Here is an interesting question I received about a Christian apologist’s argument that the book of Acts must be written by an eyewitness, a view that I think is completely wrong. It’s one of those arguments that has no bearing on anything when you actually think about it, but until someone points out the flaw, it’s hard to see it — or I assume so since so many people get taken in by this sort of thing.
It comes in a book called I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, a title which, I have to say, is a clear indication of how well informed the book will be. But that would be an entire post of its own. Here I’ll focus on the question raised:
QUESTION:
One thing about the reliability of the book of Acts I’m constantly encountering when researching popular apologetics is Frank Turek’s argument in his book I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist. In it he quotes a Colin Hemer, who apparently chronicled the last 16 chapters of Acts for facts that could be confirmed by archaeology and ended up with 84. Many of these are insignificant, but others seem to be things “only an eyewitness could know,” like the location of a sailor’s landmark or sea approach to a city. Craig Blomberg has one similar for John, with mentions like “going up to Jerusalem” being the correct geography for the city, or “coming down” for western Galilee, etc, only being things a local/eyewitness would know.
My question is: are these legitimate arguments for the gospels being eyewitness or is there something I’m missing?
RESPONSE:
I very much appreciate this question: it’s by someone who is honestly seeking an answer based on what a seeming authority has said, giving an argument that sounds so convincing at first sight. But I do NOT appreciate Frank Turkey or Colin Hemer for making the argument, since surely they know better. If they do know better, shame on them for trying to dupe others. If they don’t know better, would someone please tell them to start thinking more clearly?
OK, so here’s the deal. The last 16 chapters of Acts deal principally with the missionary activities, arrest, and judicial proceedings against Paul. This is where people have acquired most of their knowledge of Paul’s life as a Christian apostle since he gives so little biographical information in his own surviving writings. This part of Acts is where you learn how Paul engaged in his mission in Thessalonica, Philippi, and Corinth, confronted philosophers in Athens, made his trip to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council, ended up traveling to Rome to face trial, etc. etc. Without these chapters, we would know very little or nothing about a good deal of these things, and many more besides.
But do we actually know all of this, or is it possible that some (much?) of it is legendary rather than historical? The traditional answer is that Acts was written by an eyewitness, a person who accompanied Paul on his missionary journeys. The presumption is that if it was written by an eyewitness, then the accounts almost certainly must be historically accurate. I won’t be going into that issue here (of whether eyewitness = accurate), but if you have ever known an eyewitness to an event who got it completely wrong (and if you’re a sentient human being, I bet you have known at least one!) you can immediately see at least one aspect of the problem.
The reason for thinking Acts was written by an eyewitness is that in four passages in these chapters, the author moves from talking about what “they” (Paul and his companions) were doing to about what “we” were doing. It sounds like he’s including himself in a number of the events as one who was there. The natural conclusion: he was an eyewitness.
It’s a sensible way of reading these passages, but in other posts, I’ve explained why on closer examination it’s a problem. Maybe I’ll cover that ground again, because it is a really interesting issue. I will say that for well over a century critical scholars have adduced good grounds for thinking that the book was not written by an eyewitness (in case you’re wondering: almost all these scholars have been committed Christians). The book by Turek wants to re-assess the situation to argue that in fact it was. Fair enough. But this argument for it? Yikes.
The argument is that if these chapters get so many facts right in its description of where Paul went, the actual things he would have seen there, and so on, then they must have been produced by an eyewitness. Who else would know all this stuff (which can be shown to be accurate)? Just as when the author of John’s Gospel indicates that when Jesus traveled from the north he nonetheless went “up” to Jerusalem. Who would know that except an eyewitness? Only if you go to Jerusalem do you realize that you have to go “up” to it because it’s elevated from the surrounding area. Right?
OK, let’s think about that. It’s true that you do have to go “up” to Jerusalem even when you approach it from the north. I myself knew that and said so … for twenty years before I ever went to Jerusalem. Was I saying so because I was an eyewitness to Jerusalem? No, I was saying it because I knew about that. So what’s the argument for my having to be any eyewitness to Jerusalem, let alone to anything that actually happened there?
Well, you could say that I knew that only because I heard it from eyewitnesses. First of all, that’s not true. In fact, I heard it from lots of people, none of whom was an eyewitness. Second, even if I had heard it from an eyewitness, that would not make *me* an eyewitness. Let alone make me accurate.
