It appears that the investigative language Luke uses as well as his claim to be thoroughly familiar with the matters about which he writes (Luke 1:3) suggest that he was attempting to write history (Keener 2009b: 89). For Greek historians, the term used for historical investigation, ‘historia’, left no doubt as to what was considered the defining characteristic of the genre. He focused on the interrogation of witnesses and other informed parties, weaving their responses into a cohesive narrative (Fornara 1983: 47).
Consequently, Luke’s attempts to write good and reliable history have often been questioned. It is important to note that Luke’s historical reliability had been under almost constant criticism in NT scholarship. However, one of the primary reasons why some academics question Luke’s historicity is because, according to them, he was primarily a theologian with an agenda of his own (Germiquet 1992: 7). Thus he had predetermined theological presuppositions that would have muddled his historical
insight, because the content that Luke presents was handed down for the benefit of the Christian church, with a view to the church’s needs (Van Unnik 1966: 97). Some of these sceptics also drew attention to Luke’s portrayal of Paul, comparing it to information that Paul gives about himself in his letters. For example, while Luke describes Paul as doing many miracles, Paul does not mention them in any of his letters (Germiquet 1992: 7). Others are of the opinion that a great deal of information on the early church is omitted and that Luke was not an eyewitness to the reported events; the information cannot always be checked (Van Unnik 1966: 97). Some wonder what sources and recourses Luke really had at his disposal (Van Unnik 1966: 96).
Prior to the 1960s, there was a real need to investigate the historical reliability of Luke by comparing him to other well-known historians of his time (Van Unnik 1966: 107). Over the past few years, however, numerous scholars have extensively investigated, scrutinized and answered these problems, with some interesting results, favouring Luke as a good historian (Germiquet 1992: 8).
First, he was not a typical historian in the modern sense of the word, but he fared excellently as a historian when compared with some of his contemporaries (Germiquet 1992: 8). Some go so far as to suggest that questioning the historicity of Luke is absurd and that Roman historians took it for granted (Licona 2010: 18). Like most other ancient historians, he combined research and memory with free composition. As stated earlier, the so-called “we” (ἡμᾶς) passages point to some companion of Paul who frequently shows a very accurate understanding of local usage (Van Unnik 1966: 98). Although it is not history in the modern sense of the word (Aune 1990: 12), it is based on good traditions and is, therefore, reliable (Germiquet 1992: 8). In the remainder of this section, I shall elaborate further on and develop the historicity of Acts.
Secondly, on the fact that Luke omits some material, Van Unnik (1966: 109) comments that we should perhaps be more moderate in our demands of Luke, because he was not omniscient of all events of the apostolic age. This does not mean that he is unreliable in what he does tell us or that he was a pious, but untrustworthy preacher (Van Unnik 1966: 109). We should grant Luke the liberty to not be interested in all matters that interest us. If some of the current noteworthy historians were to be subjected to the same tests to which we subject Luke, they would not stand the test (Van Unnik 1966: 109).
Thirdly, concerning Luke’s general accuracy, Johnson (1999: 217) would, in fact, argue that Luke is indeed a good historian in the sense that he is accurate in what he tells. The phrase ‘what he tells’ is important, because Luke tells his story selectively. This concurs with the type of story Luke is attempting to write. It is obvious from the way he writes that he is not trying to give a full and comprehensive report of the Christian past. He does not have to in order to be a history writer, even according to
modern standards (Walsh 1967: 21-22). Rather, he is communicating the realization of God’s promises to a restored Israel, the characterization of the early Christians as Spirit-filled prophets, and the development of a prophetic Christology (Johnson 1999: 219).
Fourthly, historical accuracy can be expected when we consider Luke’s intention as a writer. He wanted to write about what can be accurately attested to (Luke 1:1-4). The genre of history also suits Luke’s intention as a writer. According to Josephus (Antiquities: preface), historians write histories for different reasons. Some write to show their skill in composition. Others write to flatter and gratify those whose deeds they mention. Others write with the single purpose to present the facts they have witnessed and, in so doing, be of benefit to the general public. Historians should not write for enjoyment, but for the love of truth (Josephus Bellum Judaicum: I 12). Of course, Luke does not use the word ἀλήθεια (truth), but rather chooses τὴν ἀσφάλειαν. The meaning of the word is depicted as “security against falling” or “assurance from danger” (Liddel & Scott 1889: 177). This use of ἀσφάλεια is evident in some ancient texts. Xenophon (Memorabilia 4.6.15) notes the following about Socrates’ work method: ὁπότε δὲ αὐτός τι τῷ λόγῳ διεξίοι, διὰ τῶν μάλιστα ὁμολογουμένων ἐπορεύετο, νομίζων ταύτην τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου (Translation: Whenever he himself argued out a question, he advanced by steps that gained general assent, holding this to be the only sure method). This text also mentions that Homer said the following of Odysseus: Ὅμηρον τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ ἀναθεῖναι τὸ ἀσφαλῆ ῥήτορα εἶναι, ὡς ἱκανὸν αὐτὸν ὄντα διὰ τῶν δοκούντων τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἄγειν τοὺς λόγους (Translation: Homer gave Odysseus the credit of being “a safe speaker”, because he had a way of leading the discussion from one acknowledged truth to another) [my italics, RB]. As far as Luke’s use of ἀσφάλεια is concerned, Luke’s predecessors already expounded the “truth” (ἀλήθεια) (vv. 1-2), but he was concerned about the “infallibility” of the facts (Van Unnik 1055: 13). Thus, ἀσφάλεια assures that which is already accepted and recognized (Van Unnik 1955: 14).
Luke also uses the word ἀσφάλεια several times in Acts with reference to certainty: Acts 21:34: ἄλλοι δὲ ἄλλο τι ἐπεφώνουν ἐν τῷ ὄχλῳ. μὴ δυναμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ γνῶναι τὸ ἀσφαλὲς διὰ τὸν θόρυβον ἐκέλευσεν ἄγεσθαι αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν παρεμβολήν (Translation: And some shouted one thing, some another, among the crowd: and when he could not know the certainty for the uproar, he commanded him to be brought into the castle) (ASV); Acts 22:30: Τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον βουλόμενος γνῶναι τὸ ἀσφαλές … (Translation: But on the morrow, desiring to know the certainty …) (ASV); Acts 25:26: περὶ οὗ ἀσφαλές τι γράψαι τῷ κυρίῳ οὐκ ἔχω (Translation: Of whom I have no certain thing to write unto my lord) (ASV). Luke “wants to remove doubt about the exactitude of τῶν πεπληροφορημένων, Christ’s work of salvation and bring Theophilus and his other readers, the complete certainty” (Van Unnik 1955: 14). A person who wants to give certainty and who is concerned with truth conveys his/her message by writing a history, as Luke does (Marguerat 2002: 14)
5.5 Conclusion
In terms of ancient criteria, Luke can be regarded as a reasonably reliable ancient historian (Van Unnik 1955: 13). From the data given in this chapter, I shall conclude with a brief summary of the reasons for Luke’s writing.