Introduction
In this supplement we discuss those features that Luke shares with typical Hellenistic histories. We then discuss dissonant features that may support an alternative genre classification.
Scholars determine the characteristics of Hellenistic history from both the historical works themselves and the theoretical remarks of Hellenistic historians on the process of writing history. However, here we will not utilize a definition of this genre; our approach is only concerned with family resemblances between Luke and Acts and “typical” Hellenistic histories.
Several features of Luke-Acts have been aligned with extant Hellenistic histories. These include the existence of common literary forms such as prefaces and speeches;[1] evidence that Luke has employed an historical “method”, stating an historical purpose in his prefaces and using sources; and the subject-matter itself of Luke-Acts — it appears to be a “history”.
Literary Forms
An emphasis upon shared literary forms and a common method is essential to the case that Luke-Acts is a kind of Hellenistic history, because the substantive content of Luke-Acts is obviously different from the classical histories of, for example, Herodotus (5c. BCE.), Thucydides (5c. BCE.), Xenophon (5c. BCE.), Theopompus (4c. BCE.), and the Hellenistic histories, such as Diodorus Siculus (1c. BCE.), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1c. BCE.), Arrian (1c. BCE.) and Polybius (1c. BCE.).[2] These histories concern the actions of nations, cities and great men, whereas Luke-Acts is a parochial story. Whether Luke-Acts is to be classified in the Hellenistic historical genre revolves around the issue: are the formal similarities and a similar avowed method a sufficient basis for such a classification or does the divergent content require another classification?
Prefaces
J. Cadbury asserted that,
…it is the bare fact of his [Luke] using a preface rather than in its details that Luke’s relation to literature is apparent.[3]
Cadbury also argued that Luke’s “prefaces and dedications at once suggest classification with the contemporary Hellenistic historians”.[4] The use of prefaces was common in the Hellenistic era (but not earlier), for example, Dionysius: Roman Antiquities,[5] and Polybius: Histories.[6] Thus, the presence of the preface in Luke and a brief recapitulation[7] in Acts is taken to be evidence that Luke-Acts was meant as a species of a single genre — Hellenistic history writing.
In her ongoing critique of this approach, L. C. A. Alexander summarises the common scholarly view that, “the preface of Acts functions as a genre-indicator” and “the informed reader…is led immediately to place it in the category of ‘history’ or ‘monograph’…”.[8] Whether Luke-Acts fulfils these terms of reference well does not obviate the authorial cue signalled by the two prefaces.
The features of Luke’s prefaces bear comparison with prefaces in Hellenistic histories, as well as other genres. However, if an association is to be made with historiographical prefaces, rather than novels, medical or geographical works, it will be because of the subject-matter of Luke-Acts — it is to be regarded as historical in the sense that it is about the words and deeds of a religious leader and his followers.
Luke appears to advertise his use of Hellenistic historical methods in his preface:
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative (dih,ghsij) of the things which have been accomplished among us (evn h`mi/n), just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses (auvto,pthj) and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having followed (parakolouqe,w) everything carefully (avkribw/j).from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order (kaqexh/j), so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. Luke 1:1-4
The following details in Luke’s prefaces have been noted by scholars:
1) Luke uses the authorial first person, which is found in historiographical prefaces such as Diodorus[9] (e.g. Book I.3.1, “consequently we…were led to feel a like enthusiasm for the subject”) and Polybius (e.g. Book VI.6.2, “I am aware that some will wonder why I have deferred…my account”).
2) Luke refers to previous writers (evpeidh,per polloi. evpecei,rhsan avnata,xasqai dih,ghsin), and this is a convention of historiographical prefaces (e.g. Polybius, Book I.1.1, Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities, Book I.1.1[10]). Luke uses the term dih,ghsij and this is used for historical accounts (e.g. Polybius III.4.1, Dionysius of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities I.7.4, Diodorus Siculus XI.20.1).[11]
3) Luke criticizes other accounts, but his criticisms are implied by his objectives. Thus other accounts have failed to include the beginning of the story (a;nwqen); they have failed to include all the necessary detail (pa/sin); their work was not precise enough (avkribw/j); and it was not in order (kaqexh/j). A particular failing of these accounts would be the failure to include the apostolic words and deeds as part of the “all things” belonging to the whole story.
This reflects Lucian’s methodology, when he says,
…when he [the historian] has collected all or most of the facts let him first make them into a series of notes…then after arranging them into order, let him give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure and rhythm.[12]
Luke seeks to persuade his patron that his account is more faithful to events, and he seeks to do this by advertising his methodology. In this way, Luke criticizes other authors, a common characteristic of Hellenistic histories.
4) While Luke does not claim to be an eyewitness,[13] he identifies with his story in the phrase evn h`mi/n (Luke 1:1), and this satisfies Polybius’ desideratum that the historian be “of action” or a participant “in actual affairs” (Book I.1.2); he is one of the “community”, the founding of which he is narrating. Luke claims eyewitnesses (auvto,pthj) as his sources, and here he satisfies Lucian’s pre-requisite of listening to those who tell the most impartial story. Eyewitness knowledge was thought the most reliable, and Luke’s mention of eyewitnesses shows a conscious evocation of this principle of evidence and therefore an intentional participation on his part in an historical method.
5) Luke’s stated objective to Theophilus is that “you may know the truth (avsfa,leia) concerning the things of which you have been informed (kathch,qhj)”. The apologetic aspect of this objective is a comparable utility to the political value of Hellenistic histories.
6) Luke includes a dedication, and this practise is indirectly evidenced for Hellenistic histories. Commenting upon other histories, Hellenistic historians often note the patron for whom the history was written. For example, Dionysius of Halicarnassus in his Roman Antiquities I.4.3 refers to the common practise of writing histories for kings.
7) Luke’s second preface in Acts summarises the contents of the previous work, and this bears comparison to some Hellenistic histories, for instance, in Polybius Book II.1.1, “in the preceding book” and in Diodorus Book II.1.1, “the preceding book, being the first of the whole work”. In these cases, the first preface was generally applicable to the whole work, while subsequent prefaces were shorter, mentioned former volumes and specified the content of the next volume.
The above similarities, (1)-(7), do not prove that Luke and Acts share the same genre unless the preface to Luke covers Acts. Alexander makes the neutral observation that the prefaces do not prove that the two volumes were conceived as a two-part work, or that they were not so conceived.[14] However, placing any authorial plan to one side, the question is whether the recapitulation of Acts incorporates the concerns of the gospel preface for an implied reader. If it does, and if the gospel preface is indicative of an historical genre, this would carry forward to Acts.
