(15 votes, average: 4.73 out of 5)
Loading...This post will lay out the Negative case, arguing against the resolution, Resolved: The Book of Acts if Historically Reliable. Again, I am not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with this argument; I’m giving it as I would in a debate.
**********************************************************
The New Testament book of Acts is not historically reliable. Before showing that to be the case, I want to make two preliminary remarks, both of them related to the question of what it means for an ostensibly historical account (a narrative of what allegedly happened in the past) to be reliable.
First, when readers today want to know whether the book of Acts is reliable, they mean that they want to know whether the events that it narrates actually happened in the way it describes. Or not. Readers are not primarily interested in knowing if he wrote his account the way other authors in his day would have done. They are mainly interested in knowing whether his narrative happened the way he says it did.
Second, it is indeed important to know whether the author of the account had a solid and accurate knowledge of the laws, customs, and institutions of his day. If he did not, then obviously cannot be historically reliable. But even if he does, that in itself has no bearing on whether the stories he tells actually happened. An author may well know that in the city of Lystra there was a temple of Zeus outside the city walls; but that has no bearing on whether what he says *happened* in that temple is historically true or not. The affirmative side wants to argue that the fact that Luke was knowledgeable about the first century and that can easily be conceded. Of course he did. He lived in the first century. Naturally he knows about it. But that has no relevance to the question of whether the narratives he sets in the first century happened the way he says they did.
There are two major ways to check to see if Luke is historically accurate. The first is to see if
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!! It costs less than 50 cents a week, and every penny goes to help the hungry and homeless.
Another clear, concise, and excellent Ehrman review. Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman, is there any point in Paul’s letters where he contradicts himself? Sometimes it’s possible to date a composition by when an author contradicts himself, giving away the natural progression and maturation of his thoughts over time.
He seems to have changed his mind about some things (e.g., when the end was coming — before he died or not); but I’m not sure there are any flagrant contradictions.
If you were preaching for over twenty years that the end of the world was going to arrive any minute now, I would expect that at some point you’d eventually start to question that prediction.
Yeah, me too. But it’s amazing how many Christians still think the end is coming very soon — when these same people were saying that in the 1970s….
Talmore, the end of the Jewish world of Temple Judaism DID come to an end.
The questioning of the prediction could only begin after the generation living in the early 30s Common Era passed away. Before those 40 years were up, the Civil War started and the Jews defeated the Syrian Legion XII Fulminata; because of these two events, the end was upon them, no need to question it. Before the limit was reached for the prediction/prophecy/or writing past events as future events, the end did come.
Of course, you could look at much more modern and secular sources for historians, and find just as many conflicts in the events they record as you do in Acts. Newspaper articles contradict each other. A story is printed, then edited, then sometimes retracted altogether.
The author of Acts was not attempting to write a work of history. He was attempting to preserve stories he’d heard and perhaps read in earlier sources we have now lost, and to make them fit together. Those stories conflicted with each other, and he could not know which version was correct. And he was, of course, interested in telling a good story, because that’s how you get people interested in what you’ve written, which is how you win converts, and keep the ones you already have, and build a sense of community, a shared culture and history.
This is no more invalidating Acts as a historical source than it invalidates Thucydides–who is actually attempting to write history. And yet Thucydides contradicts himself in many ways–for example, referring to the events described in the Iliad by Homer, he rejects Homer’s claim that there were a thousand Greek ships at Troy, but then uses Homer’s information about the men on those ships to estimate the size of the Greek military force. The Iliad is mythology, poetry, oral history written down long after the events that inspired it, and full of supernatural references, yet is treated as a valid historical resource by one of the first true historians whose work has survived.
If we apply an overly strict standard to ancient sources, we lose any hope of studying ancient history, except as a collection of dusty pot shards and ruined temples. Our ancestors have bequeathed us something far more valuable–their words and ideas. Without which, we would be wallowing in a pit of pure ignorance regarding the origins of our nations, cultures, and beliefs.
