Luke’s Acquaintance with the Information
1
Luke-Acts and the Historical Jesus
All scholars agree that Luke was not an eyewitness of the events reported in his first volume. Most obviously, whoever Luke was, he was surely from the Diaspora; many scholars cite his apparent lack of direct acquaintance with Galilean geography, ² and he probably did not know Aramaic. ³ Moreover, Luke writes at least a generation after the events that dominate his Gospel (and longer still after those he reports in his infancy narratives). Although a substantial minority of scholars continue to date Luke-Acts in the 60s, contending that Luke omits Paul’s death because it had not yet occurred when he wrote, and a smaller number date the work, or part of it, in the early second century, the majority of scholars favor the final three decades of the first century, with most clustering in the mid-range of 70–90. ⁴
Presumably, then, Luke did not know any of the events reported in his Gospel firsthand; yet he likely wrote within the lifespan of some of the eyewitnesses.⁵ While no one argues that Luke was an eyewitness of the events in the Gospel, other lines of evidence may help us reconstruct the sort of information about Jesus that would have been available to Luke; the degree of freedom a writer like Luke may have felt to adapt information or to “fill in” what he lacked; and a first-century audience’s expectations regarding the nature of Luke’s truth claims. In seeking to answer these questions, I will focus on two primary points: first, the genre of Luke’s work;⁶ and second, the explicit claims offered in his preface.⁷
Luke’s Genre
Many scholars argue, I believe persuasively, that Luke writes a two-volume work that includes both biography and historiography. Treating the two books together thus invites a brief exploration of the character of ancient historiography, and of where Luke-Acts falls in the broader range of this genre.
Biography and History
Through the work of Charles Talbert, Richard Burridge, Dirk Frickenschmidt, and others,⁸ a majority of scholars now view the Gospels as “lives,” or ancient biographies.⁹ This genre differs from modern biographies, for example, by often following a topical rather than chronological treatment. The Gospels are not modern biographies; nevertheless it is clear that they do fit the characteristics of ancient biography, being prose works focused on the life, or a particularly significant portion of the life, of a main character.¹⁰ In the early empire, such works depended heavily on prior information; incidents reported within the period of living memory (i.e., from within a generation of the last eyewitnesses) ideally corresponded with actual events.¹¹
What complicates matters in the case of Luke’s work is that it consists of two volumes, the second of which is not (despite some valiant arguments to the contrary) self-evidently biography. Acts does not focus on a single character (despite the prominence of Peter and especially Paul); although parallels between these characters and Jesus in the Gospel do allow for comparisons with the ancient biographic genre of “parallel lives,” the lack of a single figure dominating the entire second volume renders unlikely the claim that the volume is biography per se (though it may be biographic history, or a combination of these genres).¹² Acts closes not with Paul’s death as a biography should but, more positively, with his carrying his mission to the heart of the Empire.
While the consensus of Gospels scholarship seems to regard the Gospels as biographies, the consensus of Acts scholarship regards the latter volume as a form of historiography. Scholars offer a variety of proposals as to the focus (e.g., political), mode (e.g., apologetic) or form (i.e., a one-volume “monograph” like Sallust’s works), but (following the esteemed steps of Dibelius and Cadbury)¹³ the majority of scholars recognize historiography in one form or other as the genre of Acts (with biography a distant second and other proposals, such as novel and epic, trailing far behind).¹⁴ The use of interpretive speeches,¹⁵ the focus on historic events, the occasional use of synchronization with external history,¹⁶ and other elements all point in this direction.¹⁷
Although the two volumes may differ somewhat in genre particulars,¹⁸ the narrative unity of the two works¹⁹ would invite any attentive auditors to hear them together. While taken by itself the Gospel is biography, as part of Luke’s two-volume work the Gospel becomes a biographic component in a larger history, just as authors of multivolume histories could devote an entire volume or section to a particularly prominent character.²⁰ This connection invites us to examine Luke’s historiographic approach.
