Tags
Acts of the Apostles, Blog, Catholic, Catholicism, Christian, Christianity, God, history, Paul the Apostle
One of the new commenters to All Along the Watchtower claimed that the Historicity of the Acts of the Apostle’s to him was a boring endeavor. Nonetheless, the same person, replied to some of my comments on the topic two separate times. Of course, the person attempted to claim that the book is not to be considered historically accurate. The first time, I was simply going to let him have the last word because I thought it fruitless to add anything more to the conversation because the historical consensus is moving toward my position–TheActs of the Apostles can be trusted–on the subject anyway. However, it appears he needed some sort of validation from me as he commented again; unfortunately, the comment section closed before I could reply to him. So, I’ve decided to go ahead and make it a post.
The scholarship that Acts isn’t to be trusted is outdated. The commenter did offer to post the link to me if I need it; however, I don’t find the need to be deceptive with my sources
A graduate student Jonathan Blake has posted on a scholarly forum on the Historicity of Acts. The academic paper is a good source for the current scholarly understanding of this particular book found in the New Testament and its relation to historical events. It has an incredible amount of citations for anyone to view the many different takes on historicity on the Acts of the Apostles.
Blake acknowledges that “current scholarly attitudes to the historicity of the New Testament book of Acts range widely,” which shows that there is hardly a scholarly consensus on whether it should be accepted or dismissed, so whether it should be accepted as history can still be considered by serious scholars.
Blake mentions that British scholarship on Acts has tended to view the Acts of the Apostles as historical, whereas German scholarship has been more critical of the document. Blakes writes, “Ramsay to W.L. Knox and Bruce. German scholarship has, for the most part, evaluated negatively the historical worth of Acts, from Baur and his school to Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. In North American there is no scholarly consensus on the Acts of the Apostles.
…
The entirety of scholarship agrees that the book is reliable in its depiction of the first-century period. “Professor of Religion Charles Talbert judges Acts to be consistently accurate with regard to many details,” writes Blake.
Blake gives examples of these accurate details:
- Thessalonican city authorities called politarchs (Acts 17:6, 8)
- Grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35)
- Felix and Festus called procurators (Acts 23:24, 26; 24:27)
- Centurion Cornelius, tribune Claudius Lysias (Acts 10:1; 21:31, 23:36)
- The title proconsul (Greek anthypathos), used for the governors of two senatorial provinces (Acts 13:7‐8; 18:12)
- The prohibition against Gentiles in the Temple’s inner court (Acts 21:27‐36)
- The function of town assemblies (Acts 19: 29‐41)
- Soldiers in the tower of Antonia descended stairs into the Temple precincts (Acts 21:31‐37)
Blakes also mentions that Historian Justin Taylor likewise describes the accuracy of Acts positively,10 and lists many examples.
- Trial scenes throughout Acts11
- Reference to Phrygo‐Galatia (Acts 16:6; 18:23)12
- The voyage from Troas (Acts 16:11‐12)13
- Lydia a historical figure (Acts 16:14)14 15
- Magistrates named correctly (Acts 16)16
- Paul objects to a beating without examination (Acts 16:37)17
- A synagogue in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1)18
- Jason before the city rulers (Acts 17:5‐9)19
- Jews in Berea (Acts 17:10)20
- Athens full of idols (Acts 17:16)21
- The Athenians’ curiosity (Acts 17:21)22
- Paul on the Areopagus (Acts 17:19) 23 24 25
- The ‘unknown god’ (Acts 17:23)26 27
- Paul’s visit to Athens (Acts 17:16‐33)28
- Jews expelled from Rome (Acts 18:1‐2)29
- Gallio the governor of Achaia (Acts 18:12)30
- The tribunal of Gallio (Acts 18:12‐16)31
- Events in Ephesus (Acts 19:28‐41)32
- Paul’s appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11‐12)33
Blake acknowledges that Peter’s address: Acts 4:4 is a point of contention for historians. However, even if historians challenge the notions of 5,000 converts, as discussed I’ve discussed on this blog many times with other ancient histories such as Alexander the Great, the use of numbers in ancient historical documents are consistently used for grandeur and symbolism, not for accurate numbers.
Acts 10:1
There is some objection to this particular passage but Blake notes that Historians such as Bond, Speidel, Hilhorst, and Saddington see no difficulty,
The Jerusalem Council: Acts 15
Blake writes, “The description of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, generally considered the same event described in Galatians 2 is considered by some scholars to be contradictory to the Galatians account.”
