Passages on Luke as a leader

Found this and another article in Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.

Basically there are only a handful of passages that talk about Luke. They talk about Luke being a colaborer, or fellow laborer. Second Article coming up next on luke as theologian

LUKE (PERSON) [Gk Loukas (Λουκας)]. A physician and “fellow worker” with the apostle Paul (Philemon 24; cf. Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11). Luke apparently accompanied Paul on his journey to Rome, and is the reputed author of the gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. See LUKE-ACTS, BOOK OF. This entry consists of two articles assessing Luke’s accomplishments as an historian and as a theologian.


LUKE AS HISTORIAN

The author of the two-part Lukan opus at no point comments on the literary character of his work, not even in the prologue. Only to the efforts of those who had earlier reported “of the things which have been accomplished among us” (Luke 1:1)—not to his own work—does he apply the technical terminology often used by contemporaries to describe historical or biographical writing (diegēsis: Luke 1:1; cf. Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. I.7.4; Joseph, JW 7, 42; and Plut. Lyc. 1.7). With less sharply defined language Luke describes his own purpose as “to write down in proper sequence” (kathexēs grapsai; Luke 1:3). If indeed the author’s purpose communicated at the beginning of Luke 1:3—to take up his pen in imitation of the precursors mentioned in Luke 1:1—was intended to refer not only to the fact of writing itself but also to the literary genre of the work, then the prologue would carry at least an indirect reference to the literary character of the twofold project: Luke would then also have undertaken to write a narrativation (diegesis).
Luke was more precise about his activity in preparation for the writing of his work than he was about its literary form. Before he wrote he had investigated everything carefully from the beginning (Luke 1:3). This is the same claim made centuries earlier by another author, the historian Thucydides: not writing down the events according to his whim but rather investigating the details with as much precision as possible (1.22.2). Such assurances became customary in the writings of later historians. Similarity in content and vocabulary between Luke’s prologue and Thucydides’ chapter on method clearly shows that Luke sought to be a historian. He need not necessarily have read Thucydides directly; rather he could have drawn on historiographical tradition or perhaps on rhetoric textbooks.
We find Luke’s claim to be a historian recorded elsewhere in Luke-Acts, namely in the use of the first person plural or the so-called “we passages” in Acts 16:10–17; 20:5–8, 13–15; 21:1–18; 27:1 to 28:16. The reader can and should conclude from these passages that the reporter of these events was himself involved in them. Yet the “we” in these passages is intended to indicate merely a walk-on role. It implies and is intended to imply only that those involved (above all Luke himself) frequently traveled by ship and in the process endured all of the things that went with maritime travel in those days, e.g., storm and shipwreck. For it is only in conjunction with maritime travel that the “we” references occur. What initially appears to be an idiosyncrasy of the author has the deeper purpose of demonstrating his role as a historian. He wants to be taken for well-traveled, especially by ship, in order to prove that he has the experience necessary for him to be considered a pragmatic Hellenistic historian. Travels were an important part of the historian’s expected range of experience (Polyb. 12 25h.1f; Diod. Sic., 1.4.1; cf. Lucian, Hist. conscr. 29). Thus Odysseus became an obligatory example for these historians—Polybius noted that writing history tests the mettle of a man (12.28.1; cf. 27.10). This led to the expectation that the true historian, like Odysseus, also have maritime experience. Lucian expresses this most clearly in his treatise on the writing of history. Because Lucian merely wants to give historians a few tips, rather than write history himself, unlike them he has no need to put up with the “ ‘spray and surf’ (Hom. Od., 12.219) and anxieties that afflict the historian” (Hist. conscr. 4). The assumption that the historian must undertake sea voyages is found already in Polybius (12.27.8–11), has been worked into the Homer-legend (Vita Herodotea, 6), and is even incorporated into comedy (Plaut., Men., 234–238; 247f.). Since Lucian, who merely reflects widely transmitted assumptions, knew this rule, the presence of the “we passages” in Luke is not particularly surprising.
