to look for an
analogue for Luke's dedication among the patterns of dedication
found in the scientificwriters,most probably in the patternwhich
takes over in the Imperial period, and which is seen most clearlyin
Galen.61 We must proceed withcaution here. Little is known about
the social standing of the scientificwritersand their patrons and
readers, not enough about the social realities of scientificdedica-
tion; reconstructionmust be based on a careful and exhaustive
reading of the texts. Nevertheless the literarylink provided by
Luke's prefacewarrantsa thoroughexplorationof this area of an-
cient life as a background to Luke the author and his relationship
with Theophilus.

Luke as a writerwithinthescientific
tradition
It is one thing to establish that Luke has read some scientific
literatureand adopts the device of the preface as a suitable formal

61
See further,LACS pp. 152ff.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 67

opening forhis own work. It is quite anotherto see him functioning

as a writer,operating according to recognised procedures withina
livingtradition.Can we take this furtherstep? Can the influenceof
scientificwritingbe traced any furtheron in Luke-Acts itself,or
does it cease with the abrupt change of styleat Luke 1:5?
That change of style may itselfbe regarded as a characteristic
featureof scientificwriting.At the end of the preface, the normal
styleof expositionis resumed-mathematical theorems,systematic
divisionsof the subject, or whatever-usually withoutapology. It is
an aspect of the writers'habitual attitudeto "literarystyle'",an at-
titudeof indifference,sometimesof active hostilityto the canons of
rhetoricalcomposition. The same indifferenceis evidenced in the
lack of literaryallusion in these texts-again sometimesquite clear-
ly deliberate, as when Apollonius of Citium omitsa Homeric allu-
sion which was in the Hippocratic text he was commentingon.62
Both these negative aspects of scientificstyle can be paralleled in
Luke-Acts. It has long been a puzzle how this apparently most
'literary' author of the New Testament could toleratethat stylistic
break at 1:5, or why he seems unaffectedby the habit of classical
allusion which pervades most classical Greek literature.63For a
scientificwriter,both would be normal.
Yet such negative similaritiesare hardly sufficientto qualify
Luke as a member of the class of "scientificwriters". How can
Luke's two-volumenarrative,based on traditionalmaterial rather
than on "eyewitness" research or the systematicsiftingof new
evidence, be compared with the treatises of Vitruvius or Her-
mogenes? What possible congruitycan there be between Hero's
Mechanicsor Galen's AnatomicalProcedures and Luke's storyof the
sayingsand doings of a Galilean holyman and his followers?This is
the nub of the problem withwhich the alignmentof Luke's preface
leaves us. As stated, it contains two issues: content and method.
Both, I believe, can be resolved by a carefulanalysis of the actual
practice of the scientificauthors and of the functions of their
writings.

62 See further,LACS p. 140 and n. 30.

63 G. Glockmann, Homer in derfriihchristlichen Literaturbis Justinus(TU 105,
1968), pp. 17ff,59ff.Glockmann findsit inconceivable that Luke should be com-
pletely ignorant of Homer (p. 65). See also N. Zeegers-Vanderhorst, Les citations
des PoetesGrecschez les apologistesChritiens
du IF sizcle(Louvain, 1972), pp. 134-5;
Malherbe, Social Aspects,pp. 41-5.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

The problem of biographical content may be tackled in one of

two ways. The firstis to look at the uses of biography withinthe
school traditions. Here most of the evidence comes from the
philosophical schools. C. H. Talbert has made a number of impor-
tant suggestionson this subject.64He sees Luke-Acts as fallinginto
a patternfound in Diogenes Laertius, viz. Life of the founderof a
school plus Successionor recordof the transmissionof authenticdoc-
trinevia the master's disciples. Talbert's pictureis in need ofrefine-
ment,65 but he does present a useful collection of material
demonstrating the interest of the philosophical schools both in
biography and in the issue of "succession".
Evidence forbiographicalinterestin the foundersofotherschools
is less forthcoming.None of the survivingLives of Hippocrates is
early enough for our purpose, but these later Lives are based on
earlierworkswithtitleslike On theMedical Tradition and On theSectof
Hippocrates.66Exactly how much biographical narrative these texts
contained, and whetherthey would have looked at all like Luke-
Acts, is unclear, but in principle they should provide a parallel
worth pursuing. Other great figures of Greek science were
remembered rather through biographical anecdote than through
biography as such-as forexample in the storyabout Archimedes
told by Plutarch, Marcellus xivf. Here there is not the same
ideological interestin the lifestyleof a founderas there is in the
philosophical schools, but there were other reasons for preserving
biographical details-bibliographical, chronographical,exemplary
-as may be seen, forexample, in the scatterednotices (never part
of a full'biography') whichmake up the sum ofour biographical in-

