reddit
Luke’s Reliability and Dating
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/13ll9vq/lukes_reliability_and_dating/
Historical Accuracies and reliability of the Book of Acts
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBi...rical_accuracies_and_reliability_of_the_book/
British scholarship has been relatively positive about Acts’ historicity, from
Lightfoot, who says...
“...[N]o ancient work affords so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and topography, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman” (Essays of the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion, pp. 19-20)
...and
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. North American scholars show a range of opinion.’,
Setzer, ‘Jewish Responses to Early Christians: history and polemics, 30-150 C.E.’, p. 94 (1994).
Henry J. Cadbury, the liberal scholar of Harvard University, authored a volume titled,
The Book of Acts In History, in which he introduced many examples of the accuracy of Luke’s second letter to Theophilus.
For instance, the physician/historian mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine Mediterranean islands. He also alludes to ninety-five different people, sixty-two, of which are not mentioned by any other New Testament writer. Twenty-seven of these are unbelievers, chiefly civil or military officials (Bruce Metzger,
The New Testament – Its Background, Growth, and Content, pp. 171-172).
What Luke-Acts gets right
Historian Justin Taylor describes the accuracy of Acts positively, [9] and lists many examples in his work
‘The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles’, in ‘Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt’, p. 2437 (1996)
- Trial scenes throughout Acts
‘In fact, the “trial scenes” in Acts reflect well enough the proceedings of the Roman legal system. The magistrates at Philippi impose on Paul and Silas the standard penalty for vagrant undesirables (Acts 16,22-23.36). Those at Thessalonica receive a bond for good behavior (17, 9).’, ibid., p. 2491
‘Now “Phrygo-Galatian country” describes admirably the region of Antioch-by-Pisidia and Iconium which Paul and Barnabas evangelized during the previous journey: both cities belonged to the province of Galatia, but the native culture and population of the region were Phrygian.’, ibid., p. 2439.
‘Samothrace is the highest island of the Aegean, and so presents a landmark for which a boat sailing from Troas to Neapolis would naturally make. The distance from Troas and Samothrace is a good day’s sailing with a favourable wind; a further day would normally bring the vessel to Neapolis; in Acts 20,6, the return from Neapolis to Troas took five days.’, ibid., p. 2442.
- Magistrates named correctly (Acts 16)
‘It would not be surprising if Greek speakers at Philippi continued to call the principal magistrates of their city strathgoi, even after the official title had become duumviri. Naples provides a parallel; it seems that the title of the pre-Roman magistrates – dhnarcoi – continued to be in use for the duumviri of the colony. In that case, the us in Acts of the term strathgoi for the duumviri would indicate the author’s local knowledge and also illustrate the persistence of pre-Roman tradition in the colony of Philippi.’, ibid., p. 2453.
‘In the continuation of the episode at Thessalonica, vv. 5-9, Paul’s opponents mean to drag him and Silas before the dhmoV and in fact they bring Jason and others before the politarcai. Several inscriptions from Thessalonica have the word dhmoV for the assembly of the citizens. It would be reasonable to give it the same sense in Acts 17,5 and not simply to take it as the equivalent of ocloV (“crowd”) in v.8. This was the official title of the assembly, as can be seen from the frequent formula introducing civil legislation: h boulh kai o dhmoV… (The Council and the Asembly…). The title politarcai is very well attested for certain magistrates at Thessalonica.’,
‘It is clear that in the 1st century of our era there were several altars in and near Athens which could be described as altars of “unknown gods**,”** whether they were inscribed agnowstoiV qeoiV or qewn or were without inscription.’, ibid., p. 2470.
‘An inscription found at Delphi mentions Gallio as proconsul. It records a letter from the emperor Claudius which indicates a date for the proconsulate of Gallio and hence of St. Paul’s visit to Corinth at that time according to Acts.’, ibid., p. 2484.
‘It is evident that the magistrate enjoyed a very large discretion for determining whether the affair interested the law or not. This is precisely what Acts describes as taking place before the tribunal of Gallio.’, ibid., p. 2486.
‘The 3rd century jurist Paulus explains that the former right of the citizen to appeal to the people had become a right of appeal to the emperor.’, ibid., p. 2456.