The recapitulation of Acts is brief and directs a reader to the relationship that the second work has in an entire design. In this aspect, Acts bears comparison to briefer recapitulations in historical multi-volume works that do little more than link the parts of a single work, for instance, Josephus, Antiquities Book VIII.1.1 “concerning David…we have written in the preceding book. Now when his son Solomon…”.[15] Therefore any genre indications in the gospel preface carries forward for the implied reader to the continuing story in Acts.
The irony in this observation is that, for many scholars, whereas the gospel preface is arguably an historical preface, it is attached to a largely “biographical” work, or perhaps a unique “gospel” genre; it would have been more “at home” attached to Acts, which has other characteristics suggestive of the “historical” genre. Accordingly, our conclusion is that the preface alone is not sufficient to indicate an historical genre for Luke or Acts or Luke-Acts. This conclusion is reinforced by dissimilarities between Luke’s prefaces and Hellenistic counterparts.
The topics covered in Hellenistic prefaces bear some comparison with Luke’s prefaces, but there are also points of dissimilarity. Alexander has argued that the prefaces to Luke and Acts do not fit the Hellenistic historiographical pattern. Several points of dissimilarity can be proposed:
- The sizes of the prefaces are smaller than those in other histories, e.g. Polybius Book VI.2.1-10, Diodorus Book I.1-5 extend to several pages. Further, Luke’s style in the preface is not as elevated as those of the Greek historians.
- The subject-matter of Luke and Acts, as laid down in the prefaces, does not match Hellenistic histories. The scope of the work is narrow (a social movement) unlike political and military concerns of standard histories, and the scale of the work is small compared to the multi-volume works of Hellenistic histories, e.g. Diodorus offers forty volumes, Polybius, forty books.
- Dedications are not normally found in history-writing; Josephus is an exception. They are found in other types of literature, for example, Plutarch’s Table-Talk I.612.[16] Alexander comments that dedications are found in histories “outside the mainstream of Greek culture”.[17] This may explain the freedom exercised by Luke to include a dedication. Similarly, Greek historians usually give their own signature, whereas this is absent in Luke-Acts.
- Alexander observes that recapitulations are relatively rare in Hellenistic histories; Alexander’s comment is that “recapitulation at the beginning of a book cannot therefore be described as in any way customary or usual in Greek historiography”.[18]
- Accordingly, Alexander argues that the Luke’s prefaces correspond more closely to “the scientific tradition” of writing, which she documents, but concedes that such a tradition is too broad to be considered a genre.[19] The methodological problem inherent in Alexander’s discussion is the problem of “induction”. Examples of classical and Hellenistic historiographical prefaces can be more or less aligned with Luke’s prefaces with appropriate similarities and dissimilarities noted, (and the same exercise can be carried out for “scientific” works), but such a catalogue falls short of providing a general criterion whereby a Hellenistic historiographical genre can be identified. Scholars seek a general rule, but the partiality of the evidence falls short of providing a general rule.
Moreover, D. E. Aune makes the obvious point against Alexander that, “since Luke does not appear to be a scientific or technical treatise, this thesis poses an apparent problem”.[20] Luke-Acts consists of narrative discourse, whereas the “scientific tradition” is comprised of expository and descriptive discourse. Accordingly, we would argue that the dissimilarities identified by Alexander between Luke’s prefaces and historiographical works do not override the similarities, given that these are supported by the narrative character of Luke-Acts. R. I. Pervo’s observation that “Alexander has demonstrated that the prefaces do not support the claim that Luke introduced himself as a historian”[21] is too hasty; Alexander has merely illustrated the inductive problem that scholars face in balancing the mix of evidence.
Our conclusion therefore is that while Alexander has shown that the existence of a preface in Luke and Acts is not sufficient to warrant a classification of Luke or Acts or Luke-Acts as Hellenistic historiography, she has not shown that, taken with other features of the two works (see below), it is not jointly sufficient for such a classification.
Speeches
Speeches are the second characteristic of Luke and Acts that scholars identify as indicative of “history-writing” and coupled with the existence of a preface, the argument is made that these two characteristics are jointly sufficient for such a classification.
Thucydides gives classical expression to the role of speeches for Hellenistic histories. He states,
As to the speeches that were made by different men… [they] are given in the language in which, as it seemed to me, the several speakers would express, on the subjects under consideration, the sentiments most befitting the occasion, though at the same time I have adhered as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.[22]
Whether Thucydides followed his own principle, this methodology allows for both accuracy and rhetorical excess, and both ends of this spectrum are in evidence in Hellenistic history-writing.
Polybius followed Thucydides’ example; he states,
…the peculiar function of history is to discover, in the first place, the words actually spoken, whatever they were, and next to ascertain the reason why what was done or spoken led to failure or success. For the mere statement of a fact may interest us but is of no benefit to us: but when we add the cause of it, study of history becomes fruitful.[23]
We see here the typical emphasis given to speeches as causally significant events in the explanation of the flow of events. Accordingly, Polybius is critical of other writers who make up speeches or engage in rhetorical excess, and who fail to make the connection between speeches and events.[24]
Luke obviously follows this practise, insofar as he places set-piece speeches at critical junctures in his narrative. Scholars discuss whether his speeches are more or less accurate in terms of the words and/or content of what was said by the historical individual; whether they illustrate his own theology; whether they reflect the concerns of the communities with which he is associated; or again, whether they represent a point of view appropriate to the character delivering the speech and function wholly within the narrative-world; yet again, it is said that the speeches may reflect the point of view of any sources used by Luke. These possible readings (and combinations of them) are represented in scholarship and applied to the speeches grouped and classified according to a chosen scheme.[25]
It is beyond the scope of our consideration of genre to examine the historicity of the speeches. Hellenistic histories had speeches, but they were not required to be verbatim reports. Whether Luke included verbatim reports of speeches or whether he constructed accurate speeches conveying what was said on the occasion in question does not affect the assignment of “Hellenistic History” as the genre of Luke-Acts. Since Luke was a Christian prophet and a recipient of the Spirit, his speeches are an inspired historical record. This fact neither negates nor establishes a classification of Luke-Acts as Hellenistic history. What is more significant is the question of whether the speeches in Luke and/or Acts were unique.
Dibelius distinguished Luke’s missionary speeches (Acts 2, 3, 5, 10 and 13) from those speeches that function to explain and advance the plot (e.g. speeches at the Jerusalem Council, or the speeches of characters such as Felix and Festus).[26] Dibelius regarded[27] Luke’s missiological speeches as a new form of speech, unrepresented in Hellenistic history-writing, and to have a common form and content; he viewed the non-missiological speeches as analogous to speeches in Hellenistic histories.
F. Bruce observes that “the speeches in Acts should not be considered in isolation from those in the Third Gospel”.[28] The “speeches” in Luke’s gospel, have a different character to those in Acts; they are substantially aphoristic, didactic, and parabolic, whereas in Acts they are much more apologetic, although as M. L. Soards notes, “there is much deliberative and epideictic rhetoric”.[29] The apologetic quality of the speeches is conducted with a scriptural deliberation that is absent in the gospels. Jesus teaches from the scriptures, but he does not engage (ironically) in the kind of scriptural debate evidenced throughout Acts.