If Luke set out to be a Hellenistic historian then one could assume that his intentions would be apparent in the literary shaping of his work. To be sure, the Gospel of Luke reflects only a few characteristics of a historical account, but Acts makes up for this with a large number. The reasons for this discrepancy are obvious. As he wrote the first work (prōtos logos) (Acts 1:1), Luke had in front of him extensive source materials, Mark as well as the Sayings Source. The first of these already had a firmly established and apparently indispensable literary form, namely that of a gospel. In contrast Luke had a freer hand as he wrote Acts, since there were neither formal examples to follow nor large collections of source materials that might have limited his ability to give literary shape to his work. The source materials for Acts consisted largely of short discrete traditions which dominate what are normally referred to as the “itinerary” passages. Such brief units were much more easily melded into a narrative with its own character.
Luke reveals himself as a historian most visibly in the numerous speeches he placed in the mouths of the actors in the book of Acts. A total of about 24 speeches together makes up about one-third of the book (such speeches constitute approximately one-fourth of Thucydides’s history and of Sallust’s coniuratio Catilinae).
As with the speeches in the writings of Greek and Roman historians, those of Luke are not repetitions of addresses that were actually given; like those of secular historians, the speeches in Acts often do not fit the situation in which they are said to have been spoken or, if they do fit their context, they nonetheless extend far beyond that context. Thus, for example, the setting and speech in 17:16 and 17:22 contradict each other diametrically: 17:16 reports that Paul was extremely annoyed by the profusion of pagan statues in Athens; in his Areopagus speech (17:22–31), in contrast, the same profusion of idols led him to praise the piety of the Athenians in his captatio benevolentiae (17:22). Paul’s self-defense (20:20–21, 27, 33–34) threads its way through his speech to the elders at Ephesus (20:18–35) yet no accusations are made by his listeners nor are such found elsewhere in Acts. In Acts 22:1–21 Paul is supposed to be defending himself (22:1) against allegations that he had defiled the temple (21:28), yet he devotes the speech itself solely to his Jewish upbringing and piety and to his conversion and commission to preach to the gentiles.
Problems of this sort can be resolved when the speeches are interpreted not in their immediate contexts but within the framework of the entire book, i.e., in light of the author’s intention. Only then does it become apparent that Luke did not seek to report a particular historical event when he wrote up these speeches, rather, through the speeches he wanted to give his readers “insight into the suprahistorical meaning of the historical moment at hand,” or insight into the “event’s trajectory of meaning” (Dibelius 1951: 120–21). Thus he selected Athens, despite the fact that the actual results of evangelization there were rather meager (17:32ff.), to be the stage for Paul’s speech. As the intellectual center of the world and a prime location for Hellenistic piety (thus the captatio’s reference to the piety of the Athenians in 17:22), Athens had special meaning for Paul—it was the proper place for a programmatic confrontation between the Christian Paul and Greek thought. Luke’s concern is with the “typicality of this confrontation, which in a larger sense is historical and which had perhaps more relevance in Luke’s own day than it had at the time of Paul” (Dibelius 1951: 133), not unlike Thucydides’ desire to illustrate an “ideal competition between two principles” in the speeches of the Melian dialogue (Thuc. 5.85–113; Jaeger 1936: 501). The address in Acts 20:18–35, which belongs to the genre of farewell speeches, must also be understood as the Acts-author’s statement about the situation at hand. It is likewise directed solely at the readers of the book. Luke lets them know here that an epoch of the Church’s history, the era of the apostles’ disciples (second generation), was coming to an end with Paul’s farewell to his mission field and that the Lukan “present” was beginning. Unlike the earlier period, which had been troubled by heresy (cf. 20:29–30), the present period possessed the complete and undiminished tradition that Paul had transmitted (20:27) and need not be made anxious by secret heretical teachings (20:30). The surprising irrelevance to its context of Paul’s self-defense (22:1–21) also ceases to be unsettling if one does not see it in connection with the charge that Paul had profaned the temple, but instead applies Luke’s historiographical intention as an interpretive key. It then becomes apparent that the author of Acts views the moment in which Paul reaches the end of his free activity as a moment of special historical significance, a moment that requires that the missionary to the gentiles look back and reflect on how he was led into a mission to the gentiles that was not bound by the Law. Ostensibly he does this in front of the crowd; actually he is addressing the readers’ forum.
