Luke as a Historian
The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology
The question of whether the book of Acts is dependable history has come under fire in the modern era. Osvaldo Padilla asserts that Luke was a theological historian who utilized narrative to write responsible history.[1] Padilla partially relies upon the terminology in Luke 1:1-3 to make his case. For example, according to Padilla, the term πραγμάτων in verse 1 not only refers to events, but also events that comprise historical narrative while simultaneously having overtones of an eyewitness account.[2] Another example is the term αὐτόπται in verse 2, which is normally translated as eyewitnesses. When placed against the backdrop of other historians, Padilla concludes that the term is often used in the context of personal observation and even participation in the recorded events.[3] The term παρηκολουθηκότι in verse 3 also adds to the discussion and often means something like taking note of certain events. Padilla asserts that Luke uses the terminology to highlight his careful documentation of events based on claims made by those who had a firsthand account of Jesus’s life.[4] Each one of these terms points to the author’s intentionality to write a truthful account of history. Finally, the term πεπληροφορημένων in verse 1, which often refers to prophetic fulfillment, begins to merge history with theology. Padilla explains that, although a Greek audience would have been surprised by the use of the term, Luke’s Jewish audience recognized its theological significance.[5]
The merging of theology with history continues with Luke’s rhetorical procedures. Padilla highlights the compressed nature of Luke’s writing whereby the author utilizes selectivity and epitomizing for theological effect.[6] Luke’s compression allows him to highlight his theological initiatives and etch them into the minds of his readers. Furthermore, Luke uses prolepsis, syncrisis, and dramatic irony to assist his readers in understanding the theological dimensions of his work.[7]
The question remains as to whether the narrative framework and rhetorical devices used to communicate the theological objectives undermine the historical reliability of Acts. In short, the answer is no. In fact, if Luke recorded the historical events of Jesus void of his theological objectives, then the work would either be scrapped before it was written or nonsensical. The significance of Acts centers around the Messiah breaking into history and the relevant messianic events. Without the events, no history would exist to be recorded. Without the Messiah, Luke’s recording of the events would be unnecessary. With a Messiah, the work must, by definition, be theological. Furthermore, one would not expect a historical replica of Acts in ancient history assuming that a Messiah, who fulfilled previous messianic prophecies, did not break into the history of other cultures or religions.
As expected, the book of Acts is both similar to and distinct from works that originated in the Greco-Roman era. Regarding the similarities, Darryl Palmer proposes that Acts is a short historical monograph and compares Luke’s work with content written by Polybius, Sallust, and Cicero.[8] Although Polybius and Cicero provide insight into historical monographs, Sallust’s works may be most comparable to Acts as they “comprise a single volume, cover a limited historical period, and focus on one theme and, to a significant extent, on one person.”[9] However, the theocentric nature of Acts highlights its distinctiveness. Accordingly, Padilla concludes that Luke used a structure similar to Greco-Roman historical monographs to write the book of Acts, and then he deployed the ancient form into a theological message of the Messiah who broke into history.[10]
____________________________________
[1] Osvaldo Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016), 75–76.
[2] Ibid., 79.
[3] Ibid., 84.
[4] Ibid., 86.
[5] Ibid., 82.
[6] Ibid., 88–97.
[7] Ibid., 98–107.
[8] Darryl W. Palmer, “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph,” in The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, ed. Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clark (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993), 3–19.
[9] Ibid., 19–20.
[10] Padilla, The Acts of the Apostles, 65.
Bibliography
- Padilla, Osvaldo. The Acts of the Apostles: Interpretation, History and Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2016.
- Palmer, Darryl W. “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monograph.” In The Book of Acts in Its Ancient Literary Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter and Andrew D. Clark. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1993.