But let’s go to the book of Acts. If you can show that the account knows where certain places actually were, and knows details about what were in those places, and landmarks, and so on: doesn’t that show the author must have been with Paul on his journeys?
Uh, why would it show *that*?? Wouldn’t it just show that he knew about these locations and what was in them? Wouldn’t you get precisely the same kind of narrative if this was someone who had traveled a good bit himself, or knew others who had, and pieced it all together?
Let me illustrate the problem. Suppose in 2000 years someone uncovers a story that describes an event that happened to Professor Bart Ehrman in March 2016. Professor Ehrman taught at the University of North Carolina which was located in a college town named Chapel Hill. That semester he was teaching his course on the New Testament in a large lecture classroom in a building called Hamilton Hall. On the afternoon of March 14, Professor was just leaving his office in Carolina Hall to take the three-minute walk to his classroom, when he heard a massive explosion, and going out of his building he saw that Hamilton Hall had been destroyed in an explosion, killing 172 people. Later investigators discovered that it had been caused by a gas leak.
Now, this future researcher who has uncovered the story decides to look into the archaeological record to see if the account is accurate. He learns that way back then there really was a state called North Carolina and sees that archaeologists had indeed uncovered a town called Chapel Hill, where there really was a university. More than that, they had excavated the university and had found Carolina Hall and – mirabile dictu – there was an actual map of the campus in the ruins. It turns out one of the major lecture rooms for large classes was a short distance away, within eyesight, in Hamilton Hall. Just as in the story!! Moreover, the records of all the professors from the early 21st century were discovered, and there was a fellow named Bart Ehrman who did indeed teach courses on something called the New Testament and was teaching one such course in Spring semester, 2016.
BINGO! This story MUST have been written by someone who was a companion of Bart Ehrman who was there to see all these things! How else would he have had all this information about NC, Chapel Hill, the university, Hamilton Hall, Carolina Hall, Bart Ehrman, and a class on the NT that particular semester? And that means Hamilton Hall really was destroyed by an explosion caused by a gas leak, right?
Uh, well, no. Millions of people know about NC, and the existence of Chapel Hill, and that there is a university there. Hundreds of thousands know about both Carolina Hall and Hamilton Hall, and have a general sense of their proximity, and that some fellow named Bart Ehrman teaches NT there. Why would the account of the gas leak-explosion have to be written by someone who was there at the time? Or even someone who knew me? Or someone who observed the event?
The event, by the way, did not happen. Would the fact that it was written by someone who knew the geography of the place have any bearing at all on the question of whether it happened? You can know the facts of a place and tell a story about it. The facts may be true, but the story not.
There are lots and lots and lots of legendary and fictional accounts that have come down to us from the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. Many, many of them mention place names and features of the places that can be verified. In no instance does that mean that the accounts were written by eyewitnesses to the events described, let alone that the events actually happened. And so why does someone like Turek use an argument like this? Because he very much wants to convince people that they can trust the book of Acts, and evidently this is the best he can do.
I’m not saying that because of this Acts is unreliable historically. I’m saying that if someone wants to argue it is, they need to come up with good arguments instead of completely irrelevant ones. I do understand that if the author had gotten all the geographical information wrong it could be relevant to whether the account was accurate or not; my argument is that getting that kind of information right is not. If Christian apologists don’t see the difference – then I’m afraid I can’t help them. 😕
Certainly though, getting particular facts right would add to the probability that it is written by an eye witness. I don’t know Turek’s argument but we could at least steel man it and say it is perhaps part of a cumulative case that Acts is written by an eye witness. Say there are three live explanations that could be equally likely: he is an eye witness, he used sources, and he made it up. Surely adding in the fact that the details are correct decreases the third option and increases the likelihood of the first and second? Or am I missing something here?
I think I disagree. Getting facts right shows that the incidentals of the story were not made up (e.g., the geography of the place). But it does not make it more likely that it is historical. See my last sentence. Look at my example again. Is the story of Hamilton Hall *probably* right because the person knew the geography of the campus of Chapel Hill? Or take a better example: doesn’t just about every novel about New York City talk about landmarks in NYC, and almost always correctly? That surely doesn’t mean that it is probable that the novel is describing something that happened there.
I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying that getting details correct makes it probable the author is an eyewitness. I am saying it makes it more probable. The effect could be miniscule though as is the case with the NYC landmarks. I’m doing a sort of Bayesian analysis of the evidence but I’m probably doing it wrong since reasoning about probabilities is always difficult.
