Book of ACTS, Historicity Of
Offline
Some of you might have read the Book of Acts in the New Testament. I have several arguments for it's historicity and reliability. If Acts was written by Luke, the companion of the apostle Paul, it brings us right to the apostolic circle, those who participated in the events reported. If Acts was written by A.D. 62 (the traditional date), then it was written by a contemporary of Jesus who died in 33 A.D.
If Acts is shown to be accurate history, then it brings credibility to its reports about the most basic Christian beliefs of miracles (Acts 2:22), the death (Acts 2:23), resurrection (Acts 2:23, 29-32), and ascension of Christ (Acts 1:9-10).
If Luke wrote Acts, then his "former treatise" (Acts 1:1), the Gospel of Luke, should be extended the same early date (within the lifetime of apostles and eye-witnesses) and credibility.
SEVENTEEN REASONS TO ACCEPT THE TRADITIONAL EARLY DATE THAT WOULD PLACE THE RESEARCH AND WRITING OF ACTS DURING THE LIFETIME OF MANY PARTICIPANTS. THESE STRONGLY SUPPORT THE HISTORICITY OF ACTS AND, INDIRECTLY, THE GOSPEL OF LUKE (Luke 1:1-4; Acts 1:1).
1. There is no mention in Acts of the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, an unlikley omission, given the content, if it had already occured.
2. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in A.D. 66, or of any drastic or specific deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews, which implies it was written before that time.
3. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome involved in the Neronian persecution of the late 60's.
4. The author betrays no knowledge of Paul's letters. If Acts were written later, why would Luke, who shows himself so careful on incidental detail, not attempt to inform his narrative by relevant sections of the Epistles. The Epistles evidently circulated and must have become available sources, but an early date is suggested by the silence.
5. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62 recorded by Josephus (Antiquities 20.9. 1.200).
6. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts 18:14-17 may be seen as setting a precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of tolerance to Judaism.
7. The prominence and authority of the Saducees in Acts belongs to the pre-70 era, before collapse of their political cooperation with Rome.
8. Conversely, the relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well in the period of Pharisaic revival after scholars of Jamnia met, ca. 90. As a result of that meeting, a phase of escalated conflict with Christianity was led by the Pharisees.
9. Some have argued that the book antedates the coming of Peter to Rome, and also that it uses language which implies that Pater and John, as well as Paul himself, were still alive.
10. The prominence of "God-fearers" in the synagogues in Acts would seem to point to the pre-Jewish War situation.
11. The insignificant cultural details are difficult to place with precision, but may best represent the cultural milieu of the Julio-Claudian Roman era.
12. Areas of controversy within Acts presuppose the relevance of the Jewish setting during the temple period.
13. Adolf Harnack argued that the prophecy placed in Paul's mouth at Acts 20:25 (cf. 20:38) may have been contradicted by later events. If so it presumably was penned before those events occured.
14. Primitive formulation of Christian terminology is used in Acts which fits an early period. Harnack lists christological titles, such as Insous and ho kurios, that are used freely, whereas ho Christos always designates "the Messiah", rather than a proper name, and Christos is otherwise used only in formalized combinations.
15. Rackham draws attention to the optimistic tone in Acts, which would not have been natural after Judaism was destroyed and Christians martyred in the Neronian persecutions of the late 60's. [Hemer, 376-82].
16. The ending of the book of Acts. Luke does not continue Paul's story at the end of the two years of Acts 28:30. "The mention of this defined period implies a terminal point, at least impending" (Hemer, 383). He adds, "Its may be argued simply that Luke had brought the narrative up to date at the time of writing, the final note being added at the conclusion of the two years" (ibid., 387).
17. The "immediacy" of Acts 27-28: This is what we have called the "immediacy" of the latter chapters of the book, which are marked in a special degree by the apparently unreflective reproduction of insignificant details, a feature which reaches its apogee in the voyage narrative of Acts 27-28...The vivid "immediacy" of this passage in particular may be strongly contrasted with the "indirectness" of the earlier part of Acts, where we assume that Luke relied on sources or the reminiscences of others, and could not control the context of his narrative. [ibid., 388-89].
