Loading...Is the account of Paul’s life in Acts at odds with what Paul says himself? If not, are the stories in Acts just invented out of whole cloth?
Some people who responded to my previous post on the historical trustworthiness of the book of Acts suggested that maybe its author “Luke” (we don’t know the author’s real name, so we may as well call him this) wasn’t just makin’ stuff up, but had sources of information available to him for the book of Acts, just as he clearly did for the Gospel (e.g., the Gospels of Mark and Q).
I think this is absolutely right, he almost certainly did have sources. It should be clear that he wasn’t simply creating complete fictions about Paul: that there are numerous close parallels in Acts to what Paul has to say about himself. So there is a historical gist to his accounts on some level. At the same time, almost all these parallels also contain striking discrepancies from Paul. So Luke had sources, but the sources were not completely reliable; and he apparently altered them as he saw fit (just as he altered Mark when he was using it).
So my overall view of Acts is that it is about as reliable for the historical Paul as
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
If I am correct, there is no evidence in Paul’s “undisputed” letters that he went to Rome. Why are you convinced that he did so as the “evidence” comes only from Acts?
I’m not completely convinced he did, actually. But I suspect he did. In his final letter, to the Romans, he indicates that he is soon to visit them, and I suspect he really did.
G Campbell Morgan preached that Paul probably went to Spain
We talk about Paul’s “road to Damascus conversion,” but in Acts Paul’s conversion is completed in Damascus when “something like scales fell from his eyes” and he was “filled with the Holy Spirit” and “he was baptized.” Galatians tells us that Paul then went immediately into Arabia and then returned to Damascus. While Acts does not mention this excursion to Arabia, its itinerary does not contradict Galatians, does it?
It’s normally thought to contradict Galatians among historical critics, yes, for reasons I’m sure you know. In Acts the first thing Paul does on leaving Damascus is to go to jerusalem. You can reconcile that by saying that the author just chose not to mention those three years when he left Damascus to do something else, but since the entire thrust of the narrative is, at least in part, to show the close connectoin with Paul and the others, there is nothing in the text of Acts to suggest that he has any such other trip in mind.
Does Acts and Paul not describe different aspects of the same series of events rather than provide contradictory accounts?
1. Paul’s conversion experience happened on the way to Damascus. (Acts)
2. Sight loss resulted from this event. Paul was led to Damascus and taken to Ananias, where he regained his sight. (Acts)
3. He did not confer with any human being (about the meaning of his experience) but went off at once to Arabia (where he was able to compose his thoughts in solitude). (Paul)
4. He then returned to Damascus and spent three years there before returning to Jerusalem. (Paul)
5. During those three years, he proclaimed Jesus publicly in the synagogues. (Acts)
6. When he reached Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples there but they rejected him. (Acts)
7. He only stayed for two weeks in Jerusalem and only met Cephas and James before going to Syria and Cilicia, bypassing Judea. (Paul)
Does putting the accounts together not result in a coherent story without contradictions?
Yes, you can conflate accounts to reconcile them. It’s like the Gospel accounts of Peter’s denials — if you say he denied Jesus six times, three times before the cock crowed and three more before it crowed twice, then there’s no (or less of a) problem. I don’t think that’s normally how we read texts, but it’s one way to do it.
You wrote, “Yes, you can conflate accounts to reconcile them. It’s like the Gospel accounts of Peter’s denials — if you say he denied Jesus six times, three times before the cock crowed and three more before it crowed twice, then there’s no (or less of a) problem. I don’t think that’s normally how we read texts, but it’s one way to do it.”
This will not do. The reconstruction that Blackwell laid out is nothing like the harmonization attempt of Peter’s denials. What are the unlikely events, such as duplications, in Blackwell’s reconstruction (or indeed of my account of the sending of Timothy to Thessalonica)? I do not see any. You are merely smearing our proposals by suggesting that they are similar to strained harmonization attempts, when they are not. You must address Blackwell’s proposal itself. Paul’s trip to Arabia need not have been for more than a few days or weeks, so Luke’s silence on it does not discredit him. You have done good work on pseudonymity in the NT, but I worry that you are are taking it as axiomatic that similar conclusions apply to Acts.