The existence of speeches in Luke and Acts has been cited as evidence of historical genre. However, scholars have gone further and identified corresponding characteristics between Luke’s speeches and Hellenistic histories.L. Soards cites[30] E. Plümacher’s[31] six points of contact between speeches in Acts and Hellenistic histories, some of which carry more weight. Citing relevant parallels, Soards asserts that Luke has i) fitted speeches to the context; ii) used speeches to advance the plot; iii) ended speeches by reporting that much more was said, or by interruption; iv) incorporated historical example; v) indulged a complimentary style to the atticizing practised in Hellenistic history-writing by imitating Septuagintal modes of expression; and vi) employed older forms of expression in order to give an impression of his period (the period of the Apostles).
Soards is critical of Plümacher, but notes that “one cannot deny some relationship between Acts, especially the speeches, and Hellenistic historiography”.[32] The question raised by Soards’ discussion concerns what criteria are sufficient to classify Acts as a “Hellenistic” history. Of Plümacher’s six points of contact, the only significant correspondence is the use of speeches to advance the plot. This criterion forces a comparison with Hellenistic history-writing. This criterion is structural and literary and can be demonstrated for most if not all of Luke’s speeches, as well as the speeches in Hellenistic histories. Plümacher’s other points of contact are not fully generalized characteristics of Hellenistic history-writing.
Given the large number of speeches cast across the classical and Hellenistic histories available to an educated person such as Luke, it is likely that his speeches in Acts do have correspondences in style and content to some speeches in some other histories, but such parallels do not establish that Acts is a Hellenistic history. Thus, Luke may end some of his speeches in a similar way to some speeches in the standard histories of his day, but this does not amount to the proof of a literary pattern that has significance for genre classification. Further, the value-judgment that Hellenistic speeches loosely fit the context involves the subjective reading of the modern historian and will vary from speech to speech in any given history; this kind of similarity is too vague to support a genre classification. Again, the use of historical example or contemporary allusion in a speech is too incidental to provide a general feature of Hellenistic history writing.
Soards’ critique of Plümacher is not theoretical in terms of what would count as a genre-significant comparison, but rather it is addressed to Plümacher’s analysis of the speeches in Acts. However, his critique does illustrate the problem of induction once again: many characteristics of Hellenistic historical speeches are not sufficiently general to participate in a definition of the genre. Accordingly, the question is whether the structural use of speeches by Luke is sufficient, or jointly sufficient with another characteristic of his writing (e.g. the presence of a preface) to warrant the genre assignment of “Hellenistic History”.
I. Pervo has argued that, citing the statistical work of G. H. R. Horsley[33] and C. J. Hemer,[34] “Acts has substantially more direct speech than do the historians with which it is often otherwise compared”.[35] Pervo’s purview takes in all the direct speech in Acts, as well as the set piece speeches, the enumeration of which is subject to different counts by scholars. Pervo’s argument is that the quantity of direct speech affects an assignment of “Hellenistic History” to Acts; Acts bears more similarity to works of fiction in its quantity of direct speech.[36] He states, “in terms of naked quantification of direct speech, Acts fits more comfortably among historical novels”.[37] Pervo’s statistics are sound, but they do not affect the basic point that Luke’s structural use of set piece speeches is analogous to Classical and Hellenistic history-writing. The argument can be made that this characteristic is jointly sufficient with Luke’s use of a preface for a determination of genre. Whether this argument is successful, however, depends on any assessment of competing genre proposals.
Literary Materials
In terms of the literary forms in Luke and Acts, Hellenistic histories included a wide variety of material, such a genealogical records, letters, meal scenes as occasions for instruction, dreams and visions, travel narratives and dramatic episodes, such as escapes and dangerous voyages. However, these characteristics can be found in biographical works as well as novels. Their presence in Luke and Acts does not make those works historical or fictional; a more significant factor is whether Luke’s subject-matter is worthy enough to be deemed “historical” according to the standards of his day. Accordingly, in specifying criteria of identity that are jointly sufficient for identifying a work as a Hellenistic history we cannot include any literary forms that are defined according to content.[38]
Method
Method for Hellenistic historians was a matter of assessing prior histories, geographies and ethnographies relating to their topic, incorporating data from official written documents, conducting oral interviews, and adding their own eyewitness knowledge; it was a matter of evaluating prior work by authors (often unfavourably), judging source material, weighing eyewitness information, and then writing a more or less veridical account with style and imagination, with some objective or specific audience in mind.
Hellenistic historians used various sources, including eyewitness materials. Dionysius states that historians should,
…take great care and pains, to provide themselves with the proper equipment for the treatment of their subject.[39]
Lucian of Samosata states that the historian should,
…for preference be an eyewitness, but if not, listen to those who tell the more impartial story.[40]
Polybius thought that historians should ideally be participants of the events they narrated, he says,
…it will be well with history either when men of action undertake to write history…or again when would-be authors regard a training in actual affairs as necessary for writing history.[41]
Some historians emphasized a veridical method and a disdain for rhetoric and imagination. Polybius asserts that his history-writing is different to other works; he criticizes those who write for pay and those who write for rhetorical display,[42] and he consciously sought to recover classical standards.[43] He states,
…my own opinion is that we should indeed bestow care and concern on the proper manner of reporting events.[44]
This concern pertained to geographical description as well as the narration of events. As far as Polybius is concerned, “…if History is stripped of her truth all that is left is an idle tale”.[45]
Dionysius illustrates a different kind of history-writing in which there is explicit attention to rhetoric. E. Cary comments, “…the desire to please is everywhere in evidence; there is constant straining after rhetorical and dramatic effects”.[46] The purposes of rhetoric included the objectives of persuading the reader as well as entertainment. Devices such as speeches, antitheses, dramatic episodes and exaggeration were used. In terms of purpose, Hellenistic historians wrote for those in positions of power. Polybius’ claim is illustrative: he wrote for “education and training for a life of active politics”.[47]
Luke advertises his methodology in his preface (which we have discussed above), and he illustrates his method in his narrative; this can be checked against the one source that is available (Mark). In keeping with the practice of historians, Luke modifies his sources. He claims to have “followed” (parakolouqe,w) the course of events from the beginning, rather than to have undertaken a new “research” project. This is a claim to have contemporaneously acquired knowledge in the sense of taking note of events as they happened albeit not as an eyewitness. The starting point of this notice may apply to the apostolic ministry or to Jesus’ ministry. L. T. Johnson remarks,
(1) His prologue tells us that he is writing an “orderly account.” Historians of his age used such language to describe their work. He refers as well to oral and written sources; he knew others had written narratives before him. He had sources; therefore, he regarded them as such, and he used them critically. (2) He tries to relate his story to the broader historical context. He does this first by providing chronological references for pivotal events (see Luke 1:5; 2:1-2; 3:1-2; Acts 18:12). In addition, he identifies power blocs and governing agents, not only in Palestine (Acts 18:12-17). (3) Above all, Luke has the historian’s instinct for chronology and causality; he makes connections between events, so that a thread of purpose runs through his narrative.[48]
Luke-Acts illustrates the historical writing of the day: For example, there are figures for the growth of the church and there are episodes of miracles involving handkerchiefs and shadows. The basic story is one of the advances of a movement and opposition from Jewish authorities. The emotional commitment of the reader to the story is drawn out through the twin device of coupling stories of conflict, persecution, prison escapes, shipwrecks and constant dangers, with speeches that describe the theology of the movement; in this way the reader is expected to “side” with the movement and its vision. To further encourage this result, divine providence is everywhere written into the narrative
Luke’s common Hellenistic historiographical method constitutes a third criterion for identifying a work as Hellenistic history-writing; of itself it is not sufficient, but with the use of a formal preface and the structural use of set-piece speeches, scholars have argued that it is jointly sufficient for identifying the genre of Luke-Acts.
