Second, it is within this context that Luke’s status as an apologetic historian needs to be assessed. Especially in its rhetorical dimensions, Luke-Acts is analogous to the works of other “native” historians (Hecataeus, Manetho, Berossus, Josephus) in which a member of a national or ethnic subgroup hellenizes the group’s traditions in hopes of promoting its standing vis-à-vis the host culture.5 Insofar as Luke’s project is comparable to such attempts at communal self-definition, it would have been