(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...I am ready now to explain how I did the debate with myself in front of my undergraduate class on the resolution, Resolved: The Book of Acts is Historically Reliable.
As always happens in a debate, the Affirmative side goes first and gives a prepared speech. In arguing for the affirmative, I made the following points. (Note: I’m not saying I personally agree with these points, just as I’m not going to be saying that I agreed with the Negative points. I’m simply making the best case I can for both positions.)
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!
Good try but not terribly convincing. The evidence relies on three things: 1) the author tells us he is trying to be accurate, which is not evidence at all, except of a very circular sort; 2) there are some events that appear in both Paul’s letters and Acts – well, if they knew each other (and perhaps worked together for a time) that is not surprising; and 3) archaeology bears out a few passages but if the target audience was contemporary why lie when these things could easily be checked? Also, just because the author is accurate about some things that can be checked at the time does not mean that he is accurate about anything that occurred historically.
BTW, I think you mean ‘first person plural – ‘We’ rather than ‘second person’.
Corrected! Many thanks.
Pretty sure Bart is just presenting one side of the case, and will get around to the other side. I found it fairly convincing–AS ANCIENT SOURCES GO, Acts is reliable. That’s a very significant qualifier.
Yup, I’ll get to the other side.
‘Pretty sure Bart is just presenting one side of the case…’
I realise that.
Re: Major Point Three:
Spiderman, the movie, takes place in NYC and includes many factual places and circumstances, but that doesn’t confirm the existence of Spiderman.
Dr. Ehrman, to tie together your discussion of the Book of Acts with your most recent book on historical memory, I have to say that when I stand back and take in the Gospel and Acts of “Luke” as a complete two-volume work, I see a definite trajectory from implausible to plausible, from inaccurate to accurate, from unreliable to reliable. That is to say, starting with Luke chapter 1 all the way up to Acts chapter 28, if we were to plot position in the text against plausibility, accuracy and reliability — say on a graph — I’m pretty confident that we would find a positive correlation. (That is, to get technical, if we were to imagine a graph with a horizontal labelled “Position from Luke 1 to Acts 28”, and a vertical labelled “Plausibility/Accuracy/Reliablity”, we would probably see a positive slope.) And this is what we would expect from a written account that moves from hearsay to first-person, from second- and -third-hand to first-hand, from received memory to lived memory. And that would also explain not only why the end of acts appears to have so much more extraneous detail compared to the meticulously manicured details of Luke, but also why the details themselves appear to go from highly fanciful and supernatural in the beginning to banal and mundane at the end. So in that sense, talking about whether Acts (or Luke) is “reliable” — yes or no — is a bit of an overgeneralization.
I should add that this would require a content analysis that could have been done? Would you know?
Interesting observations.
As a social scientist I tend to think quantitatively.
But then archaeologists dug up Lystra, and what did they find? They found a temple of Zeus outside the walls. Once again, the archaeological record has verified the narrative of Acts. This kind of verification happens time and time again.
” I feel the same way! “
So, when a fiction writer like John Grisham does research in preparation so that he gets the way that courts and litigation work and then uses real place names and sets his fictional story within a totally realistic framework, has he given us any reason at all to believe his story is not fiction? No.
Wow, very interesting. Can’t wait for the rest.
Have you ever debated other scholars on the historical reliability of Acts?
Not in public…
Ohhhhh, that would make an excellent debate.
If one wishes to argue for the affirmative case, and in relation to point 11 about the author of Luke wanting “to produce a historically accurate account”, can one also reasonably extend the argument to include arguing for an early date for Luke/Acts (say pre-mid-60s CE) since Paul’s execution is not addressed in Acts? James’ execution is mentioned, so why shy away from mentioning anything about Paul’s if it he had died 15-20 years prior to writing Luke/Acts.
Yes, one could argue that! But there are good reasons for thinking that Luke would not want to talk about Paul — the hero who could not be stopped — being executed.
Oh, boy. Can’t wait to hear the negative case. I heard that Ehrman guy is a tough debator! 😉
Interesting.
Very good. I am convinced. I await tomorrow’s post. 🙂
So Mr Affirmative, are you arguing that there are no discrepancies between Acts and Paul’s writings at all? For some reason I thought you had mentioned in a previous post that there were. But then again, my memory is worse than most.