Ancient Historiography
Because historians told cohesive stories and did not simply recite annals, rhetoric was essential to their enterprise.²¹ Some allowed more rhetorical embellishment than others, but all were interested in cohesive compositions. Even Polybius opined that historians must render judgments about whether peoples or individuals merit praise or criticism (Polybius 3.4.1).
In writing cohesive narratives, ancient historians did not feel that they were doing injustice to their material. Rather, they often believed that divine providence had created the patterns they observed in history.²² When Plutarch composed “parallel lives,” he labored to find characters most closely comparable,²³ and argued that nature itself supplied enough details for attentive observers to discern parallels.²⁴ While selecting especially points useful for parallels, he did not obliterate all differences between characters;²⁵ analogously, we should not expect Luke’s comparisons among his major characters to obliterate his tradition. Whatever dramatic freedoms some historians (especially the most rhetorically sophisticated) took with details, most would not invent events to create parallels. Although Luke could likely have reported Paul’s execution had he wished, in Acts a catastrophic sea voyage takes the place of the Gospel’s passion narrative. In addition to Greco-Roman models for parallel characters and events, Luke could have looked for antecedents to the biblical tradition, a tradition he undoubtedly respected as historically authentic.²⁶ One ought not therefore to play Luke’s overall narrative unity against his historical genre or interest.
Ancient historians often composed speeches to provide comment on their narratives,²⁷ though they could follow the basic topic or topics of a speech given on the occasion where these were known.²⁸ (This observation is more relevant to Luke’s second volume, since our sources often confirm that Jesus’s individual sayings in the first volume reflect earlier tradition.)
Ancient historians also lacked the radical Enlightenment prejudice against reporting miracles or prodigies,²⁹ though some proved more skeptical or critical than others (sometimes depending partly on the expectations of the audiences for which they were writing).³⁰ The Gospels and Acts report more signs (and Luke-Acts probably more unambiguously favorably than Mark or John) than do most ancient historians,³¹ but this is partly because they narrate the story of a miracle worker,³² the sort of story where such signs (as opposed to wars among peoples or political competition among the elite) would have been important to the story.³³
Although no historian is completely detached from the subject they narrate, ancient historians typically wrote from particular moral or religious perspectives more than is common today.³⁴ Even from the best of historians, these could include nationalistic biases;³⁵ “responsible” historians also sought to inculcate moral lessons by how they recounted history,³⁶ and believed that orators and statesmen could redeploy these examples in public service.³⁷ Historians and biographers could employ clear narrative asides to articulate their perspectives.³⁸ Jewish historiography likewise valued the interpretive element.³⁹ Ancient historiography generally included the epideictic practice of assigning praise and blame.⁴⁰
Relevantly to Luke-Acts, ancient historians could include theological lessons,⁴¹ and most believed they discerned providential divine direction in some patterns in history.⁴² Ancients did of course complain about biases—normally those of other historians.⁴³ Like other historians, Luke could shape his material from his own theological, political, apologetic, or other perspectives, to a greater extent than is commonly approved for modern historiography.
Ancient historians and information. Ancient historiography was thus a somewhat different genre from its modern descendant. Nevertheless, skepticism that “the appellation ‘historian’ means something about historical accuracy”⁴⁴ is overstated; if it meant nothing about accurate content we could not draw distinctions between ancient historiography and novels, hence would know almost nothing about antiquity at all.⁴⁵
Lucian writes that good biographers avoid flattery that falsifies events (Hist. 12) and only bad historians invent data (e.g., Hist. 24–25). Although he had earlier praised a figure in an encomium, Polybius insists on historiography properly assigning praise and blame, according to a person’s actions (Polybius 10.21.8). Because historians may write with theological, political, or other interests does not require us to suppose that they have invented all their information!⁴⁶
Even Josephus’s apologetic and rhetorical approach usually does not eliminate the basic substance of the biblical or other stories he retells. When Josephus portrays Agrippa’s death according to tragic conventions and uses the owl as an omen (Ant. 19.346),⁴⁷ Josephus takes his liberties as a rhetorical historian (much more interested in Hellenistic rhetorical and tragic conventions than Luke is); but he does not invent Agrippa’s death on that occasion. Clare Rothschild offers a fairly balanced, centrist assessment: historians, who like orators claimed that they placed truth over style, varied in their preferences, but mostly dealt both in information and its persuasive presentation.⁴⁸
Intellectuals often found history pleasurable and entertaining.⁴⁹ Of course, novels were also entertaining, but as Gregory Sterling points out regarding Luke’s second volume, “was Acts intended to entertain or to inform in an entertaining way?”⁵⁰ Unlike writers in other genres, historians’ primary interest was truth accessible to the public domain.⁵¹ Whereas novels were intended primarily for entertainment,⁵² historians believed that they could entertain without abandoning historical truth.⁵³ Judean haggadah (perhaps more relevant to Matthew or John than Luke) probably permitted greater amplification than Hellenistic historiography.