64
C. H. Talbert,Literary Patterns,
TheologicalThemes andtheGenre ofLuke-Acts,
SBL Monographs20 (ScholarsPress, Missoula, Montana, 1974), chap. VIII;
idem, Whatis a Gospel? (FortressPress,1977); idem,"BiographiesofPhilosophers
and Rulersas Instruments ofReligiousPropagandain Mediterranean Antiquity",
ANRWII 16.2 (1978), pp 1619-1651.
65 It is not clearhow many(if any) full-scale biographiesofphilosophers were
actuallycomposedin thispatternfromwithin theschoolsand beforethesecondcen-
turyAD. IngemarDuiring,forexample,does notbelievethatAndronicus'edition
ofAristotle containeda biography as such,merelya 'catalogueraisonnee'in which
biographicalinformation was ancillaryto bibliographicalinterest:see I. Diiring,
Aristotlein theAncientBiographicalTradition, Acta UniversitatisGothoburgensis/
GdteborgsUniversitets Arsskrift
LXIII (1957)/2,pp. 467, 413-425.
66 See RE VIII.2 s.v. Hippokrates no. 16 (1802-3), and RE Suppl. VI,
1292-1305,in whichEdelsteinarguesthattherootsof thelater"Lives" lie in a
"Hippocraticlegend" of Coan origin,in whichHippocratesis both"der ideale
Mensch" and "Stadtheros",and whichfirstarisesin thesecondcenturyBC.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 69

formationon the mathematician Hippocrates of Chios.67 There is

then some evidence that biographical informationplayed a definite
role in the traditionsof the schools, chieflybut not exclusivelythe
philosophical schools. Whether there is sufficientevidence at the
rightdate to provide a possible model forLuke-Acts, and whether
this kind of biographical activity(which is for the most part an-
cillary to a pre-existentand independent body of oral or written
teaching) provides a proper parallel to the role of Gospel traditions
in the life of the early Church, must remain mattersformore de-
tailed investigation.
The alternativeand, I believe, preferableapproach to the prob-
lem of the biographical characterof Luke's Gospel is to look to the
scientifictraditionin the firstinstance forparallels not in content
but in function.The textsI have studied differwidelyas to content,
and insofaras formis determinedby contentthereis no uniformity
once we leave the prefacesbehind. What theydo have in common is
(in large degree) a similarityof function.They derive more or less
directlyfroma school context: theyare "school texts", that is, not
elementary,watered-downtextbooksin the modern sense, but the
writtendeposit of the techne,the distillationof the teaching of a
school or a crafttraditionas it was passed down fromone genera-
tion to another.6" Forms of presentation vary, some traditions
preservinga stylecloser to thatofthe oral lecture,othersreduced to
differentdegrees of written systematisation;69but the variety of
content is simply a reflectionof the varietyof teaching traditions
embodied in the texts. On this analogy, Luke's biographical
presentation of his material would equally be a reflectionof the
shape of the traditionhe received: theJesus traditionwas already in
biographical form-i.e. it was already shaped and focussedaround
the words and deeds of a single person-and that is how Luke
records it.70
67
RE VIII.2 s.v. Hippokrates
no. 14 (1780-1801).
68
This is, ofcourse,a generalizationofa complexsituation.For fullerdiscus-
sion see LACS pp. 39ff,146.
69 Oral: e.g. AristoxenusofTarentumin, El. Harm.,III 59.6; P. Steinmetz,Die
Physikdes Theophrastus, Palingenesia I (1964), pp. 14ff.Systematic:see M.
Fuhrmann,Das systematischeLehrbuch:einBeitragzurGeschichte
derWissenschaften
inder
Antike(G6ttingen,1960).
70
",Already"- I meannotonlyin Luke's written predecessors (whateverthey
were) but in thelivingcommunity traditionon whichLuke ultimately depends.
The relationship betweenthe Gospel traditionsand the preachingof the early
Churchis a matterofcontroversy: cf. Schuler,A Genre
fortheGospels, pp. 13ff;H.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

