Loading...Now that I’ve devoted two posts to the major sine qua non of the book of Acts – one that lays out its major themes and emphases, the other that deals with who wrote it, when, and why, I can provide some suggestions for further reading, important works written by scholars for non-scholars. I have given brief annotations for each book to give you a sense of what it’s about and so help you decide which, if any, might be worth your while.
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 guess I’m looking for a book that deals primarily with the historical aspects of Acts as it pertains to Early Christianity. Something that doesn’t get too much into the mud of theology, so to speak. Does one of the books above meet my criteria?
I’m not quite clear what you have in mind. Are you mainly interested in whether Acts is historically reliable or in knowing what actually happened in the time period Acts is describing? The Hengel book discusses Acts reliability in a very conservative way, arguing it’s basically historical most of the time. For what actually happened most of the time you’re better off with descriptions of the early history of Xty. Or, say, books that give historical accounts of the life of Paul, etc.
Does Acts of the Apostles fit any particular literature genre in the ancient world? I am thinking like the books of Daniel and Revelation being apocalyptic literature.
It can be classified in the genre of the “General History,” which normally provides a historical account of where a “people” come from, e.g., a history of the Roman people or a history of the Jews; this is a kind of history of the chrisitans.
I recently discussed the tongues of fire in Acts 2 with someone from a Pentecostal background. It seems to me that the author intended to convey a miraculous event enabling the disciples to preach to people of various languages.
They mentioned Paul’s reference to “tongues” in 1 Corinthians 14, which are mysterious to humans but known to God. I doubt Paul would identify with modern Pentecostal practices, but I’m unsure what he specifically meant.
Perhaps Paul aimed to counter early, mystical teachings, like those in the Gospel of Thomas, where speaking in riddles was seen as unedifying to the community. I’d appreciate your perspective as a critical scholar on these passages.
Yes, the tongues in Acts 2 are known languages (unknown to the speakers!) in which they preach the gospel to those of other lands; the tongues Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 14 are unknown languages (unknown to everyone). In 1 Cor. 13 he speaks of “tongues of humans and of angels” and it may be that he recognizes there are two kinds.
Fascinating. Do you think the practices and experiences found in a modern Pentecostal church, particularly the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues,” align with the spiritual events and issues that Paul was addressing in his letters to the Corinthian church?
Are there any other historical accounts or references, either preceding or following Paul’s writings, that describe or mention the phenomenon of “speaking in tongues” or similar ecstatic utterances?
Certainly in the Pentecostal tradition Paul’s teaching on tongues, along with Acts 2, are seen as directly relevant. And yes, glossolalia (the technical term for speaking in tongues) is widely attested, in a number of religious traditions, including ancient Greek and Roman religions!
Hey Bart,
I noticed that you didn’t include Craig Keener’s 4-volume commentary on the book of Acts. I suspect that’s because Craig is a conservative Evangelical scholar (with an Evangelical ‘Vorverstehen’). BTW, I went to bible college with Craig (Central Bible College) and have stayed in contact with him these 45 years. I admire him greatly. However, I can’t “follow him” regarding his conclusions (i.e., “Historical Jesus of the Gospels” or his “Christobiography”). Given the same data, I’m always amazed how great scholars on both sides of the fence come to such different conclusions. While amazed, the answer seems clear enough. ‘They’ start with a different set of presuppositions. Those presuppositions ‘control’ their interpretations. Of course, the very same thing can be said of ‘critical scholars.’ :-). Never the twain shall meet! — Bill