OTHER SUPPORT FOR HISTORICITY
The book of Acts contains:
1. Geographical details that are assumed to be generally known. It remains difficult to estimate the range of general knowledge that should be expected of an ancient writer or reader.
2. More specialized details that are assumed to be widely known: titles of governors, army units, and major routs. This information would have been accessible to those traveled or were involved in administration, but perhaps not to others.
3. Local specifics of routs, boundaries, and titles of city magistrates that are unlikley to have been known except to a writer who had visited the districts.
4. Correlation of dates of known kings and governors with the ostensible chronology of the Acts framework.
5. Details appropriate to the date of Paul or Luke in the early church, but not appropriate to conditions earlier or later.
6."Undesigned conicidences" or connective details that connect Acts with Pauline Epistles.
7. Latent internal correlations within Acts.
8. Independently attested details which agree with the Alexandrian against the Western texts. Since there are differences between textual families, independant corroboration can help when changes were imported into the textual tradition of Acts. A secondary reading may refer to conditions of a later period, and so indirectly help discriminate time periods.
9. Matters of common geographic knowledge, mentioned perhaps informally or allusively, with an unstudied accuracy which bespeaks familiarity.
10. Textual stylistic differences that indicate Luke's use of different sources.
11. Peculiarities in the selection of detail, such as the inclusion of details that are theologically unimportant but that may bear on historical concerns.
12. Peculiarities in details from "immediacy" that suggest the author's reference to recent experience. Such details are not so readily explained as the product of longer-term refective editing and shaping.
13. Cultural or idiomatic references that suggest a first-century atmosphere.
14. Interrelated complexes combining two or more kinds of correlation. Such a range of connections makes it possible to accurately reconstruct a fragment of history from the jigsaw of interlocking bits of information.
15. Instances where new discoveries and expanded knowledge shed more light on the background information. These are of use to the commentator, but do not bear significantly on history.
16. Precise details which lie within the range of contemporary possibilities, but who's accuracy cannot be verified.
NUMEROUS THINGS CONFIRMED BY HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH:
1. A natural crossing between correctly named ports (13:4-5). Mount Cassius, south of Selucia, stands within sight of Cyprus. The name of the proconsul in 13:7 cannot be confirmed, but the family of the Sergii Pauli is attested.
2. The proper river port, Perga, for a ship crossing from Cyprus (13:13).
3. The proper location of Lycaonia (14:6).
4. The unusual but correct declension of the name Lystra and the correct language spoken in Lystra. Correct identification of the two gods associated with the city, Zeus anf Hermes (14:12).
5. The proper port, Attalia, for returning travelers (14: 25).
6. The correct rout from the Cilician Gates (16:1).
7. The proper form of the name Troas (16:
.
8. A conspicuous sailors' landmark at Samothrace (16:11).
9. The proper identification of Phillipi as a Roman colony. The right location for the river Gangites near Philippi (16:13).
10. Association of Thyatira with cloth dyeing (16:14). Correct designations of the titles for the colony magistrates (16:20, 35, 35, 38).
11. The proper locations where travelers would spend successive nights on this journey (17:1).
12. The presence of a Thessalonica (17:1), and the proper title of politarch for the magistrates (17:6).
13. The correct explanation that sea travel is the most convienient way to reach Athens in Summer with favoring east winds (17:14).
14. The abundance of images in Athens (17:16), and a reference to the synagogue there (17:17).
15. Depiction of philosophical debate in the agora (17:17). Use in 17:18-19 of the correct Athenian slang epithet for Paul, spermologos, and the correct name of the sourt (areios pagos); accurate depiction of Athenian character (17:21). Correct identification of altar to "an unknown god" (17:23). Logical reaction of philosophers who denied bodily resurrection. Areopogites the correct title for a member of the court (17:34).
