lpetrich

I mean by Luke the anonymous author(s) of the Gospel of Luke and most likely the Acts of the Apostles in the New Testament.

Here is what "Luke" states about his labors:
Xian apologists often point to all the background details that Luke mentions as proof of what great documentaries his writings were.

However, Richard Carrier has taken on this question in The Problem of Luke's Methods as a Historian, and he finds
He compares Suetonius discussing differing stories of the birth of Caligula, noting that that's what a Real Historian would do, and also noting that present-day historians often regard Suetonius as an unreliable gossip-monger. Thus, Luke was even worse than Suetonius as a critical scholar.

Did Richard Carrier make a fair assessment of Luke as a historian?

GakuseiDon

Who cares what Xian apologists often point out? Wouldn't it be better to state what relevant scholarship points out?

wavy_wonder1

Depends on what you mean by 'apologist'. I would characterize a great deal of NT scholars as 'apologists' for NT writings, even if they are of the liberal variety. To my knowledge, most of them are Christian, and therefore have a spiritual devotion to these writings. I don't believe for a moment that they apply equal sophistication of argument and scrutiny to other sources from the old world as they do to the NT because of it.


Finis,
ELB

GakuseiDon

Then why should we worry about what such people say, when the question ("Did Richard Carrier make a fair assessment of Luke as a historian?") has nothing to do with such confessional interests? Does it make any sense to you?

avi

Thank you for introducing this interesting topic. Since, apparently, none of the four gospels were written by people who personally knew Jesus, then, it is not only Luke, whose historical methods require investigation, but all four of the gospel authors.

A chart would be useful. Such a chart would display in one column, the names of historians, both ancient, and contemporary, as well as those in between. Was SiMa Qian more adept than Herodotus? The other columns of the chart would represent various parameters judged useful in assessing the value of any historian.

From my point of view, the most accurate, least biased account is the more useful, in attempting to understand the life and times of that particular era. Was Karl Kautsky the leading luminary of Socialism at the turn of the twentieth century, or, on the contrary, was he, in those crucial first decades of the new century, a counter-revolutionary traitor?

For assessment of any historian, coins, and other material artefacts, are often introduced as supporting evidence, to demonstrate the validity of the historian's perspective. In my opinion, perhaps no one else's, historians are invariably influenced by their surroundings, and both carrots and sticks have been employed throughout history, to ensure that the historian's reports to the public conformed with what the ruling authorities sought. Therefore, I personally, discount the value of coins and other physical evidence, as support for any particular historical document. Only the winners write History. Spartacus authored no extant documents.

Accordingly, I doubt that such a chart, if constructed, would have much persuasive value. Luke may or may not have been a legitimate historian. He claims to have investigated matters thoroughly. I claim that he did not, because of the paucity of convincing detail in his accounts. Why should anyone accept my assessment (or Carrier's?) of Luke's inadequacies? If one is convinced by Luke's conclusions, does it matter whether or not Luke has conducted a sufficient quantity of interviews with people who personally met Jesus, or read enough supporting documents on the paper trail of Jesus?

avi

WishboneDawn

Most liberal or moderate Christian Biblical scholarship I'm familiar with doesn't look at Luke in terms of his skills as a historian. I've never read anything that seemed to frame Luke that way. It seems like more of a Conservative preoccupation?

wavy_wonder1

That's what historians do...they interact with other scholars and their claims. It is not very surprising to find mention of apologists when it is exactly apologists and their arguments Carrier is addressing...


Finis,
ELB

storytime

Lk.1:1-4 "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
(2) Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
(3) It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
(4) That thou mightest know the certainity of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed."

There is no historical evidence in this, as, what is being transferred is a belief of the few at that time. Luke simply passes along heresy and doesn't need anything else, no proof, to confirm the beliefs already existing. And those beliefs wherein Theophilus had been instructed. Maybe Theophilus was beginning to doubt the story?

andrewcriddle

In general, ancient historians did not name their sources in the way that modern ones do. The absence of explicit mention of sources by Luke is not in itself evidence against his abilities as a historian.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Story,

His claim to historicity is in the words I have underlined below: "who from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word" (i.e., eyewitnesses and "priests" entrusted with a sacred tradition).

Ancient historians generally preferred first hand accounts or at least primary records of events (logs, diaries, official dispatches, etc), then second hand accounts from those trusted to give an accurate account, and only fall back on legend or popular tradition if the former are not available.

The author of Luke claims, and may even sincerely believe, he has used "eyewitness" accounts and church tradition accurately preserved by "ministers of the word." Even more, he also boasts that he has understood them "perfectly." At least he is confident he has figured out what "really" happened. We can be sure he used either Mark & Q, or Matthew & oral tradition, meaning he considers these sources to fall under the categories of "eyewitness" or "tradition accurately preserved by authoritative figures."

Acts really should be examined separately from Luke. It is not a slam dunk assumption that the authors are the same (as you have indeed indicated), although the author of Acts surely thinks of himself as the spiritual successor to the author of Luke if he is not the same man. Acts, far more than Luke, shows a detailed knowledge of the events of the period he speaks about, but does not even hint at his sources. Maybe he thinks the statement about sources in Luke is enough, but again there is no mention about specific sources.

The issue has to be whether the author(s) of Luke & Acts is(are) correct in these assumptions (that his sources are eyewitnesses, or preserved accurately).

FWIW, not all ancient historians identify their specific sources.

DCH