The Jerusalem Council is probably the most contested historical part of the narrative of Acts of the Apostles because of Paul’s letter to the Galatians. What is important though is that in the past, what appears to be a contradiction “Recent scholarship is inclined to treat the Council and its rulings as a historical, though this is sometimes expressed with caution,” as Blake explains. He further explains that “There is an increasing trend among scholars toward considering the Jerusalem Council as historical event. An overwhelming majority identifies the reference to the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 with Paul’s account in Gal. 2.1‐10, and this accord is not just limited to the historicity of the gathering alone but extends also to the authenticity of the arguments deriving from the Jerusalem church itself.’”
The “we” passages
There currently is no scholarly consensus on the “we” passages.
The three most common theories on the “we” passages as examined by Blake:
- the writer was redacting existing written material or oral sources, whether by genuine eyewitnesses or not.
- use of the second person plural is a deliberate stylistic device which was common to the genre of the work, but which was not intended to indicate a historical eyewitness,
- the writer was a genuine historical eyewitness.
Blake does acknowledge the critical commentary citing that “Critical scholars Gerd Lüdemann, Alexander Wedderburn, Hans Conzelmann, and Martin Hengel have treated Acts with scepticism, tempered with occasional acknowledgments of historical validity.” However, as Blake does preface, “Recent modern studies are far more positive in their assessment of the historicity of Acts than many previous critical commentaries.”
I will quote the entirety of Blake’s conclusion
“Current scholarly attitudes towards the historicity of Acts remain mixed, with extremist views expressed at both ends of the spectrum. However attitudes have generally become more positive since the publication of influential works by writers such as Hemer and Hengel, and historians of Rome have renewed their interest in the use of Acts as a valid source of information on the social, legal and political milieu of the empire in the first century. A number of objections to the historicity of specific events in Acts have now been dismissed conclusively, and a new consensus has emerged concerning therelationship of the ‘we’ passages to the question of authorship.”
I’ve posted the source. It’s footnoted.
LikeLike
Then it is it doesn’t take into consideration the findings after 11 years of study from the Acts Seminar, so that is the first claim that is fallacious.
Next.
LikeLike
The irony that you bring up fallacies in claims is laughable, I thought you couldn’t use philosophy to reach conclusions?
…but do go on…
Did you reach that conclusion from his research? with what points of his do you specifically object? I see, always operating within the realm of generalizations.
LikeLike
Who or what is ”his research”?
LikeLike
It’s apparent you’ve read none of the post if you’ve asked that question, but yet will still opine on its validity, and yet will ask for the veracity of documents. A scholar in our midst here.
LikeLike
Apologies. I did not realise you were talking about Blake but thought you misunderstood the reference to the Acts Seminar.
I was responding to your ”entirety of scholarship” with regard the 1st century date of Acts assertion which is obviously incorrect as it does not take into account the 11 year study by the Acts Seminar.
Are we on the same page now?
LikeLike
This was the statement ….
LikeLike
A few points to add, if I may, Phillip, to your lovely post.
A)
1. If someone has accurate knowledge of period, it is possible the the person lived in the period or has access to an accurate transmission of knowledge from the period.
2. If that someone lived in the period, he was an eyewitness of things in that period and potentially also heard about things in that period.
3. Therefore, it is possible that the writer(s) of Acts lived in the period of Acts.
4. Therefore, it is possible that the writer(s) of Acts was an eyewitness of things in that period and heard about things that happened in that period.
5. Therefore, it is possible that the writer(s) of Acts witnessed and/or heard about things contained in the narrative of Acts.
6. In order to reasonably accept that the writer(s) of Acts was a witness and/or contemporary recipient of the Acts narrative, this thesis must be better than other explanations.
7. Other explanations include:
-the writer living after the period and receiving an accurate transmission of the material in Acts that is historically correct;
-the writer being correct by coincidence;
-the writer is not correct and something has gone wrong in our reasoning (or we cannot be certain that the writer is correct): Acts does not accurately describe the Roman world of the first century AD.
8. It is not reasonable to believe that the writer is accurate by coincidence and we are not currently in a position to challenge the alignment of Acts with Roman history.
9. Therefore, the only possibility of the three above we can reasonably consider at this time is that the writer was the subsequent recipient of accurate information.
10. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate whether this proposition is better than the eyewitness/contemporary recipient proposition.