In sum, then, I would argue that the biographical contentof the

Gospel and Acts is by no means an insuperable obstacle to viewing
Luke as a writerset firmlywithinthe contextof the scientifictradi-
tion. And on the positive side, the New Testament criticcan only
benefitfrom a more thoroughgoinginvestigationof that context.
The scientifictraditionprovidesthe matrixwithinwhichwe can ex-
plore both the social and the literaryaspects of Luke's work, both
the man himselfand the nature of his writings.
I conclude by noting brieflysome futurelines of research. The
followingaspects of the scientifictradition(in part related to the
social status and social attitudesof scientificwriters,and in part to
theirliterarymethods) should prove fruitfulareas of investigation
forthe studentof Luke-Acts:
a) Many scientificauthors probably exhibitedthe kind of "high
status inconsistency" identifiedby Wayne Meeks as critical in
forming the selfunderstandingof early Pauline Christianity.71
Whatever the social standing of their subject-matter(rhetoric,for
example, would rank high), its teachers and practitioners
themselves would tend to be slaves or freedmen in great
households, Greeks in Roman society, men obliged to support
themselvesby the exercise of theirprofession.
b) Greek culture had a deep-rooted scorn for any occupation
(other than the traditionalaristocraticpursuitsof hunting,farming
and soldiering) which involved working with the hands-cf.
Plutarch, Vita Periclisii and Vita Marcelli xivf. This attitude to
manual labour was not shared by the scientificwriters,who, though
not craftsmenthemselves,speak of the technitai withdeep respect.72
Thus the scientifictradition, here at odds with the dominant
literaryculture,may provide an alternativebackgroundto the New
Testament referencesto manual labour, and especially to the vexed
subject of Paul's tentmaking,which Luke mentions in a totally
matter-of-fact fashion at Acts 18:1-3.73

Koester,"OneJesus and FourPrimitive Gospels", HTR 2 (1968), pp. 206ff.Here

I wishmerelyto drawattention to thelogicoftheancientevidence,ifmymodelof
Luke as a "scientificwriter"is accepted.
71 Meeks, "Social Context"(Interpretation
36 [1982]), pp. 271ff;idem,FirstUr-
ban Christians,pp. 22-23, 191.
72 Galen, De Comp.Med. Sec. Loc. VI 1
= Kiihn XII 894; Philo, Belopoeica,Th.
51.9ff.
73 See Ronald Hock, "Paul's Tentmaking
and theProblemofhisSocialClass",
JBL 97 (1980), pp. 555-64; idem, TheSocial Context
ofPaul's Ministry:Tentmaking
and

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 71

c) Respect fortraditionis a prime value in scientifictexts, and

especially respect forthe passing on of traditionby directpersonal
contact frommaster to disciple. The theme of 'the author's creden-
tials' is not found in the earlier prefaces, but becomes commoner
fromthe end of the Hellenistic period onwards, perhaps owing to
the influenceof the historical/geographical tradition.Even so, it is
noticeable how many scientificwriterstend to stresscontact with
tradition as a qualification, as well as (sometimes instead of) the
personal experience or individual research which would be more
typical of a historicalwriter.74
d) This respect for traditiondoes not exclude-in fact it often
goes along with-extensive use of writtensources. Especially in-
terestinghere are Philo of Byzantium, Vitruvius and Hero, all of
whom, despite theirprofessedreliance on "tradition", apparently
present differentrecensions of writtenmaterial fromthe school of
Ctesibius.75
e) Respect fortraditiondoes not exclude reworkingof tradition;
in fact it is characteristicof these texts (and a source of many
headaches for their editors) that their material was constantly
reworkedand updated-hence the name 'Gebrauchsliteratur'.76
f) The ultimatederivationof theirmaterial froma school setting
does not exclude a fairamount of individual variation, both in the
amount of 'presentational' writing-up(especially where a text is
dedicated) and in the imprintof the author on his material. In some
cases, of course, the author is also the originatorofhis own teaching
material (Galen). But the variation is limited. Even Vitruvius (for
example), patronised by an aristocratic literary circle and
dedicating his treatiseon architectureto the young Octavian, pro-
duces what is essentiallya systematictreatiseof the type perfected
in the schools, containingtraditionalmaterial and using traditional
formulae.77

(FortressPress:Philadelphia,1980). Evenifwe acceptHock's argument

Apostleship
that Paul's referencesto his own manual labour reflecta deliberatepolemical
stance(an argumentwhichI do notfindentirely convincing),thesame cannotbe
trueofActs 18:1-3,whichhas no obviouspolemicalfunction.
74 See LACS, pp. 64-70.
75 See LACS, pp. 144-8.
76 See LACS, pp. 146, 148.