When Luke inserted speeches at the most important transitions in his narrative in order to illuminate the meaning of the particular moment and the trajectory of the events, he was basically doing nothing other than what Thucydides had done. For Thucydides “the ultimate aim of the speeches was to help the historian to interpret the events: they shed light on the inner interrelationships that otherwise … would be visible only indirectly in the structure and tone of the portrayal” (Gundert 1940: 98, cf. Luschnat 1942: 113ff. with reference to Thuc. 1.68–71, 73–78; 2.87, 89, and elsewhere). Luke was no Thucydidean in the style of Polybius. Yet the influence of the great Athenian is clearly perceptible in the speeches of the book of Acts, even if it most probably was transmitted over many stages of historiographical tradition rather than directly taken up by Luke.
In the case of one group of speeches, which have an obvious common pattern of organization, are all addressed to a Jewish audience, and are much better integrated into their context. Dibelius (1951: 142) sought to deny any connection with Greco-Roman historiographical tradition, suggesting instead that they reflect the pattern of Christian sermons of the time of Luke as can be seen in the so-called “mission speeches” (2:14–39; 3:12–26; 4:9–12; 5:29–32; 10:34–43; 13:16–41). Wilckens has shown (1961: 72ff.), however, that such a sermon pattern did not exist, and that these speeches must be interpreted as a peculiarly Lukan portrayal of what the author of the Acts wished to be understood as the essence of the apostolic proclamation. Thus they are examples not of preaching contemporary with Luke but of historical preaching characteristic of a particular epoch. Like the other speeches of Acts these invariably occur at decisive turning points in the Church’s history. This is done, however, not by illuminating through the speeches the time-transcending meaning of the turning points, rather it is done in such a way that “in each decisive point of transition in mission history the verbally recounted sermon is offered as the dynamic factor that produces the events and directs their course” (Wilckens 1961: 96). A typical example is the sermon by Peter in 3:12–26, which produces the confrontation between the Jesus’ gospel and Judaism that is so decisive for the future (cf. 4:1–3). Another example comes in Paul’s speech in 13:16–41. Its conclusion takes the form of a final exhortation to repentance directed at the Jews. Out of Jewish unwillingness to respond to this call to repentance (13:44–45) comes Paul’s shift from a Jewish to a gentile mission (13:46–47) that dominates the events described in Acts.
In this too Luke was dependent on Greco-Roman historiography. Speeches intended in a literary sense to set in motion decisive historical processes and thereby to make history are found in the great deliberation scenes of Livy’s history. According to Livy the war between Rome and Antiochus III was sparked primarily by a speech delivered by Hannibal in the king’s council, since “this speech not only impressed the king, but also reconciled him to Hannibal. Thus the result of this council-session was the decision to go to war” (35.19.7, cf. 5.49–55; 21.19.8ff.; 33.13.13). That this assumption about the history-making power of speeches was widely held among historians in the Greco-Roman world is most evident in the paradigmatic words of an otherwise not particularly original writer (E. Schwarz in PW, 5: 934), Dionysius of Halicarnassus. He tells us in his Antiquitates Romanae (7.66.3) that he was astonished at how many historians waste words on wars and the conditions that go with them yet, when recounting the political developments and crises, fail to transmit the speeches that brought forth such extraordinary and astonishing events. To recount words that shed light on the events that came to pass was the historiographical expectation Luke sought to fulfill in composing the “mission-speeches.” Not for its own sake did he seek to meet this expectation, but in order to prove legitimate the historical process through which Jewish Christianity became the gentile Christian church of his day. He succeeded in this by showing how the proclamation of the Gospel by the apostles and by Paul, the ones chosen by the Lord himself to be witnesses “in Jerusalem and in all of Judaea and Samaria and even to the ends of the earth” (1:8; 13:47; 22:21), was, at each decisive turning point, the dynamic force responsible for the developments.