The problem is though: If God inspired Luke to write down all that he wrote in the Book of Acts, then you’d expect 100% accuracy in everything he records…but clearly this is not the case. Remember, Christians generally claim that everything written in the bible was fully inspired by God, & because of that, it can be relied on as being 100% accurate…which again, it’s clearly not. The written, “fully inspired by God” accounts of Jesus absolutely guaranteeing that his…or the Son of Man’s [Second] Coming would take place before the generation standing right in front of him would pass away…that some of those standing there would not taste death until this grandiose event took place…coupled with the “fully inspired by God” things the rest of the New Testament says about the Second Coming of Christ being an absolutely certain “about to be” event. Very clearly this grandiose event never took place, which according to Deut 18:20-22 makes Jesus a false prophet. I say all this, because in my former life as a fully committed evangelical Christian, I would always use the “100% fully inspired word of God” as a defense for the complete accuracy of all it contains…even though I could clearly see that there were many contradictions, etc… which resulted in me experiencing real cognitive dissonance. So the real issue is: if Luke’s account in the Book of Acts was fully inspired by God, as Christians claim it is…then why so many discrepancies & contradictions?
Do you think Luke wasn’t aware of his own inconsistencies? Possibly, in his mind it all made sense, but when he wrote it down, he forgot what he previously wrote in the first book or misremembered some of the details?
Yes, I think he probalby wasn’t
Really? You really think ‘Luke’ was not aware of some of the glaring inconsistencies in the accounts of Paul’s conversion/calling or in the ascension occurring on the day of the resurrection or 40 days afterwards, from Bethany or from Jerusalem? How could an author be so unaware of his own writings? Do you think he was just (rather mindlessly) preserving contradictory traditions rather than functionin as a true author of his work? Or do you have a different explanation or view?
People often don’t see their own contradictions! Happens a lot, I’m afraid….
Could you say something about Luke’s possible knowledge of Paul’s letters? Perhaps dedicate a whole post to this?
Good idea.
Do you think Luke or any of the other Gospel writers had access to Paul’s letters?
Nope.
Really? The Author of Acts had no access to the information in 1st Corinthians? 1st Thessalonians? Romans? 2nd Corinthians? 2nd Thessalonians? Galatians?
Sure about that?
I don’t know of any contrary evidence, but I’m open to seeing it.
For starters…. do these verses ring any bells?
|1|||| So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half,
(Acts 18:11)
|2|||| …he stayed in the province of Asia a little longer.
(Acts 19:22)
|3|||| ….Greece, where he stayed three months
(Acts 20:2-3)
|4|||| When two years had passed, Felix was succeeded by Porcius Festus, but because Felix wanted to grant a favor to the Jews, he left Paul in prison.
(Acts 24:27)
|5|||| For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him.
(Acts 28:30)
I”m not sure I understand your point. None of those verses says or hints that the author had read or even knew of Paul’s letters to these places.
Would it be wrong to assume that Luke either had to have been Paul’s traveling companion, or had to have used the contents of Paul’s letters to come up with characters like Jason, and Sosthenes? (2 of approx 12-16 associates’ names cited in Acts + at least 1 Epistle. )
|||||Sosthenes|||||||||||||| in Acts and 1st Corinthians
“Paul, …..and our brother Sosthenes”, 1 Corinthians 1:1
“Then the crowd there turned on Sosthenes” …. Acts 18:17
|||||Jason |||||||||||||| in Acts and Romans
“They rushed to Jason’s house”… Acts 17:5
“they dragged Jason and some other believers” Acts 17:6
“and Jason has welcomed them into his house.” Acts 17:7
“they made Jason and the others post bond” …. Acts 17:9
“Timothy, ….sends .. greetings …, as do Lucius, Jason and Sosipater,” Romans 16:21
There are other options which might be more compelling. Anyone who knew about Paul’s life (without traveling with him or having read his letters) probably knew the names of some of his companions/disciples, e.g.
