In Johnson’s view, Luke did have an agenda that motivated his writing both a Gospel and an account of the early church. Merely having an agenda, however, does not make Luke a bad historian. It just means that he only covered the part of the story that fit with his purposes.49 One example of this is that Acts is devoted almost exclusively to the ministries of Peter and Paul. There were other apostles and missionaries in the early church, but Luke was not concerned with telling their story. Martin Hengel echoes this idea when he says, “In reality, the writers in the New Testament make their proclamation by narrating the action of God within a quite specific period of history, at a particular place and through real men, as a historical report.”50 In his writings, Luke selects the times, places and people that he feels are the most important for his purposes. Leon Morris takes this thought a step further when he says, “Luke is not simply a historian narrating history, though there is history here. He is first and foremost a believer. He is writing about how God worked in the early church to accomplish His purpose.”51 Luke is not just recording history; he is interpreting it.
I. Howard Marshall is another conservative scholar who makes a strong case that among the historians of his day, “Luke acquits himself very creditably. In matters of detail his historical stature is high.”52 Marshall accepts the premise that Luke chose to follow only one strand in the history of the early church, that being the one from Jerusalem to Rome. This simplified view of church history, however, does not mean that Luke was inaccurate or faulty as a historian; it merely means that he was only interested in that particular strand of history. Marshall also observes that Luke would rather present the reader with typical incidents of life in the early church than to attempt to paint the broad panorama of the “Big Picture.”53
Luke’s portrayal of Paul versus the way that Paul portrays himself in his letters is one of the areas that has caused scholars much debate. Luke had no intention of reconciling his work with Paul’s letters when he wrote Acts. If Acts was written at an early date, as some scholars believe, it is possible that Luke had little or no contact with Paul’s letters. Many modern scholars, however, being unable to reconcile the Paul of Acts with the Paul of the epistles have rejected Luke as a credible historian.54 The differences appear to be too great to reconcile them. Marshall, however, would take strong exception to this rejection of Luke as a historian where Paul is concerned. Marshall accepts that there are differences between the Paul that is seen in Acts and the Paul that is seen in his letters. Rather than seeing these differences as grounds for accusing Luke of fictionalizing his account of Paul, however, Marshall makes the case that, “a man’s self-portrait (even when unconsciously undertaken) will not necessarily agree with the impression of him received by other people.”55 Marshall, like many other scholars who hold the traditional view of Acts, believes that Paul’s life and ministry, as seen in Acts, can be harmonized in general terms with what is seen in his letters.56 Foakes-Jackson tends to agree with Marshall when he says, “it is impossible to construct the story of the sequence of events out of a collection of letters, which weighty as they undoubtedly are, are very brief, and allusive rather than informative in regard to events.”57 One must also remember that Paul was not an unbiased, objective writer in his letters. He had his own biases and agenda for writing. Even Paul’s own memory of events would have been slanted by his unique perspective.58
Haenchen, in his commentary, sees the discrepancies between Luke’s Paul and the Paul of the epistles to be threefold.59 First of all, Luke describes Paul (and Peter as well) as a great miracle-worker. In Paul’s letters, however, he never gives any examples of miracles that he performed. A second discrepancy is that in Acts, Luke portrays Paul as a great orator in several places. Paul’s speeches are powerful instruments that lead to the conversions of many. “. . . he is never at a loss for the right word. He is a born orator, imposing himself with eloquence of a Demosthenes.”60 The real Paul, according to Haenchen, admitted that he was a weak and unimpressive speaker. The last discrepancy that he discusses is that of Paul’s apostleship. In Acts, only the Twelve are understood to be apostles. They were the only ones who met the requirements listed in Acts 1:21-22. Paul, however, constantly referred to himself as an apostle in his letters and on several occasions pointedly defended his apostleship. Each of these points will be addressed.
In responding to Haenchen’s first point about Luke’s portrayal of Paul as a great miracle-worker, passages from two of Paul’s undisputed letters need to be examined. In Romans 15:18-20 Paul discusses what Christ has accomplished through him among the Gentiles. Paul referred to “the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit,” as being a major reason that so many people turned to God. Even though he does not provide a list of miracles that he performed, Paul is clearly referring to the miraculous aspects of his apostolic ministry. These miracles were catalysts that led people to faith, and also served to validate his apostleship. The focal point of Paul’s ministry was, “Jesus Christ and him crucified,” not the miracles that he performed in the course of his ministry.
A second passage in which Paul himself mentions the miraculous in his ministry is 2 Corinthians 12:12 where he describes the signs that mark an apostle: “signs, wonders, and miracles.” He says that these, “were done among you with great perseverance.” He reminds the Corinthian believers that when he was with them, they saw the miraculous in Paul’s ministry. Even though Paul does not provide specifics, it is likely that this passage would have served as a reminder to those who read it of miracles that they had seen Paul perform.
Even though Paul does not devote much space in his letters to discussing the miraculous aspects of his ministry, there is no reason to dismiss Luke’s portrayal of him as a miracle-worker. Paul’s purpose in his letters was to teach, correct, and exhort. He was not interested in boasting about his accomplishments. In alluding to miracles that he performed, Paul could remind his readers that the signs of an apostle were evident in him. Luke, however, was interested in showing the miraculous side of Paul’s ministry. It fit his purpose in Acts and he devoted a significant amount of space to providing examples of the miracles that Paul performed. While Paul did not feel comfortable “tooting his own horn,” Luke was happy to describe miracles that Paul performed in great detail.
The second discrepancy that Haenchen sees between Luke’s Paul and the “real” Paul is that of oratory skill. Without a doubt, the Paul in Acts is never at a loss for words and is an excellent public speaker in whatever arena he finds himself. In his letters, however, Paul makes some comments that appear to make him look weak as a public speaker. 2 Corinthians 10:10 is the verse that Haenchen uses to make his point. In this verse, however, Paul actually quotes his opponents who say that, “His letters are weighty and forceful, but in person he is unimpressive and his speaking amounts to nothing.” Paul is not denigrating himself in this verse but merely quoting his opponents. In the next verse, he actually defends himself from their charge. “Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.”61 Paul seems to be saying that when he comes back to Corinth, his preaching is going to be as strong as the letters that he had sent to them. To be fair to Paul, this observation by his opponents should not be the verse used to evaluate his public speaking skills.
The last discrepancy that was mentioned