Content
In terms of the content of Luke and Acts, scholars have found indications of an intention to write a Hellenistic history in its subject-matter, the language of cause and effect, an awareness of historical periodization, and the inclusion of synchronisms. However, the generality of these observations belies significant differences between Luke’s material and those of typical Hellenistic histories.
Subject-Matter
The subject-matter of Luke and Acts concerns deeds and teaching; Luke states that his first volume concerned w-n h;rxato o` VIhsou/j poiei/n te kai. dida,skein, (“…that which Jesus began to do and to teach”). There is a focus on Jesus’ actions rather than on the portrayal of character; there is relatively little interior monologue, narrative comment, or idiosyncratic detail; the focus of Luke is on Jesus’ deeds and his teaching. A similar concern informs Luke’s second volume, which was soon endowed with the title of Praxiej, a term applied to the subject matter of Hellenistic histories (e.g. Polybius, Book I.1.1).
However, Dionysius states that historians should choose “noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers”.[49] Polybius and Dionysius write about the rise and fall of cites and states, and this is the common subject-matter of Classical and Hellenistic histories. It is not clear that either writer would recognise the subject-matter of Luke-Acts as “historical” in their sense of the word.
Luke’s own values may have demurred from those of Dionysius in this regard; Luke may be consciously writing a history in a Hellenistic style, even if the wider literary community would demur from such a classification. However, this raises the question of whether an unimportant writer (in the world’s eyes), such as Luke, can innovate upon the boundaries of a well-defined genre and successfully claim that it is “historical”; is he not rather just producing a literary mess according to the standards of Hellenistic history-writing?
D. L. Balch argues[50] that Luke-Acts is comparable to Dionysius’ history of the origins of Rome insofar as both “histories” tell a story about founders, a royal monarchy, and an expansion of power and influence. However, Balch’s analysis is an abstraction overlaid upon Dionysius and Luke-Acts in order to achieve a comparison. It remains the case that the subject-matter of Rome and its founding is very different to the founding of a movement and a community, which is plausibly a minimum description of the content of Luke-Acts.[51] Accordingly, our conclusion is that the disparity between Luke’s subject-matter and those of typical Hellenistic histories is strong counter-evidence against classifying Luke and Acts or Luke-Acts as “Hellenistic History”.
Cause and Event
The explanation of events through cause and effect was important to Hellenistic historians. For example, Polybius’ writing is replete with the language of cause and effect.[52] R. Flacelière comments that,
Polybius had a positive realistic mind; he studied the causation of events, particularly the origin of wars, in a rigorously methodical and precise way, based on the logical categories established by Aristotle.[53]
These objectives bear some comparison with Acts. Luke has advertised his intention to write all things (pra/gma) down “in order” (kaqexh/j) in respect of his Gospel, which is presumably an objective not abandoned with Acts. Accordingly, Luke uses standard explanatory constructions (e.g. me.n ou=n, Acts 8:4, 12:5, 14:3, dio. , Acts 10:29, ou=n, Acts 10:33, 15:27, and participle clauses, Acts 15:2). Over and above these devices, causality is implied by the juxtaposition of events and Luke’s development of his plot as announced in his programmatic episodes (e.g. Luke 4:16-30, Acts 1:4-11).
Luke also includes divine agency as a causal factor in his episodes, ranging from dreams and visions (Luke 1-2), to more supernatural interventions like theophanies (Luke 3, Acts 2), as well as a more direct involvement through the personified character of the holy Spirit. This bears comparison with general notions of “providence” and “fate” in Hellenistic histories. For example, Diodorus states,
…for just as Providence, having brought the orderly arrangement of the visible stars and the natures of men together into one common relationship, continually directs their courses through all eternity…so likewise the historians, in recording the common affairs of the inhabited world…have made of their treatises a single reckoning of past events and a common clearing-house of knowledge concerning them.[54]
Luke has no such statement, but the notion of a divine plan is important for his work.
It is less clear that there is a valid comparison to be made in theological terms between Luke’s notion of divine agency and that employed by Classical or Hellenistic authors. Balch lists[55] some parallels to Luke-Acts in Hellenistic history-writing relating to divine agency. He cites Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists VI.22ef[56] and the tale of the Chians being punished by the Deity for mistreating slaves, and he compares this to Luke’s use of the story of Joseph in Egypt in Stephen’s speech; he also cites Dionysius’ use of the Iliad to prophesy the dynasty of Aeneas (Book I.53.5). However, these parallels are not comparable to Luke’s richer schema. The quantitative measure of divine agency in Luke-Acts gives the work a characteristic emphasis that is not matched in the secular histories. Accordingly, our conclusion is that this aspect of Luke and Acts places those works outside the category of “Hellenistic History”.
Periodization
Classical and Hellenistic histories betray a sense that history has an overall direction and coherence, and that it can be presented in terms of periods with beginnings and ends. Polybius illustrates this in relation to the “rise of Rome” which he charts within a specific 53-year period.[57]
Luke also betrays this outlook insofar as he has a concept of salvation-history and an awareness that the events he narrates pertain to the “last days” (Acts 2:17). This teleological awareness comes through in texts such as,
- Luke 11:50 where there is a concept of a “foundation of the world”, a pattern of killing prophets, and accountability for the current generation;
- Luke 3:7 where there is a coming wrath for the current generation;
- Luke 16:16 where there is a pivot centred upon John the Baptist and the end of the Law of the Prophets,
- Acts 3:19-21 where there is a notion of “times of restitution” conditional upon the return of Christ.