Talbert, "Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu", pp. 198–200 (2003). Brill notes:
* "Inscriptions confirm that the city authorities in Thessalonica in the 1st century were called politarchs (Acts 17:6–8)
* According to inscriptions, grammateus is the correct title for the chief magistrate in Ephesus (Acts 19:35)
* Felix and Festus are correctly called procurators of Judea
* The passing remark of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius (Acts 18:2) is independently attested by Suetonius in
Claudius 25 from
The Twelve Caesars, , Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. (
Rainer Riesner "Pauline Chronology" in Stephen Westerholm The Blackwell Companion to Paul (May 16, 2011) ISBN 1405188448 pp.13-14); (
^ Andreas J. Köstenberger, L. Scott Kellum, The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament(2009) ISBN 978-0-8054-4365-3 p. 110, 400)
* Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31 and Acts 23:26)
* The title proconsul (anthypathos) is correctly used for the governors of the two senatorial provinces named in Acts (Acts 13:7–8 and Acts 18:12)
* Inscriptions speak about the prohibition against the Gentiles in the inner areas of the Temple (as in Acts 21:27–36); see also Court of the Gentiles
* The function of town assemblies in the operation of a city's business is described accurately in Acts 19:29–41
* Roman soldiers were permanently stationed in the tower of Antonia with the responsibility of watching for and suppressing any disturbances at the festivals of the Jews; to reach the affected area they would have to come down a flight of steps into temple precincts, as noted by Acts 21:31–37"
Talbert concludes that the historical inaccuracies within Acts "are few and insignificant compared to the overwhelming congruence of Acts and its time [until AD 64] and place [Palestine and the wider Roman Empire]". Talbert cautions nevertheless that "an exact description of the milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated"
Other things Luke-Acts gets right:
- The station of Cohors II Italica Civium Romanorum in Caesarea in the 60s. See Acts 10
- The presence of a synagogue in Thessalonica. (17:1) This is attested by a late 2nd AD inscription. (CIJ 693)
- The fact that the Ephesian theater was the meeting place of the city. (19:29) This is confirmed by inscriptional evidence dating from AD. 104. (See OGIS 480.8-9.)
- The employment of the characteristic ethnic term “Asianos,” meaning “Greeks in Asia.” (20:4) Cf. IGRR 4.1756, where the Greeks honor a Sardian citizen with this designation (lines 113, 116).
- The proper reaction of Greek philosophers, who denied the bodily resurrection. (17:32) See the words of Apollo in Aeschylus, Eumenides 647-48.
- The use of the correct Athenian slang word for Paul (spermologos, “seed picker,” 17:18) as well as for the court (Areios pagos, “the hill of Ares,” 17:19)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What critical scholars believe represents History in Acts
"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.", Philip, "The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: the Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit", Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2, Reihe, p. 205 (2005). Mohr Siebeck
Lüdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances[1], the names of the early disciples[2], women disciples,[3] and Judas Iscariot.[4] Wedderburn says the disciples indisputably believed Christ was truly raised.[5] Hengel believes Acts was written early[6] by Luke as a partial eyewitness,[7] praising Luke’s knowledge of Palestine,[8] and of Jewish customs in Acts 1:12.[9] With regard to Acts 1:15–26, Lüdemann is skeptical with regard to the appointment of Matthias, but not with regard to his historical existence.[10] Wedderburn rejects the theory that denies the historicity of the disciples,[11][12] Conzelmann considers the upper room meeting a historical event Luke knew from tradition,[13] and Hengel considers ‘the Field of Blood’ to be an authentic historical name.[14]
Concerning Acts 2, Lüdemann considers the Pentecost gathering as very possible,[15] and the apostolic instruction to be historically credible.[16] Wedderburn acknowledges the possibility of a ‘mass ecstatic experience’,[17] and notes it is difficult to explain why early Christians later adopted this Jewish festival if there had not been an original Pentecost event as described in Acts.[18] He also holds the description of the early community in Acts 2 to be reliable.[19]
Lüdemann views Acts 3:1–31 as historical.[20] Wedderburn notes what he sees as features of an idealized description,[21] but nevertheless cautions against dismissing the record as unhistorical.[22] Hengel likewise insists that Luke described genuine historical events, even if he has idealized them.[23]
- ‘"There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee)" (ibid., 29–30)”’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004); he attributes the appearances to hallucination.
- Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004)
- ‘[“]The existence of women disciples as members of the earliest Jerusalem community is also a historical fact" (ibid., 31).’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004)
- ‘Lüdemann quoted by Matthews*, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 165 (2004)*
- ‘Whatever one believes about the resurrection of Jesus,5 it is undeniable that his followers came to believe that he had been raised by God from the dead, that the one who had apparently died an ignominious death, forsaken and even accursed by his God, had subsequently been vindicated by that same God., ’ Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 17 (2004).
- 'That makes it all the more striking that Acts says nothing of Paul the letter-writer. In my view this presupposes a relatively early date for Acts, when there was still a vivid memory of Paul the missionary, but the letter-writer was not known in the same way.', Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 3 (1997).
- 'Contrary to a widespread anti-Lukan scholasticism which is often relatively ignorant of ancient historiography, I regard Acts as a work that was composed soon after the Third Gospel by Luke 'the beloved physician' (Col. 4:14), who accompanied Paul on his travels from the journey with the collection to Jerusalem onwards. In other words, as at least in part an eye-witness account for the late period of the apostle, about which we no longer have any information from the letters, it is a first-hand source.', Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 7 (1997).
