Luke’s Claim of “thorough knowledge” (Lk 1:3)
Luke’s Claim of “thorough knowledge” (Lk 1:3)
For Greeks the very term used for research or investigation, historia, left “no doubt possible about what was early considered the defining characteristic of the genre”; it focused on “the interrogation of witnesses and other informed parties” and then weaving their responses into a cohesive narrative.50 Even if some writers failed to travel to all the places their narratives covered, travel was apparently a familiar component of historical research. The early Greek historian Herodotus initiated this emphasis on research,51 traveling widely; Thucydides, who cross-examined his sources, assumed this approach as the standard.52 Diodorus Siculus53 and Appian54 both claim to have visited sites about which they wrote. Although most of the subjects for Philostratus’ sophistic biographies were long deceased, he interviewed some who lived, even on multiple occasions; 55 in addition, he recorded information from those who had heard them.56
Polybius avers that investigation is “the most important part” of writing history.57 His proposed method for conducting investigation, given the limitations of space and time, was to interview people, critically evaluate reports, and accept the most reliable sources.58 Although interviews were impossible when dealing with the distant past,59 writers preferred them when living witnesses remained available.60 Greek historians often traveled to the locations of events and consulted those considered reliable oral sources.61 Condemning writers who sought to make guesses sound plausible, Polybius noted that in his research he had also come across documentary evidence.62 Probability is one helpful test, he conceded, but visiting a location and interviewing witnesses there is much better.63
Greek historians had their weaknesses, but primary research was one of their strengths. Klaus Meister observes,
Although Greek historians usually referred to only one or two predecessors and quoted them uncritically (an ‘unscholarly’ practice according to modern understanding), their primary research was often superior to that of modern historians: they relied to a large degree on ‘autopsy’ and their own experiences, collected and examined the oral transmission, questioned eyewitnesses and sources, and visited the scenes of events in order to gather their information on the spot.64
In actual practice, not all historians in this period traveled.65 Roman historians usually focused on Roman history, most of which was available locally through armies and legates sending word back to the senate. Thus they sometimes simply collected information without field research,66 although they still expected accuracy in their writing.67