I, the affirmative guy, think the differences are very minor and virtually non-important for anything.
This affirmative argument has more substance than I expected. I suspect that the negative argument will deal with the “remarkable consistency” claim by showing some discrepancies and inconsistencies..
Do you think the author of Luke/Acts actually accompanied Paul (the “we verses”)? And if he wrote the Gospel of Luke ~80 CE, when was Acts written?
See today’s post!
Being new to this blog, I’m still learning how to navigate. And so it is that I read the negative case first. As such, I am considerably impressed by Dr. Ehrman’s ability to weave an eloquent, if unconvincing, case for the affirmative. I can only hope his considerable skills are not commandeered by any of the current crop of presidential contenders.
Would you please say more about why you find it unconvincing?
nice stance you separated yourself from biases in your analaysation, however where is the negative i’m looking for your post of it but can’t find it.
Hi Bart
Something cropped in discussion that you might shed some light on from a historicity perspective.
We were talking about Stephen and I tried to do a little research but nothing come up. In other words, the only place he is ever mentioned that I could find, is in Acts itself.
So from this, what do historians conclude about Stephen based on the evidence?
1. Historians can be confident that he existed, so it is a historical fact.
2. He probably did exist based on this single attestation, but we know little about him.
3. He probably didn’t exist and the author of Luke made up the story.
4. He definitely did not exist.
5. We just don’t know.
I.e. would this single attestation move the needle on the evidence scale at all?
I’d say we don’t know for sure; the story itself (long sermon!) is probably legendary, ,in my judgment (the point of it coincides perfectly with Luke’s agenda otherwise); but whether there was an early martyr in Jerusalem by that name, I don’t think we have any real evidence to say. As you point out, this is our only reference to it, except for later legends and traditions based on this passage.
Many thanks for answering Bart.
Just one more thing, this would count as an attestation would it not, albeit a single reference many decades later?
So would that move the probability needed at all, even if just a little?
Sorry – since I don’t get the string of comments — jsut the one you’re sending — I can’t remember what you’re referring to. You’ll need to indicate what that is and then ask again, and I’ll be happy to reply.
Sorry, you did say that before, but I forgot. Perhaps you need the link as well?
We were talking about Stephen and I tried to do a little research but nothing come up. In other words, the only place he is ever mentioned that I could find, is in Acts itself.
So from this, what do historians conclude about Stephen based on the evidence?
1. Historians can be confident that he existed, so it is a historical fact.
. . . .
5. We just don’t know.
I.e. would this single attestation move the needle on the evidence scale at all?
‘I’d say we don’t know for sure; the story itself (long sermon!) is probably legendary, ,in my judgment (the point of it coincides perfectly with Luke’s agenda otherwise); but whether there was an early martyr in Jerusalem by that name, I don’t think we have any real evidence to say. As you point out, this is our only reference to it, except for later legends and traditions based on this passage.’
ME: Just one more thing, this would count as an attestation would it not, albeit a single reference many decades later?
So would that move the probability needle at all, even if just a little?
Yes, this single attestation is an attestation.
ME: Just one more thing, this would count as an attestation would it not, albeit a single reference many decades later?
So would that move the probability needle at all, even if just a little?
You: Yes, this single attestation is an attestation.
Ha ha thanks, I guess it would be.
My question is though, is it worth anything from a historical perspective in terms of what probably happened back then?
I”d say one attestation does not make an event probably, but opens up the possibility that then needs to be examined carefully.
Dear Ehrman,
Do you think Luke actually met the Apostles or people who had a real serious connection with the Apostles when writing his two-volume work, or did he write a work using knowledge that had evolved in the oral tradition?
I’m pretty sure (in myself) that he never met any apostles, but that he got everything from stories he had heard in his community, and possibly things he had read.
Dear Ehrman,
Could Luke have met an Apostle’s disciple or Disciple’s disciple? So he might have met someone competent? Or were the people Luke learned from completely independent of the Apostles?
Best Regards.
He certainly could have, yes. The question is whether he did, and to answer that quesiton one needs to ask what evidence exists either way. He certainly never says he did, even though he indicates his sources of information (earlier written Gospels and oral traditions: Luke 1:1-4)