Luke
Created | Updated Dec 25, 2009
This is the third of four quarterly specials in Giford's Bible Study Programme.
This Entry is made up primarily of material that has been deleted from the Wikipedia article on Saint Luke. The original article consisted of material roughly similar to the section from the header 'Christian Apologetic Opinions' to the end of the bullet list. I am continuing to attempt to get a more balanced article included.
It is all but universally agreed that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were written by the same author. The introductions address each to the same recipient - Theophilus - and the theology and vocabulary of the two are considered similar, to the extent that they are often treated as two halves of a single work known as Luke/Acts. There is however some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with Christian apologists regarding Luke as highly accurate or inerrant, and other historians taking a more critical approach.
For instance, Richard Bauckham claims that most scholars understand Luke's works (the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles) in the tradition of Greek historiography. The preface of the Gospel of Luke (1:1-4) drawing on historical investigation is believed to have identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.1 Charles Freeman disagrees, stating that: 'Historians have found Acts difficult to evaluate [...] It has been hard to relate Acts to any specific genre. Above all it is not clear to what degree Acts can be trusted as an accurate historical record, especially when it reaches its main theme, the missionary journeys of Paul [...] There are many scholars who reject its historical value altogether.'2 The Oxford Bible Commentary3 states: 'Of the three principle forms of prose literature in the Graeco-Roman world (history, biography and novel), Acts is probably unique in having been ascribed to all three [...] Acts does not sit easily within the confines of the literary genre known as 'history' as it was understood by Greek and Roman readers.'
Christian Apologist Opinions
Archaeologist Sir William Ramsay wrote that 'Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.'4 Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: 'For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not the shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth.'5
Dr. Norman L. Geisler observed, 'In all, Luke names thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities and nine islands without a [factual or historical] error.'6
Christian apologist Josh McDowell notes that in specific instances where Luke's texts have been found to disagree with common scholarly knowledge, where archaeology has been able to resolve the difference, the disagreement has consistently been resolved in favor of Luke. Additionally, Luke has brought to light previously unknown details which have later been verified by historians or archaeologists.7 Examples of such details include the names and titles of local officials as well as dates that those individuals served, locations and descriptions of ancient cities, and religious, civic, and governmental idiosyncrasies of various locales. (However, see below for counter-examples to most of these points.)
New Testament theologian Colin Hemer made note of the following attributes of Luke's writing:
- Specialized details, which would not have been widely known except to a contemporary researcher such as Luke who traveled widely. These details include exact titles of officials, identification of army units, and information about major routes.
- Details archaeologists know are accurate but cannot verify as to the precise time period. Some of these are unlikely to have been known except to a writer who had visited the districts.
- Correlation of dates of known kings and governors with the chronology of the narrative. Facts appropriate to the date of Paul or his immediate contemporary in the church but not to a date earlier or later.
- 'Undesigned coincidents' between Acts and the Pauline Epistles.
- Internal correlations within Acts.
- Off-hand geographical references that bespeak familiarity with common knowledge.
- Differences in formulation within Acts that indicate the different categories of sources he used.
- Peculiarities in the selection of detail, as in theology, that are explainable in the context of what is now known of first-century church life.
- Materials, the 'immediacy' of which suggests that the author was recounting a recent experience, rather than shaping or editing a text long after it had been written.
- Cultural or idiomatic items now known to be peculiar to the first-century atmosphere.8
Almost all of these points are disputed by other scholars, who point to specific counter-examples - see 'Specific Issues with Luke's Accuracy', below. Others indicate only that Luke was writing during the late First Century, something that is not disputed or relevant to his accuracy.
One of the strongest lines of argument for the authenticity of Acts is that it contains passages written in the first person plural (known as 'we passages'). These would seem to indicate that the author was a companion of Paul on some of his travels. It is notable that these passages do not directly involve claims of miracles.
Other Opinions
Other historians note that at several points Luke conflicts with other history, and therefore appears to be in error. Attempts by Christian apologists to reconcile Luke with other sources have been described by New Testament scholar John P Meier as 'hopelessly contrived'9. At the other end of the belief spectrum, skeptic Isaac Asimov singles out Luke's description of the Census as a device with 'much to be said for it from the standpoint of literary economy, [but] nothing to be said for it in the way of plausibility [...] it is hard to imagine a more complicated tissue of implausibilities...'10 Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins Luke Timothy Johnson has written that 'we have seen that everywhere Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography.'11
Cambridge Divinity lecturer Richard Heard makes reference to a scholarly consensus that Luke does contain errors, writing that: 'the great majority of scholars, however, prefer to explain the admitted historical deficiencies of Acts and the differences between the Paul of Acts and the Paul of the epistles as due to Luke’s special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information [...] in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling.'12
Similarly, Professor of New Testament Robert M Grant says: 'Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history [...] His ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand (Acts 4:4).'13
It has also been noted that accuracy in some details does not necessarily imply accuracy in others, and vice versa.