16. Correct identification of the Corinthian synagogue (18:4). Correct designation of Gallio as proconsul (18:12). The bema (judgement seat) can still be seen in Corinth's forum (18:16).
17. The name Tyrannus, attested on a first-century inscription (19:9).
18. The cult of Artemus of the Ephesians (19:24, 27). The cult is well attested, and the Ephesian theater was the city meeting place (19:29).
19. Correct title grammateus for chief executive magistrate and the proper title of honor, Neokoros (19:35). Correct name to identify the goddess (19:37). Correct designation for those holding court (19:38). Use of plural anthupatoi in 19:38 is probably a remarkably exact reference to the fact that two men jointly exercised the functions of proconsul at this time.
20. Use of precise ethnic designation beroiaios and the ethnic term Asianos (20:4).
21. Implied recognition of the strategic importance assigned to Troas 20:713).
22. Implication of the danger of the coastal trip in this area that caused Paul to travel by land (20:13). Correct sequence of places visited and correct neuter plural of the city name Patara (21:1).
23. The appropriate rout passing across the open sea south of Cyprus favored by persistent northwest winds (21:3). The proper distance between Ptolemais and Caesarea (21:.
24. Purification rite characteristic of pious Jewish (21:24).
25. Accurate representation of the Jewish law regarding law regarding Gentile use of the temple area (21:28).
26. The permanent stationing of a Roman cohort in the Fortress in the Fortress Antonia to suppress disturbances at festival times (21:31). The flight of steps used by guards (21:31, 35).
27. The two common ways of obtaining Roman citizenship (22:28). The tribune is impressed with Paul's Roman rather than Tarsian citizenship (22:29).
28. The correct identifications of Ananias as high priest ( (23:2) and Felix as governor (23:34).
29. Identification of a common stopping point on the road to Caesarea (23:31).
30. Not of the proper jurisdiction of Cilicia (23:34).
31. Explanation of the provincial penal procedure (24:1-9).
32. Agreement with Josephus of the name Porcius Festus (24:27).
33. Note of the right of appeal by a Roman citizen (25:11). The legal formula of de quibus cognoscere volebam (25:18). The characteristic form of reference to the emperor (25:26).
34. Correct identification of the best shipping lanes at the time (27:4).
35. Use of the commonly joined names of Cilicia and Pamphylia to describe the coast (27:4). Reference to the principle port at which to find a ship sailing to Italy (27L5), Note of the typically slow passage to Cnidus in the face of a northwest wind (27:7). The locations of Fair Havens and neighboring Lasea (27: and correct description of Fair Havens as poorly sheltered for wintering (27:12).
36. Description of the tendency of these climes for a south wind to suddenly a violent northeast, the gregale (27:13). The nature of a square-rigged ship to have no option but be driven before a gale correctly stated (27:15).
37. Precise name and place given for the island of Clauda (27:16). Appropriate sailers' maneuvers at the time for a storm (27:16-19). The fourteenth night judged by experienced Mediterranean navigators, to be an appropriate time for this journey in a storm (27:27). The proper term for this section of the Adriatic Sea at this time (27:27). The precise term , bolisantes, for taking soundings. The position of probable approach of a ship running aground before an easterly wind (27:39).
38. Correct description of the severe liability on guards who permitted a prisoner to escape (27:42).
39. Accurate description of the local people and superstitions of the day (28:4-6).
40. The proper title protos (tes nesou) for a man in Publius's position of leadership on the islands.
41. Correct identification of Rhegium as a refuge to await a southerly wind to carry a ship through the strait ( 28:13).
42. Appii Forum and Tres Tabernae as stopping -places along the Appian Way (28:15).
43. Common practice of custody with a Roman soldier (28:16) and conditions of imprisonment at ones own expense (28:30-31).
