Historicity of Acts according to Scholars
Bart Ehrman:
First, internal consistency. Luke sometimes tells the same story two or even three times. When he does so, there are striking contradictions, which show, among other things, that Luke is more interested in spinning a good yarn than he is in preserving a historically accurate narrative. Let me cite two examples. First, Jesus’ ascension. In Luke 24 (you can read it for yourself and see) Jesus rises from the dead, on that day meets with his disciples, and then, again that day, he ascends to heaven from the town of Bethany. But when you read Acts 1, written by the same author, you find that Jesus did not ascend on that day or at that place. Jesus instead spends forty days with his disciples proving to them that he had been raised from the dead (it’s not clear why he would have to prove it! Let alone do so for forty days!); and only then — forty days after the resurrection– does he ascend. And here he ascends not from Bethany but from Jerusalem. Luke tells the same story twice, and in two radically different ways. Historical accuracy does not appear to be his major concern.
Second example. On three occasions Acts narrates the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, chapters 9, 22, and 26. Compare them closely to one another, and you find very odd contradictions. In chapter 9, Paul’s companions hear the voice of Jesus talking to Paul, but they don’t see anyone; in chapter 22 they see the light but don’t hear anything. Which is it? In Chapter 9 the companions are left standing while Paul falls to the ground; in chapter 26 they are all knocked to the ground. Which is it? In chapters 9 and 22 Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias about what to do next. In chapter 26 Paul is not told to go be instructed by Ananias, instead Jesus himself instructs him. Well, which is it?
But even more noteworthy are the external contradictions with a reliable source: Paul himself. Whenever Acts relates an incident from Paul’s life that Paul himself discusses, there are striking and irreconcilable differences. Sometimes these involve small details. For example, Acts 17 is clear and unambiguous: when Paul traveled to bring the gospel to Athens, he came by himself, without Timothy or any of the other apostles. But Paul himself is also clear and unambiguous; in 1 Thessalonians 3 we learn that he came to Athens precisely in the company of Timothy, not by himself. It couldn’t be both.
Every time you compare what Acts has to say about Paul with what Paul has to say about himself, you find discrepancies, just as you find discrepancies internally whenever Acts recounts the same event more than once. As valuable as Acts may be as an interesting story about the first years and decades of the early Christian movement, the reality is that the book of Acts is not historically reliable. First, internal consistency. Luke sometimes tells the same story two or even three times. When he does so, there are striking contradictions, which show, among other things, that Luke is more interested in spinning a good yarn than he is in preserving a historically accurate narrative. Let me cite two examples. First, Jesus’ ascension. In Luke 24 (you can read it for yourself and see) Jesus rises from the dead, on that day meets with his disciples, and then, again that day, he ascends to heaven from the town of Bethany. But when you read Acts 1, written by the same author, you find that Jesus did not ascend on that day or at that place. Jesus instead spends forty days with his disciples proving to them that he had been raised from the dead (it’s not clear why he would have to prove it! Let alone do so for forty days!); and only then — forty days after the resurrection– does he ascend. And here he ascends not from Bethany but from Jerusalem. Luke tells the same story twice, and in two radically different ways. Historical accuracy does not appear to be his major concern.
Second example. On three occasions Acts narrates the conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus, chapters 9, 22, and 26. Compare them closely to one another, and you find very odd contradictions. In chapter 9, Paul’s companions hear the voice of Jesus talking to Paul, but they don’t see anyone; in chapter 22 they see the light but don’t hear anything. Which is it? In Chapter 9 the companions are left standing while Paul falls to the ground; in chapter 26 they are all knocked to the ground. Which is it? In chapters 9 and 22 Paul is told to go to Damascus to be instructed by a man named Ananias about what to do next. In chapter 26 Paul is not told to go be instructed by Ananias, instead Jesus himself instructs him. Well, which is it?
But even more noteworthy are the external contradictions with a reliable source: Paul himself. Whenever Acts relates an incident from Paul’s life that Paul himself discusses, there are striking and irreconcilable differences. Sometimes these involve small details. For example, Acts 17 is clear and unambiguous: when Paul traveled to bring the gospel to Athens, he came by himself, without Timothy or any of the other apostles. But Paul himself is also clear and unambiguous; in 1 Thessalonians 3 we learn that he came to Athens precisely in the company of Timothy, not by himself. It couldn’t be both.