The narrative portions of Acts reveal their author as a Hellenistic historian almost to a greater degree than do the speeches (occasionally the narrative portions of Luke do the same, e.g., 4:16–30, cf. Busse, 1978: 55–67).
Luke offers no continuously advancing course of action. Instead he portrays the events as a sequence of individual episodes that normally lack any or have only minimal connection to the context, indeed, his episodes do not require the context in order to be understood. Examples of abrupt openings for new narrative episodes are found in Acts 10:1ff. and Acts 18:12, where the story begins in each case with the introduction of someone significant for the episode that follows. In other instances information that has already been given is retold in a new context (cf. Acts 10:5–6 with 9:43). Almost never does the action of one episode affect another event. For example, although the events of Pentecost in 2:1ff. fulfill a promise given at the Ascension (1:8) the Ascension is never mentioned in telling the Pentecost story. Even at their conclusions episodes are seldom linked factually with the context (cf. 14:18 and 14:19; 16:40 and 17:1; 19:40 and 20:1). The episodes of Acts were written above all as dramatic scenes, as living, vivid illustrations, concise and purposefully put together. Luke heightens the drama through climactic turning points (14:8–18; 16:16–40; 19:23–40) and dramatic effects (1:9; 10:44; 16:27–28; 18:12–17), both of which take the form of marvels (1:9; 10:44) or unusual acts of nature (16:26).
Luke employs the “dramatic episode” style (E. Haenchen Acts MeyerK) particularly effectively whenever he arranges specific assertions and their consequences into scenes. Stripped of their drab abstraction, such assertions are thus able to work upon the reader. For instance, nowhere does Luke say in the abstract that the state and its legal system are not suited to decide religious issues, or that such controversies are not adjudicable. Instead he demonstrates this thesis by way of concrete cases in scenes found in 18:12–17, 25:13–22, and 25:23–26, 32. Luke tells the reader the things he considers to be important doing so not in dry reports but in the action of vivid individual scenes, out of which the reader can draw all that is essential with his or her own eye.
Luke uses the style of a particular type of Hellenistic historiography here, the style of the tragedy/pathos-centered historiography. Its aim was “sub oculos subiecto” (Gellius 10.3.7 regarding Cicero’s style), that is, the gripping shaping of graphic, true-to-life images that should lock in the reader’s attention like a scene in the theater (Lucian, Hist. conscr. 51). Adherents of this school of historiography included Duris of Samos (cf. Diod. Sic. 19.108–9; 20.33–34), Phylarch (cf. Plut. Cleom. 19–20, 29, 38), Cleitarch, the historian of Alexander (cf. Diod. Sic. 17.26–27, 98–99), and Curtius Rufus (cf. 4.1.38–4.21), as well as the author of 2 Maccabees (cf. 3:1–40). All of them exhibit, more or less, those stylistic peculiarities that are characteristic of the Lukan episodes: frequent irrelevance to the context, a striving for vividness and a sensitivity to dramatic effects and climactic turning points. The individual stories of Livy are especially characteristic examples of this tragedy-pathos approach to history writing—they are “visually conceived, and their strength is found in their powerful imagery, in their vividness” (Burck 1964: 200–201; cf. Livy 2.40; 31.17; 45.12).