Specific Issues With Luke's Accuracy
Implausible Claims and Lack of Corroboration
Gibbon wrote with deliberate irony of the 'supine inattention' of great historians such as Seneca and Pliny the Elder who 'in a laborious work, [have] recorded all the great phenomena of Nature, earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses' and would have lived through the three-hour darkness described by Luke. 'Both the one and the other have omitted to mention the greatest phenomenon to which the mortal eye has been witness since the creation of the globe.'14
Dating the Revolt of Theudas
Acts 5:35-37 has a Pharisee named Gamaliel describe the revolts of Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and states that Theudas predated Judas.
This gives problems in dating, however, as Josephus tells us that Theudas revolted when Fadus was procurator of Judea15, meaning AD 44-46, but that Judas of Galilee revolted under Quirinius around AD 616 - reversing the order given in Acts. Furthermore, Acts has Gamaliel speaking shortly after the Resurrection, so around AD 35, giving further problems as to how he could refer to the events of AD 44-46.
Problems with Geography
Luke follows Mark in placing Gerasa by the Sea of Galilee at Luke 8:26. An alternative translation would give the 'country of Gerasa' as being by the Sea of Galilee. Neither of these is correct; Gerasa is over 30 miles from Galilee,17 and separated from it by the territories of other cities. Later translators of Luke followed Matthew and altered Gasara to Gadara.
Problems with Dating John's Preaching
Luke gives the date of John's preaching, and hence Jesus' baptism, in terms of the reigns of various religious and secular authorities:
'In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar – when Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene – during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas...'
- Luke 3:1-2
However, there are problems reconciling these dates to the same year.
- Tiberius ruled 14 - 37
- Pilate was Prefect 26 - 36
- Herod Antipas was Tetrarch 4 BC - 39
- Philip was Tetrarch approx 4 BC to 34
- Lysanias was executed in 36 BC
- Annas was High Priest 6 - 15
- Caiaphas: was High Priest 18 - 36
As may be seen, the rules of Lysanias or Annas do not overlap with those of Caiaphas or Pilate - indeed, Lysanias is earlier than any of the other rulers by several decades.
According to Josephus, Lysanias of Abilene died in 36 BC. He cannot therefore have been contemporaneous with the other persons mentioned by Luke in this verse. Some Christian apologists have contended that there were two rulers of this name, based on an interpretation of a temple inscription at Abila. The inscription refers to Lysanias and 'the August Lords'. This is a title known to have been used by Tiberius and Livia, dating this to 14 or later and giving evidence for a second ruler called Lysanias. However, a very similar title was also used by Augustus and Livia, and this would be consistent with Josephus' dating but not Luke's18, which leaves no reason to suppose a second ruler of this name.
It has also been disputed whether Prefect or procurator is the correct title for Pilate19. Luke's use of the Greek word 'hegemon' - procurator - is in line with Tacitus, and was accepted as correct. However, in 1961 an inscription known as the Pilate Stone was found, indicating that Pilate's title was actually Prefect (Praefectus in Latin). This was the correct useage from 6 to 44, so it appears that Luke is using an anachronistic title here.
Thirdly, Luke gives the names of two Jewish High Priests in this list. There was no tradition of dual high priests, and Jewish records20 show no overlap between their reigns (indeed, they are separated by three incumbents over three years), so again this appears to be an error by Luke.
By contrast, the Catholic Encyclopedia talks of Luke's 'extreme accuracy'21, while noting that hypotheses to reconcile Luke's claim that Annas and Caiaphas were High Priest simultaneously, while 'more or less plausible', are 'not strictly accurate'.
The Census
Luke's description of the census (Luke 2:1-5) of Quirinius has been regarded as implausible by historians22. There is no record of citizens being forced to travel for long distances to be registered, and it is not easy to see why the disruption this would cause would be justified23.
Charles Freeman24 explains the issue thus:
'Luke tells of an empire-wide decree that required Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem. There is no record of such a decree. Roman taxation worked on a provincial basis and Quirinius did carry out a survey of Judea in AD6 when it became a province. However, Jesus would have been about ten by then. The survey would not have reached Nazareth as that was not part of a Roman province. Even if it had been, subjects were taxed on the land in their villages and listed for a poll tax. It would have made no administrative sense to have summoned Mary and Joseph and other descendants of David to Bethlehem. Whatever may have taken them to Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth, it would not have been a census by the Romans. This has not prevented biblical scholars from attempting highly imaginative but usually unconvincing explanations in order to defend Luke's text.
