Luke The Evangelist - Luke As A Historian

Luke As A Historian

Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) in the tradition of Greek historiography. The preface of The Gospel of Luke drawing on historical investigation identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history. There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." It should be noted, however, that Ramsay makes no claims about the events described by Luke. Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth." New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.

On the purpose of Acts, New Testament Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has noted that "Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography." Such a position is shared by most commentators such as Richard Heard who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information." However, during modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, although that depends on one's a priori view of the supernatural. A materialist would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc. as problematic as a historical source. And it is understood that Luke did not intend to record history. His intention was to proclaim and to persuade. Many see this understanding as the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin. Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowd addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke(5:36-7)'