Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:08:27.310Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Luke's Preface Resemble a Greek Decree? Comparing the Epigraphical and Papyrological Evidence of Greek Decrees with Ancient Preface Formulae

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2019

Zachary K. Dawson
Zachary K. Dawson*
Affiliation:
McMaster Divinity College, 1280 Main Street West, L8S 4K1 Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article challenges the argument of John Moles that Luke's preface (1.1–4) resembles a Greek decree more than any other type of writing. Although Moles is not the first to recognise the supposed decree-like features in Luke's preface, he goes further by arguing that the preface is intentionally structured like a decree for the author's rhetorical aim. In this article, I demonstrate that Moles’ argument goes too far and that Luke's preface simply displays features conventional to prefaces of historiographical writing – despite common structural patterns of preface writing and decree formulae – and is not layered with additional rhetorical meaning.

Keywords

Luke's prefaceLuke 1.1–4preface writingGreek decreesepigraphypapyrologyJohn Moles
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 65 , Issue 4 , October 2019 , pp. 552 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

1 Alexander, L., The Preface to Luke's Gospel: Literary Convention and Social Context in Luke 1.1–4 and Acts 1.1 (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Alexander, L., ‘Luke's Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing’ NovT 28 (1986) 48–74Google Scholar; eadem, ‘Formal Elements and Genre: Which Greco-Roman Prologues Most Closely Parallel the Lukan Prologues?’, Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy (ed. Moessner, D. P.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999) 9–26Google Scholar.

2 See Adams, S. A., ‘Loveday Alexander, David Rhoads, and Literary Criticism of the New Testament’, Pillars in the History of Biblical Interpretation, vol. ii: Prevailing Methods after 1980 (ed. Porter, S. E. and Adams, S. A.; Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016) 441–57, at 447–51Google Scholar.

3 See, for example, Adams, S. A., ‘Luke's Preface and its Relationship to Greek Historiography: A Response to Loveday Alexander’, JGRChJ 3 (2006) 177–91, esp. 190–1Google Scholar. Bauckham, Richard (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) 117–18)Google Scholar explains that Alexander ‘is not denying that Luke-Acts may, on grounds of content, have to be classified as some kind of historiography, only that the prefaces to Luke and Acts do not themselves indicate this’. However, this statement is misleading; Alexander does not think that Luke's preface is the only part of Luke-Acts that should be read through a scientific lens, as she plainly states: ‘I would argue that the biographical content of the Gospel and Acts is by no means an insuperable obstacle to viewing Luke as a writer set firmly within the context of the scientific tradition … The scientific tradition provides the matrix within which we can explore both the social and the literary aspects of Luke's work’ (‘Luke's Preface’, 70).

4 Moles, J., ‘Luke's Preface: The Greek Decree, Classical Historiography and Christian Redefinitions’, NTS 57 (2011) 461–82, at 464CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 The grammatical similarities between these two texts have been observed for over a hundred years; see, for example, Plummer, A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Luke (ICC; New York: Scribner's Sons, 1896) 2Google Scholar; BDR §464 n. 4. See also Rius-Camps, Josep and Read-Heimerdinger, Jenny, The Message of Acts in Codex Bezae: A Comparison with the Alexandrian Tradition, vol. iii: Acts 13.1–18.23: The Ends of the Earth. First and Second Phases of the Mission to the Gentiles (LNTS 365; London: T&T Clark, 2007) 223Google Scholar.

6 See Rhodes, P. J., The Athenian Boule (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Lewis, P. J. Rhodes with D. E., The Decrees of Greek States (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997)Google Scholar; Rhodes, P. J. and Osborne, R., eds., Greek Historical Inscriptions: 404–323 bc (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar. Rhodes, and those he worked with, relied heavily upon the previous German scholarship of Wilhelm Larfeld. See Larfeld, W., Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik (Leipzig: Reisland, 1907) 441–549Google Scholar.

7 Alexander, ‘Luke's Preface’, 48. Cf. Corssen, P., Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen (Berlin: Weidmannsche, 1899) 305–27Google Scholar, where one can find the review of Blass, F., Philology of the Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1998)Google Scholar.

8 See Cadbury, H. J., ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’, The Beginnings of Christianity, Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles, vol. ii: Prolegomena ii Criticism (ed. Jackson, F. J. Foakes and Lake, K.; London: Macmillan, 1922) 489–511Google Scholar. Cf. Alexander, ‘Luke's Preface’, 49; Aune, D. E., The New Testament in its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987) 77–8Google Scholar.

