Loading...I have been discussing the debate that I had with myself in front of my New Testament class on the resolution, Resolved: The Book of Acts is Historically Reliable. So far I have indicated what the Affirmative side argued in favor of the resolution; what the Negative side argued against the resolution; and what the Negative side said in its rebuttal to the first Affirmative speech. NOW, at last, I can indicate what the Affirmative side said in its rebuttal to the two Negative speeches. You can find the posts here: the affirmative speech arguing Acts is indeed reliable; the negative speech arguing that it is not; the negative rebuttal of what the affirmative side said
Recall: in this post I’m not indicating what I really think; I’m indicating what I would argue if this were the side I was required to argue (and what I did argue in class). Here it is:
******************************
Despite what the negative side has maintained, we remain convinced that the New Testament book of Acts is historically reliable.
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!
Could you provide some references to work that demonstrates that the oral traditions are not a good source of history? I follow, and agree with, what you have set down in this remarkable series but would like to delve into it a little deeper.
I discuss a number of studies in my book Jesus Before the Gospels. The starting place is the Singer of Tales by Albert Lord, and would include works by Jack Goody and Jan Vansina.
Is (Acts 15:36-4) John Mark the same person that some christians claim wrote the Gospel of Mark?
Yes.
According to Paul he mentions Peter and James but not the other apostles. It is long thought among scholars that most of the apostles left the city ,but can Acts 8:1-4 affirm it ?
I’m not sure when you’re referring to when you ay that scholars maintain that most of the apostles had left the city. Do you mean at the time of Jesus’ death? I’m not sure most scholars do think that, though I do. But I also think they came back. When Paul says that he didn’t meet any of the aother apostles the natural assumption seems to be that they were there to meet had he wanted to.
You would think, by now, that God, If He/She exists and really loves us, would have sent us some sort of revised UPDATE to clarify some of this stuff and make it all clear, rather than depending on stuff written 2,000 years ago with all of its problems that you have spent your life studying and writing about.
Yup, you would think!
To me it seems inconsistent, almost contradictory to argue that the author used “ancient historiographic practices” and yet he was “historically reliable.” Ancient histories often promoted ideas or lauded their heroes rather than get the details straight. Also, it comes down to the definition of “reliable.” Is the big picture close enough, or do details matter?
My sense is the affirmative is arguing that the author was doing good history by the standards of his own day. And, well, maybe so. Doesn’t mean that what he describes really happened (which is what “historically reliable means in *our* day)
The terms “historically reliable” and “historically accurate ” are used in framing this debate. Would the debate look differently if the issue was “historically inerrant”? It seems some fundamentalists regard questioning of “accuracy” as attacking “inerrancy”; if scripture is “inerrant”, it must be totally “accurate”. Is “reliability/accuracy” contingent on inerrancy?
Yes, that would be clearer, but I’m not sure people use that phrased, historically inerrant? If you want to know whether someone’s account of what happened in the park yesterday really happened you usually think in terms of accuracy rather than inerrancy, I would imagine.
Hi, Bart,
1) What is the evidence that jews believe there is no life without the soul or the body? Where in the OT can I find this?
2) When going to church I see many people weeping and going through terrible psychological distress when praying to and thinking about Jesus. In general terms, where (in your experience) does all this suffering related to Christian faith come from?
1. I suppose it starts with the creation of “Adam” who does not exist until the breath of god is put into him. The breath enlivens the body. You may want to look at my discussion in Heaven and Hell. 2. I’m not sure they would say they were “suffering”? If they do, then I suppose they are feeling bad that Jesus had to be crucified for their sake? So it’s a kind of emphathy?
I regard it also as burden of sin that they have and emotional distress
This is a fun exchange.
Your Affirmative rebuttal doesn’t really address Con’s argument that Luke can’t even get his own story straight, especially the example of the time and place of Jesus’s ascension. Surely Pro didn’t mean to suggest that that was the sort of insignificant detail that we shouldn’t expect Luke to keep straight. Does Pro have a response, or does the objection stand?
Doesn’t seem to have an answer, no….
This is an excellent thread. Thank you Dr Ehrman. Trying to be as open minded as I can be, I would say that the Affirmative case is the weaker. They have tried to over minimise the discrepancies between Acts and the Epistles far more than the Negative side have over emphasised them. The argument that Paul was prepared to compromise his principles if the situation warranted it (eg. at the Areopagus) is an interesting one but sounds like something we would do today rather than what Paul would have done. The Affirmative side have criticised the Negative side for holding Luke to modern historiographical standards. They can’t have it both ways.
Regarding the comparison between Acts 17 and Romans 1, it’s complicated, but even reading Romans 1 on its own terms (albeit in English) I have a hard time interpreting Paul to mean that *every individual pagan* is *consciously* aware of the existence and moral authority of God. Such an interpretation seems far from inevitable, and makes Paul sound like an idiot when in fact he comes across as having quite an acute mind. Paul, of course, did not have access to the vocabulary of 20th century psychology, he knew nothing of Freud or Jung, nothing of the distinction between ego and id, or between conscious, subconscious and unconscious. But even without all that, without a precise vocabulary to express it, ancient people must have perceived that the human mind is a complicated place and that it is perfectly possible to _in some sense_ be aware of something while _in another sense_ not. Moreover, Paul seems ambiguous as to whether he is talking about pagans individually or their ancestors. I could elaborate but I’m nearly at the word limit. Is it really so anachronistic to bring such nuances into the interpretation of Paul in Romans?
I’d say that since the “wrath of God is upon them” in the present tense (1:18) and that what is known about God IS manifest to them (1:19) ao that they “are” without excuse (1:20) shows that he’s talking about pagan individuals in the present
Regarding the percieved contradiction of Romans 1 and Acts 17. I would argue that it is not necessarily the audience, but rather the “tenses” past vs present. Romans 1:18 is “present tense” and Acts 17:30 is “past tense”, thus Paul is refering to two different points in time. In fact, the Areopagus speech is a timeline of Gods judgement and wrath past to present, cumulating with the judgement of the appointed one, who has conquered death. To infer a contradiction between Romans 1 and Acts 17 is a considerable stretch involving considerable cherry picking. In the “present tense” Pauls messages are consistant.
I’m not sure tha tworks if you just look at the verb tenses in both passages.. God’s judgment on the pagans in Romans 1 is certainly present and ongoing, but it’s because of how they have long behaved in teh past. !:21-31 is all past tense (aorist in Greek), of how pagans knew better but rejected God anyway so he punished them. So I’d say it too is past to present. God condemns them because of what they have *done* in the past, and they were condemned in the past for doing it as well. Paul doesn’t use the present tense for that. So too Acts says God *did* (past tense) overlook what the pagans had done. Not for Romans 1. So I’m not sure see the cherry picking?
The negative side could point out that the positive side is equivocating. When they want to persuade you that what Acts said all happened as Acts says it did, they say “Acts is historically reliable.” When one points out to them that Acts is internally and externally contradictory, they say, “well of course we can’t impose 21st century standards of historical reliability on it.” But they still want to leave us with the sense that, if Acts said it happened, it happened: which is why they can’t cede ground on this motion.
But then, that’s one reason I find formal debates frustrating. They often come down to a popularity vote over whose *definition* of the motion people prefer, rather than the quality of the arguments for and against a motion with a shared meaning. Plus, people largely vote according to their prior opinions, which I suspect explains the outcome of the debate in your class! Hard for any devout evangelical to vote against the motion, regardless of the quality of the arguments on the day.
It’s like your old self debating with your new self!