77 M. Fuhrmann, Das systematische

Lehrbuch, chap. 7 and chap. 13, sect. 4.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

APPENDIX

analysisofLuke 1:1-4 and selectedGreekscientific

Syntactical prefaces

A. Luke Date: I/II A.D.

Gospel Text:Nestle.Lk. ch. 1 vv. 1-4.

1 p ookXXto
leipqap v Causal clause (epei):otherwriters
'Et,SceL
&nep"0V (PoTl
xtOXxTL PEVWatV
744vlrp(L.Lt6V,
2 ?ly o a' Adverbialclause dependenton cl. 1:
xa806cipiooaov &
xac
6~ description of subject-matter.
apX'q aur6x7arat rIp&tart
ToG
Yev6[.vot ,6you,
3 18aoS Main verb: author'sdecision.
x&Fio
4 acpvxopou0ux6f 6L
, avo0v Participialclause dependenton ind.
&xp4tcoq obj. of main vb.: author'squalifica-
:eatv tions.
5 xa0csjqaot Object clause: treatment
of subject-
ypotpra, xp&"tM7E matter.
Address
Oe6ttAh, (rhetorical).
6 L'v
onTV&C Jv xay'071
7rE~p Final clause: resultsfordedicatee.
t9v&acpdXtav.
,6ywvTv
B. Diocles Date: end of IV B.C.
of Carystus
LettertoAntigonus Text: W. Jaeger, DioklesvonKarystos
(Berlin1938) pp. 75ff.

1 AIOKAHZ 'ANTIFONfI BAZIAEI Address:epistolary

2 'Et~81
i a ot aUlovst Causal clause. Dispositionofdedicatee
, (3-fold).
touatx)&drc)x&v*rvtv
P3aatLXov
TsTovivott.
xotXniXitov
Xp6vov
P3PLOXivo
C
9tLXoaoo~i0Cg tog LLtupov 60VTO
'~e XLt
trolS
;L4ol70tLrt-
'rUTX(VC.V
xoLgItp6tery)ovtativ,
6 U`orla~ vcOvpoVatXtx~iv re xot 2nd causal clause (participial).
olxEacv [r'v] Xoaoi0av rzivTTpt Nature of subject-matter.
trcovUTtLtv6v
&xo.lv xatV
TE OopXav

4 TiTPotp& aot Main verb.

Author'sdecisionto write.
5 e6sOv at v6aottroZs
&V0pWJrtotr Object of main verb: indirectquestion.
OTOuviZ'raOtto Contentsofwork.
xat 'ivCv
Ipoy-vodv6.ov a7'lyov,

&suTroXtvot"

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LUKE'S PREFACE AND GREEK PREFACE-WRITING 73
6 p XtLWv <&v > Iv r Parenthesis: expansion of (5).
o~'tT
6au=ct7r or d oixt
oUpOvC
ayILeS6)V TLtVC)V 7PpOTSVOI.LEV6)V,

oLnCp aXpaCxoXouo5tL oL
vOau'txoL
oL 1tosXU1t'pot
rtv &v0p(rltov,
oW0;irOo V
xo, OvvOpXrnou (PS'
ouxtayeletou rtvb;
auarl lltworT Ly
tpoTevoI.tvou.
7 ab
a . p Additional sentence at end: results for
era0 tro;L69' Lv TXeyoivotS dedicatee.
eopaxolou0 vt~ &xpL"tPL t
nrptocar7v. eL;