The inspiration and motivation for the tragedy-pathos approach was a portrayal of historical events that achieved complete reproduction of lived truth through imitation of reality, i.e., through mimesis, or enargeia (see the paradigmatic statement of Duris, FGrH 76 F 1). This did not mean that one aimed at historical facticity, indeed one viewed mimesis often as a suitable means to make history vivid even when historical facts were distorted through a recounting that aimed at a greater sense of “real life,” or a portrayal that replaced facts with a “fictional or potential reality” (Strasburger 1975: 80; cf. Avenarius 1956: 130–40). Polybius’ criticism of Phylarch is significant in this context: Phylarch makes use of the concerns of tragedy when he tried to “appeal to the emotions of the reader and to make the reader a fellow-sufferer in the events portrayed,” but he neglects the concerns of the historian, namely, “to remember without distortion what had been truly done and said” (2.56.7–10). Tragedy-oriented historiography was concerned solely to lead the reader to enjoyment whether to mere entertainment (Cicero, Fam. 5.12.4), or also to katharsis, to “cleansing and/or freeing of the soul, which is the particular outcome of reliving the tragedy” (Strasburger 1975: 82). Livy once more offers the best illustration of this psychagogy, above all where his specific stories place before the reader “examples of the ancients” with their power for the present (e.g., 2.10; 2.12; 2.13.6–11), permitting the events portrayed to act as “salutary examples … for the human race” (5.27.13).
This style was perfectly suited to Luke’s purposes. Given the delay of the parousia, Christians needed to find their place in the world. Yet this world was, even if not a priori (Acts 26:28, 31–32), certainly de facto becoming increasingly hostile towards Christianity (see Plin. Ep. 10: 96–97; Acts 20:25, 36–38, where Luke hints that he knew of Paul’s death). Luke resisted some of the conclusions that might be drawn from this situation. On the one hand he opposed the sort of uncompromising Christian hostility toward the state and the society that is visible in the renewal of apocalyptic expectations shared by the Apocalypse of John. On the other hand he did not want to be content and not stand out (a later example of this stance is found in Tertullian, de corona, 1). Instead, the triumphal images in Acts 14:8–18, 16:16–40; 17:16–33; and 19:23–40 were intended to show that Christianity despite all resistance to it had always managed to succeed in the world. Such lively and therefore convincingly portrayed examples of successful actions in the past were supposed to arouse in the reader the hope that what was so clearly described in the past could become reality in the reader’s present. Luke’s psychagogic purpose is even clearer in those scenes in which he offers his political apologetic (18:12–17; 25:13–22; 25:23–26:32). These scenes reach their climax in the quasi-acquittal of Paul in 26:31 and the programmatic closing passage asserting that Paul worked for two years in Rome with no restrictions (28:31). Suffused with an aura of authenticity which seems fully credible because it is consistent, they place on the stage Luke’s political argumentation.
Luke not only had to explain the problems resulting from the delay of the parousia and Christianity’s consequent settling down in the world, but one of the most pressing questions had to do with the place in God’s plan of salvation for a church made up solely of gentiles and lacking any outward continuity with Israel, to whom the gospel had originally been addressed (13:46). How Luke responded to this question is evident in the way he employed the “mission speeches” discussed above. Luke’s answer to Christians’ doubts is given in the narrative portion of his work, not in the form of an abstract exposition, but rather through incorporation into the action of dramatic scenes (8:26–39; 10:1–11, 18; 22:17–22). The historical information given is the fact that the shift from Jewish to gentile mission had taken place in earlier times not arbitrarily but under the stimulus of divine providence, that Paul was indeed explicitly commanded by the Lord to preach the gospel to the gentiles. This in turn offers the thesis that the gospel had been transferred from the hands of the Jews to those of the gentile church. Furthermore it is the history itself that gives the answer to pressing questions; once more the events described by Luke carry the marks of Livy’s salutaria exempla—they do not merely tell history but in the telling offer help to resolve contemporary problems. This fits precisely the general purpose of Luke’s historical writing as he himself tells us: to give the reader certainty about the traditions they had learned in the church’s catechesis (Luke 1:4), i.e., to assure them that their Christianity was indeed in good shape.