And I hope you have a great and happy birthday today.
The Chalice and Blade looking glass pyramid sculpture at the Louvre is really there! Mary Magdalenes sarcophagus under it?
I have not read Turek, and therefore simply take at face value the excerpts and characterizations provided here. I assume he will respond to your comment if he believes it unfair. With that limited background in this topic, I cannot ignore the obvious parallel of his hypothesis with the ancient scribes who purposely added to a Jesus story/text to make it more persuasive to either their existing followers or potential converts, or to writers who falsely attributed their own writing to an apostle or eyewitness to give it the gravitas of the asserted author. Thank you for this thoughtful response.
King Kong climbed up the Empire State Building. The Empire State Building exists. Therefore we have evidence for King Kong?
Ha! Good one!
The first time I learned about this was when you were on the Unbelievable radio program debating Peter J. Williams. He tried to use the same kind of argument to say Luke was an eyewitness or historically accurate. I encourage anyone interested in the subject to watch the video on YouTube. But honestly, such views show how many of these evangelical scholars lack critical thinking skills. They know the Bible very well but do not apply sound critical thinking to their scholarship.
Bart,
Colin Hemer’s book “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History” was published in 1990, three years after his death, so it is not possible for anyone to tell him “to start thinking more clearly”. In any case, I feel that you are addressing only a misrepresentation of Hemer’s views. He wrote (244) “There is no simple and automatic route from the confirmation of details in Acts to a general defense of its historicity, but there is at least a prima facie argument for taking their evidence seriously in addressing the larger question.” This seems quite cautious to me.
I am looking forward to your further discussion of Acts. I hope that you will be able to engage with contemporary scholars such as Keener, and I still encourage you to read my 2018 Biblica article (on Galatians), which supports the accuracy of Acts on an number of points, and neutralizes the major objections.
Thanks. As you know, I wasn’t responding to Hemer, but to a question set out about an apologists’ use of Hemer. I’ve engaged Keener publicly, most recently at the Defenders Conference last year, which is available online, if you’d like to compare our positions. (I believe we even talked about Acts, if I’m not mistaken). BTW, I’ve always said that Acts is accurate on “a number of points.” It’s also inaccurate on a number of points, which makes it somewhat dubious as a reliable source, imo.
Dr. Ehrman,
I agree wholeheartedly with you. In my neck of the woods we call that common sense. Is this apologist using those arguments along with corroborative evidence such as the inclusive language to create an overall argument? I think it would be more compelling if he had the inclusive language coupled with knowledge of specific geography as evidence of a possible eyewitness. It seems plausible at first glance (at least to an amateur like myself). Do any critical scholars think that an eyewitness authoring the account is the best summation of the evidence?
Thanks, Jay
There are certainly scholars who think that the author was an eyewitness; my sense is that that is very much a minority opinion among critical scholars.
Your thoughts on Acts 27-28: the sea voyage and the wreck on Malta? Years ago I heard those chapters used as evidence for Acts being an eyewitness account. And to my laymen’s eyes, they do seem to have more of a “you are there” feel than the earliest chapters in Acts. Perhaps you’ve covered this elsewhere in the blog or in a book? But I can hear an Apologist’s podcast rant : “Of course, it’s an eyewitness account! It’s so obvious! Those liberal theologians are twisting themselves into knots because they simply don’t want to believe! Don’t read them!”
I don’t see think it’s evidence of an eyewitness account. I’ve read lots of ship wreck stories in novels that are amazingly realistic. They can even be in historical novels, with geographical details correct. To see if they are based on eyewitness reporting you have to look at other kinds of evidence (in this case, the evidence that whoever wrote Luke-Acts was not one of Paul’s traveling companions). I posted about that on the blog several times; you could probably find them by doing a search for “We-passages” or even “eyewitnesses” or “Luke”
Hello Bart, in the Four-Source Hypothesis, could “L” (or M) have included early Buddhist scriptures? Thanks!
In theory it could have contained the Iliad and the Odyssey! But since we don’t have it, we have no idea. (“It” could well have been a collection of written and oral sources, and so a “they” instead of an “it”)
There’s a genre of made-up adventures using some other author’s characters and one’s own creative settings. I’ve never considered NT literature to be “fan fic” but I guess it is … and Acts is a good example of that. You situate the hero in your own neighborhood – who’s going to fact-check you?