9 See Aune, Literary Environment, 84–96, 116–40; Burridge, R. A., What Are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography (SNTSMS 70; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992)Google Scholar; Schmidt, D. D., ‘Rhetorical Influences and Genre: Luke's Preface and the Rhetoric of Hellenistic Historiography’, Jesus and the Heritage of Israel: Luke's Narrative Claim upon Israel's Legacy (ed. Moessner, D. P.; Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999) 27–60Google Scholar; Adams, S. A., The Genre of Acts and Collected Biography (SNTSMS 156; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, among other works.

10 See Alexander, Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 168–212; Alexander, ‘Luke's Preface’, 60–71.

11 Alexander, Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 12.

12 Alexander, Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 29–30.

13 Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 91–101.

14 Alexander, ‘Luke's Preface’, 50.

15 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 182.

16 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 183. Cf. Alexander, Preface to Luke’s Gospel, 30.

17 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 180–1. Cf. Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 26–7. See also Earl, D., ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, ANRW i (1972) 842–56, at 843Google Scholar, who says that historians sometimes omitted their names altogether in their prologues, while other important elements remained. More recently, Gathercole, Simon (‘Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels’, JTS 69 (2018) 447–76)CrossRefGoogle Scholar has reinforced the notion that Greek historians often chose not to include their names in the prefaces of their works, including Xenophon (Hellenica; Anabasis), Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews), as well as Polybius and Diodorus, among others (456–7).

18 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 184; Aune, D. E., ‘Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?’, Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Alexander J. M. Wedderburn (ed. Christophersen, A. et al. ; JSNTSup 217; New York: T. & T. Clark, 2002) 138–48, at 142Google Scholar. Cf. Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 27–9.

19 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 188–90. Cf. Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 120–2.

20 I use he terms ‘prologue’ and ‘preface’ synonymously.

21 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 842.

22 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 849.

23 Adams, ‘Luke's Preface’, 190–1.

24 Compare, for example, Josephus’ preface to his Jewish War (1.1–16), which begins in much the same way as Luke's preface, starting with a ‘since’ clause followed by a discussion of the subject and the inadequacy of former accounts, which serves as the motivation for the work. Several prefaces of the scientific treatises of Galen generally conform to the same pattern, but in a more compact manner (De anatomicis administrationibus; De Hippocratis et Platonis decretis; De ptisana).

25 I use the term ‘simple genre’ here in the Bakhtinian sense, where ‘simple’ refers to shorter utterances that take form within larger utterances, and where ‘genre’ refers to ‘relatively stable thematic, compositional and stylistic types of utterances’ (Bakhtin, M. M., Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans. McGee, V. W.; Austin, TX: University of Texas Press, 1986) 64)Google Scholar.

26 Aune agrees: ‘When the foregoing comparison of the prooimia of Plutarch's Septem sapientium convivum and the Gospel of Luke is considered in light of Alexander's careful comparison of the prooimia of scientific or technical treatises and the Gospel of Luke, it begins to appear increasingly plausible that the distinction between historical and scientific prooimia is in reality a false dichotomy’ (‘Historical or Scientific Prooimon?’, 148).

27 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 856. Earl is referring to the nature of the use of the bookroll before it began to be largely replaced by the codex.

28 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 855.

29 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 856.

30 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 856.

31 Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 69. For the extended explanation of each of these elements, see pp. 70–91.

32 Alexander, ‘Luke's Preface’, 74.

33 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 1.

34 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 3.

35 Plummer, Luke, 2.

36 Blass, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896) §79 n. 6Google Scholar. Perhaps this recognition goes even further back; the NA28 identifies multiple Vulgate manuscripts that insert et spiritui sancto after the Latin equivalent of ἔδοξε κἀμοὶ, producing the meaning: ‘and it seemed good to me and the holy spirit’, which reads in the same way as Acts 15.28: ‘and it seemed good to us and the holy spirit’. There are a couple of possible explanations for this change. It may be, since Luke did not have apostolic authority or that he did not make mention of inspiration, that it did not seem appropriate for him to decide to write his gospel on his personal inclination alone. Another possibility is that the similar structures in the Apostolic Decree and Luke's preface were recognised very early and so the text was harmonised either to read more like Acts 15.28, or even to read more like a decree. Cf. Alexander, Preface to Luke's Gospel, 127; Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 464; Evans, C. F., Saint Luke (TPINTC; London: SCM, 1990) 128Google Scholar.

