Leadership and the Shaping of the Past: Historical Analysis in Sallust and Luke

This study elucidates Luke’s analytical strategies for writing history in the book of Acts through comparison with the Roman historian Sallust, focusing on how both authors construct narratives of leadership. Although Sallust and Luke are rarely compared in New Testament scholarship due to conventional boundaries such as language, religion, and historical context, both authors deploy similar interpretive practices drawn from the broader milieu of Greco-Roman historiography. Sallust’s Bellum Catilinae presents Cicero as an ineffective leader who, despite suppressing Catiline’s conspiracy in 63 BCE, could not save Rome from moral decline. Conversely, Luke in the book of Acts, particularly in the Miletus Speech (Acts 20:17–38), depicts Paul as a leader whose tireless pastoral oversight caused the rise of Gentile Christianity across the Roman Empire. This comparative study reveals that Luke, like Sallust, shapes the past not merely by reporting events but by analyzing their significance through interpretive frameworks of leadership.