B) In answer to (10) Would it be difficult for someone to receive an accurate transmission of all the correct historical details in Acts? How far do we have to go from the period for this to become a (virtual) impossibility? James Hoffmeier has argued, regarding the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus, that it would actually be very difficult for subsequent writers to create the accounts found in the Pentateuch. Therefore, it is more reasonable to suppose that the accounts were written at or very close to the time period described.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good things to examine here. I also want to further illustrate that even modern historians get details wrong here or there today.
However, it doesn’t invalidate the entirety of the document in question if some details are incorrect. In regards to the inherency of scripture, which is a separate topic, it wouldn’t disturb its goal for the sake of salvation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with both of your passages. The essential question is whether Scripture is sufficient for its purposes without detracting from God, making allowances for free will and the limitations of our (current) knowledge and ability to assimilate information and attitudes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bingo. I do like your synthesis of inherency, allowable mistakes, with free will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you 🙂 Studying philosophy has provided me with a handy toolkit, as has coming across Christians who are not liberal, but hold a nuanced view of these things.
-Necessary
-Contingent
-Analytic
-Synthetic
-A priori
-A posteriori
-Entailed
-Essential
-Non-essential
These, and other, terms have proved very useful in helping me navigate these sorts of questions.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Or …. the writer of Acts simply made it up, which fits the evidence far better than any other convoluted explanation.
LikeLike
Except there is no evidence of Israelites ”sojourning” in Egypt as described n the bible. None.
LikeLike
Is this the same Justin Taylor I found here ….
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/
LikeLike
https://www.crossway.org/authors/justin-taylor/
LikeLike
What’s your point?
If someone is a Christian or belongs to a Christian organization it doesn’t mean his claims are false. This is a fallacy, which makes it ironic when you claim fallacies, do you really not understand your own contradictions? Your position is pseudo-intellectual.
So, in that particular reference, he listed out a series of events in Acts along with other scholarship. Let me explain what is the correct form of discourse. If you want to discredit the claim in the paper, you need to challenge those particular points, not a person’s biography. Again, that would be a fallacy.
The source that I linked to also quotes Ludemann a lot in the text, a critic of Acts historicity. It would be equally absurd for me to cite his biography and say everything he writes is wrong because of this.
…… ….. …….
For example,
“Lüdemann stated that his studies convinced him that his previous Christian faith, based as it was on Biblical Studies, had become impossible:”
He’s no longer a Christian, I don’t believe any of his claims. I won’t accept his scholarship, I win.
Are we seeing the ridiculousness of your position on scholarship yet?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed, and this is never an automatic assumption on my part. Take each case on its merits.
But he makes presuppositional statements that are not historically sound.
Therefore, based on conclusions that secular scholarship has arrived at I doubt Taylor because, like all Christians, his faith will come first and foremost.
Thus, like the erroneous gospels , he cannot be wholly relied upon for impartiality and honest evaluation.
Certainly. No problem.
Let’s look at one particular area, shall we?
He mentions Paul in a number of points.
Please identify any non-biblical, and preferably secular, independent attestation to any events that feature the character Paul.
In fact, please offer a single non Christian/ non biblical reference to Paul.
As far as I am aware he does not feature anywhere along the historical timeline.
But I will leave it t you to provide contrary evidence.
Let’s start with these points first.
Once we have addressed these we can tackle Ludemann, no problem.
LikeLike
“Certainly. No problem.
Let’s look at one particular area, shall we?
He mentions Paul in a number of points.
Please identify any non-biblical, and preferably secular, independent attestation to any events that feature the character Paul.”
The consensus of historians assert of authentic letters of Paul of Tarsus found in the New Testament, so by your own razor of claims needing evidence, you actually– because of its extraordinary claim against the consensus of ancient historians first need to provide reasons for doubting the consensus– before I have to cite other sources different from Paul’s own documents.
Unless, of course, you choose to contradict your own philosophical form of discourse, but again, I know you don’t believe in philosophy, so there’s a bit of irony there… ….
Oh btw, did I forget to mention that’s not the same Justin Taylor that’s quoted in the paper?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am not talking about the 7 claimed authentic epistles, which as you well know differ in their portrait of Paul., or arguing against the scholarly consensus in this regard.
We are talking about Acts.
Same request.
Try again.
LikeLike
Yes, as the paper discusses, those letters are used to help determine whether elements of Acts is true. In fact, those are the elements of the narrative that come into question. The secular information, as shown in the paper, is falling under the consensus of more or less being true. It’s in the post and described in more detail in the paper that is linked.
