Apologetic Historiography
Apologetic Historiography
Most scholars concur that one of the primary functions of Luke-Acts is apologetic (that is, defending the faith). This purpose fits quite well into a well-known line of ancient historiography. Because apologetic involves a purpose rather than a specific literary form, it can overlap with various other types of historiography that are classified instead by form or topic.
Nevertheless, apologetic historiography was common for works by minority authors about their peoples (or in this case about an aspect of their movement). The literary elite of minority cultures sometimes wrote about their ancient traditions, seeking to counter Greek ethnocentrism.106 Often they argued that their own civilizations predated the Greeks, hence that the Greeks borrowed from them.107 Hellenistic Jewish historians followed this pattern, adapting their stories as best as possible to Greek literary and rhetorical forms to argue that their culture was older and greater than that of the Greeks.108
Although the apologetic element is not always dominant, all extant ancient Jewish historiography to some degree emphasized the antiquity and superiority of Israel’s religion.109 The most complete example of Jewish apologetic historiography is Josephus’ retelling of sacred Jewish history in his Antiquities; Josephus seeks to demonstrate God’s special providence in Israel’s history.110
Many scholars contend that Luke-Acts fits the genre of apologetic historiography, 111 even if apologetic constitutes only one element of his objective. Part of Luke’s apologetic is his argument that the Gentile Christian movement, far from being a recent innovation, is an appropriate outgrowth of Israel’s ancient and sacred history. Luke indeed goes beyond other Hellenistic Jewish writers (like Artapanus, Demetrius, Eupolemus, and Pseudo-Eupolemus) in his overarching promise-fulfilment schema;112 this approach naturally reflects his theological perspective that the promised messianic era has come. It claims to unify Luke’s story with Israel’s earlier story in a way that these earlier writers did not claim for their own stories, suggesting that Luke views Luke-Acts itself as a continuation of the biblical story.113 As noted earlier, those writing “biblical” history could also be writing hellenistic historiography. Luke’s adaptation of his recent sacred material (about Jesus) should not be greater than his adaptation of his “ancient,” biblical material, as exemplified in Acts 7 (where even some of the changes reflect early Jewish traditions rather than Luke’s imagination).