Loading...I am in the middle of a thread dealing with debates over the New Testament book of Acts, the first account that we have of the history of the Christian church at its very beginnings – starting with the events happening right after the resurrection of Jesus and covering the spread of the Christian faith through the Roman world up until the time Paul reached the city of Rome, presumably in the early 60s CE. And so this is an account of the first three decades of Christianity. It’s the only one we have of this period. That’s one reason it is so important to know if it’s historically reliable or not – if it’s not, we have very restricted access to what was happening in these most critical years of the early Christian movement.
Before I discuss the issue of Acts’ historically reliability
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!
I love your take on Luke and also yesterday’s Misquoting Jesus on the fundamentalists.
Keep up the good work.
Hi bart
I know you are a New tesament scholar but what are your thoughts on the date of the book of daniel.
I have heard that most scholars date then from the Elephantine papyri to 200 bce or something like that.
It’s almost certainly written during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, so in the 160s BCE
So is the book of Daniel history or prophecy. I have heard that 1-6 chapters are by some other author than the author of the rest of the book.
They are by another author and are a different genre, but there are some interesting similarities (e.g., the dreams in Dan. 2 and at the end of th ebook.) The second half is framed as “prophecy” but it is prophecy written after the fact, recording things the author knows has happened, but presenting them as predictions of what will happen. It’s a nice ploy, since the reader sees, hey, he was right!!
To show the inaccuracy of Acts, you would need to show that the parallels that Luke makes are in conflict with other evidence. But Paul’s authentic letters comport with the data in Acts, don’t they? You mentioned Paul’s imprisonment in Philippi in Acts. Both Philippians and 1 Thessalonians confirm that he suffered persecution in Philippi.
Paul writes that he performed signs and wonders.
Galatians confirms that Peter and Paul were theologically aligned on the need to include Gentiles. Read my article on this. I will continue to tell you to do so until you have done so, or stop claiming to be an informed expert.
Keep reading the posts. The details almost always differ. One example. Did Timothy originally accompany Paul to Athens (Acts 17) or not (1 Thess. 3).
You wrote “Keep reading the posts. The details almost always differ. One example. Did Timothy originally accompany Paul to Athens (Acts 17) or not (1 Thess. 3).”
I previously pointed out to you that 1 Thess 3 does NOT show that Timothy was in Athens with Paul, and you agreed! 1 Thess 3 merely shows that Paul was in Athens when he sent instructions to Timothy to come to him soon via Thessalonica. Acts 17:15 explains how these instructions reached Timothy: “Those who conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and after receiving instructions to have Silas and Timothy join him as soon as possible, they left him.” When Paul could “bear it no longer” (1 Thess 3:1) he sent his Beroean friends back to Macedonia with instructions to Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible, asking Timothy to go via Thessalonica because he (Paul) was anxious to hear news of the Thessalonians believers. This reconstruction is economical and fits all the facts. You will doubtless point out, as you did before, that it is not the reconstruction that immediately comes to mind, but that is precisely the point. for it proves lack of dependency.
I surely didn’t agree. In 1 Thes. 3:1-2 Paul indicates that he sent Timothy from Athens back to the Thessalonians. He was willing to be left alone in Athen asd so he sent Timothy back to the Thessalonians.
In 1 Thess 3:1-2 Paul says that he was left alone in Athens after he sent Timothy to Thessalonica. This does NOT mean that Timothy was in Athens (though the author of Acts would think so if he was dependent on the letters). I suggest that Paul sent his Beroean companions from Athens to Macedonia to tell Timothy to go to Thessalonica. Paul was alone in Athens after the Beroean friends departed. Previously you agreed that this makes sense of the data. Have you changed your mind? If so, why?
I should have mentioned that on July 1st last year you wrote “Yup, its possible”, concerning my proposal that Paul was left alone in Athens after sending his messengers to tell Timothy to go to Thessalonica. If you think it is improbable, you would need to show that it is in tension with either Paul or Acts, or that it requires additional assumptions that are not supported by either account. It is not logical to dismiss a harmonization proposal on the grounds that other harmonizations fail the parsimony test. So, do you still think it is improbable? If so, why?
I did? How weird. Well, if I did say that, I almost certainly would have meant that it’s POSSIBLE. It wouldn’t, for example, violate the second law of Thermodynamics which, I believe, is NOT possible. In that case I suppose I meant that it’s possible that Acts got the information right and Paul got in wrong — since of course that is possible. It’s also possible they are both wrong. It don’t think it’s possible they’re both right.
