Luke the Evangelist

== As a historian ==
{{See also|Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles|Census of Quirinius|Chronology of Jesus}}
[[File:St Luke.JPG|thumb|upright|Detail from a window in the parish church of SS Mary and Lambert, [[Stonham Aspal]], Suffolk, with stained glass representing St Luke the Evangelist]]
Most scholars understand Luke's works ([[Luke–Acts]]) in the tradition of [[Greek historiography]].{{sfn|Grant|1963|loc=Ch. 10}} Luke 1:1–4, drawing on historical investigation, identified the work to the readers as belonging to the genre of history.{{sfn|Bauckham|2017|p=117}} There is disagreement about how best to treat Luke's writings, with some historians regarding Luke as highly accurate,{{sfn|Ramsay|1915|p=222}}{{sfn|Blaiklock|1970|p=96}} and others taking a more critical approach.{{sfn|Powell|1989|p=6}}{{sfn|McGrew|2019}}{{sfn|Flew|1966|p=}}{{sfn|Bradley|1874|p=44}}{{efn|name=McGrew's conclusion}}

Based on his accurate description of towns, cities and islands, as well as correctly naming various official titles, archaeologist [[William Mitchell 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."{{sfn|Ramsay|1915|p=222}} Professor of Classics at [[Auckland University]], [[Edward Musgrave 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."{{sfn|Blaiklock|1970|p=96}} New Testament scholar Colin Hemer has made a number of advancements in understanding the historical nature and accuracy of Luke's writings.{{sfn|Hemer|1989|pp=104–7}}

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."{{sfn|Johnson|1991|p=474}} Such a position is shared by Richard Heard, who sees historical deficiencies as arising from "special objects in writing and to the limitations of his sources of information."{{sfn|Heard|1950|loc= Ch. 13: The Acts of the Apostles}}

In modern times, Luke's competence as a historian is questioned, depending upon one's ''a priori'' view of the [[supernatural]].{{sfn|Powell|1989|p=6}} Since post-[[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] historians work with [[methodological naturalism]],{{sfn|Ehrman|2000|p=229}}{{sfn|McGrew|2019}}{{sfn|Flew|1966|p=}}{{sfn|Bradley|1874|p=44}}{{efn|name= McGrew's conclusion}}{{efn|name= CraigEhrman2006}} such historians would see a narrative that relates supernatural, fantastic things like angels, demons etc., as problematic as a historical source. [[Mark Allan Powell|Mark Powell]] claims that "it is doubtful whether the writing of history was ever Luke's intent. Luke wrote to proclaim, to persuade, and to interpret; he did not write to preserve records for posterity. An awareness of this, has been, for many, the final nail in Luke the historian's coffin."{{sfn|Powell|1989|p=6}}

[[Robert M. Grant (theologian)|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 crowd addressed by [[Saint Peter|Peter]] in Acts 4:4. He has also noted chronological difficulties whereby Luke "has [[Gamaliel]] refer to [[Theudas]] and [[Judas of Galilee|Judas]] in the wrong order, and Theudas actually rebelled about a decade after Gamaliel spoke (5:36–7)",{{sfn|Grant|1963|loc=Ch. 10}} though this report's status as a chronological difficulty is hotly disputed.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://biblehub.com/commentaries/acts/5-36.htm|title = Acts 5:36 Commentaries: "For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined up with him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.christian-thinktank.com/qtheudy.html |title=Good Question… |publisher=Christian thinktank | accessdate=8 March 2022}}</ref>

Brent Landau writes:
{{blockquote|So how do we account for a Gospel that is believable about minor events but implausible about a major one? One possible explanation is that Luke believed that Jesus’ birth was of such importance for the entire world that he dramatically juxtaposed this event against an (imagined) act of worldwide domination by a Roman emperor who was himself called “savior” and “son of God”—but who was nothing of the sort. For an ancient historian following in the footsteps of Thucydides, such a procedure would have been perfectly acceptable.<ref name=Landau />}}