Ancient historians generally had concerns for accuracy regarding events, if not always details;⁵⁴ they could harshly criticize other historians for bias or inaccuracy.⁵⁵ Aristotle noted that the difference between “history” and “poetry” was not their literary style, for one could put Herodotus into verse if one wished; but that the former recounts what actually happened whereas the latter recounts what might happen.⁵⁶ Thus even more rhetorically-oriented historians recognized that historical inquiry required not merely rhetorical skill but research and facts.⁵⁷ Pliny the Younger, an orator who never found leisure to write history himself, insisted that history’s primary goal was truth and accuracy rather than rhetorical display (Pliny Ep. 7.17.3); rhetoric was acceptable provided one’s basis was facts (8.4.1).⁵⁸ While Luke’s rhetorical level is much higher than Mark’s, he is no elite historian, and neither his Greek nor his rhetorical elaboration place him in the same league as as the more rhetorically focused Josephus.⁵⁹
Ancient historians were often critical, some of them introducing critical methodologies employed in historiography even today.⁶⁰ We often find them critiquing earlier writers’ reports;⁶¹ thus Arrian often evaluates various reports by comparing them, noting, for example, that one prominent story is unreported by the earliest eyewitness writers, hence is probably not dependable.⁶² When uncertain as to the truth, writers often simply presented several different current opinions on what had happened.⁶³ Historians also recognized that sources closer in time to the events reported were likelier accurate than reports about the distant past;⁶⁴ this criterion is relevant to Luke, who writes at the remove of only perhaps half a century after the primary events of his Gospel,⁶⁵ and much closer to the conclusion of Acts.
Evaluating Luke’s Historiographic Practice
Some ancient historians, however, were far more careful with historical information than were others. Where does Luke fall on this continuum? I will summarize here some observations that could be developed in much greater detail, yet which I regard as fairly self-evident to students of Lukan literature. First, historical challenges to Luke arise where we would most expect them in ancient historiography. When the wise sage Gamaliel proves so wise that he mentions a revolutionary leader that had not (if Josephus is correct) yet arisen (Acts 5:36), this claim appears in not only a speech, but a speech behind closed doors for which Luke provides no witnesses.
Second, by contrast, Luke proves accurate where we would most expect this for a good ancient historian. Thus, for example, the we-narratives, which claim eyewitness information, frequently offer the most detailed scenes and sequences in Acts.⁶⁶ Wherever Paul’s letters provide a chronological sequence for the events of Paul’s life and mission, the sequence in Acts proves nearly identical.⁶⁷ Indeed, the correspondences of considerable information even in the earlier chapters in Acts with external sources is remarkable.⁶⁸
Third, as any student who works through a synopsis of the Gospels recognizes,⁶⁹ Luke takes over much material from Mark and other material shared with Matthew. Although he regularly polishes Mark’s grammar, he normally retains the general substance of Mark’s narrative and sayings where he uses Mark’s Gospel.⁷⁰ To assume that Luke would engage in a different method of wholesale fabrication where we cannot check him, one must presuppose that Luke could foresee which sources would remain extant. Historians had considerable freedom to shape their material into cohesive narratives; they did not expect each other to exercise such freedom to fabricate events. Indeed, wholesale fabrication of events is a crime of which Polybius does not even accuse Timaeus (who shared the expectation that history should deal in facts).⁷¹ At this point it will be helpful to turn to Luke’s preface, which offers specific expectations for his own work.
