it was the "peculiar function of history" to report what was actually spoken. To simply invent speeches was to "destroy the peculiar virtue of history." Regarding recording speeches, Polybius wrote:
The tragic poet should shrill and charm his audience for the moment by the versimilitude of the words he puts into his characters' mouths, but it is the task of the historian to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the speeches he narrates. In the one case, it is the probable that takes precedence, even if it is untrue, the purpose being to create illusion in spectators; in the other, it is the truth, the purpose being to confer benefit on learners.
But how did Polybius himself stack up in his recording of speeches? Quite well. Despite the obstacles facing ancient historians, a review of the 37 speeches in Polybius' surviving text by F.W. Walbank reveals that while Polybius may have summarized some of his speeches, he attempts to accurately record the contents of speeches. When reporting the various speeches at the Locris conference in the Winter (198 BCE), Walbank concludes that they have "all the marks of being derived from a verbatim account of the meeting, and may be accepted as authentic." Speeches in Greek Historians, page 7-8.
Another ancient historian of great importance is Thucydides, the Greek historian who wrote of the Peloponnesian War and in doing so launched the enterprise of recording history. While some use him as an example of creativity, this is misleading. Thucydides admits to having taken some liberty constructing some speech material, but only when he did not have access to any sources. When he had sources, he used them. Whenever he crafted a speech, he did so "of course adhering as closely as possible to the general sense of what was actually said." History of the Peloponnesian War, 1.22.1. Thucydides believed that it was the historian's duty to try and report what the figures actually did say, rather than use them as mouthpieces for various viewpoints or agendas. Of course, even the serious historians such as Polybius and Thucydides did not record verbatim transcripts of all of their speeches. It is unlikely that such accuracy would be possible. They could not avoid using their own style and summarizing. Yet, as stated by C.W. Fornara, "[t]he principle was established that speeches were to be recorded accurately, though in the words of the historian, and always with the reservation that the historian could 'clarify." The Nature of History in Ancient Greece and Rome, page 145.
So, there were ancient historians who took seriously the task of portraying speeches as accurately as possible. The question becomes, then, whether Luke was one of such historian. The evidence demonstrates that he was.
An Examination of Luke's Use of Speeches
A. Luke Relied Heavily and Faithfully on Speech Material in the Gospel of Luke
Although we have few of the sources Luke relied on to draft Acts, thus impairing a source-critical evaluation of that book, the same is not true for the Gospel of Luke. Almost no respected scholar questions the unity of authorship between Luke and Acts. And it is clear that Luke faithfully used pre-existing sources for when writing the Gospel of Luke. Moreover, the Gospel of Luke is--like Acts--largely driven by discourse. Luke clearly uses Mark and Q faithfully, though conforming their style to his own. As Paul Barnett has written:
It is widely believed that the Gospel of Mark predated and was used by Luke in his Gospel. This means that we have an objective means by which we can measure Luke's use of texts that were at his disposal. Of course Luke has his own purpose in writing, which he does not disguise. Yet when passages in Luke are set alongside passages from Mark, Luke proves to have been a sober and careful scribe.
Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, page 209.
The same is true of Luke's use the Q source, which scholars have easily detected by comparing the Gospel of Luke with the Gospel of Matthew, and even his own special materials. Many sch