To understand a debate about whether the book of Acts is historical, I first have to explain — by way or reminder or by way of … minder — what the book of Acts is actually about.  After this post I’ll lay out how I debate (with myself) whether what it says can actually be seen as historically accurate.

The first four books of the NT are Gospels, followed then by the book of Acts.  The Gospels each, in their own way, present accounts of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.  The book of Acts picks up where the Gospels drop off, by describing the activities of Jesus’ disciples after he is raised from the dead and then ascended into heaven.

One key fact to bear in mind is that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke.  There really should be little debate about that (although as with every historical claim, there is *always* some debate!).  You can see for yourself just by reading the first few verses of Luke and then reading the first few verses of Acts.  Acts is dedicated to the same person as Luke’s Gospel (Theophilus) and refers back to the account already written about what Jesus said and did (which is what is in Luke), indicating that this then will be a second installment.  The themes of the two books are very similar, there are lots of parallels between the two accounts, the writing style is very similar, the vocabulary is similar, the theology is similar.

And so, Luke and Acts are two volumes of the same work, a two-volume work that discusses the rise of Christianity starting (in vol. 1) with the birth of Jesus, continuing through his life, death,and resurrection, continuing then (in vol. 2) with the birth of the Christian church, continuing on through its life and experiences, and detailing its spread throughout the Roman world until it reaches the capital of the empire, the city of Rome itself.

The account picks up where Luke left off, with Jesus raised from the dead.  Jesus at the end of Luke’s Gospel instructs his disciples (after his resurrection) to stay in Jerusalem until they receive the power from on high that they will need.  In Acts we’re told they stayed in Jerusalem for forty days while Jesus proved to them “with many proofs” that he had been raised from the dead (Acts 1:3).  That has always struck me as one of the strangest verses in the entire NT.  Why would Jesus need to perform “many proofs” over forty days in order to prove to someone that he was no longer dead?  Wouldn’t he simply have to show up and talk with them?  Seems like that should do it.

But in any event, according to Acts Jesus spent forty days with the disciples proving that he had been raised.  He then instructed them to be his “witnesses” not just in Jerusalem, where they were at the time, but also throughout Judea and Samaria and on to the “ends of the earth” (1:8).  After giving this instruction, he physically ascended to heaven in their presence.  A few days later (ch. 2) came the Day of Pentecost, an annual Jewish festival, at which, on this occasion, the Holy Spirit came upon the followers of Jesus, causing them to speak in foreign languages that they didn’t know in order to preach the gospel of Christ to Jews from around the world who had come to Jerusalem from around the world, each hearing the gospel in their own native language.  This is the first miracle involving the apostles.

More was to come.  The disciples were empowered by the Spirit to heal and do other miracles, and to preach the message of Christ’s salvation.  They did so, and many thousands of Jews convert just in Jerusalem itself, all in the space of three chapters (chs. 2-4).  Eventually, though, the followers of Jesus encountered a determined opposition among the Jewish leaders, and many Christians scatter elsewhere, taking their gospel with them.

The rest of Acts deals with life and mission of the Christians, especially the apostle Paul, who starts out as an opponent of the church.  He is portrayed as a zealous Jew who is violently opposed to the Christian message and its messengers, who is active in persecuting the church, and who is present at the stoning death of the first Christian martyr, Stephen.  But then a great miracle occurs: Jesus appears to Paul and “blinded by the light” Paul realizes that Jesus really was raised from the dead, and comes to be his greatest spokesperson.  Two-thirds of the book of Acts is about Paul and his subsequent missionary work – he takes three missionary journeys – his arrest, various judicial trials, and final journey to Rome where he is to appear before Caesar to plead his case.  The book ends with Paul in house arrest in Rome, preaching the gospel to all who visit him.

This then is the earliest account we have of the birth and spread of the Christian church, especially at the hands of the apostle Paul.  Is it an accurate account?  That is, does it recount what actually happened, so that if you had been there, this is what you would have seen?  If it’s pretty accurate, is it entirely accurate?  If it is pretty inaccurate, is it entirely inaccurate?  All interesting questions!  The debate is meant to deal not with whether it’s a great story or not, but whether it replicates what happened.  And, as I indicated, it’s a debate I used to have with myself, arguing both sides against each other, in front of the class. Before showing what the arguments and counter-arguments are, I need to set out a bit more information about the book of Acts, over the course of the next two posts.