In formal terms, Luke also exhibits a sense of periodization in his use of the concept of a “beginning” (avrch, Luke 1:2, a;rcomai Acts 1:1). The deployment of this concept shows an awareness that a complete historical explanation depends on tracing the origins of the phenomenon to be narrated.
However, this kind of teleology is very different from the capricious teleology of the Greco-Roman histories. Further, Luke’s periodization is providentially driven, whereas Hellenistic histories demarcate significant periods in terms of the coherence of policies, wars, military victories, and the exercise of power. This is a very different principle of periodization to that employed by Luke, and this is therefore a further reason for excluding Luke and Acts as a Hellenistic history.
Synchronisms
Historical works engaged in correlation of persons and events in order to set their account in a wider context. For example, in Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, events are synchronized by Olympiad and names of consuls, and Thucydides dates the beginning of the Peloponnesian War with a precise series of dates defined according to the year of several contemporaneous rulers and governors (Book II.2.1). This is seen in Luke in the synchronism with the incumbent political and religious authorities at the start of the ministry (Luke 3:1-2). The precision of this introduction to the public career of the two principal characters of his narrative stands in contrast to the vaguer synchronisms of Luke 1:5, 2:1 in the infancy narrative. Synchronisms continue in Acts with references to persons and events such as Claudius, Herod, Gallio, Felix and Festus (Acts 11:28, 12:1, 18:12, 23:24, 24:27). The existence of this kind of content in Luke and Acts suggests classification as “Hellenistic History”.
Summary
J. B. Green provides a summary of the attributes of Luke-Acts which lend support to a classification of “History”:
Luke’s two volumes evince a number of other attributes common in Greco-Roman historiography – for example a genealogical record (Lk. 3:23-28); the use of meal scenes as occasions for instruction (as in Greco-Roman symposia); travel narratives; speeches; letters; and dramatic episodes, such as Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (4.16-30) and Paul’s stormy voyage and shipwreck (Acts 27.1-28.14). Further in characterizing his work as a narrative (diegesis), Luke qualifies his project as a long narrative of many events, for which the chief prototypes were the historiographical writings of Herodotus and Thucydides.[58]
Greco-Roman Biography
Scholars have observed similarities between Luke and Acts and other Greco-Roman literary forms and these have led to genre classification other than “history”. The argumentative strategy involved in this move shifts the level of analysis from literary forms to characteristics of content. The general motivation for proposing an alternative classification is the difference in content (noted in the previous section) between Luke-Acts and Hellenistic histories: Luke-Acts is not about the great questions of state or the rise and fall of nations.
C. H. Talbert has been the principal advocate of the view that Luke and Acts are a species of biography.[59] His case is stronger for Luke than it is for Acts, and this disparity highlights the issue of whether and how Luke-Acts can be considered a single genre.
Gospel of Luke
Talbert lists characteristic emphases of Hellenistic histories in contra-distinction to biographies. His essential argument is conveyed by Plutarch when he says,
…for it is not Histories that I am writing, but Lives; and in the most illustrious deeds there is not always a manifestation of virtue or vice, a slight thing like a phrase or a jest often makes a greater revelation of character than battles where thousands fall…I must be permitted to devote myself rather to the signs of the soul in men.[60]
A Hellenistic biography will typically focus on character and be anecdotal, rather than a systematic explanation of events and their causes; it will have a broader audience. A Hellenistic history will be focused on political and military affairs, and written for those in positions of government. Nevertheless, Aune observes that “…neither history nor biography was constricted by static literary canons”,[61] and biographical sketches in “histories” were as integral as “historical” material in biographies.
The genre of Luke’s gospel plausibly fits the category of “biography”: there is a birth narrative, family history, two cousins as the principal characters, incidents and travels that narrate their lives, teachings, a chronology and a death. Luke’s gospel conforms to the formal structure of Greco-Roman biographies insofar as it follows a chronological order[62] and includes a variety of materials spoken by its main character — anecdotes, speeches, proverbial sayings, reminiscences, alongside loosely structured episodes.
Moreover, the gospel is one of a known group of writings which share similar biographical characteristics and this group (Matthew, Mark, John and various non-canonical gospels) may legitimately be termed a sub-genre of the species. Hence, Aune argues that “the canonical Gospels constitute a distinctive type of ancient biography combining…Hellenistic form and function with Jewish content”.[63]
Aune also observes that the series of biographies undertaken by Greco-Roman authors illustrate stereotyping, “a typecast social role and the stereotypical virtues and/or vices associated with that role”.[64] This biographical technique is comparable to Luke’s portrayal of John the Baptist and Jesus as prophets; their lives conform to the Jewish scriptural pattern of warning, a call to repentance, a promise of restoration of divine favour, but eventual rejection. Consistent with this correspondence, Luke’s gospel is didactic and encomiastic insofar as it recommends Jesus’ life and teaching. It does this through miracle stories, pronouncement stories, episodes, speeches, sayings and parables.[65] These types of literary unit are found in Greco-Roman biographies.
Accordingly, Aune argues that while there are “no exact literary analogues”,[66] “the gospels are a subtype of Greco-Roman biography”;[67] “the Evangelists wrote biography with historical intentions”. [68] An alternative nuanced proposal would be that Luke’s gospel is a species of Jewish Hellenistic biographical writing. Philo is an example of a Jewish Hellenistic writer who wrote biographies. His Life of Moses accentuates the virtues of Moses, and insofar as Jesus is presented as a prophet like unto Moses (Luke 7:16, Acts 7:37), a comparison can be made between Philo and Luke. R. T. France observes that “the moral and philosophical concerns of the author and particularly his apologetic aim” dominate Philo’s biography of Moses.[69] This apologetic emphasis in Jewish biographies of Moses[70] can be cited as a parallel to Luke’s presentation of Jesus.
Two objections can be made against the view that Luke’s gospel is a biography. The first concerns the question of function — it appears to be evangelistic, with a utility value in confirming the faith of disciples and in persuading outsiders attached to Christian communities. The quantity of speeches in the gospel and their evangelistic purpose belies a claim that Luke is writing a biography.[71] The emphasis is not on Jesus per se, but on “what Jesus began to do and teach” (Acts 1:1).
However, Aune asserts that “in both form and function, the gospels are fully comparable to Greco-Roman biography…the function of the gospels was the legitimation of the present beliefs and practices of Christians by appealing to the paradigmatic role of the founder”.[72] The problem with this assertion though is that while “role” is a biographical concept, it is too weak to encompass the ways in which Luke’s gospel legitimates beliefs. Jesus’ role was that of teacher, prophet, son of God, and so on; the gospel of Luke contains teaching about eschatology, Jewish national hopes, acceptable behaviours, the kingdom of God, Satan, demons, and the God of Israel. This broader view of the gospel’s function begs a broader genre classification than “biography”.