- Bart Ehrman Blog, March 20, 2024
Richard Carrier:
Acts is highly fictional. It is propaganda. It is not critical or honest history.
If one needs Acts to be a reliable history, and not revisionist history (a.k.a. “bullshit”), one needs to “leave out” all the evidence that it repeatedly contradicts the eyewitness testimony of Paul, and in precisely the ways that suit its author’s agendas, and that it mimics known tropes and features distinctive of fiction and propaganda, and conspicuously omits all the actual markers of reliable histories.
This is why mainstream scholarship no longer regards the book of Acts as reliable history. That notion is the sole province now of Christian apologists who can’t accept reality, and thus just need it to go away, by any device.
- Richard Carrier Blog, 21 April 2023
Richard I Pervo:
The seven preceding chapters have set forth a large amount of evidence on one side of a case. They have sought to demonstrate that Acts is not a reliable history of Christian origins. One important point is that it does not attempt to be. Another is that the literary techniques employed are too artistic. The use of cycles, parallels, repetitions, melodramatic characterization, stereotyped scene construction, inventing or presenting stories that replicate biblical narrative, unbalanced narrative with evident symbolic import, and a balanced structure-all these raise insurmountable objections. History cannot be quite so symmetrical. In addition there are any number of historical problems.
The accusation, bluntly put, is that Luke murdered the history
of the early church.
By our lights Luke is better regarded as a creative author than as an historian, for it is the expectation of our culture that historians will strive for objectivity, that, while they may argue a thesis and seek to make a good case for it, they will not falsify data or ignore other points of view or interpretations. Luke had no interest in objectivity. He wrote as an insider, passionately committed to the Christian movement.
The purpose of Luke and Acts was stated in Chapter One: to demonstrate the legitimacy of Pauline gentile Christianity. To accept this view-and it is rather widely held-is to recognize that "history" may be a misleading designation for Acts. Luke does not try to accomplish his goal by composing a treatise, but by telling a story.
- The Mystery of Acts Unraveling Its Story, Chapter 9, Page 151-152
Report on the Acts Seminar:
The Acts Seminar has approached Acts from a number of perspectives—in terms of its sources, its date, its historical context, its genre, and its theological and rhetorical tendencies. In his paper for the October 2006 meeting, Joseph B. Tyson made a case for Acts as a myth of Christian origins, as a story written to present an idealized account of Christian beginnings, not a historical account. As myth, it should not be confused with history, and therefore should no longer be read as a historical source for earliest Christianity as many scholars are still wont to do. The Fellows agreed with this argument and so voted red on ballot items 1 and 2.
- Fall Meeting 2006
Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-book-of-acts-is-not-reliable-the-negative-case/
Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23447
Source: https://annas-archive.org/md5/376eff0059f59ee3de21ac1ee54ab655
Source: https://www.westarinstitute.org/seminars/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles
By our lights Luke is better regarded as a creative author than as an historian, for it is the expectation of our culture that historians will strive for objectivity, that, while they may argue a thesis and seek to make a good case for it, they will not falsify data or ignore other points of view or interpretations. Luke had no interest in objectivity. He wrote as an insider, passionately committed to the Christian movement.
The purpose of Luke and Acts was stated in Chapter One: to demonstrate the legitimacy of Pauline gentile Christianity. To accept this view-and it is rather widely held-is to recognize that "history" may be a misleading designation for Acts. Luke does not try to accomplish his goal by composing a treatise, but by telling a story.
- The Mystery of Acts Unraveling Its Story, Chapter 9, Page 151-152
Report on the Acts Seminar:
The Acts Seminar has approached Acts from a number of perspectives—in terms of its sources, its date, its historical context, its genre, and its theological and rhetorical tendencies. In his paper for the October 2006 meeting, Joseph B. Tyson made a case for Acts as a myth of Christian origins, as a story written to present an idealized account of Christian beginnings, not a historical account. As myth, it should not be confused with history, and therefore should no longer be read as a historical source for earliest Christianity as many scholars are still wont to do. The Fellows agreed with this argument and so voted red on ballot items 1 and 2.
- Fall Meeting 2006
Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/the-book-of-acts-is-not-reliable-the-negative-case/
Source: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/23447
Source: https://annas-archive.org/md5/376eff0059f59ee3de21ac1ee54ab655
Source: https://www.westarinstitute.org/seminars/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles
Comments
Post a Comment