C. Demetrius Date: I BC, but progressively

revised.
FormaeEpistolicae etLibanii
Text:ed. V. Weichert, Demetrii
quiferuntur otO inmcaroLxotl et
eL0T0XLJA.CLLOXYMP'O'Vpe;
(Teubner 1910) pp. 1-2.
1 T&v vr'ov, W Causal clause (genitiveabsolute).
b&coXLox&cv
ey6vryv
'HpaxXtisr, to
v 0seopCav Natureofthesubject-matter.
troUav~rT&V tL &r6 Address: rhetorical, inserted after first
A.V 8 rXett6v0v
X
E&8)v, &V XXO0L hxTVv t few words.
pb6rb
6owapbv &p.top6vrcv,
ry v v"
xaoixA6o'x60wv Causal cl. contd.:faultsof
"tXvtx-
rara yppa l0at, ' practitioners.
S
;'TUXEv Tp,.pOC9.0iVWV
6b TOtWvt& rotLa6OCTOS
to
kit poayL&Trov "T
ta'roTToLvoLt
6toupTyOC;
&voAcsXo.vEv,
2 0 owp&vae tLXO'tgSFXovt~Itp6o 2nd causal clause: part. agreeing with
subj. of mainvb.
(ttlo0t0BC0atv
Dispositionofdedicatee.
3 Main verb:author'sdecision.
enpoTlJAesouadlsAlV
4 6 LVv aranEtyv146v
8t Object of main vb.: indirectquestion.
xL aoboag xCL O 8toOp&a;,
'EXouUat Contents of work.

5 x xot&0rxepTyEL"trFiXa'tou 2nd main vb.: method of composition.

yEvouS TUasW;uonCsayXo

6 pooex0eilsvog ;Lptxx6) tbvrpt Part. agreeing with subj. of main vb.:

Ex=ooU X6yov, furtherdetails of composition.
7 OA Jv oXjo3k&vwCv xat ot 2nd. participialcl. agreeingwithsubj.
To~'o xqaXoptLpvov U6rpxrtv, of main vb.
et rv CXXOv Resultsfordedicatee.
"t eptaao6"tpov
teO' lv
Ivo"oX olst Fp6t)lat V,

8 AI- % x& 1 vol..(,v to I part.cl.: resultsforauthor.

3rd
hkatvou
ipoaixovrtog ~.stOev.
Second long sentenceofprefacecontainsreflections
ofa generalmoralnature.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 LOVEDAY ALEXANDER

D. Hero ofAlexandria Date: I/II A.D.

PneumaticaI Text: edd. W. Schmidt et al.,

(Teubner 1899-1914)I p. 2
1 T; ;vulyArtx; Causal clause (genitiveabsol.):
i
oatou8?f'I poyq r v
.earsg
pbc; natureof subject-matter/other
jrvvrl;gre
xex writers.
1rxolct)v (PlXoa6.Qov
.rlXovtxsv,
2 V&v
jy v XoytxW6r v &6voqLtv Participial cl. dependent on cl. 1:
ottcr &o6s68ox6'rv, xciv &V methodological classificationof other

IvEpydsoc;,
xoxa t' ot;i tiS rc7v
r aOdlrlqr7v writers.

3
xat
&v6
auhrot
Tyxov
ik&pX~cv
vog.ojI.sv
Main vb.: author's decision.

4 to6xb rCovA&pXowv
r& apocoWivra Object-clause: description of subject-
S 'rotv &T~Trov, matter.
5 at
xoat
&
iS, TU poaupqixoaE 2nd object-cl.:descr.contd.

;
oU T&p
g to Iv ToTL
c3VXa Additionalmain clause:
t?er&
pouXo-
&vratTpitaOLt
aOylO7t.lav resultsforreaders.

details.
Second sentenceof pref.(same length)givesbibliographical

E. GalenofPergamon Date: end II A.D.

De Typis Text:ed. C. G. Kiuhn(Lips. 1821-33)

VII 463
1 HoXX&v ItXrurT~FIcp
Wip "Fts npt Causal clause (genitiveabsol.):
t6ircov
WOopEoc; sCespaCTia.- otherwriters.

2 v xtyxatov 'ob; Main vb.: author'sdecision.

~qTrlqov
3 6paT~txYrpov xaL xxr&nptypaqcpLv Object clause: specifiestreatmentof
idcpst8Jv rauTzr, subject-matter.
4 oUGm
Se6xaotpCirltov
xao Participialcl. dep. on subj. ofmain
o016jvo; tot vb.: resultsforreaders.
xrxoqt&Otrov T
v.aool pooatouo'tJVO
TXvO

5 8v re xat evr&
ra v 2 participialclausesdependenton
da~Xov
anrXouatrpova
xordkrlXbtv object of previous clause: nature of
S.xoX rpov, subject-matter.
k5
xodtxo0&cosep1rotgou rot;
7oOXXLors
CVU.yXOIvov.
6 &pxwiov8' &vrt0sv. Transitionalformula.

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 13:19:23 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions