To reconstruct the early history of Christianity, historians have long relied on the Acts of the Apostles, which follow the four gospels in the New Testament. This confidence gave way, in the 19th and 20th centuries, to suspicion.
From the first essential historian of Christianity, Luke became a forger: his history gave too much emphasis to legend and miracles and suffered from partiality and inaccuracies. For some time now, the tide has been turning favorably again for the author of Acts. Before condemning, why not question the motivations of the writer and the way history was written in Antiquity? This question, supported by a method of narrative analysis that is taking its first steps in the world of theology, allows us to take a more serene and more confident look at Luke in particular and at the biblical texts in general. Daniel Marguerat, professor of the New Testament at the University of Lausanne, has just published a book in the form of a scholarly rehabilitation of Luke’s work as a historian.
Le Temps: Until the middle of the 19th century, the writings of Luke were not discussed. Then we become wary of it. What caused this development?
Daniel Marguerat: The systematic comparison between the epistles of Paul and the Acts of the Apostles has made it possible to detect profound differences between these two texts. Next, historians interrogated Acts as they did ancient texts; they questioned their historical value, and the result turned out to be negative: for them, Acts was fiction, and Luke was a poor historian. I stand against this sweeping observation.
– You even claim that Luke is the first historian of Christianity. Traditionally this place goes to Eusebius of Caesarea, who lived in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD…
– Yes. Luke is the first to have retraced in a continuous narrative the founding history of Christianity. He wanted to account for this history to establish Christian identity after the break between Christianity and Judaism from which it came. His ambition is to show his readers where Christianity comes from. It responds to an identity need. Let us not forget that the past, even today, is never explored for its own sake: it is explored to constitute a memory for the present. We are not writing the same history of the Second World War today as in 1950! This is what Luke does: he writes so that Christians understand who they are. Luc differs from the classical historian because he is above all a storyteller, who seeks to interest his audience by means other than systematic thinking. Narrative analysis makes it possible to highlight the brilliance of the story and restore credibility to Lucan’s historiography.
Luke’s story is tinged with legends and miracles, and his reading of history is religious. These elements certainly do not contribute to lending credibility to his work.
Luke is at the confluence of Jewish and Greco-Roman history. He worked like the Greco-Roman historians in terms of his concern for truth and the recomposition of the speeches of the characters he portrays (Peter and Paul, above all). But basically, he followed the path of the Jewish historians; his option is clear, he is a believing historian. For Jews, God takes initiatives in history, which are relayed by men. For example, in Acts, Luke explains that Paul and his companions want to go to Asia Minor and Bithynia and that the Holy Spirit prevents them. Luke does not mention an archangel or a miracle, and the question remains open: how did this happen? Is it a boat breakdown or an epidemic that is keeping Paul and his companions? The author believes that this obstacle comes from God, who wishes to direct the missionaries towards other lands. In the Acts account, we also find miracles of healing; Luke writes them to show the continuity between Jesus and his disciples.
The “atheist” story still seems more credible, as long as it talks about verifiable facts
I refuse the idea that atheist history would be more objective than believing history. In the name of what? Just like believing in history, it offers its interpretation of events. Any historical work is forced to choose a plot, and a narrative setting, to recomposition effects. History is always a story and therefore constructed from a point of view. Ancient historians like Livy all have a value system that is reflected in the way they tell history. For example, in the Annals, Tacitus describes Christianity as a “detestable superstition.” Luke wrote the history of Christianity in the spirit of the historians of the time, with intellectual honesty and respect for the facts. He describes very precisely the places he speaks of, the uses, and the titles of the authorities met by Paul. But we must be careful with the fantasy of “bare facts”. The facts do not speak for themselves; it is the interpretation that the historian makes of them that makes them meaningful and gives them truth.
Are there any external sources that authenticate Luke’s historical approach
– Very little. There are overlaps of people with Paul’s epistles on the founding of the Churches. Let us remember that Greco-Roman historians are not interested in the history of “little ones”, but in that of great historical figures or prestigious peoples. Luc is interested in ordinary people and traces their lives; This is what we call social history today. He also acted as a precursor: he was the first to recount as a historian the birth of a religious movement and the life of its founder.
In his history of the beginnings of the Church, Luke depicts an almost flawless harmony between the apostles, while Paul’s letters do not hesitate to mention his dissensions with Peter and James.
Luke writes a story with an apologetic aim: he wishes to show and defend the value of Christianity. Paul, on the other hand, in his epistles, emphasizes the differences that appear within Christianity. Both of these points of view are defensible. If we only had Paul’s letters, we would have the vision of a completely shattered Christianity, which would be too one-sided.