I’d say actually it is indeed a similar approach: take two different accounts from two different authors that on the surface appear to say something different and show that in fact they can be reconciled. In many instances of course that is right — they can be. In many other cases they can’t. Some cases are twist the two, and reasonable people can take varoius sides — and it’s a matter of establishing plausibility. The method is in fact the same. As another example: If Matthew says that after Jesus’ birth his family fled to Egypt and did not return until after the death of Herod, and Luke says that the family returned directly to nazareth 40 days after the birth — can they be reconciled? Of course. Simply say that Luke is right they returned to Nazareth. Matthew is presupposing that after that they made their residence in Bethlehem and later still when they heard that Herod was out to kill the child they escaped to Egypt and on their return decided to skip the Bethlehem option and returned instead to nazareth. Why not? Well, it’s possible. Is it plausible. Some people would say yes, most people would say no. I think definitely no. I think the same thing with Galatians and Acts in this instance. It’s not a slur to say that the it’s a similar approach to what people to take other texts. That’s a reality. The only question is wether it strikes a reader as plausible, that the account in Acts of Paul going straight to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles looks consistent with the claim in Galatians (that he swears is true) that he did NOT go to Jerusalem right away but only three years later and then met with only Cephas and briefly James (not the others). If you think that’s readily squared, AOK. I simply don’t and don’t find solutions of trying to make it square implausible.
You wrote, “The only question is wether it strikes a reader as plausible, that the account in Acts of Paul going straight to Jerusalem to meet with the apostles looks consistent with the claim in Galatians (that he swears is true) that he did NOT go to Jerusalem right away but only three years later.”
Why do you interpret Acts as saying that Paul went “straight to Jerusalem”? It doesn’t. Acts 9:23 says “after some time had passed” (Ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦντο ἡμέραι ἱκαναί). Do you think this phrase is in tension with Paul’s “Three years”? If so, why?
I don’t know that “some time” ever refers to a number of years. Do you have any references? The point is that Paul wanted to emphasize that he did not confer with the apostles for years; for Luke it’s the first thing he does when leaving Damascus.
You wrote, “I don’t know that “some time” ever refers to a number of years.” I know of no scholar who contends that the “some time” in Acts 9:23 is inconsistent with Paul’s “three years.” Are you proposing that they are inconsistent? If so, why?
You wrote, “The point is that Paul wanted to emphasize that he did not confer with the apostles for years; for Luke it’s the first thing he does when leaving Damascus.” This is misleading since the “three years” in Gal 1:18 do not begin with Paul’s final departure from Damascus. In Galatians Paul goes to Jerusalem after leaving Damascus, just as he does in Acts. Where, precisely, is the contradiction that you see between Acts and Galatians? Is the contradiction that you see, not so much about itinerary and events, as about a general feeling that Acts portrays harmony between Paul and the Jerusalem church leaders, while Galatians, as you read it, reveals a rift?
Do you think that Paul used the term “apostles” to include the 12, even after most of them stopped being apostles (i.e. they became residents of Jerusalem and were no longer sent anywhere)?
Really? That “some time” is normally taken to be up to three years? We clearly talk to different scholars! That’s the standard line so far as I know among critical scholars. But I’m not actually asking for a show of scholarly hands, as if that would be evidence. I’m asking if you know of some usage of the phrase “after some days” (ημεραι ικαναι) (not, e.g. “a few years”) indicates the passage of years. As you uprobably know, the same or comparable phrase (time instead of days) occurs in Luke 20:9; 23:8; Acts 11;11; 9:43; 14:3; 18:18; 20:11; 27:7, 9. I don’t see any indication in any of these places that we’re talking years instead of days or possibly weeks. Do you? Is it your sense that readers would take it that way?
Luke’s intention at Acts 9:23 is not to quantify a duration of time. Rather, the phrase “Ὡς δὲ ἐπληροῦντο ἡμέραι ἱκαναί” (But when sufficient days were fulfilled) seems to be a segue that we might render “in due course.” Barrett, mentioning the imperfect tense, suggests “as time when on.” The time interval is not quantified, but it seems to me that Luke here is signalling that he is skipping ahead. I see no reason to suppose that it was not the bulk of the 2-3 years of Gal 1:18 (with inclusive counting). Who has argued that the phrase would be inappropriate for a 2 year interval? You say that it is a standard view among critical scholars. Which critical scholars should I check?
I don’t think that’s humanly possible to know a person’s intentions, and surmising them is certainly not evidence for one view or another. Yes, Barrett too wanted to reconcile the accounts. You don’t need to look for scholars opinions. If you think there’s a usage of the phrase ημεραι ικαναι to refer to three years, rather than some days, then find it and use it as evidence. In all the instances in New Testament, it clearly never means that. I haven’t done a survey of all Greek literature, but it wouldn’t be that hard to do (though a bit time consuming) (probably days instead of years though…)
Well , What an interesting exchange of ideas …
I strongly agree with Bart in that
” For Acts the whole point is that Paul, Peter, James, and in fact all the apostles were completely simpatico, totally on the same page in terms of doctrine and practice, united in every way. ”
Many days could be three years? Well , it is a very odd way to speak about three years … but it certainly could be, more than one thousand days are “many days”!!!
I think it is not a coincidence that Richard time and again finds a way to reconcile Acts and Paul.
