THE PHYSICIAN LUKE – THE METICULOUS HISTORIAN | INTRODUCTION 2

Historian

When assessing Luke as a historian, it is important to keep in mind that his work was written in an entirely different era to modern historians. Today’s historians work according to strict methodological principles, such as source criticism, objectivity, and documentation of the origin of sources. Luke, on the other hand, worked within the ancient tradition that emphasized creating a coherent and meaningful narrative.

This does not mean that Luke is unreliable, but that his method was different from what we expect from historians today. When we judge Luke as a historian, we should consider whether he was accurate and trustworthy according to the historiographical standards of his own time.

To assess Luke’s credibility as a historian, it is natural to begin with his own description of how he proceeded in his work. In the introduction to his Gospel, he explains his method and purpose:

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4)

This introduction gives us an insight into Luke’s method and purpose as an author. It is therefore relevant to examine the extent to which his approach corresponds to what characterizes a historian.

1. Accuracy and reliability

A good historian presents the facts correctly and accurately, based on thorough research and verifiable sources.

Luke states that he was to investigate everything carefully. He used “eyewitnesses” and those who had been “servants of the Word” as sources. We do not know exactly who these people were, but the following persons may have provided Luke with important information.

• Paul. Paul was probably a key source of information for Luke. It is likely that Luke interviewed Paul about his experiences, including the circumstances surrounding his conversion to Christianity, and his experience of coming to Jerusalem, first as a persecutor of Christians, and later as part of the Christian community. Furthermore, Paul’s extensive travels must have been a valuable source for Luke, before he himself joined them. Paul had also met Peter, one of Jesus’ first disciples, on multiple occasions, and it is a natural assumption that they discussed Peter’s experiences with Jesus. Information from these conversations may in turn have contributed to Luke’s work in writing the Gospel. F.F. Bruce comments on Peter as a source: “What did Peter and Paul talk about during the fortnight they spent together in Jerusalem about AD 35 (Gal. i. 18)? As Professor Dodd puts it, ‘we may presume they did not spend all the time talking about the weather.” It was a golden opportunity for Paul to learn the details of the story of Jesus from one whose knowledge of that story was unsurpassed.” ^[1]
• Philip the Evangelist. Philip and Stephen’s experiences are described in Acts of the Apostles chapters 6 and 8. Philip may have told these things to Luke when they spent some time together in Caesarea (Acts 21:8).
• James, Jesus’ half-brother. Because Luke met James in Caesarea (Acts 21:18), he had an excellent opportunity to learn much about Jesus’ family and the events depicted in Luke’s Gospel.
• Mark, also called John. It seems that Luke was with Mark in Rome when Paul was imprisoned (Philemon 22, 24). It is clear that Mark, who wrote the Gospel of Mark, had a great deal of knowledge ^[2] about the life of Jesus, information that Luke may have used in his Gospel. Mark had also travelled with Paul (Acts 13:5), which he may have told Luke about. Mark was also the source of the quarrel between Barnabas and Paul mentioned in Acts 15:39. He may also have talked about Peter’s experiences recorded in Acts 12 (Acts 12:12).
• Timothy. Timothy, who travelled extensively with Paul, met Luke in Troas (Acts 20:4-6). He may have had a lot of information which he could have shared with Luke.
• Other people. Luke must also have interviewed many of Jesus’ followers, both men and women, about what Jesus had said and done. He may have interviewed Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the mother of John the Baptist. Luke’s knowledge of the Herodian family may have been obtained from several sources, who may have had direct access to the court. One possible source is Joanna, who was one of Jesus’ traveling companions (Luke 8:3). Her husband worked as a steward for Herod Antipas. Another potential source is Manaen, a fellow Christian in the Antioch congregation who, according to Acts 13:1, had grown up with Herod Antipas. Since Luke is presumed to have visited Antioch with Paul, it may also have been possible for him to obtain information through him.
• Written sources. In the prologue 1:1-4, Luke mentions that work had been done before him to talk about Jesus. These must have been written sources. Other sources are the Old Testament and genealogical registers that were found in the temple.

2. Critical thinking

The historian evaluates sources critically, analyses different perspectives, and avoids drawing hasty conclusions.

• Luke gathered information from eyewitnesses and earlier sources, which he carefully reviewed before writing his account. This shows a critical evaluation of information. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary notes: “He tells the reader that he is using earlier oral and written sources (Luke 1:1-2). But he has also done personal and accurate research (akribos 1:3), implying that he can handle those sources critically.” ^[3]
• Luke shows a remarkable interest in geographical, historical and political details. He names specific people (such as Herod, Pontius Pilate, and emperor Augustus) and places, giving the reader the opportunity to verify his accounts. Many of these details have been confirmed by archaeological finds and non-biblical sources, as we will see in this series of articles.
• Luke is meticulous about placing his writings in a larger historical context. For example, he dates important events by referring to specific emperors, governors, and princes. This indicates that he is concerned with establishing a credible chronology.

3. Historical sense

They have a deep understanding of the context of history, and can place events within a broader historical context.

• For example, Luke has extraordinary insight into the various forms of government of the Roman state, something that was not always easy to have an accurate understanding of. The same can be said of his knowledge of Jewish society, traditions, and culture.

4. Ability to communicate

A good historian can communicate complex historical processes in an understandable and engaging way.

