Alexander C. Loney 10 At the outset of my application of this paradigm to Luke, one major objection needs to be addressed. Is it anachronistic to apply the model of usage of a sophisticated and literary classical Athenian historian of 500 years prior to that of the much later, provincial evangelist? This is a serious objection. However, cognizance of a few considerations will make it clear that this classical paradigm can obtain in the Lukan narratives as well. It is, of course, clear that Luke has not written an elaborate, Thucy- didean history. Nonetheless, Luke displays a qualified literariness and an awareness of historical convention that indicates at the very least famili- arity with classical tradition, especially historiography22. The preface to his gospel (1,1-4) most demonstrably makes the case for Luke’s ability to use the conventions of Greek historiography, both the linguistic (as it is a single, periodic sentence with a balanced, hypotactic structure) and the topical (as it references preceding writers on its subject and the author’s own investigation, claims to be a narrative, purports a didactic purpose, etc.)23. Such an affinity for the stylistic conventions of the Greek historio- graphical tradition, which reached its zenith in Thucydides, is sufficient to demonstrate the plausibility of Luke’s adopting an adapted form of one of these conventions. Bakker notes that the model of two modes of discourse that he finds in Thucydides is not exclusive to Thucydides. It is only most formally developed in him24. Furthermore, Bakker allows that the interplay of these two modes is often more subtle than he delineates for the sake of his analysis25. In other words, this discourse system is not an exclusively Thucydidean feature and Luke need not have first-hand knowledge of Thucydides in order to participate in the tradition. My the- 22 Much ink has been spilled on the subject of Lukan style and whether he generically qualifies as a historian. For a useful summary of the different positions taken on the subject, see J. Green, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids 1997) 1-6. Without listing a full bibliogra- phy at this point, it is uncontroversial to say that Luke aspires to the historiographical in some capacity. 23 The preface’s position in literature has been much discussed as well. Among the studies that consider generic classification are L. Alexander, “Luke’s Preface in the Context of Greek Preface-Writing”, NT 28 (1986) 48-74, which places Luke among the scientific writers; T. Callan, “The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography”, NTS 31 (1985) 576-81, which places Luke alongside Sallust and Josephus and very near indeed to Thucydides; and H. Cadbury, “Appendix C: Commentary on the Preface of Luke”, in F.J. Foakes and K. Lake (eds.), The Beginnings of Christianity. Part 1: The Acts of the Apostles (London 1922) 489-510, which has not yet been surpassed in its description of the preface as artistic literature, placing Luke-Acts in the continuum of Hellenistic history. 24 “Verbal Aspect”, 28-29. Bakker makes use of a variety of Greek sources other than Thucydides to formulate his system, including Homer, Euripides, Aristophanes, Herodotus, and Plato (see especially Ibid., 19-27). 25 Ibid., 29.