What were the standards of accuracy like, in the historical writing of Luke's day? There was a fair amount of variety. In general, Greek historians aimed for effect - putting rhetorical speeches in the mouths of their characters, trying to create a dramatic and pleasing story, rather than being too concerned about factual accuracy. But obviously all of them wanted to tell a story which bore some kind of relationship to reality; and some used their sources with much more care than others.

We can't assess Luke as a historian by simply looking at the practice of other historical writers of his day; there was too much variety. Instead we have to look at the internal evidence of his own writing. And here we find tremendous care taken over small details, such as the titles given to magistrates and governors in different parts of the Roman Empire; the precise provinces in which certain towns were circulated; the order of events on Paul's journeys; the exact medical details of cases of healing and exorcism.

We also find a concern to report speeches with a flavour of accuracy, rather than making them well-rounded, polished and sonorous. F.F. Bruce pointed out that in Acts `it is curious how often the Greek becomes obscure when the apostles are speaking'; the apostles weren't natural Greek-speakers, and Luke reproduces all their deficiencies rather than idealizing them. In Luke 24, we catch something of the flavour of an amateur orator at work, in the complicated, flowery speech of the lawyer Tertullus, tying himself in stylistic knots as he goes. It's a small thing, but it does demonstrate how much Luke keeps pressing his point: these things genuinely happened in the real world.

How does Luke use his sources? Click here.