The claim that Luke—whether the infancy narratives in chapters 1–2 or the Gospel as a whole—is ahistorical is not new. Nor is it fringe. But it does sit at the far edge of an already skeptical interpretive spectrum, and that placement matters.
Much of the confusion surrounding Luke is not primarily evidential but definitional. Before surveying scholarly positions, it is therefore necessary to clarify what is meant by historical and ahistorical—terms that are often used imprecisely and sometimes polemically.
What Do We Mean by “Historical” and “Ahistorical”?
Historical refers to material concerned with real past events: their occurrence in time, their cultural and political context, and the traditions through which they are remembered and transmitted. A historical approach assumes that events happened and seeks to understand how those events were investigated, preserved, arranged, and interpreted.
Ahistorical, by contrast, describes an approach that either lacks concern for historical development or treats narratives primarily as timeless, symbolic, or ideological constructions rather than as rooted in memory of real events. In historiography and philosophy, this is rarely a neutral descriptor. It is often used critically to describe readings that abstract texts from their temporal setting or render historical claims functionally irrelevant.
This distinction is essential when evaluating claims about Luke.
Scholars Who Do Call Luke (or Luke 1–2) “Ahistorical”
A small but influential group of scholars have treated Luke’s infancy narratives—and sometimes Luke as a whole—as primarily theological rather than historical. These scholars are serious and credentialed, but they share a common methodological posture.
Rudolf Bultmann
Bultmann regarded the infancy narratives as mythological theology rather than historical reporting. For him, Luke 1–2 functioned as kerygmatic proclamation—expressions of early Christian preaching shaped by faith rather than by memory. Crucially, Bultmann’s skepticism extended far beyond Luke. He questioned the historical recoverability of much of Jesus’ life itself. Appeals to Bultmann do not selectively undermine Luke; they destabilize the historical grounding of the New Testament as a whole.¹
John Dominic Crossan
Crossan interpreted the infancy narratives as parabolic overtures rather than biography. Luke’s census, angels, and hymns function as theological drama rather than remembrance. He dated Luke late and treated Luke–Acts as a creative reconstruction of Christian origins.² This reflects a radical reconstruction model rather than a widely shared conclusion.
Burton Mack
Mack framed Luke as part of a myth-making trajectory within early Christianity. The nativity narratives, in this view, legitimize Jesus’ authority ideologically. Luke is not deceptive, but he is mythologizing.³
Price treats Luke largely as literary theology and frequently drifts into near-mythicist interpretations. His work lies well outside the mainstream of historical Jesus studies.⁴
Dan McClellan
McClellan is not merely saying, “Luke uses theology.” That observation is universally accepted. What he is functionally arguing is that Luke is primarily an ideological construction rather than an act of historical remembrance.
That positioning places him squarely within the Bultmann → Crossan → Mack trajectory, not within the broad scholarly middle. His position is recognizable and internally coherent, but it is methodologically loaded and far from representative of historical scholarship as a whole.
The Much Larger Group Who Reject Luke-as-Ahistorical
Across the theological spectrum—Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and secular—most historical scholars do not dismiss Luke as ahistorical.
Representative voices include:
• N. T. Wright, who treats Luke as a historically serious author writing within Greco-Roman historiographic conventions.⁵
• Richard Bauckham, who argues that Luke preserves controlled tradition rather than free invention.⁶
• Darrell L. Bock, who sees Luke 1–2 as rooted in early Jewish-Christian memory, shaped liturgically but not fabricated.⁷
• Craig S. Keener, who demonstrates that Luke conforms closely to ancient historical method.⁸
• Joseph A. Fitzmyer, who remains critical yet still regards Luke as one of the strongest historical narrators in the New Testament.⁹
Even Bart D. Ehrman—hardly an apologist—does not classify Luke as ahistorical. He disputes details, not Luke’s genre, intent, or basic historical posture.¹⁰
Luke 1:1–4 and Greco-Roman Historiography
Luke does something no other Evangelist does as explicitly: he tells the reader how and why he is writing.
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account… it seemed fitting for me as well… to write it out for you in consecutive order… so that you may know the exact truth…” (Luke 1:1–4, NASB 95)
This prologue is not devotional. It is methodological.
In Greco-Roman historiography, such prefaces functioned to situate the author within an existing body of reports, distinguish careful investigation from rumor or poetry, and signal intent to produce an orderly, intelligible account. Luke explicitly claims that sources already exist, that those sources trace back to eyewitnesses, that he has investigated them carefully, and that he is arranging the material coherently (kathexēs).¹¹
None of this guarantees accuracy. But it unmistakably situates Luke within the historical-writing conventions of his world, not myth-making or philosophical allegory. An ahistorical writer would not bother with this framing—nor invite later verification.
Luke and Matthew: A Historical Comparison
Matthew and Luke are often treated as equal historical witnesses. They are not identical in method.
Matthew writes as a Jewish scribe addressing covenant fulfillment. His narrative strategy is scriptural saturation—fulfillment formulae, thematic clustering, and typological compression. Luke, by contrast, writes as a compiler and investigator. He dates events by rulers, anchors narratives geographically, tracks sequence, and smooths narrative tensions rather than heightening them rhetorically.
This does not make Matthew unhistorical. But by ancient standards, Luke exhibits stronger methodological control. Where the two diverge, Luke more often explains how something unfolded, while Matthew focuses on why it matters. That difference is genre, not contradiction.
The Quiet Dependence of Q-Source Skepticism on Luke
One irony rarely acknowledged in popular scholarship is how often Luke is relied upon even by those who minimize him.
Q-source reconstructions depend heavily on Luke’s wording, sequencing, and editorial decisions. In practice, Luke is treated as the preserver of early tradition and the anchor for reconstructing Jesus’ sayings—while his infancy narratives are dismissed as theological elaboration.
This produces a methodological tension: Luke is trusted when reconstructing sources but distrusted when narrating origins. That selective skepticism is methodological, not evidential. It assumes that theological intent and historical memory are mutually exclusive—an assumption foreign to ancient historiography.
Conclusion
Luke is not beyond critique. He selects, arranges, emphasizes, and interprets. But that is precisely what ancient historians did.
Calling Luke “ahistorical” does not merely challenge his conclusions. It redefines history in narrowly modern terms and then faults Luke for not meeting standards no ancient author followed. In that sense, the charge often says more about the critic’s framework than about Luke’s work.
Bottom Line
• Some respected scholars do argue that Luke—especially Luke 1–2—is ahistorical.
• They represent a minority stream shaped largely by mid-20th-century skepticism.
• Dan McClellan’s position, while recognizable, is not academic consensus.
• Luke’s reputation as one of the most historically careful Evangelists is affirmed by a far broader range of historians across theological and methodological lines.
Luke may not answer every modern question.
But he writes as a man who believed events had occurred, witnesses had spoken, and truth could be investigated.
That is history—ancient history—whether modern critics are comfortable with it or not.
Endnotes
1. Rudolf Bultmann, History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1963).
2. John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998).
3. Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988).
4. Robert M. Price, The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2003).
5. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
6. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
7. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50 (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994).
8. Craig S. Keener, Christobiography (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2019).
9. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981).
10. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).
11. Loveday Alexander, The Preface to Luke’s Gospel (SNTSMS 78; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
Restoring Apostolic Faith 
Leave a comment