Historical Accuracy in the New Testament

[Storico]

This is a huge topic, but I really wanted to start something on it, anyways. I've decided to see whether people/places mentioned in the New Testament actually line up with the historical record we have of them. I'm sure some of you might be rolling your eyes, thinking "of COURSE they line up!" -- but I'm just discovering this for the first time and I'm all happy and everything, so put up with it and chip in whydoncha? :lol:

Here's one really neat thing I found:

Act 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Get up and go south by the road that leads from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert road."
Act 8:27 So he got up and went. Now an Ethiopian eunuch was there. He was a member of the court of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and was in charge of all her treasures. He had come to Jerusalem to worship
Act 8:28 and was returning home. He was seated in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah.

I decided to look Candace up, to see where she was situated in history.

I found this:



The passage continues by describing how Philip helped the Ethiopian understand one passage of Isaiah that the Ethiopian was reading. After the Ethiopian received an explanation of the passage, he requested that Philip baptize him, which Philip obliged. I cross referenced some of my Ethiopian materials and discovered that Queen Gersamot Hendeke VII (very similar to Kandake) was the Queen of Ethiopia from the year 42 to 52. Source: The Global African Community History Notes (http://www.cwo.com/~lucumi/ethiopia2.html)

NEAT!!!


Anyone else have anything to toss in? It's so neat how it lines up like that...

[Amazing Rando]

This is a huge topic, but I really wanted to start something on it, anyways. I've decided to see whether people/places mentioned in the New Testament actually line up with the historical record we have of them. I'm sure some of you might be rolling your eyes, thinking "of COURSE they line up!" -- but I'm just discovering this for the first time and I'm all happy and everything, so put up with it and chip in whydoncha? :lol:

Here's one really neat thing I found:

Act 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Get up and go south by the road that leads from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert road."
Act 8:27 So he got up and went. Now an Ethiopian eunuch was there. He was a member of the court of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, and was in charge of all her treasures. He had come to Jerusalem to worship
Act 8:28 and was returning home. He was seated in his chariot, reading the prophet Isaiah.

I decided to look Candace up, to see where she was situated in history.

I found this:




NEAT!!!


Anyone else have anything to toss in? It's so neat how it lines up like that...

:teeth: Doncha just love delving into historical minutiae?

For me, that's one of the neatest parts of the Christian story- that it's actually rooted in concrete, historical events. It took place at a definite, traceable point in history and the ramifications of that one moment in time in the obscure Roman province continue to have immense repricussions to this day.

[Storico]

:teeth: Doncha just love delving into historical minutiae?

For me, that's one of the neatest parts of the Christian story- that it's actually rooted in concrete, historical events. It took place at a definite, traceable point in history and the ramifications of that one moment in time in the obscure Roman province continue to have immense repricussions to this day.

:hehe: Delving into historical minutiae is what I love to do. I really bore some people, since the history I'm USUALLY delving into is Canadian (yes, yes, I know.... "Canada's too young to have a history!" EEEERT! Wrong. :tongue: ) but all the same, the Biblical history is going to be a NEW pet project of mine this winter, I think. :teeth: :yes: I'm glad you like looking at it too!!

[Amazing Rando]

:hehe: Delving into historical minutiae is what I love to do. I really bore some people, since the history I'm USUALLY delving into is Canadian (yes, yes, I know.... "Canada's too young to have a history!" EEEERT! Wrong. :tongue: ) but all the same, the Biblical history is going to be a NEW pet project of mine this winter, I think. :teeth: :yes: I'm glad you like looking at it too!!

If I ever have a historical conundrum I can't solve, I'll look you up first, since you know how to look stuff up! You do likewise, okie? :highfive:

[Storico]

If I ever have a historical conundrum I can't solve, I'll look you up first, since you know how to look stuff up! You do likewise, okie? :highfive:

Gladly. Will do! :yes:

[wfaber]

I think there were as many as five Ethiopian queens with the title of Kandake ranging from 332 BC to AD 50. It wasn't so much a name as a title.

[Storico]

I think there were as many as five Ethiopian queens with the title of Kandake ranging from 332 BC to AD 50. It wasn't so much a name as a title.

That's right. But that one of them was mentioned in the New Testament, and that the time the New Testament account was written coincides with one of the last "Kandake's" places the NT account in a historical context. I found that pretty neat. Whoever wrote "Acts" was writing a social/historical commentary as much as they were the story of the new believers, and even a couple thousand years later, we can confirm that social/historical commentary by researching it. :smile:

[James Peter]

That's right. But that one of them was mentioned in the New Testament, and that the time the New Testament account was written coincides with one of the last "Kandake's" places the NT account in a historical context. I found that pretty neat. Whoever wrote "Acts" was writing a social/historical commentary as much as they were the story of the new believers, and even a couple thousand years later, we can confirm that social/historical commentary by researching it. :smile:

I think that is really stretching the point. Luke-Acts is, at its core, a theological document. It is hardly a "social/historical commentary'. It places its stories into the world around it... so what? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect. Using a very common name for the Eunuch's mistress (ooh look, Luke knew that court officials in Ethiopia were called Eunuchs even if they aren't actually!) doesn't actually tell us anything about the historicity of the account. In fact often he seems to be relatively clueless about details of what happened. The fact that Luke vaguely knew things like that there was a 'Mars Hill' (17:19) really isn't remarkable. It would be more remarkable if he didn't.