Dear Sir:
You are correct. Those verses–individually, and in and of themselves–do not suggest the author of Acts knew of the epistles. But each of them do indicate a lapse of time. That pattern of time lapse could be a deliberate hint.
Whether deliberate or not, I have personally observed, independent of others, those particular verses in Acts as designating the location of authorship of the mentioned epistles, when the events, people, places surrounding them in Acts, and within the Epistles are considered together.
For example, I observe that 1st Thessalonians was written in Corinth after Silas and Timothy rejoined Paul after their quest to check on the church in Thessalonica. Acts 18:11 is the pinpoint.
|1|||| So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half,
(Acts 18:11)
Consider the people & their locations in Acts 17 along with that of 1st Thessalonians:
Acts 17:14
The believers…….sent Paul to the coast, but Silas and Timothy stayed at Berea.
Acts 17:15
[they brought Paul] to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him [ASAP]
1 Thess 3:2
“We sent Timothy”, …..
Acts 17:16
While Paul was waiting for them in Athens,……..
1 Thess 3:1
“we thought it best to be left by ourselves in Athens”.
Acts 18:1
…….Paul left Athens and went to Corinth.
1 Thess 3:6
“But Timothy has just now come to us from you …….”
Acts 18:5
When Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul devoted himself exclusively to preaching, testifying to the Jews that Jesus was the Messiah.
|1|||| So Paul stayed in Corinth for a year and a half,
(Acts 18:11)
1 Thess 1:1
“Paul, Silas[a] and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians ……..”
Respectfully submitted,
Greatly honored,
Blessings, Sir.
AnotherBart
How would you (as the negative guy) respond to the objection that Luke is only narrating in Acts 9, but in 22 and 26 he records speeches by Paul? Surely a character in a story (Paul) is allowed to disagree with a reliable narrator (Luke) and the character can even be wrong? If speeches are recorded accurately, then it doesn’t matter if the speaker was right.
Yup, that’s possible. My view is that every time a story gets told, it changes. But that means that it can’t be historically reliable every time. That’s not a problem if historical reliability is not your concern…
Thanks and I agree, but I meant something a bit different. We have 3 accounts of Paul’s conversion. Let’s assume they are indeed contradictory and call them A, B and C. But only A is given by Luke, in B and C he quotes speeches by Paul. Even if B and C are contradictory with A, the author only claims that A is what actually happened. B and C only tell us what Paul said at some point. Should we really see this as a contradiction?
Yup, I get it. But it would mean that the story changed from one of Paul’s versions to the next, and again when it came to Luke’s version.
It is always baffling to me how these manuscripts contained so many inconsistencies, not just with other writings, but within the same manuscript -itself-. The fact these were so obvious must mean some had to have been left in on purpose. I guess it just goes to underscore that the NT writers weren’t necessarily trying to write a logical, coherent history of events like we are used to reading these days. They had other motives and agendas on their mind, and a painstaking recreation of the facts was not of primary interest to them. Given the glaring preponderance of these inconsistencies, it is beyond belief that some Christian interpreters still insist these books were handed down by God himself and are thus immutable and perfect. On the contrary, these early Christian manuscripts are all too human.
Or Christians themselves didn’t agree on what had happened–there were conflicting stories, as of course there would be in any situation like this. And no definitive way to ‘prove’ who was right.
The author of Luke and Acts was not writing those books in a vacuum. That’s something we should never allow ourselves to forget.
Sure some sections in Acts may look a bit contrary, but it’s nothing that a dab of apologetic harmonization tonic (AHT) can’t fix. See those sticky Acts 9 and 22 sections; just pour a few drops of AHT on each page and there we go … half of Paul’s companions didn’t see anything but heard a voice and the remaining companions saw a light but didn’t hear any voice. Contradiction repaired. There isn’t any contradiction too tough for AHT, and for just three easy payments of ….
Ha!
