Chapter 83 of 404

Luke-Acts as History

Various factors support the thesis that Luke conceives of his project as primarily a history. Unlike a novel, Luke uses sources abundantly in his first volume (usually agreed to be at least Mark and “Q”) and presumably in his second volume as well, though we cannot distinguish the sources clearly in Acts.¹³ Luke’s claim to investigate or have close acquaintance with his information (Lk 1:3) fits historical works,¹⁴ and his occasional use of the first-person plural (e.g., Acts 16:10) emphasizes the involvement considered ideal for a good Hellenistic historian.¹⁵

Other aspects of Luke-Acts fit the historical genre. Luke’s extensive use of public monologues in Acts fits the conventions of ancient histories better than those of biographies or novels.¹⁶ (Indeed, in Acts they may cumulatively consume a larger proportion of the work than in Thucydides or Sallust, though Luke’s speeches are individually shorter than was typical in the multivolume histories.)¹⁷ Likewise, neither a biography nor a romance should end the way Acts does, because they would focus on Paul the character (hence perhaps his death or release). But if Acts is a historical work, it can chronicle “the rise and spread of the gospel and of the social and religious movement to which that gospel gave birth,” especially from Jerusalem to Rome.¹⁸ We focus below on some historiographic features that include or are more specific to the Gospel.

↑ Back to top