The best evidence is that this material was composed by A.D. 60, only twenty-seven years after the death of Jesus. This places the writing during the lifetime of eyewitnesses to the events recorded (cf. Luke 1:1-4). This does not allow time for an alleged mythological develpment by persons living generations after the events.
The Roman historian Sherwin-White has noted that the writings of Herodotus enable us to determine the rate at which legends develop. He concluded that:
"tests suggest that even two generations are too short a span to allow the mythical tendency to prevail over the hard historic core of the oral tradition" (Sherwin-White, 190).
Julius Muller (1801-1878) challenged the scholars of his day to produce even one example in which an historical event developed many mythological elements within one generation (Muller, 29). None exist.
SOURCES A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament C. J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, C.H. Gempf, ed. J. Muller, The Theory of Myths, in It's Applications to the Gospel History, Examined and Confuted W. L. Craig, The Son Rises
- Login to post comments
Can someone please post a detailed report on why pieces of fiction that include historical elements are still not historical?
I don't want Incog worshipping Spider-Man because his books mention real places and events.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Hogwash. Particularly this:
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Jcgadfly, the reason that the inclusion of historical elements, most notably the accurate portrayl of places and accurate reporting on the administrative titles of politicians is important because in the ancient world, such information was not readily accessible, certainly not to someone who was not interested in critical historiography.
"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias
mig_killer2, while there may be some substance to your argument about the inclusion of not widely-known details in a narrative should count toward its general credibilty, it really is pretty weak - it only strengthens the case that the writer believed that the more contentious details were accurate, not that they actually are of similar authenticity to the truly historical information.
The response from jcgadfly is pretty reasonable, certainly does not deserve to be called stupid.
Anyway, its all academic - the practical evidence for the supernatural aspects of the scriptural accounts is much weaker than we have for many more contemporary accounts of claimed 'supernatural' events, UFO abductions, etc, etc. Since quite a few such accounts have actually been properly investigated and shown to be mis-perceptions of various kinds, or of the inevitable inaccuracies of 2nd- or 3rd-hand accounts. We don't even have to assume conscious fraud in most cases.
It is all a very flimsy base to support such important conclusions on.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
does this really need a response?
no bobspense, it shows that he believed that not-widely-known details were accurate not "contentious" details, which lends credibility to his skills as a researcher.
well yeah, actually yes it does. comparing ancient historiography to modern admitted fiction is pretty stupid.
"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias
Mig_killer, you've reached the point right there.
I'm comparing ancient fiction to modern fiction when I comapre the Bible to Spidey.
Using historical events and dropping the names of historical places doesn't make the Bible a historical document.
You want to make the Bible historiography, you'll have to do more than just call it that.
The writers didn't even claim to do that - they knew they were writing to persuade and not to chronicle history.
John 20:31 says:
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."
Why do you need to claim the Bible as history when the people who wrote it didn't?
By all means bring any historical evidence you have. Just make it history and not apologetics in disguise.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Did you really just say that they wouldn't know the titles of the people in rulership over them? Or that they wouldn't know tradespeople who could describe other places to them?
You really think that the only way the gospel writers could get information like that mentioned in the gospels was hardcore historical research?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"If you can make any religion of the world look ridiculous, chances are you haven't understood it"-Ravi Zacharias
Then we go back to the ptoblem of the eyewitnesses waiting 15-20 years after Paul wrote the bulk of his stuff before they bothered to scratch anything down. If Jesus was such an important guy, don't you think they'd have writen things down sooner?
Or do you think that all the writers wrote during Jesus' earthly existence?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
All knowing God sends himself as God Man who defies rigor mortis to show his creation the truth. Yeah right, that makse sense .... The religious aren't just sick, they are fucking nuts! Sheezzzz, Geezzzzz, beam me up Scotty ....
George Carlin-some people are stupid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI
Atheism Books.
Scholarly Sources are given in support of the first post at the end. Just because some atheist makes the stupid claim something is fiction, does not make it so.