I thought this was a prepared speech, but you are already responding to the affirmative’s arguments – “The
affirmative side wants
to argue that…” Is it normal to do this at this stage of a debate? I thought that came next?
It’s common so long as you don’t engage in a specific refutation of a specific particular point, but are generally attacking the affirmative position.
Maybe Paul changed his views of pagans between speaking in Athens and writing Romans or he was willing to be a little bit dishonest if he thought it would win converts. Theoretically it might be Luke who gives an accurate view of his preaching, not Paul himself.
Yup, that’s certainly possible. The bit issue, as always, is whether it’s probable — in this case, that someone writing 30 years or more later has a better sense of what a person thinks than the person at the time did…..
of course, in my mind, Luke, Paul, Aristarchus, later, Timothy, and (highly likely) Peter, were there, coming and going from that rented house in Rome from 60-62 A.D.
And Luke was saying, “Hey Paul, how did Stephen’s speech go again?”
And Paul said “Hey Luke, let me ‘splain this to you ONE MORE TIME, dude.”
And Luke said “Slow down, bro! My ink is running out! Don’t pull another ‘on and on’ like you did when Eutychus fell out the window.”
“he was willing to be a little bit dishonest if he thought it would win converts”
I personally believe this encapsulates Paul’s entire mission in a nutshell. He wasn’t so much concerned with saving souls as he was with saving his own soul by hastening the parousia. This may be contraversial to say, but if you give Paul an unbiased reading it’s rather obvious that he’s a bit of a selfish prick.
I would use the word “arrogant”.
I respectfully disagree.
Paul would’ve forsaken his own salvation for the sake of others:
“For I could wish that I myself were cursed
and cut off from Christ
for the sake of my people,
those of my own race,”
Romans 9:3
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+9:3&version=NIV
Paul dubbed himself the worst sinner of all. Didn’t look down on slave traders, adulterers, murderers, the immoral, because he himself had approved of Stephen’s murder. Yet God chose him!
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance:
Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—
|||||of whom I am the worst.|||||
But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that
|||||in me, the worst of sinners, |||||
Christ Jesus might display his immense patience
as an example
for those who would believe in him
and receive eternal life.
I Timothy 1:15-16
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Timothy+1%3A15-16&version=NIV
Regarding the condemnation of Gentiles you mention in Romans 1, I’ve heard the argument that Paul here is quoting a common Jewish condemnation against Gentiles, to which Paul gives his own response to beginning in chapter 2. It was said it’s harder to see this in English, but the wording in Greek of lends more credibility to this interpretation. So under this idea, the end of Romans 1 is not actually Paul’s voice, and we don’t get Paul’s voice until he gives his response in chapter 2. How credible is this?
It’s usually thought that if Paul *is* quoting an earlier source (most scholars don’t think so; but if he is…) it is precisely because he agrees with it.
Interestingly, when I was growing up in the church, there was more emphasis on Acts than on Paul’s letters.
Dr. Ehrman, Does Acts having Jesus with the disciples for the biblically repetitive “forty days” before ascending influence opinion on its reliability? It seems everything takes 40 days (in the wilderness) or 40 days and nights (rain for the flood) or 40 years (Israelites in the desert)…. what is it with 40 anyway?
Yup, it’s a round number in the Bible for “a long time.”
I have to agree with “hammerofthegods” above – I can’t understand for the life of me how an author can contradict his own self. Is it truly just poor attention to detail and lack of intellect (requiring even poorer attention to detail and intellect on the part of anyone claiming his book is consistent, let alone divine) – or is there some cultural difference underlying it, as suggested previously, that accuracy of story details in that period, or perhaps that literary genre, was considered unimportant relative to the overall message?
I know my own family have claimed this when faced with irrefutable contradictions in the Bible, but it seems to kind of fly in the face of divine inspiration, let alone fundamentalist ideas of ‘infallibility’.
Wait a second.
Not only is there room for criticism: Why wait mostly until during and after the put down of the Jewish Revolt to start writing about Jesus?