Secondly, in relation to Jesus, a “biographical” classification presents a christological problem: if Luke is expressing a Christology in his gospel (a case that cannot be argued here), is this purpose consistent with a classification of the work as “Hellenistic biography”. Lucian of Samosata ends his biography of Demonax by saying, “these are a very few things out of many which I might have mentioned, but they will suffice to give my readers a notion of the sort of man he was”.[73] Is Luke attempting to describe “the sort of man” (o`poi/oj evkei/noj avnh.r evge,neto, cf. Acts 26:29) that was Jesus? Does Luke conceive of Jesus as a man to be compared and contrasted with other men? If genre is a basis of comparison, can Jesus’ “biography” in Luke’s gospel be compared to biographies of other men?
Accordingly, our counter-argument to Talbert and Aune is that the implied use of the Gospel of Luke prevents a classification of “biography”.[74]
Acts
Acts does not obviously narrate lives but rather the progress of a movement. Talbert has sought to address this problem. The paradigmatic biographies that interest Talbert are those that narrate the life of a founder of a philosophical school, his teachings, and those who followed in his footsteps. Since Luke’s gospel narrative has a main character, a birth story and a death, it is plausible to construe it as a “biography”, but it is not clear that Acts should construed as a “succession” account. Talbert’s main example of a founder + successors biography is Diogenes’ Lives of the Philosophers.[75]
The initial statement of Talbert’s thesis has been criticized in terms of its adequacy as a model for Luke-Acts, when Acts is paralleled to “succession accounts” in founder biographies. Balch accepts that “Luke-Acts is concerned with succession, but more with who are heirs to God’s promises to Moses and the prophets, less with who are the individual, institutional successors of Jesus”.[76] Balch argues that succession narratives are “individualistic” whereas Acts is concerned with a group and its societal impact. Aune has also criticized Talbert. His principal objection is that the succession narratives are just lists of disciples rather than any coherent story about the legitimacy of a movement.[77] Talbert seems to accept that his thesis is weakest at this point, and his later treatment (“The Acts of the Apostles: monograph or ‘bios’?”) is more cautious.
Talbert’s later analysis contains the seeds of its own refutation.[78] He observes that some succession narratives are just “lists” of disciples, which is unlike Acts; he notes that where there is some narrative story-telling in a succession story, it is relatively brief, and Acts is long; and he shows that the terminology of succession[79] is different to Acts. Over and above Talbert’s own qualifications, there is a stronger objection to classifying Acts as a “succession” narrative. For Luke, the founder is not dead; he makes an appearance in Acts more than once, and is constantly affirmed to be alive by the major characters.
While the genre of the gospel might be “biographical”, this is an unlikely classification for Acts; the programmatic statement of Acts 1:8 is missiological. Luke does not make any effort to narrate the life stories of his principal characters, or bring out incidental details of character. He includes the most detail about Paul, from his “entry onto the scene” before conversion until his “end” in Acts 28. However, Luke is not giving a biography of Paul, because he does not narrate events that are anticipated in his life (“bear witness in Rome”, Acts 23:11; “stand before Caesar”, Acts 27:24). Whether or not an appropriate ending for Acts would have been Paul’s martyrdom or his acquittal, the non-fulfilment of these anticipations casts doubt on the proposal that Luke’s aims in Acts are biographical.
If Acts is not biography, does this preclude Luke-Acts from being a species of biography, and/or does it prevent Luke’s gospel from being so classified? In this connection, Aune asserts that “Luke does not belong to a type of ancient biography for it belongs to Acts, and Acts cannot be forced into a biographical mould”,[80] although he has argued that Luke’s gospel is biographical, when viewed in isolation and with the other Christian gospels (see discussion above). If Luke and Acts are considered as a two-volume work, and Aune asserts that “Luke-Acts must be treated as affiliated with one genre”,[81] then a classification of the gospel as biography is not possible.
Historical Monograph
Scholars have nuanced the “historiographical classification of Luke-Acts by proposing that it is a “monograph”. Polybius divided history-writing into two kinds: monographs and general history. Monographs treat individual nations or wars, whereas “universal history” treats all nations.[82] Examples of monographs include Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander and Sallust’s War with Catiline or War with Jugurtha. The critical argument for this proposal rests on the limited scope and scale of Luke and Acts. The dissonance represented by this aspect of Luke-Acts is circumvented by comparing Luke-Acts to shorter monographs.
There are points of similarity between Luke-Acts and Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander.[83] Although a large multi-volume work, it does focus on the deeds and life of an individual covering a short time period. Its preface (Book I. pref.) records the existence of sources and criticizes their lack of harmony, and it declares a selection of preferred sources. In the case of Sallust[84] the preface to War with Catiline is moralistic, praising the value of great ambition (I-III) with no mention of historical method, and in War with Jugurtha, while the value of history-writing is stressed (IV.1-4), there is no methodological discussion. Moreover the subject-matter and concerns of Arrian and Sallust bear no comparison to Luke-Acts.
Accordingly, while the “monograph” thesis satisfies a criterion of scope and scale, it fails to group Luke and Acts with surviving writings of similar aims.
Novel
R. Pervo has argued that Acts is best understood as a “novel” rather than a species of history-writing. Accepting that “novel” is a modern term of analysis, Pervo uses the term in an inclusive sense when surveying Hellenistic novels[85] “embracing a variety of prose fictions, in particular, historical novels”.[86] In relation to Acts, he has tended towards a classification of it as “popular literature”, one designed for enjoyment.[87] Luke’s gospel could also be classified as a novel insofar as its plot follows a “tragic” plotline, which is then partly reversed in the resurrection. Aune observes that Greco-Roman biography rarely exhibits plotlines.[88] Pervo offers several arguments for considering Luke and Acts as “novels”:
1) Pervo offers an argument of extent: the extent to which Luke-Acts is a work of theology rather than history, to that extent it is not a species of history-writing. This argument sides with those scholars that have been sceptical of recovering historical data about Jesus, and infers the obvious conclusion that Luke cannot be considered to be a species of historical writing.[89]
2) Pervo questions the conclusiveness of formal comparisons between Luke-Acts and Hellenistic history-writing (prefaces, speeches). He observes that prefaces were used in novel writing, and argues that focus on Luke’s speeches obscures the fact that Luke and Acts contain a proportion of direct speech that is more comparable to popular literature.[90]
3) Pervo claims that the style and subject-matter of Luke-Acts would not have suggested to a literate audience that it was comparable with Hellenistic histories”. He avers, “…no educated Greek would place such a poorly written account of the missionary activities of a new-fangled oriental cult during its first thirty years on the shelf beside the Antiquities of Dionysius of Halicarnassus”,[91] and “…its inconsistent style and inclination to treat insignificant happenings as world-historical events would offend learned readers”.[92] Rather, the dramatic episodes and pacy action of the narrative would have suggested something akin to a romantic historical novel.