Luke did read Galatians, but he didn’t like many things in that epistle, so he rewrote it in Acts, but …. he always left an open door for anybody (like Richard) that wanted to reconcile it with Paul.
It is not an easy task, but Luke is a genius, he rewrote Paul’s conversion in chapter 9 , then to justify Paul’s account in Galatians he makes him remember his own conversion in two different ways, that of chapter 22 that matches chapter 9 (the official version) and then that of chapter 26 that matches Galatians !!!
I think this is fascinating, and good pointing out the discrepancies, I wasn’t aware they were so contrasty.
I lean to the 20-30 years later as an incorrect dating. The Most Excellent Theophilus, that Luke addresses his letter, could be High Priest Theophilus ben Ananas 37-41 CE.
1. The author of Luke-Acts addresses Theophilus again, but this time without the honorific. Possibly indicating that Theophilus’ term had ended by the time they do their 50s travel: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophilus_ben_Ananus
2. There seems to be a faction shift that led to Theophilus’ installation. The Aristobulus-Hyrcanus flip seems like another example of a faction shift. Like when Democrats and Republicans. So Theophilus might be like a Nicodemus or a Gamaliel. (Look at that ‘el theophoric).
I haven’t even found the args for why literate travelers *wouldn’t* be postcarding about these events while they actually happened. Accreting them at a later date, sure. Just there is productivity among the polished literate – Nicolaus of Damascus was said to write 100 + books.
I lean towards Paul covering for himself because there were repercussions for draggin people out dey homes. In the modern day, could you be forgiven by your rabbi and not from judges?
Is it possible the arabia thing is his effort to imitate some prophecy making him a special figure? I cant remember where I heard this but it comes to mind whenever I think about his stint in arabia.
I wish we knew for sure why he went there, but it’s often thought that it was to begin his ministry converting people among the Nabateans. I don’t know of any prophecy that would be connected with it.
I know the estimated dating of Paul and Acts but I find it curious that Paul swears he isn’t lying exactly in the same portion of Acts saying otherwise…as if he had read Acts and was refuting it. Is there any evidence that Paul was written after Acts even though it seems everyone says no? Does anyone propose that this specific letter of Paul’s was written after Acts? Just curious…
I don’t think he could have read Acts (it would not be written for decades), but it’s clear he’s contradicting *someone’s* account of his activities!
In his authentic letters do you detect any hint that the historical Paul advised Jewish followers of Jesus to stop being Torah observant?
Nope.
Paul says that Peter and James were the only APOSTLES whom he met in Jerusalem at that time. He may have me many other disciples, who were not apostles, so there is no conflict between Galatians and Acts here. Paul uses the term “apostles” for those who were currently apostles (meaning their role was being sent to proclaim the gospel). The twelve were sent by Jesus so they were called apostles (Luke 6:13; 9:1-6), and Luke continued to call them “apostles,” even though no-one after Jesus sent any of them (except Peter) anywhere, as far as we know. In much the same way, Luke calls Sosthenes the synagogue ruler, even though he was really the former synagogue ruler, and he calls Annas the high priest, though he was the former high priest. This, however, was not Paul’s style. Paul reserves the term “apostles” for those who currently had that role, so he does not use the term “apostles” for the 12.
Professor Ehrman,
This is another question that may seem rather elementary to a scholar, but I will ask anyway.
When Paul states that “God gives all scripture,” were there any Gospels already being used at that time Paul is writing this statement and considered “scripture?”
If I understood what you wrote, you stated that Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels.
Am I wrong to assume that Paul (if he wrote ITimothy) was referring to the Torah as “all scripture” since there was no book or scriptures called the N.T. at that period?
Was there any idea that all these men and their writings would somehow end up as being what we now call the NT or scripture?
Thanks for your forum,
Rob
I think you’re refering to 2 Tim. 3:16? This is one of those books that claim to be written by Paul but almost certainly was not (it is one of the pastoral epistles: 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, long thought to be non-Pauline). Whether or not Paul wrote it, “Scripture” for Jews or followers of Jesus in the first century was almost always “the Jewish Bible,” not any of the Christian writings yet.
I recently read the Acts Seminar Report, which concludes that Acts is a 2nd-century work written by someone who had access to Paul’s letters, but didn’t mention them because he disagreed with their content. It calls Acts a “creative fiction”, and is radically skeptical of pretty much everything in Acts that isn’t verified by Paul’s letters. And then I read parts of Fitzmeyer’s classic study of Acts for the Anchor Bible series, which considers Acts to be a work of history, and thinks it’s most likely that an actual companion of Paul wrote it. Fitzmeyer believes the author of Acts hadn’t read any of Paul’s letters, so that similar content can be seen as confirmation. It amazes me how wide the gulf is between even the best Acts scholars.
Where do you come down on that spectrum? Do you think the author of Acts had read the same Pauline letters we have access to?