So, you’re correct we’re discussing Acts; its relation to those letters have importance on the document.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The secular info falls under under the umbrella of Historical Fiction. We have discussed this before. A fictional tale overlaid onto a geographical/ historical landscape that may include factual people and places, and even certain factual events.
But the tales of Paul are simply from someone’s imagination.
There is nothing of any of these exploits in the historical record.
LikeLike
Which, again is why Acts and Paul’s letters have been synthesized by experts on the field which do not come to your consensus with your conclusions, as exhibited in the post and link looking at the historiography written on the topic by multiple historians. Many qualified historians, even those such a Ludemann, would not agree with your conclusion that “there is nothing of any of these exploits” as shown in detail in the citations of paper.
You are more the author of historical fiction than anyone we’ve discussed here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Synthesized?
Evidence please.
Again, there is no evidence of Paul in the historical record and the tales are simply myth.
Consider the snake episode on the island of ( what is considered to be ) Malta, after the shipwreck
I looked for Taylor but cannot find a link.
One page no longer exists, can’t find another.
Do you have one please?
See if you can work out why this tale is palpable nonsense.
LikeLike
Your theory of historical fiction flies in the face of historical understanding of the genre itself. Your kind think you’re cute with your bumper sticker slogans, but it’s ahistorical to the understanding of ancient peoples.
An understanding of the Gospels of Acts as historical fictitiion completely ignores the role that writing plays in orally-dominant cultures. The narratives do not read as historical fiction and writing was not the primary means of communication in the first century. Rather, information was passed along orally. A written document has a very different role in these oral cultures compared to our literary cultures. In literary cultures, the innovation within literature is valued. In oral cultures, it is generally looked upon, and would be exception.
Acts is far from epic poetry.
So, your making a positive claim, so I first need evidence for your assertion before any reply.
LikeLike
Positive claim?
Acts 1 where Jesus flies off into outer space. This is NOT history . It is myth.
LikeLike
Plutarch writes that Olympias does the deed with Zeus in the form of the snake at the beginning of the history of Alexander, the entire work is NOT history. It is a myth… …. …
LikeLike
You seem to be grasping at straws Phillip?
Please stay on topic.
The term is Historical Fiction.
In genuine history people do no fly off into outer space (”heaven”) as Jesus is recorded as doing.
This is NOT history.
So right from the outset we are dealing with a mythological incident.
LikeLike
It is on topic. Your dishonesty knows no bounds, but I shouldn’t be shocked by it.
You asserted by your example that any form of mythicism renders the entirety of document ahistorical. Ancient scholars do not hold to such opinions as exemplified with other histories. I could give others examples too if you would like, but I’m still waiting for your historiography on the genre of historical fiction to make such a claim. (Plutarch event also happens at the beginning of Alexander’s life, so your point is moot)
LikeLike
Dishonest? Where?
The term I used is Historical Fiction. I am getting fed up repeating this. Learn what the damn term means.
Thus, as Acts is simply an extension of Luke it can be read as Luke Part 2.
Luke is claimed to be an excellent historian, which flies in the face of evidence as presented in Acts.
And in Acts 1 Jesus flies off into outer space … or ”heaven” if you prefer. This is NOT history.
What about that sentence are you unable to grasp?
And Acts is replete with such myth
Resurrections, miraculous escapes from authorities, miraculous acts not to mention the contradictions with Paul’s own writing.
So this is what Historical Fiction is …. A fictitious tale overlaid onto a geographical historical setting that may include genuine historical people places and in some case events.
LikeLike
And to emphasize the point I am trying to make. Paul never appears in any secular histories of his time. Not a single mention.
LikeLike
I doubt you forgot and your sarcasm is wasted on me – it being considered the lowest form of wit.
Perhaps you could offer a link to the Justin Taylor you are referring to?
LikeLike
The Lord does raise up the lowly.
Ph.D History from Cambridge. Does that qualify him?
He’s a Christian, so probably not for you.
LikeLike
Christian’s usually fail the litmus test, but I shall investigate further.
So, no link for me?
LikeLike
Hey good sister ark, haha, i busted you. you are good sister Broomhilda. Hahahahahahahahahahaha….busted. Hahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa
LikeLike
You truly are not well….stay away from children for the gods’ sake
LikeLike
Haaaaahaaaaaa….you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all the people some of the time, or something like that….Hahahahahaaaaaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, but some people … such as you, are fools all the time.
Go play with your rosary … or play with something .
But again, stay well away from children.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I resemble that remark
LikeLike