'Various attempts have been made to clear up this apparent contradiction by postulating an earlier Roman census in Palestine, but it cannot be said that they have been entirely successful.' 25
It should be noted that it has been suggested that the entire infancy narrative is a later addition to the Gospel of Luke. If so, this would improve our estimate of Luke's accuracy, albeit at the expense of the integrity of the preservation of his writings.
Sicarii
In Acts 21:38, a Roman asks Paul if he is 'the Egyptian' who led a band of 'sicarii' (literally: 'daggers') into the desert. In both The Jewish Wars26 and Antiquities of the Jews27, Josephus talks about Jewish nationalist rebels called sicarii directly prior to talking about The Egyptian leading some followers to the Mount of Olives. It appears therefore that Luke used Josephus as a source and mistakenly thought that the sicarii were followers of The Egyptian.28 29
If this mistake came from Antiquities, that would put the authorship of Luke/Acts at AD 94 at the earliest.
Use of Sources
Luke's other primary claim to historical accuracy is his explicit statement that he researched and incorporated other writings. Scholars have argued that in several cases, Luke appears to misunderstand his source material, or unquestioningly accept errors made by his sources. We can be reasonably certain that one of those sources was the Gospel of Mark, but comparing the two gospels gives only limited support to Luke's record as an accurate historian.
'In the words of Cadbury, ‘the conduct of Jesus’ disciples and friends towards him in Mark can easily be improved on, and Luke improves it.’30
Bart Ehrman writes: '...it is possible to compare what Mark says with what Matthew and/or Luke says in any story shared between them; and by doing so, one can see how Mark was changed by these later authors.'31
'He was such a self-consciously literate author that he may well have developed parts of the story himself [...] he certainly did not have inhibitions about recasting the order of Mark [...] Jesus is more firmly rooted in history in Luke's gospel than he is in the other three. Note for instance the attempt to provide an exact chronological framework in Chapter Three for the start of Jesus' ministry. This does not mean that Luke is historically accurate. His account of why Jesus was born in Bethlehem is hopelessly muddled and it may have been adopted from an alternative account he was unable or unwilling to check.'32
Oxford Professor of the History of the Church Diarmid MacCulloch states (with specific reference to the Nativity) that it: 'does not ring true [...] implausibilities multiply.'33
Conflicts with Paul's Writings
Likewise, there are discrepancies between Luke's account of Paul's journeys and the information contained in the letters Paul himself wrote, espeically The Epistle to the Galatians. For instance, if Paul was present at the killing of Stephen (the first Christian martyrdom, and thus a notable event) as per Acts 7:58, how could he later be 'unknown by sight to the Churches of Judea' as per Galatians 1:22? Galatians also mentions a three year interval including a trip to Arabia between Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus and arriving in Jerusalem; Acts omits this entirely. Acts mentions five trips by Paul to Jerusalem, whereas the epistles seem to indicate he only visited the city three times34. Upon arrival, Paul says he saw none of the disciples except Peter and James; Acts has Barnabas introduce Paul to the apostles. By standard historical methods, Paul should be taken in preference to Acts, since Paul was present at the events he describes. On the assumption that Paul is the more accurate of the two, we are lead to the conclusion that Luke's research (and/or sources) are imperfect and misleading here. Grant puts it this way:
'The parts of Acts which deal primarily with Paul are not much better [...] Paul’s ‘trial’ is incoherently presented.'35
Other Issues
Grant goes on to present a laundry-list of other questionable claims by Luke:
'The most important difficulty in the early part of Acts has to do with the conversion of Cornelius, described as a centurion of the Italian cohort (10.1). But during the reign of Herod Agrippa (d. 44.), no Roman troops were stationed in his territory. Cornelius is really a stock figure, probably modeled upon the anonymous centurion of Luke 7:1-10. The whole story has been elaborated by Luke in an effort to show that the church of Jerusalem was responsible for the gentile mission. This mission did not involve circumcision (10:45; 11:18). How, then, could the question of circumcision be discussed anew at the ‘council of Jerusalem’? How could the Jerusalem Christians have forgotten the story of Cornelius (though Peter alludes to it in Acts 15.7)? In Haenchen’s view the apostolic council is ‘an imaginative construction and corresponds to no historical reality’.36
Date of Authorship
The main discussion over the date of composition of Acts (and, by association, the Gospel of Luke) centres around the date of the death of Paul. Paul's death is not mentioned in Acts. Some argue that this shows that Acts was written before Paul's death (taken as 64 AD). Others argue that the text shows an awareness of Paul's death, and therefore must have been written after 64 AD. Either idea is compatible with authorship by a companion of Paul.
It is not disputed that Luke/Acts remains a valuable source of background information on the period. We should, however, remember that he was not an eyewitness to most of the events about which he writes, and he would not have used modern historical methods of source evaluation. Furthermore, he was writing with a specific religious agenda, and we should be aware that this may have influenced his writings.