I like to use the movie “Titanic” as an example when talking about situations like the Bible. Certainly there was a Titanic, it hit an iceberg an sank, many of the people in the movie existed. All of that has many witnesses and evidence. And yet the two central characters and their story are total fiction. So a perfect example of a known fictional story and characters yet almost all of the rest of the movie true! And of course many people did believe they were true and probably still do! Some went to the grave of a titanic victim Dawson, but he was a crew member and not at all the character in the movie. By definition there are many similar historical fiction examples.
So, many years ago at a Methodist Church in Tampa Florida, during a Bible study discussion of mikvah’s (led by the Rabi from a nearby Temple) the Rabi pointed out his Temple had a kosher kitchen quite similar to the commercial (equipped) kitchen our church had. He then pondered, when the whole area gets excavated by archeologist thousands of years in the future,,,,, what will they make of the kitchens?
Biblical ‘experts’ have deconstructed the bible’s historic claims to folklore.
We need the same methodology, IF NOT THE SAME PEOPLE, to attend to ancient history in general.
Roman historian Pliny claimed African warriors rode giant scorpions. He claimed Hannibal rode elephants over the Alps and invaded Rome itself. And Hannibal’s nemesis, Scipio Africanus, was born to the gods. See the problem?
Most atheists don’t believe in Moses, but believe in Hannibal. Employing the same techniques of critical analysis we should presume that Hannibal, if he existed, was nothing more than a local warlord or escaped slave who gathered a band of men to himself. His story was crafted as a precautionary tale for the Romans, similar to what the bible is claimed to have done with its figures such as King David.
So why don’t we teach this? Why do we believe Hannibal, Cleopatra, Aristotle and Plato to be historic figures? Why the double standard in our “critical analysis” of things. We need a Bart Version of history. Let’s call it History II.
Certainly for one thing, no one claims stories about other historical figures are reliable enough to declare them gods and worship them. So also for consistency with those that declare the Bible true, the many miracles and wonders about other historical figures should be acknowledged too! Protestants continue to ignore the many miracles about Catholic saints for example. Jesus may not have been as special as many claim, given all the historical “evidence” of miracles and raising from the dead we have. Consistency yesfrom the religious side too!
“But I do NOT appreciate Frank _Turkey_ or Colin Hemer for making the argument”
Yikes! Someone is not a fan!
Ha! Freudian non-fan I guess!
I laughed!
In response, 3rd line it says Frank Turkey instead of Turek. I am sure it is an automatic spelling correction thing.
Ha! Freudian I guess!
Speaking of podcasts (referring to my first comment), a question unrelated to Acts:
What does “Lord Sabaoth” mean?
Your name was mentioned in a podcast regarding the term, so, like Woody Allen calling over Marshall McLuhan to settle a dispute in Annie Hall, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask you directly (although I won’t deny I’m a bit embarrassed to be doing this).
Thanks for your reply to my first question. Just now saw it.
Well, I hope I wasn’t quoted as an authority about what it means. I don’t recall ever looking into it. I’ve always assumed (since I guess I heard this when I was younger) that it referred to Yahweh as the commander of the heavenly (angelic) army. It’s in 1 Sam 1:3, but I know it best from the hymn “A Mighty Fortress Is Our God,” not a particularly reliable reference. I haven’t checked to see if it’s in Luther’s original German version of the hymn (Ein feste Burg).
You passed :-). A claim was made that you had once mistakenly said it referred to “Lord of the Sabbath.” It was an off the cuff remark on a podcast focusing on biblical and patristic views of the “seen and unseen” world by an expert in multiple ancient Middle Eastern languages who still noted your excellent knowledge of biblical Greek.
Wow, they transcripted the whole episode! BTW, feel free not to approve this comment (no, really!). I’m just passing it along for full disclosure in this day and age of easy sourcing and citing:
https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/lordofspirits/angels_and_demons_introducing_lord_of_spirits
“The parallel title that you find more commonly in the Hebrew Bible is “Yahweh Sabaoth,” which is usually translated, “Lord Sabaoth.” A lot of people in the Liturgy we transliterate rather than translate “Sabaoth.” Because of the way it looks in English, it’s spelled in English, people think it refers to the sabbath. When I say “people,” I have a recording of Bart Ehrman saying that.