37 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 464.

38 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 464. Alexander explains that ἔδοξε κἀμοί displays a classical style that had dropped out of common use by the first century, yet it would have been familiar through its appearance in official documents, inscriptions of decrees that were replete through the Greek East, and also in formal prefaces (Preface to Luke's Gospel, 127).

39 Brooke, G. J., ‘Luke-Acts and the Qumran Scrolls: The Case of MMT’, Luke's Literary Achievement: Collected Essays (ed. Tuckett, C. M.; JSNTSup 116; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 72–90, at 82Google Scholar.

40 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 465.

41 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 464–5.

42 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 465.

43 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 470, 474–6.

44 Rhodes and Osborne, Historical Greek Inscriptions, xix.

45 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 4.

46 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 4, who choose to ignore the invocation in their work unless it is combined with some other concept that they deem significant.

47 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 4.

48 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 4. Cf. Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 64–5. It is common to find the verb ἔδοξε translated as ‘resolved by’ in decrees, but another common translation is ‘it seemed good’; see, for example, Acts 15.28 in the NIV, NASB and NRSV.

49 While there are many papyri at Oxyrhynchus that provide evidence on Greek councils, P.Stras. v/i–ii.616 is the only papyrus fragment that provides a complete enactment formula. Similar vocabulary is attested in P.Oxy. iii.473 (138–61 ce), P.Oxy. xliv.3171 (ca. 214–50 ce) and P.Oxy. vi.891 (294 ce), but there is not enough remaining co-text to ascertain any formulae.

50 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 5; Rhodes and Osborne, Greek Historical Inscriptions, xx.

51 Examples that include the content clause are: Michel 325; IK Kalchedon (1980) 1, 2; SEG xxxiii.1224, among numerous others.

52 See the following instances: SEG xi.1198; SEG xxxii.794; IG ii/3.379; IG i/3.101; Michel 535; Milet i/iii.153; IOSPE i/2.9; IGRR iii.209; IK Kalchedon (1980) 4; TAM ii.168, among numerous others.

53 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 5.

54 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 5.

55 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 5.

56 Moles, ‘Luke's Preface’, 465.

57 Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 66; Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 20–1.

58 Jaeger, W., Diokles von Karystos (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1938) 75–6Google Scholar.

59 Kollesch, J. and Kudlien, F., Apollonios von Kitium: Kommentar zu Hippokrates über das Einrenken der Gelenke (Corpus medicorum Graecorum 11.1.1; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1965) 64Google Scholar.

60 Kroll, W., ed., Vetti Valentis Anthologiarium libri (Zurich: Weidmann, 1908) 352 lines 34ffGoogle Scholar.

61 Larfeld, Handbuch der griechischen Epigraphik, 491; Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States, 5.

62 Rhodes with Lewis, Decrees of the Greek States. See also Rhodes, Athenian Boule, 246–66, where he lists numerous Greek decrees and their contents, with the greatest portion of the contents involving the bestowing of some kind of honour or the granting of citizenship.

63 Alexander, ‘Formal Elements’, 19–20.

64 Josephus, J.W. 1.1–3, trans. Thackeray.

65 See Watson, F., Gospel Writing: A Canonical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014) 123–31, but see p. 128Google Scholar, where Watson states plainly: ‘Luke considers that his predecessors provide an insufficiently ordered account of the events of Jesus’ life, and he writes to rectify this inadequacy.’ See also Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, 222–30. The main source from which the theory that Luke was displeased with Mark's Gospel derives from Papias’ comments, which are quoted in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.1–16.

66 Alexander, ‘Formal Elements’, 20.

67 See Deissmann, A., Light from the Ancient East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco-Roman World (trans. Strachan, L. R. M.; New York: George H. Doran, 1927) 86–7Google Scholar, where Deissmann identifies several first- and second-century instances of this term; Cadbury, ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’, 495.

68 Cadbury, ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’, 495.

69 For a list of prefaces that use κράτιστος with the dedication, see Cadbury, ‘Commentary on the Preface of Luke’, 506.

70 Earl, ‘Prologue-Form in Ancient Historiography’, 855 (emphasis added).

71 Gamble, H. Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 102Google Scholar.