4) Finally, Pervo offers an argument of association: scholars have traditionally sort genre comparisons with extant materials in Luke’s literary environment. If this context of association is shifted to materials that Luke’s works engendered or influenced, it is possible to assert that Acts stands as the head of a new genre, and here Pervo lists the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles in this genre.[93]
Pervo’s thesis has at least three problems:
1) The first problem with this thesis is that it does not reflect Luke’s intentions as stated in his preface, which are not fictional. The kinds of episode featured in Acts and the story-line may bear comparison with Hellenistic novels, but they are also found in Hellenistic histories. As Aune states, “parallels…occur in Greco-Roman histories and novels, since the narrative techniques of both nonfictional and fictional narratives overlap considerably”.[94] Historians wrote to entertain as well as to inform.
2) There is no obvious conclusion about genre to be drawn from Pervo’s own failure to derive the “historical Jesus” from the Gospel, or the “historical Paul” from Acts. If Luke and Acts is deemed to be reliable and factual, then this damages Pervo’s thesis.
3) The final problem is one of method. Part of Pervo’s case shifts the literary co-text from the past to the future. However, this argument cannot be made for the implied author or the implied reader of Luke or Acts since, necessarily, future literary works do not exist. Determination of the genre of Luke and Acts or Luke-Acts should proceed on the basis of an existing literary co-text. While it may be valid to judge retrospectively that Acts or Luke’s gospel are new genres and stand at the head of apocryphal gospels and fictional stories about the apostles, this thesis is difficult to sustain for the implied author or reader. Luke indicates in his preface that he is writing an “account” comparable to other accounts. A classification of genre should therefore proceed on the basis of extant writings.
Accordingly, our conclusion is that Pervo’s argument fails to convince; it does not fit Luke’s intentions.
Conclusion
The formal similarities between Luke-Acts and Hellenistic histories are significant, but the subject-matter of Luke-Acts provides a stumbling-block to such an easy result. Given the penetration of Hellenistic culture into Palestine, famously documented by M. Hengel,[95] the question arises as to whether a narrower genre assignment is more appropriate, one specifically tied to Jewish History.
[1] In order to keep our discussion within reasonable limits, we have excluded the consideration of other literary forms such as journey narratives, official documents, and autobiographical material.
[2] In addition to these, Josephus should be added, even though he could be considered a species of “Jewish Historiography”. Otherwise, this is a list of those authors prior to or contemporary with Luke whose work has survived in a “complete” form (albeit with missing volumes or fragmentary volumes). There are rhetorical treatises which deal with history and fragments of many other historical works.
[3] H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1968), 196, 344.
[4] H. J. Cadbury, “The Greek and Jewish Traditions of Writing History” in The Beginnings of Christianity: Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles: Vol. II: Prolegomena II: Criticism, (eds., F. J. Foakes-Jackson & K. Lake; London: Macmillan, 1922), 15.
[5] Dionysius: Roman Antiquities (trans. E. Cary; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1937), Book I.1-8. All citations are from this edition.
[6] Polybius: The Histories (trans. W. R. Paton; Loeb Classical Library; London: Heinemann, 1925), Book I.1-5. All citations are taken from this edition.
[7] The preface to Acts is not sharply delimited and a matter of scholarly dispute; we will take vv. 1-3 as the preface, with v. 4 beginning a new scene; vv.1-3 have a summarizing quality indicated by the time period of forty days.
[8] L. C. A. Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed., B. Witherington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 73-103 (74). This restates her thesis set out in 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).
[9] Diodorus of Sicily, (trans. C. H. Oldfather; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1958). All citations are taken from this edition.
[10] Dionysius confirms this practise by denial, “…nor have I the purpose of censuring other historians, as Anaximenes and Theopompus”, Roman Antiquities, Book I.1.1.
[11] D. L. Balch, “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel or Political History?” SWJT 40 (1990): 5-19 (11) notes that this is the word that Dionysius uses to describe his history in Book II.48.1. D. E. Aune claims, “by substituting the term ‘narrative’ for Mark’s ‘gospel’ Luke indicated his intention to write history”, The New Testament in its Literary Environment (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1987), 116.
[12] Lucian: How to Write History (trans., A. M. Harmon et al; 8 vols; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913-1967), 48. All citations are from this edition.
[13] We do however take the view that the “we” passages in Acts are autobiographical.
[14] Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians”, 81.
[15] Similar brevity is found at Josephus, Antiquities Book XIII.1.1, and XIV.1.1.
[16] Plutarch: Moralia (trans., P. A. Clement and H. B. Hoffleit; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969).
[17] Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians”, 86.
[18] Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians”, 91.
[19] Alexander, “The Preface to Acts and the Historians”, 77-78.
[20] D. E. Aune, “Luke 1.1-4: Historical or Scientific Prooimion?” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World (eds., A. Christopherson et al; JSNTSS 217; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 138-148 (141). Aune goes onto illustrate the inductive problem: he compares Luke’s prefaces to one in Plutarch’s Moralia (144), but admits “one swallow doth not a summer make” (147).
[21] R. I. Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre” JSNT 28 (2006): 285-307 (286).
[22] Thucydides, (trans. C. Foster Smith; Loeb Classical Library; London: Heinemann, 1919), Book I.22.1. All citations are from this edition.
[23] Book XII 25.1-2.
[24] Book XII 25. 3-4.
[25] For a review of scholarship in relation to Acts, see. M. L. Soards, The Speeches in Acts (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994), chap. 1.
[26] M. Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography”, in Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (ed., H. Greeven; New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1956), 138-191.
[27] Dibelius, “The Speeches in Acts and Ancient Historiography”, 166. However, he describes the Areopagus speech as “a Hellenistic speech about the true knowledge of God” (“Paul on the Areopagus” 26-77 (57)).
[28] F. F. Bruce, “The Significance of the Speeches for Interpreting Acts”, SWJT 40 (1990): 20-28 (20).
[29] Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 142; see also Bruce’s analysis of the speeches, op. cit.
[30] Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 138-141.
[31] E. Plümacher, Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller: Studien zur Apostelgeschichte (SUNT 9; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1972).
[32] Soards, The Speeches in Acts, 141.
[33] G. H. R. Horsley, “Speeches and Dialogue in Acts”, NTS 32 (1986): 609-614.
[34] C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (ed. C. J. Gempf; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1990).
[35] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 287.
[36] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 301-302.
[37] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 301-302.
[38] These are discussed in Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 120-131, who provides parallels in Hellenistic histories.
[39] Book I.1.2.
[40] Lucian, How to Write History, 47.