Fr. Andrew: Oh boy! Really?
Fr. Stephen: So his Hebrew isn’t really up to snuff. Yeah.
Fr. Andrew: Yikes. I mean, I don’t read Hebrew, but I know that’s not the same word.
Fr. Stephen: But “Sabaoth,” the “-oth” ending is a feminine ending in Hebrew. “Saba-” means “to be many, to teem, to be many.” So that, in a nominal form in the plural, means like “big groups” or “hosts”: “Lord of hosts.” The King James Old Testament translated that.”
***
To be fair, this is a fascinating podcast.
Well, it’s possible that I was asleep, hung over, or playing a video game at the time and not paying attention….
Hello Dr Ehrman
quote:
“Jesus/apostles–>listeners–>knowers–>Papias. Papias is therefore 3 times removed from any eyewitnesses. If Eusebius can be trusted on this, then the tradition that Mark was an interpreter of Peter happened by the time the apostles told somebody what they saw, who then told somebody what they heard, who then told Papias.”
The tradition would seem to be:
The Presbyter John (an eyewitness) —> Papias
or, if Papias really was removed from the Presbyter John (seems unlikely), than it would be:
The Presbyter John (an eyewitness) —> a transmitter —> Papias
So I don’t think the issue is so bad after all. Keep in mind that Papias was located in Hierapolis. Vernon Bartlet explains:
/////
Bart, did Papias get his information from an eyewitness of jesus?
No. He got it from people who were companions of those who knew the disciples of Jesus.
Reading Acts, I got the feel that Luke is the “We” who traveled with Paul here and there on occasion, and that he probably was living in Philippi, where I recall from memory the “we” sometimes changing. Assuming Luke wrote Acts we might reasonably construct that Luke was an eyewitness sometimes and other times relied on second-hand information, perhaps keeping notes of his travels and of what other said. One example is the shipwreck told in considerable detail yet Paul tells of being in 3 shipwrecks of which nothing is known about. The detailed shipwreck is a “we” area, and thus the exceptional detail.
Do you see this as plausable?
No, I’m afraid I don’t think it’s plausible that a companion of Paul wrote Acts.
Muumuu I find the “Papias” connection very interesting. I was raised a Jehovah Witness, which I’m not anymore, and I never remember hearing any lecture or reading any publication of the name”Papais”. But I could be wrong, orI just was not listening. But like every other religion, I have come to realize that Jehovah’s Witness put emphasis on parts of the Bible repeatedly with examples they think are appropriate at the time to the subject, without a complete detail of the actual facts of the events that really took place. One example is they use passages from Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John as complementary evidence to support the event of the “Pass Over”, which they call “Memora”. But I have now learned from your research that the Gospels do not complement one and other.
Off-topic a little bite. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t like the fact that your research exposes many of their miss teachings to the point where they will make reference to your work, criticizing you without mentioning your name. But your new book on Heaven and Earth back their long teaching of Heaven and Earth though, which I think might make them think you might have vindicated them somehow.
I have a book of Christian apologetics published in 1977, in which one chapter is devoted to the question, “How reliable are these records we have about Jesus?”. You would find it very familiar! The reader is expected to be extremely impressed with the fact that scholarship has moved on since 1830 (Sir William Ramsay is quoted extensively), and with (among other things) Luke’s knowledge of titles used by Roman Governors. As always with these types of arguments, we are told that this or that would not have been known after the time period depicted, and must take these assertions on faith, even though the claim that said knowledge passed into obscurity soon afterwards is itself a historical claim and may or may not be reliable. There is also an attempt to shoehorn the Dead Sea Scrolls into saying something relevant to the New Testament (by means of quotations with lots of ellipses).
1. During the Lord’s Prayer (May your kingdom come and may your will be done) it seems Jesus is asking for the consummation of God’s kingdom to happen sooner than later. That the kingdoms arrival can arrive at anytime. Would you agree?
2. Would you consider Stephen to be the first Christian martyr? (Or the first one we know of at least). I do think he did get martyred but his long speech may have been added or altered.
1. Yup. 2. Yup, if it really happened. We don’t have other records of it, of course.
I see. I guess the same thing could be said with James the son of Zebedee right? It’s said he was executed by Agrippa in Acts. It might’ve happened, but like Stephen’s case, we only have one account of it?
Yup. Although since there’s no legendary expansions about it, maybe it’s more likely?