• Luke’s narrative is not simply a list of dry facts. Instead, it is conveyed in a very vivid way, where the reader himself can picture the events. When reading, one often gets the feeling of being right in the middle of the events.
• Martin M. Culy, Mikeal C. Parsons and Joshua J. Stigall, who have studied Luke’s Greek extensively, write the following in the book Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text, concerning his use of language: “He writes as one who is not only familiar with the Greek language itself, but also with the traditions associated with the biographical genre. The long hours we have spent working with the Greek text of Luke’s Gospel have not only strengthened our understanding of its life-giving message, but have also constantly emphasized its narrative beauty. Time and again we have seen that Luke is a writer who could hold his own among the biographers of his time.” ^[4]

5. Objectivity

They strive to be objective, and try to avoid personal or ideological bias in interpreting history.

• Although Luke was a Christian, he does not exalt his fellow Christians as superhuman. He describes fierce outbursts of anger between Christian leaders (Acts 15:38, 39), and he does not gloss over the human weaknesses of the apostles. (Luke 22:24) Luke also addresses disagreements within the Christian congregation. (Acts 15:2, 7) He is also open regarding his agenda in writing, which is to show that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
• Rather than presenting a preconceived theological agenda, Luke often lets the events speak for themselves. He records various events, including miracles, and recounts speeches without always providing lengthy explanations or interpretations, which leaves room for the reader to draw their own conclusions.
• Luke allows space for Jews and non-Jews, men and women, rich and poor, in his narratives. For example, he pays special attention to women and the poor, people who were often looked down upon by society. This shows an ability to present a broad picture of the events.

The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary has an interesting comment on Luke as a historian:

“Prior to writing, he had carefully investigated everything from the beginning” (Luke 1:3). This is the same claim that another writer, the historian Thucydides, made centuries earlier. He did not write down events as he pleased, but investigated the details with the greatest accuracy possible (1.22.2) ^[5]. Such assurances became common in the writings of later historians. The similarity in content and vocabulary between Luke’s prologue and Thucydides’ chapter on methodology clearly shows that Luke wished to be a historian. He need not have read Thucydides directly, but may have drawn on historiographical tradition or perhaps on textbooks on rhetoric.” ^[6]

In conclusion, Luke can undoubtedly be called a historian. As the Bible commentary A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke emphasizes:

“The classical style of this opening, and its similarity to the prefaces of Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius, hardly amount to proof that Lk. was well read in classical literature, and consciously imitated Greek historians; but there is nothing improbable in this supposition. [- – -] in its utter simplicity, modesty and brevity, it is the model of a preface to an historical work.” ^[7]

Summary

In this introduction, we have examined Luke as a writer. He wrote a larger part of the New Testament than any other individual. There is broad agreement that the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles have the same author, which is confirmed by linguistic analysis and internal references. Although Luke’s name is not explicitly mentioned in the texts, we have made his authorship probable using internal indications, early manuscripts, and external sources such as the Muratorian Fragment, Irenaeus, and Origen.

Luke wrote in advanced Greek, which suggests a well-educated man, this is consistent with Paul describing him as a physician. Regarding the dating of his writings, there are three main opinions: an early dating (c. 60–62 AD), a middle dating (80s AD), and a late dating (100–130 AD).

The introduction to Luke’s Gospel (Luke 1:1–4) shows that Luke had a historical approach according to the standards of his time. For his sources, he used eyewitnesses and “servants of the Word” and was himself an eyewitness to many of the events he describes. This points to a well-informed and methodical writer.

The book The New Testament Documents states:

“A writer who thus relates his story to the wider context of world history is courting trouble if he is not careful; he affords his critical readers so many opportunities for testing his accuracy.”

In the next article in the series The Physician Luke – the Meticulous Historian, we will begin to “test” Luke’s accuracy in his descriptions of people and events.

Bibliography

Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Stellar Books, 2013.

Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor University Press, 2010.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Acts of the Apostles. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1998.

—. The Gospel According to Luke (I-IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, Doubleday & Company, 1981.

Freedman, David Noel, editor. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5, Doubleday, 1992.

Hemer, Colin J. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1989.

Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 4:406. New York: Doubleday. 1992.

Longenecker, Richard N. Acts: The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Edited by Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, Zondervan, 2007.

Plummer, Alfred. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to S. Luke. International Critical Commentary, T&T Clark International, 1896.

Wilson, R. McL. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. Edited by G. I. Davies and G. N. Stanton, International Critical Commentary, T&T Clark International, 2005.

Sources

[1] Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? Stellar Books, 2013.

[2] It is generally believed that Mark received much of his information from Peter.

[3] Johnson, Luke Timothy. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, edited by David Noel Freedman, 4:406. New York: Doubleday. 1992. «Luke-Acts, Book of.»

[4] Culy, Martin M., Mikeal C. Parsons, and Joshua J. Stigall. Luke: A Handbook on the Greek Text. Baylor University Press, 2010. Page ixi

[5] Author’s note: 1.22.2 refers to Thucydides’ work: History of the Peloponnesian War.

[6] Freedman, David Noel, editor. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. Vol. 5, Doubleday, 1992

[7] Plummer, Alfred.  A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke. International Critical Commentary. London: T&T Clark International. 1896. (1:1-4 The Prologue or Preface)