Luke’s Preface
Alone among the Gospels, Luke offers what appears very much like the prefaces found in histories,⁷² a preface that (with most scholars) presumably includes both of his volumes in its purview. That this preface includes Luke’s claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Luke 1:3) fits historical works (Thucydides 1.22.2); his occasional use of the first-person plural (see comment on Acts 16:10) emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian.⁷³
Whatever may be said of the preface’s style, the content it promises for the work is telling. A good introduction should summarize what is to follow,⁷⁴ and Luke’s summary of what will follow is explicitly historical: “an orderly narrative of the things fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1, 3). Likewise, his explicit purpose is to confirm what Theophilus has learned about such events (1:4). “Given this statement of the question,” Callan points out, “it is almost obvious that the preface of Luke-Acts most resembles the prefaces of histories” in terms of content.⁷⁵ Various scholars point to a conglomeration of language in Luke’s preface familiar from other historical prefaces.⁷⁶ (Even Loveday Alexander, who has contended that the Gospel preface resembles a scientific preface, allows that the work may be historiography, but of the more scientific, less rhetorical kind.)⁷⁷
Sources
Luke observes that “many” had already written before him (Luke 1:1), sources at least somewhat closer in time to the events reported than he is. Ancient historians were expected to use sources⁷⁸ and were not shy about informing readers of this use where relevant.⁷⁹ Luke does not specify his sources, perhaps partly because he writes closer to the events than most historians who cite conflicting sources;⁸⁰ because he writes popular rather than elite history; or because he depends on communal memory (cf. “accomplished among us,” Luke 1:1).⁸¹ Luke’s potentially “many” sources surely include at least Mark and, I believe, in what is probably still the majority opinion, “Q,”⁸² as well as other sources that no longer remain extant.⁸³
In 1:2, Luke mentions the passing down of oral tradition, which both preceded and proceeded concurrently with the writing of documents. How accurately could the disciples have recalled and transmitted Jesus’s teachings? Basic education in antiquity stressed memorization,⁸⁴ although at an advanced level paraphrase was also expected.⁸⁵ (Even simple oral transmission would make natural the many variants in our sources;⁸⁶ apart from some simple aphorisms,⁸⁷ both psychological and social memory usually preserve what they retain in gist rather than verbatim form.)⁸⁸
Likewise, disciples in Greek schools were expected to pass on sayings of founders for generations.⁸⁹ Our extant sources for Jewish education at all levels also emphasize memory.⁹⁰ Constant repetition was an important principle in confirming disciples’ memory.⁹¹ Some students could grow to disagree with their teachers, but always owed them respect⁹² and accurate representation of their teaching.⁹³ The burden of proof should thus rest on those who suppose that Jesus’s disciples (despite their exalted respect for him) proved far more careless with his words than did first- and second-generation students of most other first-century teachers.⁹⁴
Gentile disciples typically took notes on what their teachers said;⁹⁵ sometimes they afterward published them,⁹⁶ on which occasions teachers themselves are sometimes on record as attesting the accuracy of their content.⁹⁷ (Recognizing that students took notes, many also advised them to internalize the teachings as well.)⁹⁸ Even Jewish students, who emphasized especially oral transmission, could take minimal notes if needed to prod their memories.⁹⁹ Whether any of Jesus’s disciples would have been able to do so is an open question, but at least minimal notes need not be ruled out a priori through assumptions of pervasive Galilean illiteracy.¹⁰⁰ Disciples in some schools learned purely orally, so even mainly illiterate students could still learn.¹⁰¹
Eyewitnesses, whom Luke here mentions as the source of these traditions, remained in leadership positions in the church during most of the period of the stories’ primarily oral transmission (cf. 1 Cor 15:5–7 with Gal 1:18–19; 2:9).¹⁰²
Luke’s Acquaintance with the Information
In 1:3, Luke claims to be “thoroughly aquainted” with the events he narrates (parêkolouthêkoti),¹⁰³ language used to affirm a writer’s familiarity with prior reports and the writer’s reliability on the subject.¹⁰⁴ Investigation of the sources, including travel to interview witnesses, belonged to the best tradition of Hellenistic historiography.¹⁰⁵ Not all historians lived up to this standard, however, especially historians in the west or historians whose subjects ranged to distant lands. How would Theophilus and his circle have measured Luke by these standards?