There are a number of scholars moving to that view (of the Acts Seminar), but I’m not one of them. I don’t think the author of Luke was familiar with the writings of Paul we have. If he was, then he either didn’t believe them or didn’t read them very closely or didn’t remember them very well.disabledupes{9b9060056a4e5581df7e69df55d41906}disabledupes
“ 2nd-century by someone who had access to Paul’s letters”
Agree !!
Acts 15 seems to be a Luke effort to re-write Galarians 1-2 in order to make the point .. “that Paul, Peter, James, and in fact all the apostles were..totally on the same page in terms of doctrine and practice, united in every way” (quoting Bart) .
In particular ”some men came down from Judea… ” (Acts 15:1) seems to be a reference to the “ certain men came from James” (Galatians 2:12), also it is hard no to see a link between Acts 10 and the Antioch incident.
I always saw a “ too much” developed church in Acts, for instance in Acts :6:1 , the reference to the care of the widows makes me think in the 2nd-century forged Pastoral letters, a church expecting the imminent end of the world does not take care of widows.
The riots in Ephesus (Acts 19: 23-41) sparked by the drop in sales of the “silver shrines of Artemis” because ofthe growing numbers of christians could never happen in Paul’s times with a few followers, ergo it is something Luke’s community experienced , again it speaks about a 2nd-century setting.
I also agree!
It sounds to me that both Luke and John are “romanticized” stories (not history) of Jesus, much like the 2nd-century apocrypha. They have lots of details, embellishments by the pen of the writer, rather than oral traditions transmitted by generations.
Matthew is very interesting. It sounds like a rework of a very old tradition. It contains a much credible picture of the historical Jesus. It looks like the original was a collection of sayings of Jesus, much like the German scholars say is Q. From it, it added all references “as written in the Scriptures” to convince a Judaic audience, and a fabulous story of Jesus birth. Both stories of Jesus conception and birth, in Matthew and Luke, are late distinct conceptions, certainly after the quasi-extinction of the Jerusalem Church (Ebionites), when the Hellenized Pauline Christianity spread over the Roman Empire.
Is it possible Luke patched in the “we” sections of Acts from some other anonymous written account? The shipwreck account seems especially detailed in contrast to other parts of Acts or Luke’s Gospel, for that matter.
Yes, that was my view for years. Now I dn’t think so. I think he inserts the we sections to make an authorial claim to have been one of Pau’s companions. Detail of narrative, of course, provides verisimilitude and “cover” for a false authorial claim.
Regarding your view that Paul ‘returned back to Damascus’—where he must have been living before, else he could not have ‘returned’ there—I have come to agree with this interpretation. Over a year ago, Richard Carrier made a similar argument on his blog. However, I have not seen this view stated in any published commentaries or journal articles. I’m curious to know if you and Carrier arrived at this idea independently or if you had a common source that influenced both of you.
Well, I certainly don’t read Carrier for my interpretatoins of Paul. 🙂 But no, it’s just a matter of reading the text.
” For Acts the whole point is that Paul, Peter, James, and in fact all the apostles were completely simpatico, totally on the same page in terms of doctrine and practice, united in every way. ”
Yessss !
But I would add another issue that explains Luke’s version of Paul’s conversion.
It was extremely dangerous for the early church to have christians with a “direct link” with Jesus , it was THROUGH the CHURCH that this link had to be accomplished..
So Luke’s has Jesus himself saying Paul:
“But rise and enter the city, and YOU WILL BE TOLD what YOU ARE ARE TO DO”
(Acts 9:6)
So it was the christians in Damascus (Ananias and the disciples – ‘“For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus” Acts 9:19) the ones that TOLD Paul WHAT TO DO , not Jesus himself.
The Church is extremely important in Luke’s theology , that’s why he wrote Acts, a “Gospel of the Church”.
I think Luke/Acts is a latter/mid 2nd century work. If we take as fact Luke 1:1-4 that “many” accounts had already been written, then a dating to the time of Papius would be the earliest possible, yet Papias also trying to collect as much information as possible has no knowedge of a Gospel in Lukes name, so very likely after the time of Papius and before the time of Irenaeus’s writings. Theophulis having being “taught” such things already lends to Theophilus holding a senior role in one of the churches possibly even a bishop if not an elder, not a senior Roman administrator. Since Luke was believed to have been born in Antioch, then the top candidate of such a Theophilus would be Theophilus bishop of Antioch 169ce. I don’t believe the Author ntended that Luke would be credited with it’s authorship, rather it got the moniker from those who recieved such gosple account from Antioch the hometown of Luke.
I suspect the Marcion Cannon (Gospel of the Lord) was the main source for Luke, and the inspiration for the followup writing Acts and the story of Paul. He must have other had sources for account of Peter