Acts 13:16-19 Then Paul stood up, and motioning with his hand said, “Men of Israel, and you who fear God, listen: The God of this people Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an uplifted arm He brought them out of it. Now for a time of about forty years He put up with their ways in the wilderness. And when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He distributed their land to them by allotment."
My question is not about this specific text, but about a hermeneutical method. However, I'll use this text as an example:
My understanding is that most people believe this was spoken in Aramaic (to Jews) and written in Greek. How accurately was the author (let's call him Luke) trying to portray the original spoken text:
-Was Luke trying to give a word-for-word translation of Paul's speech?
-Was Luke trying to give a thought-for-thought translation of Paul's speech?
-Did Luke know the gist of Paul's speech and simply try to give the sense of it?
-Did Luke summarize Paul's long speech into a few short verses?
-Did Luke himself write what he thought it likely that Paul would have said in such a situation?
NB! This is NOT a question about the historicity of the speeches, but about authorial intent.
This question is about whether the New Testament authors intended us to interpret the speeches in the first five books of the New Testament as exact translations of what the speaker said, as periphrastic translations, as simply the gists of what the speaker said, as summaries, or as what the author feels the speaker should have said.
Oh, and if you choose to use quotes from Thucydides, quote him IN CONTEXT.