Although Luke ought to be viewed as a Hellenistic historian, he clearly does not fit into a single type of Greco-Roman historiography. The expectation that a historian should have had personal experience (empeiria and autopatheia), the expectation that leads Luke to write his sea voyage passages in the first person plural, comes from pragmatic historiography. Luke is linked to this by the Thucydideisms of the prologue and his desire to emphasize the significance of historical events and to outline their trajectory through speeches. The dramatic episode approach, in contrast, was the narrative form of the tragedy-pathos historiography. He drew his method of imitating the Septuagint (Plümacher 1972: 38–72) from the Attic classicism that in his day was common not only to historians but to writers in other genres. Thus the author of Luke-Acts obviously chose his literary equipment with a view to expediency and not out of allegiance to a particular historiographical school.
It is just as difficult to locate the external form of Luke-Acts within the traditions of Hellenistic history-writing. On the basis of Acts’s possessing the character of a historical monograph (corresponding to the pattern sketched by Cicero, Fam. 5.12, and similar to 2 Maccabees or Sallust’s coniuratio and/or bellum Iugurthinum) and in view of the growing tendency to monographic classification in universal history (cf. Diod. Sic. 16.1), Luke-Acts could best be seen as an attempt to write a general history of Christianity (including the destiny of its founder, see Acts 1:1) in two loosely connected monographs.
Because Luke had no successors, Eusebius has received the title “Father of Church History.” Yet the honor of having been the first Christian historian belongs to the unknown author of this twofold opus, a person later identified with the companion of Paul mentioned in Philemon 24, Col 4:14, and 2 Tim 4:11, even if he has only been (re)discovered as a historian in modern biblical studies.

  Bibliography
  Avenarius, G. 1956. Lukans Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim.
  Barrett, C. K. 1962. Luke the Historian in Recent Study. London.
  Boer, W. den. 1961. Some Remarks on the Beginnings of Christian Historiography. StPatr 4/2 = TU 79: 348–62.
  Burck, E. 1964. Die Erzahlungskunst des T. Livius. Berlin and Zurich.
  Busse, U. 1978. Das Nazareth-Manifest Jesu. SBS 91. Stuttgart.
  Cadbury, H. J. 1927. The Making of Luke-Acts. London. Repr. 1958.
  ———. 1955. The Book of Acts in History. London.
  Callan, T. 1985. The Preface of Luke-Acts and Historiography. NTS 31: 576–81.
  Conzelmann, H. 1964. Die Mitte der Zeit. 5th ed. BHT 17. Tübingen.
  ———. 1972. Die Apostelgeschichte. 2d ed. HNT 7. Tübingen.
  ———. 1976. Luke’s Place in the Development of Early Christianity: Studies in Luke-Acts. Pp. 298–316 in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church, ed. N. A. Dahl. Minneapolis.
  Dahl, N. A. 1976. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. Pp. 87–98 in Jesus in the Memory of the Early Church, ed. N. A. Dahl. Minneapolis.
  Dibelius, M. 1951. Aufsätze zur Apostelgeschichte. 5th ed. 1968. FRLANT 60. Göttingen.
  Dillon, R. J. 1981. Previewing Luke’s Project from His Prologue (Luke 1:1–4). CBQ 43: 205–27.
  Eltester, W. 1972. Israel im lukanischen Werk und die Nazarethperikope. Berlin.
  Fusco, V. 1986. Progetto storiografico e progetto teologico nell’opera lucana. Pp. 123–52 in La storiografia nella Bibbia: Atti della XXVIII settimana biblica. Bologna.
  Gasque, W. W. 1974. The Speeches of Acts: Dibelius Reconsidered. Pp. 232–50 in New Dimensions in New Testament Study. Grand Rapids.
  George, A. 1968. Israel dans l’oeuvre de Luc. RB 77: 481–525.
  Grässer, E. 1977. Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte. 3d ed. BZNW 22. Berlin.
  Grech, P. 1982. Jewish Christianity and the Purpose of Acts. SE 7 = TU 126: 223–26.
  Gundert, H. 1940. Athen und Sparta inen Reden des Thukydides. Die Antike 16: 98–114.
