User:Ari89/Sandbox/Luke as a Historian

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 Judea, meaning AD 44-46, but that Judas of Galilee revolted under Quirinius around AD 6 - 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, and separated from it by the territories of other cities. Later translators followed Matthew and altered Gasara to Gadara.

Problems with dating John's Preaching
Luke gives the duration of John's preaching 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 16 - 37

As may be seen, the reigns 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. There is a further conflict with the Gospel of Matthew, which places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herod

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, on the basis of 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. However, a very similar title was also used by Augustus and Livia, and this would be consistent with Josephus' dating but not Luke's.

Additionally, Luke gives the names of two Jewish High Priests in this list. There was no tradition of dual high priests, and Jewish records show no overlap between their reigns, so again this appears to be an error by Luke. One answer that has been suggested is that Ananus directly followed Caiaphas, and thus there was a year when they were both High Priest. It has even been claimed that Joesphus supports this interpretaion.

However, this is not true; the text of Josephus (JA 18.35) describes around 2 years and 3 High Priests separating the two mentioned by Luke: "This man [Gratus] deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor."

Use of Pilate's title
It has also been disputed whether Prefect or procurator is the correct title for Pilate. 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.

The census
Luke's description of the census (Luke 2:1-5) of Quirinius has been regarded as implausible by historians. 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 justified.

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 Wars and Antiquities of the Jews, 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.

The mistake is more likely to have come from Antiquities, putting the authorship of Luke/Acts at AD 94 at the earliest.

Luke as a Historian
Most scholars understand Luke's works (Luke-Acts) 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. There is some disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate, and others taking a more critical approach.

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." 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 shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy  record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."

New Testament scholar 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.

On the purpose of Acts, New Testament Scholar Luke Timothy Johnson has noted that "Luke's account is selected and shaped to suit his apologetic interests, not in defiance of but in conformity to ancient standards of historiography." Such a position is shared by most commentators such as Richard Heard who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information."

Other historians note that at several points Luke conflicts with other history, and therefore appears to be in error. Scholars such as Steve Mason who adhere to the minority viewthat Luke-Acts used Josephus as a source have argued that in several cases, Luke appears to misunderstand his source material, or unquestioningly accept errors made by his sources.

Robert M. Grant has noted that although Luke saw himself within the historical tradition, his work contains a number of statistical improbabilities such as the sizable crowed addressed by Peter in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has Gamaliel refer to Theudas and Judas in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke(5:36-7)'

By contrast, the Catholic Encyclopedia talks of Luke's 'extreme accuracy', 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' , and the List of High Priests of Israel shows the two to be separated by two years and three incumbents.

It has also been noted that accuracy in some details does not necessarily imply accuracy in others, and vice versa. fuerzagu