The fact that Paul says ‘he was left alone’ suggests that he was previously with somebody. The most logical interpretation is that Timothy was with him (and probably others). The alternative scenario, where ‘Paul sent his Beroean companions from Athens to Macedonia to tell Timothy to go to Thessalonica,’ seems very forced to me.
I believe that while in Athens, Paul received news from Thessalonica indicating that the situation there was very difficult, making it hard for him to go there himself. It probably wasn’t easy to convince him to remain in Athens and send Timothy instead, but he eventually accepted.
I’m definitely on Bart’s side this time!
Bart, you are still not answering the question. What in 1 Thess is inconsistent with the idea that Paul was left alone in Athens after sending the Macedonians back to Macedonia to tell Timothy to come to him via Thessalonica? It seems to me that this is just as consistent with Paul’s words, as the usual assumption that Timothy was in Athens. I am not the only one to point out that 1 Thess does not require that Timothy was ever in Athens. When we read 1Thess 3:1-5 for the first time our minds jump to the conclusion that Timothy was in Athens, but when an alternative explanation has been proposed, we need to address it.
He doesn’t mention the Macedonians with him. He indicates in 2:17 that he has been bereft of the people in Thessalonica. He indicates in 3:1 that he was willing to be left alone in Athens and so sent Timothy to establish them in their faith and exhort them. THe prose is really quite straightforward — he didn’t send Macedonians and he didn’t try to fetch Timothy. I can’t think of a reason to make it say something other than that except to reconcile it with a contradictorypassage in a different book written by a different author. I simply can’t imagine anyone would get that interpretation out of the text itself. If you don’t see this then I’m afraid a back and forth is simply not going to be fruitful.
Concerning 1 Thess 3:1 you wrote, “I simply can’t imagine anyone would get that interpretation out of the text itself. If you don’t see this then I’m afraid a back and forth is simply not going to be fruitful.”
It seems that you have completely misunderstood my point. I agree that no-one would infer from 3:1 alone that there were Macedonians with Paul in Athens (that shows that Acts is not dependent on 1 Thess). Either Timothy left Athens, or some others (Macedonians) left Athens and passed a message to Timothy. The former theory is the simplest if we are trying to account only for the data in 1 Thess. But the latter also fits the data in 1 Thess. It requires that there were messengers sent by Paul to Timothy, but we are not multiplying entities when we add these messengers, for they are mentioned in Acts.
Your argument is that there is a CONTRADICTION between 1 Thess and Acts. But when it is pointed out to you that the history given in Acts could ALSO have led to Paul writing 1 Thess 3:1, you should concede, “that also fits, so there is no contradiction”.
If Timothy was with Paul in Athens and then left, then Acts 17:15-16 is incorrect. THe people who came with Paul to Athens left to tell Timothy and Silas to join him when they could. Timothy was not with Paul again until later. In 1 Thess 3:1, on the other hand, Paul is with Timothy but decides to be left alone and so sent him to Thessalonica.
Do you know of any commentators (other htan those who think the Bible has to be inerrant and so cannot have a contradiction in it) who read these passages the way you do?
You wrote, “In 1 Thess 3:1, on the other hand, Paul is with Timothy”
Here you simply reassert your own conclusion. I have asked you the question many times and am struggling to find new ways to ask it. You seem to have a mental block when it comes to arguments that are inconvenient to your theory that Acts was not written by a companion of Paul. I’ll try again.
Paul writes to show his readers that he was so desperate to hear news of them that he was prepared to be left alone in Athens in order to hear from them sooner. Paul is not writing to tell them about the movements of Timothy (they already knew). Therefore we have no way of knowing (from 1 Thess alone) whether Timothy departed from Athens, or Paul’s messengers departed from Athens. Both theories work. Are you not arbitrarily picking the theory that allows you to declare a contradiction with Acts?
“Do you know of any commentators (other htan those who think the Bible has to be inerrant and so cannot have a contradiction in it) who read these passages the way you do?”
This question is irrelevant, but Karl Donfried did, though he overcomplicated it.
Hi, Bart,
You mentioned that Jesus’ teachings are good in essence like the ones about giving to the poor, sacrificing yourself to others, loving your neighbour and so on and that his teachings can be applied by those who want to. I want to share with you my own perspective on this. It is a bit different, I think.
The teaching may be good, but we need to take into account why should one nurture it. Why do these things? Is it born out of compassion and caring because of the humane part of ourselves? Or is it because this is what God wants and this is what gets you into the kingdom? The good should be done naturally, as innate in us and learning to do good by being done to us. For me the reason someone has for doing something is greater and far more important than the final result (on an individual level). I don’t think you can cut in half his teachings, keep the love your neighbour, and brush aside the rewards in heaven part and call it *his*, because then it is no longer *his* teachings, but yours, inspired from him or others.
