Conclusion
Conclusion
As the majority of scholars concur, Luke’s preface, speeches, and other features support the assignment of his two-volume work to the genre of ancient historiography (without contesting that the first volume by itself is biographic in character). We shall examine the use of sources in a later chapter, but Luke’s use of sources points in the same direction. Luke’s claim of “thorough knowledge” fits the claims, and normally the research practices, of eastern Mediterranean historical writers. He would have had ample opportunity to learn from eyewitnesses and/or those who knew them. Luke’s particular apologetic interests do not detract from, but strengthen his ties to the historical genre (see further discussion on writers’ perspectives and commitments in ch. 8).
Some modern scholars recognize that ancient writers, whatever their human biases, were in a better historical position to evaluate matters of their day than we are today.114 Luke was able to investigate or at least be aware of the information passed on to him. Roughly the same critical tools were available to him as are available to us, and much more information was available to him than is otherwise available to us. While we may recognize Luke’s emphases and question him on matters of detail, we ultimately have little to work with for alternative reconstructions if we dismiss the Gospels’ materials.