Tests?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
1- Just because a story ceases does not give any outcome to be likely or place it in a certain time period. The writer stopped and does not even follow through on his Super Hero Paul. What happened to this double crossing or was it triple crossing sneak. Did he get executed or did he escape with all the cash he collected he never turned over to the Jerusalem group? Perhaps he bought his Roman citizenship and lived out his life in Gaul with a house full of the slaves he believed should obey their masters. Acts just stops with Paul in Rome. No mention is made to what end he had. Does this prove anything. No it just means the writer stopped writing. Maybe he was executed or died from a disease. This in itself does not date the writing to before Jerusalem is destroyed.
2- Acts has a needless event of the Disciples receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. It's needless because according to John 20:22 all of them except Thomas already had received the Holy Spirit.
3- Acts also has multiple choice events on Paul. If this was written with knowledge of Paul's epistles then what of Acts 9:23-25 claiming the Jews tried to kill Paul and he escaped. But Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 that King Artetas was the one who was attempting to apprehend him. If this contradiction is because the writer of Acts didn't know the true story then why this similar though clearly wrong version?
4- Further problems with the story of Paul after his escape from Damascus is the claim in Acts 9:26 that he went to Jerusalem after his escape. In Galatians 1:11-24 however Paul wrote that he neither went to Jerusalem nor to the Apostles but went to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. After 3 years he went to Jerusalem to see Peter and James only. Again why is the writer of Acts to be taken seriously when he has made yet another major error.
5- Then we have 3 different versions of Paul's vision or revelation in Acts and a 4th in Galatians. Acts 9:3-22 has the men with him hearing a voice but seeing no one. Paul both sees and hears who he says is Jesus. He is blinded by the event. Ananias has a vision meanwhile and learns he is to cure Paul's blindness. However in Acts 22:6-16 this time the men with him see the light but don't hear the voice. He is again blinded. This time he is cured by Ananias and no mention is made of his vision. Acts 26:12-32 is even more different. This time it is not clear if the men saw or heard anything as they had fallen down. Much more complexity is added with Satan introduced into the discussion. No mention of blindness of a cure this time. Finally Galatians 1 speaks only of Paul having God reveal his son in him. So which is it? If a writer can't keep a story straight when he retells it in his own book what does that say?
6- The writer of Acts isn't through making a fool out of himself just yet. First you are to accept that the stoning frenzied mob is peacefully standing and listening to Paul speak telling version 2 of his UFO light story also known as a conversion from Acts 22. This is supposedly being given from the steps of the Roman garrison after he has been arrested. Have you ever been in a mob of protesters? I have during war protests. No way this happened here as described. The commander of the Romans troops asked Paul if he was the one known as the Egyptian another messiah wannabe. He told them no as the people would have been supporting him.
7- Continuing on after Paul's arrest by the Romans he is taken inside. They plan on beating him until he informs them he is a Roman citizen in Acts 22:25-29. Yet not shortly thereafter in Acts 23:27 the commander wrote the governor Felix that he Claudius Lysias had rescued Paul from being killed by the Jews as he knew him to be a Roman. OK, the writer of Acts has clearly shown that he can't remember what he just wrote in his last chapter. This is enough for me to consider Acts to be a poorly written book.
There's more but these instances are enough for me to discredit it as a book written anywhere near the time any of it may have occured but to put it on a follower years later from rumors and stories. It isn't consistent and hasn't even followed the Hero of the book consistent to his own writing. I call it bad Sci-Fi.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Well PaulJohn, that's what happens when read the Bible without the 'eyes of faith', you will see all these apparent errors and inconsistencies, which would otherwise just blend into a perfect, seamless narrative...
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
What planet is the OP living on? There were Elvis sightings, myths, and conspiracy theories before his bloated, drug laden body was even cold. It doesn't take generations to create a myth. It takes an handfull of nut jobs a few minutes.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.