Why would Luke wait mostly until during and after the put down of the Jewish Revolt to start writing about Paul when he was an acquaintance of Paul? One would write about a personal acquaintance before a secondary acquaintance. Why would Acts not begin with the personal acquaintance, Paul, and have the biographical information be more similar to the autobiographical information?
Would Luke have been someone entrusted with copies of the original letters of Paul, preserving the legacy of Paul after Paul died, referencing the letters from rich, Paul’s estate? He/someone else/they certainly cared about him after “Paul” “died.”
You often say, Matthew and John did not write the canonical gospels. Who would have preserved the legacy of Jesus after Jesus died; Why not a rich and educated Samaritan for the parable about the Good Samaritan; why not an educated Roman general because Jesus at least prayed for his daughter if not made her well; Why not the educated of a town in gratitude for relief from their troubles by Jesus’s exorcism of a possessed man?
Hi Bart. How do you think Luke (or whoever he was) knew all that he knew about the ancient world if he had not actually been to the places he said he was. Did he have access to maps or other historical writings that would have given him information about these places?
My guess is that he was well-traveled.
Dr. Ehrman:
I wasn’t a fan of inerrancy 30 years ago (and I’m only 47) and I’m still not. My brand of Christianity has room for scriptural “discrepancies” you describe here. They’re not a problem, to me. Could it be that Paul was just adapting his message, like this verse indicates?
1 Corinthians 9:20 “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.”
“Even more striking than the contradictions in the itinerary and travels of Paul are the discrepancies in his preaching. Here I give just one example. In Acts 17 when Paul is preaching to the pagans of Athens, he tells them that they worship idols out of ignorance. They simply don’t know any better. And because of that, God overlooks their mistake; but he now gives them a chance to recognize the truth and worship him alone. That stands in sharp contrast with the views that Paul himself lays out in his letter to the Romans. In chapter one Paul states his views of pagan idolatry and false worship, and they are completely contrary to what he allegedly said in Acts 17. In Romans Paul tells us that pagans worship idols precisely because they did know that there was only one God who was to be worshiped, and they rejected that knowledge in full consciousness of what they were doing. And because of that God has cast his wrath down upon them. Well which is it? Do they commit idolatry out of pure ignorance so God overlooks their mistake? Or are they fully aware of what they’re doing so God judges them? Assuming Paul himself knew what his own views were, you would have to say that Acts has misrepresented the very core of his preaching message.”
Dear Sir:
Please excuse me if this question has been answered, but has anyone who dates Acts after 65 A.D. explained the why it is so complimentary toward the Romans in their treatment of Paul? To place it as having been written 65 – 70 – This is a bit like saying George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden were (forgive me if I’ve used this analogy before): chumming it up atop the world trade center in 2005. I just can’t see it.
Christianity was illegal after 65 A.D. yes? Then you have 66 A.D.> Titan & siege of Jerusalem, etc. etc. destruction of temple Aug 70 A.D. Then Domitian was emperor 81-96.
My understanding of 70 – 100 is quite lacking. What time period would there have been a clear motive for the writing of Acts? When would it have been beneficial to anyone to emphasize Paul’s rights as a Roman Citizen?
Sincerely,
AnotherBart
The entire two-volume work of Luke-Acts goes out its way to exculpate the Ronmans for their treatments of Jesus and his apostles; sometimes this is seen to be driven by an apologetic purpose.
🙂 Which books of yours would have more info on this (Luke-Acts letting the Roman Govt. off the hook)?
Interested.
Thx much.
AnotherBart
I don’t deal with it at any length in any of my books; I mention it briefly in my Introduction to the NT.
μάχαιραν vs. διαμερισμόν
If you were on trial for causing riots, and possessed two versions of the same saying from your leader whose teachings you follow, which would you/your lawyer be more likely to submit as evidence: A or B?
version A
Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν· οὐκ ἦλθον βαλεῖν εἰρήνην ἀλλὰ μάχαιραν.
version B
δοκεῖτε ὅτι εἰρήνην παρεγενόμην δοῦναι ἐν τῇ γῇ; οὐχί, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀλλ’ ἢ διαμερισμόν.