- ‘So Luke-Acts looks back on the destruction of Jerusalem, which is still relatively recent, and moreover is admirably well informed about Jewish circumstances in Palestine, in this respect comparable only to its contemporary Josephus. As Matthew and John attest, that was no longer the case around 15–25 years later; one need only compare the historical errors of the former Platonic philosopher Justin from Neapolis in Samaria, who was born around 100 CE.’, Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', pp. 7–8 (1997).
- ‘The term 'a sabbath day's journey', which appears only here in the New Testament, presupposes an amazingly intimate knowledge — for a Greek — of Jewish customs.’, Hengel, ‘Between Jesus and Paul: studies in the earliest history of Christianity’, p. 107 (1983).
- , Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004)
- ‘Yet is such a theory not an act of desperation?21 Is it not in every way simpler to accept that the Twelve existed during Jesus’ lifetime and that Judas was one of them?’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 22 (2004).
- ‘The presence of some names in the list is, in view of their relative obscurity, most easily explained by their having indeed been members of this group.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 22 (2004).
- ‘A local tradition about the meeting place can still be detected. The upper room is the place for prayer and conversation (20:8*; cf. Dan 6:11*), and for seclusion (Mart. Pol. 7.1). The list of names agrees with Luke 6:13–16*.’, Conzelmann, Limber (trans.), Epp, & Matthews (eds.), ‘Acts of the Apostles: A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles’, Hermeneia, pp. 8–9 (1987); he nevertheless believes the waiting for the spirit is a fiction by Luke.
- 'The Aramaic designation Akeldamakc for 'field of blood' has been correctly handed down in Acts 1:19; this is a place name which is also known by Matthew 27:8', Hengel, ‘The Geography of Palestine in Acts’, in Bauckham (ed.), ‘The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting’, p. 47 (1995).
- ‘Although doubting that the specification "Pentecost" belongs to the tradition, Lüdemann supposes, on the basis of references to glossolalia in Paul's letters and the ecstatic prophecy of Philip's daughters (Acts 21:9), that "we may certainly regard a happening of the kind described by the tradition behind vv.1–4 as very possible."’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004)
- ‘"The instruction by the apostles is also to be accepted as historical, since in the early period of the Jerusalem community the apostles had a leading role. So Paul can speak of those who were apostles before him (in Jerusalem!, Gal. 1.17)" (40.)’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 166 (2004).
- ‘It is also possible that at some point of time, though not necessarily on this day, some mass ecstatic experience took place.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 26 (2004).
- ‘At any rate, as Weiser and Jervell point out,39 it needs to be explained why early Christians adopted Pentecost as one of their festivals, assuming that the Acts account was not reason enough.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 27 (2004).
- ‘Many features of them are too intrinsically probable to be lightly dismissed as the invention of the author. It is, for instance, highly probable that the earliest community was taught by the apostles (2:42)—at least by them among others.’, Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
- "Despite what is in other respects the negative result of the historical analysis of the tradition in Acts 3–4:31, the question remains whether Luke's general knowledge of this period of the earliest community is of historical value. We should probably answer this in the affirmative, because his description of the conflict between the earliest community and the priestly nobility rests on correct historical assumptions. For the missionary activity of the earliest community in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion of Jesus may have alarmed Sadducean circles... so that they might at least have prompted considerations about action against the Jesus community.", Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, pp. 168–169 (2004).
- , Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
- Wedderburn, ‘A History of the First Christians’, p. 30 (2004).
- ‘There is a historical occasion behind the description of the story of Pentecost in Acts and Peter's preaching, even if Luke has depicted them with relative freedom.’, *Hengel & Schwemer, 'Paul Between Damascus and Antioch: the unknown years', p. 28
Comments Section
This is a fine selection of data. People may be interested to know that Ramsay did not start out as a defender of the general historicity of Acts (he was a follower of the Tubingen school), and a famous liberal scholar von Harnack also became convinced of some of the English-speaking scholarship on Acts's historicity (specifically pertaining to date).
Colin Hemer's
Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Mohr Siebeck) is probably the best treatment of Acts's reliability (his lists of points of accuracy eclipse what you've referenced here).
A very good scholarly meditation on the subject matter is Talbert's essay in the volume you cite (
Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu): Talbert, Charles H. “What is Meant By the Historicity of Acts?” In
Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu. 197–218.
Of course, this does not settle the issue. On balance, perhaps the strongest position which calls most all of the scholarship on the reliability of Acts into question is the work of Pervo (perhaps his Hermeneia commentary is the apex of his work).
Scholarship runs the spectrum on this issue. The philosophy of historiography is a related discipline which applies searching question to the
kinds of issues implied by your post (the nature of historical knowledge and methods of investigation).
Also, just because an author gets details and local knowledge right does not mean their work is historical. Hemer, who takes Acts to be very historical has a good discussion on this.