  Hemer, C. J. 1977. Luke the Historian. BJRL 60: 28–51.
  Hengel, M. 1984. Zur urchristlichen Geschichtsschreibung. 2d ed. Stuttgart.
  Jaeger, W. 1936. Paideia; die Formung des griechischen Menschen. Vol. 1. 2d ed. Berlin.
  Jervell, J. 1972. Luke and the People of God. Minneapolis.
  Keck, L. E., and Martyn, J. L., eds. 1966. Studies in Luke-Acts. Nashville.
  Kremer, J., ed. 1979. Les Actes des Apôtres. BETL 48. Louvain.
  Kümmel, W. G. 1970. Das Gesetz und die Propheten gehen bis Johannes. Wuppertal.
  Kurz, W. S. 1980. Luke-Acts and Historiography in the Greek Bible. SBLSP pp. 283–300.
  Lohse, E. 1954. Lukas als Theologe der Heilsgeschichte. EvT 14: 256–75.
  Löning, K. 1973. Die Saulustradition in der Apostelgeschichte. NTAbh 9. Münster.
  Luschnat, O. 1942. Die Feldherrnreden im Geschichtswerke des Thukydides. Leipzig.
  Maddox, R. 1982. The Purpose of Luke-Acts. FRLANT 126. Göttingen.
  Marshall, I. H. 1979. Luke: Historian and Theologian. 2d ed. Exeter.
  ———. 1980. The Acts of the Apostles. Leicester.
  Nuttall, G. F. 1978. The Moment of Recognition: Luke as Story-Teller. London.
  Plümacher, E. 1972. Lukas als hellenistischer Schriftsteller. SUNT 9. Göttingen.
  ———. 1977. Wirklichkeitserfahrung und Geschichtsschreibung bei Lukas. ZNW 68: 2–22.
  Reumann, J. 1968. Heilsgeschichte in Luke. SE 4 = TU 102: 86–115.
  Robbins, V. K. 1975. The We-Passages in Acts and Ancient Sea Voyages. BR 20: 5–18.
  ———. 1978. Prefaces in Greco-Roman Biography and Luke-Acts. SBLSP pp. 193–207.
  Roloff, J. 1979. Die Paulus-Darstellung des Lukas. EvT 39: 510–31.
  Schneider, G. 1970. Die zwölf Apostel als “Zeugen”. Essen.
  ———. 1977. Der Zweck des lukanischen Doppelwerks. BZ n.s. 21: 45–66.
  ———. 1979. Apostelgeschichte und Kirchengeschichte. IKZC 8: 481–7.
  Steichele, H. 1971. Vergleich der Apostelgeschichte mit der antiken Geschichtsschreibung. Diss. Munich.
  Strasburger, H. 1975. Die Wesensbestimmung der Geschichte durch die antike Geschichtsschreibung. 3d ed. Wiesbaden.
  Talbert, C. H., ed. 1978. Perspectives on Luke-Acts. Danville, VA.
  Tiede, D. L. 1980. Prophecy and History in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia.
  Trocmé, E. 1957. Le “Livre des Actes” et l’histoire. Paris.
  ———. 1983. The Beginnings of Christian Historiography and the History of Early Christianity. ABR 31: 1–14.
  Unnik, W. C. van. 1960. The Confirmation of the Gospel. NovT 4: 26–59.
  ———. 1973. Once More St. Luke’s Prologue. Neot 7: 7–26.
  Wilckens, U. 1961. Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschichte. 3d ed. 1974. WMANT 5. Neukirchen-Vluyn.
ECKHARD PLÜMACHER
Trans. Dennis Martin


Eckhard Plümacher, “Luke (Person): Luke as Historian,” ed. David Noel Freedman, trans. Dennis Martin, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 397–402.

You can try a basic (book not bible) search on "luke NEAR leader"

You can also try a Factbook search on the person Luke.

You might try looking in this book https://www.logos.com/product/20515/people-of-the-spirit-exploring-lukes-view-of-the-church