What is your opinion as to the time that ‘Luke’ wrote Luke and Acts, chronologically from the time that Paul was missionising in Asia Minor. Various papers/books I’ve read differ as some think ‘Luke’ was a companion to, or knew Paul, circa 55/60, others that he was writing maybe much later, using others testimony. perhaps 90-100 or even as late as reign of Trajan or Hadrian.
The standard critical view, which I agree with, is that the Gospel of Luke was written after Mark (written ca. 70 CE) (since Luke almost certainly used Mark as a source) and probably after Matthew. It is usually dated to 80-85 CE. Acts was written by the same person so either soon after that or later. These days many critical scholars aregue that Acts dates to around 120 CE because, in their view, it’s author used the writings of Josphus. I’m not convinced by that but don’t think it’s implausible. I have a full discussion of why the author of Acts was NOT a companion of Paul despite that being the older traditional view, in my book Forged. I”ve posted on it a number of times: here’s one instance: https://ehrmanblog.org/did-any-companion-of-paul-write-luke-and-acts/
Hello there Bart. Thank you very much for your response. Off to read the article you pointed me too.
Dr. Ehrman,
Someone said that Gal. and 1 Cor. are the most substantiated of Paul’s authentic letters because very early; by the late first and early second centuries i.e. 1 Clem. and Ignatius; these writers are already quoting these letters. Is this correct?
Yes, 1 Clement — which is also written to the church of Corinth — does refer to 1 Corinthians and appears to quote it in a couple of places (withouth indicating it is quoting it). Ignatius too in a few places uses words that may well have been taken from 1 Corinthians. I’m not sure there are any quotations of Galatians that early.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is this the key phrase for knowing that Paul is about to hand on traditional material which originated with other, early followers of Jesus in 1 Cor. 15:3-7: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance…” ?
* This is important because one scholar said it wasn’t tradition but all visions that only Paul himself had. *
Paul is saying that the creed he is quoting in vv. 3-5 came to him from the oral tradition.
I was raised and educated a Catholic. Long story short, about 45 years ago I started a search for the true Christian church. I read the Acts of the Apostles expecting a revelation. Disappointed!
The only thing I took out of that was that the Jerusalem Church (the true church?) was at odds with Paul.
Of course, with all the research books that, thankfully, came out over the last 30 years. I know a lot more.
My question is: What is your opinion about the Didache? Was that congregation an early church that was not Pauline?
No, I don’t think the Didache shows any indicatin of coming out of a Pauline church. One problem with it is that it is made up of three different soruces that may have come from three different areas/churches. But none of them appears Pauline.
Dr. Ehrman,
What should be made of this? 1 Cor. 11:23ff “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread…” Most scholars seem to think that this is traditional material as well, but Paul doesn’t indicate a “middle man” only that it was “from the Lord.” How do we know this, AND especially 1 Cor. 15:3ff are traditional material (as most scholars say)? – Because there is one unorthodox critical scholar who claims that all of 1 Cor. 11:23ff and 1 Cor. 15:3ff were only based on visionary experiences that Paul had. I know this theory is not the norm, but how can it be countered?
Well, the best counter is that it’s not what Paul says. He *could* be claiming to have received 1 Cor. 11:23ff from a visoin, the actual language he uses again is the typical terminology for having heard an oral tradition that is now being passed along. And the fact that we have the same tradition in Luke (who oddly shows no signs of knowing Paul’s writings, though his theology is similar in many ways) and a slightly different tradition (of the Lord’s supper) in Matthew and Mark shows that in fact there were (basically similar) traditions in oral circulation.
Dr. Ehrman,
So “For I received from the Lord…” NEED NOT mean directly from the Lord; by obtaining trustworthy traditions from Jesus followers counts just the same?
No, it need not. I’ve often heard people say “The Lord spoke to me through your sermon” etc.
Dr. Ehrman,
I should’ve been a bit clearer….you say that Paul’s mention of the Last Supper is traditional material, yet he simply says “For I received from the Lord…[some assume he means, directly i.e. in a vision] ”… which you of course say is not the case, but, again, that it was actually traditional material…Therefore, it must be true that in Paul’s determination; something can still be “from the Lord [himself]…” even if it was not directly so, but a tradition he got from others, is that correct?
That’s the questoin I was addressing. He does think he got it from the Lord, just as my mother heard the Lord speaking to her in last week’s sermon.
Dr. Ehrman,
So the only tradition in 1 Cor. is 1 Cor. 15:3ff …conversely…1 Cor. 11:23ff is based on a vision, is this all correct?
I don’t know what it’s based on. I thought I said that?