–Truly honored by the dialogue, Sir.
–AnotherBart
I’m definitely goin’ for B.
I feel like an ignoramus intruding upon a learned discourse, but I’d like to ask a question of interest to me and see if anyone can chip in and educate me.
Do we believe that something really dramatic happened to Paul that day, and if so – what?
As a non believer I have to think it was a vision, a dream or something similar, but what? Was he consumed with guilt over his historic actions, and why did it hit him there and then?
How long after the event was the story written down?
It feels as if Paul was such a pivotal individual in the growth of Christianity, that something special must have happened, but how did it become so massively important in the new religion?
I give a long discussion of this in my book Triumph of Christianity. I think that yes, he had a vision of some sort. But of course, we can’t psychoanalyze what it was all about. He, at least, believed he saw Jesus a long time after he had died, and that completely flipped the course of his life.
I have made an in-depth, point-by-point reply:
Luke the Unreliable Historian? (Debunking Yet More of the Endless Pseudo-“Contradictions” Supposedly All Over the Bible)
Excerpt:
Paul came by himself to Athens, and gave instructions to the sailors who brought him there to inform Silas and Timothy (presumably through some sort of mail, or by going back to where they were) to meet him in Athens “as soon as possible.”
1 Thessalonians, contrary to Ehrman’s skeptical “gotcha!” claim, did not assert that Paul “came to Athens precisely in the company of Timothy.” It simply says that Paul was writing to the Thessalonians, about whom he was concerned (2:17-18), because of their suffering (2:13-14). So he sent Timothy (who was at this time with him) to exhort and comfort the Thessalonians (3:2-7). We know Timothy was eventually with him in Athens, but we don’t know from this text that he *went* there with him.
Paul had asked that Timothy and Silas come as soon as possible. So Timothy eventually arrived (perhaps Silas couldn’t make it), and Paul sent him off to comfort other suffering Christians. Where’s the contradiction? There is one if a person sets up a straw man.
Paul doesn’t join up with Timothy until later in Acts, not while he is still in Athens.
As I already noted, Paul stated that Timothy was eventually with him in Athens, because he sent him somewhere else:
1 Thessalonians 3:1-2 (RSV) Therefore when we could bear it no longer, we were willing to be left behind at Athens alone, [2] and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s servant in the gospel of Christ, to establish you in your faith and to exhort you,
I have now made eleven in-depth replies to your articles:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong?s=ehrman+errors+%23
I’m a professional Catholic apologist, with 22 published books.
More excerpts from my article above. I forgot to list the URL:
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2022/03/ehrman-errors-11-luke-the-unreliable-historian.html
Excerpts:
Ascension in Bethany or Jerusalem?
Luke 24:50-52 / Acts 1:9-12
In Luke 24, the text implies that Jesus ascended from Bethany, and that they “returned to Jerusalem” afterwards. In Acts 1, they also “returned to Jerusalem” after the Ascension took place on “the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem.” Where’s the contradiction? Wikipedia (“Mount of Olives”) explains that “On the south-eastern slope of the Mount of Olives lies the Palestinian Arab village of al-Eizariya, identified with the ancient village of Bethany mentioned in the New Testament . . .” Likewise, John 11:18 states: “Bethany was near Jerusalem, about two miles off,”.
Neither text asserts that Jesus ascended to heaven from Jerusalem. He did so from the Mount of Olives, which Acts rightly distinguishes as separate from Jerusalem, while Luke mentions Bethany, which lies on the Mount of Olives.
***
in Acts 22:17, Paul (like Luke) also uses the technique of compression. He recounts his conversion, then skips right over the three years in Arabia at Acts 22:17 and starts talking about being in Jerusalem and the initial skepticism that he had converted, after persecuting Christians.