The key may be in Luke’s apparent claim to participation in some later portions of his account.¹⁰⁶ The “we” appears sparingly; Luke does not make himself out to have participated as much as, say, Polybius. One would expect a fictitious “we” to appear more pervasively, rather than incidentally appearing in Troas, leaving off in Philippi (Acts 16:10–16), and picking up only years later, again in Philippi (20:6—21:18; 27:1—28:16). One might also expect the “we” at more key points where it would be useful (say in Acts 2 or 10).¹⁰⁷ The we-material is also among the most detailed material in the book,¹⁰⁸ suiting eyewitness narration. It is also consistent with an expectation potentially suggested by Luke’s preface.¹⁰⁹
Often because Luke’s perspectives differ from Paul’s, scholars question whether Luke was genuinely a traveling companion of Paul’s. Yet any of us professors know from experience that our students do not always turn out like us; an occasional companion of Paul could respect him highly without sharing all his perspectives or even fully understanding him. Some of the alleged theological differences, however, derive from a traditional Protestant misreading of Paul.¹¹⁰
Some contend that the “we” material reflects a written source such as a travel itinerary. Such a written source is certainly plausible, but does not explain why Luke would have retained its first-person narration despite his failure to retain such marks in any other sources, even when they report eyewitness material (Luke 1:2).¹¹¹ If Luke did not simply lapse into suddenly poor editing at these (and precisely these) points, the “we” either includes himself or must represent a literary device his audience should have recognized.
The proposal of a literary device for a fictitious “we,” however, lacks supporting parallels. The alleged first-person convention for sea-voyage narratives¹¹² lacks adequate supporting evidence;¹¹³ the proposal of a fictitious literary device more generally is also implausible. Entire works (like Cynic epistles and apocalypses) could be pseudonymous,¹¹⁴ but Luke does not name himself in any case, and Theophilus appears to know his identity.¹¹⁵ Novelists sometimes included fictitious first-person narration,¹¹⁶ but normally the narrators remain central to the action throughout the narrative,¹¹⁷ and, as we have noted, Luke-Acts is not a novel.
By contrast, however, first-person narration in histories (like third-person narration naming the narrator) nearly always indicated the actual presence of the author on the occasions noted.¹¹⁸ Classicist Arthur Darby Nock found at most a single use of a fictitious “we” except in obvious fiction; he concluded that the we-narratives were genuine eyewitness reminiscences.¹¹⁹ Thus many believe that if Luke employs a travel journey, it includes his own notes; that Luke claims to have been present on the occasions marked by “we”; and/or that this section includes Luke’s personal reminiscences of Paul.¹²⁰ That we would grant the accuracy of the claim to almost any other ancient historian who made it, yet are skeptical in Luke’s case, may reveal more about our guild than about Luke himself.
If so, he departs for Judea with Paul in 20:5—21:18 and departs from Judea up to two years later in 27:1—28:16. Although most of that time was probably spent in Caesarea, Luke would have had opportunity to become more “fully acquainted” with the Judean events he depicts.
That Luke’s research serves a primarily confirmatory purpose (1:4)¹²¹ suggests that Luke in the end does not arrive at conclusions far distant from his sources, which apparently circulated widely. In contrast to Pauline scholars, some Gospels scholars have underestimated the networking of early Christians through the Empire, insisting on entirely hypothetical, theologically isolated communities.¹²² Whatever Luke’s compositional liberties to produce a cohesive and appealing work, he uses prior and well-known information. He does not read the conflicts of his own day or even those of his hero Paul’s (e.g., sharing meals with gentiles; food customs; or circumcision for gentiles) into Jesus’s sayings, which instead can often be shown to derive from his sources (Mark, “Q,” and presumably others no longer extant). While we need not expect his approach to apostolic preaching to be equally conservative, much of this material was even more recent and his participation more complete.
