A widespread prejudice assumes that people in antiquity held a naive belief in miracles. Yet even back then, every conceivable stance existed, ranging from an unbroken belief in miracles to a radical skepticism toward them. In the works of ancient historians, the controversial nature of miraculous phenomena is reflected in the fact that accounts of miracles are presented in a distanced manner. Lukan scholarship, on the other hand, assumes that Luke does not adhere to this convention of miracle distance despite his historiographical claims, and may not even be aware of it. Manuel Nägele refutes this consensus by drawing on two recent insights from classical studies, according to which miracle distance is not necessarily tied to a critical-skeptical attitude of the historian toward the miraculous, and according to which it can be assumed that historians communicate their concerns not only through authorial comments but also intradiegetically through a corresponding shaping of the narrated world. Against this backdrop, Nägele draws on the literary discourse on the fantastic and employs narratological tools to identify the common distancing strategies of ancient historians, thereby examining whether and to what extent miracle distance is realized not only extradiegetically but also intradiegetically. The author then applies these insights to Luke-Acts. It becomes apparent that, in some miracle accounts - particularly in the second half of the Acts of the Apostles - Luke subtly employs miracle distance intradiegetically. Clearly, Luke is not only familiar with this convention but also knows how to use it for his own purposes. Nägele concludes with a discussion of what this insight might mean for Luke's audience and explores the question of why Luke does not portray all miracles in a distanced manner.