[41] Book XII. 28.3-5.
[42] Book XVI 14.
[43] See the “Introduction” by W. R. Paton to his translation, 14-15.
[44] Book XVI 17.10.
[45] Book I 14.6.
[46] See the “Introduction” by E. Cary to his translation, 16.
[47] Book I.1.2.
[48] L. T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament (London: SCM Press, 1999), 216.
[49] Book I.1.2.
[50] “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel or Political History?”, 11-12.
[51] Other subjects that were regarded as part of an historical genre included annals, chronicles, descriptions of a region and its people, and genealogies. However, Luke-Acts does not fall with these sub-genres—Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 84-86.
[52] Thus Polybius is concerned with “the how, when, and wherefore”, and “the causes” of a well-defined period in history of Rome’s rise to power (Book III 1.1-2). He states, “…nothing, therefore, should be more carefully guarded against and more diligently sought out than the first causes of each event” (Book III 1.7), or again, “…in the course of this work it will become more clearly intelligible by what steps this power was acquired…” (Book I.2.8).
[53] R. Flacelière, A Literary History of Greece, (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1964), 353.
[54] Book I.1.3-4.
[55] “The Genre of Luke-Acts: Individual Biography, Adventure Novel or Political History?”, 11-12.
[56] Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists, (trans. C. B. Gulick; Loeb Classical Library; London: Heinemann, 1929).
[57] Book I.5. Thus, Polybius states that since this time “history has been an organic whole”, Book I.3.4, and “…fortune having guided all the affairs of the world in one direction”, Book I.4.1.
[58] J. B. Green, “Internal Repetition in Luke-Acts: contemporary narratology and Lucan historiography” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts, (ed., B. Witherington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 283-299 (286).
[59] C. H. Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts (SBLMS; Missoula, Massachusetts, Scholars Press, 1974); What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977); “The Acts of the Apostles: monograph or ‘bios’?” in History, Literature, and Society in the Book of Acts (ed., B. Witherington III; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 58-72.
[60] Plutarch: Lives: Alexander, (trans., B. Perrin; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), I. 2-3.
[61] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 31.
[62] Chronological and topical order was recognised. Quintilian states, “Praise of the mind…there is more than one way of handling it. In some cases, the more attractive course has proved to be to follow the successive stages of a man’s life and the order of his actions…In other cases, it has seemed better to split up the encomium into the various virtues…and assign to each the acts performed in accordance with each”, Quintilian: The Orator’s Education, (trans., D. A. Russell; Loeb; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2001), Book III.7.15. All citations are from this edition.
[63] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 22.
[64] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 33. Hence, while there is an obvious emphasis on Jesus’ deeds and teaching, there is little treatment of his character in terms of the “inner life”.
[65] This kind of analysis is the subject of form-critical research; different classifications are possible, but this is beyond the scope of this monograph.
[66] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 46. Aune is forced to make this concession because of the lack of popular literature. While Luke’s gospel may appear biographical, it is not written in the same elevated style of Greco-Roman biographies.
[67] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 64. For a discussion of the sub-types of Greco-Roman biography see D. E. Aune, “Greco-Roman Biography” in Greco-Roman Literature and the New Testament, (ed., D. E. Aune; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988), 107-126 (107-109).
[68] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 65.
[69] R. T. France, “Jewish Historiography” in Gospel Perspectives (eds., R. T. France, D. Wenham and C. Blomberg; 6 vols; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983), 3:99-127. (107).
[70] The praise of Moses in biographies or biographical sketches is common in the Hellenistic period and evidenced in Aristobulus and Eupolemus; its impact can be seen in the estimates of non-Jews such as Strabo, Tacitus and Heataeus of Abdea.
[71] Pervo notes that direct speech in biographies tended to be short and dialogic in nature rather than set piece speeches, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 287.
[72] Aune, “Greco-Roman Biography”, 122.
[73] Lucian: Demonax (trans., A. M. Harmon et al; 8 vols; Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913-1967), 67. All citations are from this edition.
[74] This argument is consistent with the acknowledgement by 2c. Christian writers that the gospels contained biographical material. For a listing of citations, see Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 66-70.
[75] Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers (trans. D. Hicks; Loeb; London: Heinemann, 1925). All citations are from this edition.
[76] Talbert, Literary Patterns, Theological Themes and the Genre of Luke-Acts, 6.
[77] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 79.
[78] Talbert, “The Acts of the Apostles: monograph or ‘bios’?”, 64-69.
[79] Talbert argues that diati,qemai, (“appoint unto you”, Luke 22:29) pertains to the apostolic ministry, and that with this verb Luke signals a succession, “The Acts of the Apostles: monograph or ‘bios’?”, 67-69. However, it is more likely that this appointment relates to a kingdom that is deliberately postponed at the beginning of Acts rather than the apostolic mission (Acts 1:6).
[80] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 77.
[81] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 80.
[82] Books II.37.4, XII.23.7
[83] Arrian, (trans. E. I. Robson; Loeb; London: Heinemann, 1929). All citations are from this edition.
[84] Sallust, (trans. J. C. Rolfe; Loeb; Cambridge, MT: Harvard University Press, 1971). All citations are from this edition.
[85] Pervo has argued that Luke and Acts should be considered alongside Jewish Hellenistic novels. These include stories about the fathers of the nation such as Moses or Joseph (e.g. Joseph and Asenath) as well as other less prominent figures (e.g. Judith, Tobit). While not purporting to be “histories” these works have historical colour.
[86] R. I. Pervo, “The Ancient Novel becomes Christian”, in G. Schmeling (Ed.), The Novel in the Ancient World, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 685-711.
[87] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 303.
[88] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 49.
[89] R. I. Pervo, Profit with Delight: The Literary Genre of the Acts of the Apostles, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), 1-3.
[90] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 302-303.
[91] Pervo, Profit with Delight, 6.
[92] Pervo, Profit with Delight, 7.
[93] Pervo, “Direct Speech in Acts and the Question of Genre”, 303, “from these experimental impulses arose new genres, including the novel and the gospel”; Ancient Novel, p. 689-690, “subsequent centuries saw a host of imitations”.
[94] Aune, The New Testament in its Literary Environment, 120.
[95] M. Hengel’s judgment was that “Jewish Palestine was no hermetically sealed island in the sea of Hellenistic oriental syncretism”, Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols; Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 1:312. He added, “…the distinction between ‘Palestinian’ Judaism and the ‘Hellenistic’ Judaism of the Greek-speaking Diaspora, which has been customary for so long, now becomes very questionable”, 1:311. E. P. Sanders comments in his foreword to the fiftieth anniversary edition of W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (4th Ed; Mifflintown: Sigler Press, 1998), “This has been an enormously successful proposal, and similar statements are repeated on all hands”, xi.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One