Concluding Reflections
In this brief study I have endeavored to show that Luke’s chosen genre and his expressed intentions lead us to expect that he handled accurately, by the standards of his era, the sources available to him. Luke has historiographic (as well as biographic) intention; while ancient historiography had essential rhetorical and literary interests, it also focused on information. Luke indicates that he made use of various oral and written sources no longer available to us, but most of which remained for examination in his own day.
Given the brevity of space I have addressed two other issues only cursorily, hence mention them briefly here. First, how well did Luke carry out his historical intentions? Entire essays address the test cases, examining how he employs his sources (in the Gospel, Mark and Q) or how his record comports with primary sources treating the same events (for Acts, Paul’s letters). Although we see adaptation in both cases, the substance of events and, in the Gospel, even sayings, remains. Luke certainly adapts his material for a Hellenistic audience (e.g., symposia), but does not really obscure Jesus the Jewish sage (with traditional aphorisms, parables, and so forth), prophet, and Messiah. Indeed, though Matthew’s language more often retains more of its original Palestinian Jewish flavor, Luke sometimes even displays greater nuance with regard to the sources, such as in more often distinguishing Pharisees from scribes (Luke 11:42, 45–46; Matt 23:13–29) and offering a more nuanced portrait of the Pharisees.¹²³ By the standards of ancient historiography, I believe that Luke remains close to his sources.
Second, granted that Luke conscientiously employed his sources, how accurate were the sources he employed? The treatment of this question strictly belongs to other essays, so I will comment only briefly. Keeping in mind that Luke’s sources preceded him (and the sources that had achieved greatest attention by his day probably preceded him by even more years), many of these sources probably stemmed from the first generation, when some eyewitnesses remained alive and in prominent positions in the church. I thus believe that a healthy measure of skepticism is in order regarding allegations of the first-century church’s rapid amnesia. With W. D. Davies, it is helpful to note that probably only a single lifespan “separates Jesus from the last New Testament document. And the tradition in the Gospels is not strictly a folk tradition, derived from long stretches of time, but a tradition preserved by believing communities who were guided by responsible leaders, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the ministry of Jesus.”¹²⁴
If we accept the two-source hypothesis, both these major sources likely belong to the first generation. While reconstruction of these sources’ own sources may be speculative, the experience of the first generation of other Greco-Roman schools¹²⁵ known to us suggests that the still-living memory of Jesus (in sayings and anecdotes) would have remained paramount. Nor is it likely that Luke would have simply misconstrued a recent novel’s genre and then used it as a major historical source for his own work;¹²⁶ Luke, who like Matthew had access to the apparently widely circulated Gospel of Mark, likely knew much more about Mark’s origin than did Papias’s generation, and even likelier much more than our own. As already noted, in contrast to speculative theories about geographically isolated early Christian communities in some circles of Gospels scholarship,¹²⁷ Pauline scholarship works from a more concrete information base.
Long before Luke wrote (and certainly long before the early second century’s more explicit network of bishops), the early churches throughout the Empire were already informally networked.¹²⁸ (In Mediterranean antiquity in general, travelers regularly carried news from one location to another,¹²⁹ especially residing with members of their own social group, such as Jews or Christians or resident aliens from their homeland.)¹³⁰ Even during Paul’s years of planting churches, many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities (Rom 1:8; 1 Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7–9).¹³¹ First-century missionaries could speak of some churches to others (Rom 15:26; 2 Cor 8:1–5; 9:2–4; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14–16) and send personal news by other workers (Eph 6:21–22; Col 4:7–9). Moreover, apostolic views still carried respect and weight in these circles, even when some matters (not apparently related to the Jesus tradition) were debated among those of apostolic status (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5; 15:5, 7; Gal 1:18–19; 2:8–9).
In view of such factors as those surveyed above, I believe that there is reason to suppose that Luke not only has interest in retelling historical information, but that much of the information to which he had access ultimately stems from fundamentally reliable and eyewitness sources.