(11 votes, average: 4.91 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! 100% of membership fees go directly to charity!
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 think your spellcheck has changed corroboration to collaboration
Scribal error.
Hi, Bart,
1. What parts of Jesus’ sayings in gospel of John do you think belong to him?
2. Did Jesus tell people to believe in him and through this they are saved? If not, why wouldn’t be possible for him to say that?
Thanks
1. It’s hard for me to isolate any sayings only in John that go back to Jesus.
2. I think definitely not. He preached the need to repent in light of the coming kingdom. Only after his death did his followers start saying that one needed to believe in him.
Wow, The DaVinci Code must be true because it mentions events and places that are factual! Seriously, Luke seems to be copying the “we” passages from a first-hand account. Any guess as to why the Christians would not have preserved such an important document?
You doubt the DaVinci Code?? WHAT???
I read the entire Bible 1ce. But never “DaVinci Code”- who the Billionaire author was my sister’s hs schoolmate.
I listened to NPR’s take & views on the novel & movie. & finally watched it on a trans-Pacific flight.
“…the author of the book of Acts explicitly tells us that he was concerned and committed to present a historically accurate account of the history of the early church. ”
Of course someone wanting to claim to present a historically accurate account would say this to lead people to believe it was whether it was true or not.
Just like the authors of the forged books in the NT warn to watch out for forged letters!
Also:
1. Paul agrees with Acts that he established churches in Galatia, Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus, most likely in that order.
2. 1 Thess 3 tells us that Paul was left alone in Athens and that he wanted Timothy to rejoin him soon, confirming Acts 17:15.
3. 2 Cor 11:9 says that brothers arrived from Macedonia and supplied Paul’s needs. This supports Acts 18:5 where Timothy and Silas arrive in Corinth from Macedonia and allow Paul to devote his time to preaching.
4. The date of Paul’s arrival in Corinth was determined with some accuracy before it was confirmed by the Gallio inscription.
5. Paul confirms the itinerary in Acts: Ephesus to Macedonia to Achaia to Jerusalem.
6. There is a lot of overlap between the names of Paul’s associates in Acts and those in Paul’s letters. The correspondence is particularly impressive when we allow for the fact that many people had multiple names (e.g. Silas-Silvanus).
7. We can deduce from the Corinthian correspondence that “Titus” was merely Timothy’s praenomen, and this allows us to confirm the historicity of Acts 16:1–3 and 19:22.
8. Rom 16:21 confirms that Luke (an abbreviation of Lucius) was with Paul when they were about to travel to Jerusalem.
Well, this only seems to confirm that the author of Acts had access to some of Paul’s letters.
RE: “Titus” was merely Timothy’s praenomen? Other than the two not ever being placed in the same exact settings, Paul’s flip flopping between the two names would seem strange without some more insider knowledge. Also, wasn’t Timothy circumcised and Titus not? Trying to keep the Cephus/Peter/Simon thing straight is hard enough!
rezubler, your questions are good, of course, and have been answered in two of my articles. First read “Paul, Timothy, Jerusalem and the confusion in Galatia” Biblica (2018). Then “Was Titus Timothy?” JSNT (2001).
Very interesting. I’m looking forward to the arguments on the other side.
If I may be so bold, the word “collaboration” appears several times in this post: could it be that “corroboration” was the intended term?
Scribal error. I’ll get a diorthotes to correct it!
“And so it was clearly his intention to write a historically accurate account. That in itself does not prove that he did so, but it does prove that this was his goal. He was not writing fiction but what he understood to be historical fact.”
Methinks it could have as easily been that he actually wanted the reader to think that was his goal even though he was writing fiction.
Professor Ehrman, I was Googling this weekend on the subject of whether women were allowed in the Temple in the First Century AD. For example in Luke 2 “Jesus Is Presented in the Temple” it says Mary was in the Temple and in the Protoevangelium of James it says Mary was raised in the Temple. Some the sites said they were allowed and others said they were not. Would you please shine some light on the question if women were allowed in the Temple during the time of Jesus?
Definitely they were allowed in teh Temple precincts — as were gentiles. But there were concentric areas within the Temple that signified degrees of holiness; gentiles were allowed only in the area on the outskirts, closer in jews both men and womn, then closer in just jewish men, then closer in just priests, and closest in was the holy of holies that no one could enter except the high priest on the day of atonement.
So when Luke says Mary and Joseph were in the Temple does he mean the Court of Women not the actual Temple building?
Yup.
Hi Bart
On the topic of Paul, Acts claims that Paul was born in Tarsus. I believe you’re previously made the point that Luke has a vested interest in having Paul originate from Tarsus because it was a great philosophical centre at that time.
Paul’s own letters give no indication of his place of origin. However Galatians 1:15-17 may give a potential clue when Paul states that he ‘returned to Damascus.’
Is there any scholarly support for the view that Paul was originally from Damascus? And could you point me to any scholarly articles or texts you’re aware of which discuss Paul’s birthplace?
Thanks Bart
None that I know of. It’s usually taken simply to mean he had made an earlier trip there. As to Tarsus, I don’t hold *firmly* to the view that this is why Luke has him come from there, but I think it’s relatively likely.