[Storico]

I think that is really stretching the point. Luke-Acts is, at its core, a theological document. It is hardly a "social/historical commentary'. It places its stories into the world around it... so what? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect. Using a very common name for the Eunuch's mistress (ooh look, Luke knew that court officials in Ethiopia were called Eunuchs even if they aren't actually!) doesn't actually tell us anything about the historicity of the account. In fact often he seems to be relatively clueless about details of what happened. The fact that Luke vaguely knew things like that there was a 'Mars Hill' (17:19) really isn't remarkable. It would be more remarkable if he didn't.

I know it's a theological document. And no, placing stories into the world around them doesn't MAKE it historical. I tend to believe it's historical, anyhow, and that Peter, Paul and the other others existed when they said they did.

When looking at other first century texts, the level of detail does compare. History then wasn't done the way we see history now. Today, we'd say "so and so, born in X year, related to X people, in charge of X, Y and Z"until there'd be no doubt about who we wanted to refer to. For places, we'd refer not only to a specific area, but to longitude and latitude and time zone if it needed any clarification. For first century documents, lowering the bar a bit is necessary. :wink: I'm more interested in the theological component of Acts, anyhow!

But I still find it really COOL (and yes, that's entirely an "oh, wow!" response) that there are so many mentions that can either be confirmed or falsified. I don't think many other theological documents outside of the Christian ones do that -- place people in their contexts -- properly enough. I'm glad New Testament documents do. :smile:

[wfaber]

On a similar note, the Book of Esther has her married to king Ahasuerus, whom scholars identify as Xerxes I, king of Persia.

Acording to Herodotus, Histories 7.114, Xerxes' wife was Amestris. There seems to be some similarity in the names.

[One Bad Pig]

:hehe: Delving into historical minutiae is what I love to do. I really bore some people, since the history I'm USUALLY delving into is Canadian (yes, yes, I know.... "Canada's too young to have a history!" EEEERT! Wrong. :tongue: ) but all the same, the Biblical history is going to be a NEW pet project of mine this winter, I think. :teeth: :yes: I'm glad you like looking at it too!!
I love history, too! I even got a couple introductory seminary textbooks on Biblical history. :hehe:

[Goonerman]

Wow, James Peter, that's a bit harsh on Luke, though in fairness you were being sarcastic. However, he is proved to be correct many times in relation to locations of provinces and in terms of governors. He's more accurate in telling us about the location of Lystra than Cicero. He also shows his attention to subtle details, asuch as when the city clerk of Ephesus says, "We have proconsuls", to the rioting pro-Artemis crowd in the theatre- this is because, the normal proconsul was assassinated, and two of Agrippina the Younger and Nero's proteges, Hirtius and Celer, convened the province pending the election of a new proconsul by the Senate. Check it out in Tacitus.

"If then, Demetrius and his fellow craftsmen have a grievance against anybody, the courts are open and we have proconsuls. They can press charges." Acts 19:38

"The first casualty of the new reign was the governor of Asia, Marcus Junius Silanus. His death was treacherously contrived by Agrippina, without Nero's knowledge. Silanus was lazy, and previous rulers had despised him- Gaius [Caligula] used to call him 'the Golden Sheep'. But Agrippina was afriad he would avenge her murder of his brother, Lucius Junius Silanus Torquatus. Popular gossip, too, widely suggested that Nero, still almost a boy and emperor only by a crime, was less eligible for the throne than a mature, blameless aristocrat who was, like himself, descended from the Caesars. For Silanus was a great-great grandson of the divine Augustus- and this still counted. So her was murdered. The act was done by a knight, Publius Celer, and a former slave, Helius, the emperor's agents in Asia. Without the precuations necessary to maintaine secrecy, they administered poison to the governor at dinner." Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome. Nero became Emperor in AD 54. The riot in Ephesus occurred in AD 55.

This is only one small example, but Luke knew what he was talking about, and much better than the other writers of the period, who have been proved wrong, and he right. And that includes the Quirinius business.

Just because the content of Luke-Acts is theological does not mean that it is not historical. It is actually History in the Graeco-Roman sense of the term, but since it is about the Lord Jesus and His apostles, then by the subject matter's very nature, that book is going to be theological in content, but you will still expect historical detail coming through. Paul's trial before Gallio is the key to dating the entire book, as we know this was Gallio's first act as governor.

[Storico]

I love history, too! I even got a couple introductory seminary textbooks on Biblical history. :hehe:

Cool! :waves at the fellow history person*

Which books did you get?

[One Bad Pig]

Cool! :waves at the fellow history person*

Which books did you get?
The first book I got was Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which I got because I stumbled across it at a used book sale, and I've read a lot of his science fiction. He should've stuck with SF. The next book I got was Werner Keller's The Bible As History. It seemed designed to introduce doubt about the historicity of the Bible, so asked JPH what he recommended.

I got A Survey of the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Survey-New-Testament-Robert-Gundry/dp/0310238250/sr=8-1/qid=1167703935/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4205460-1783937?ie=UTF8&s=books) and A Survey of the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Survey-Old-Testament-Second/dp/0310229030/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b/104-4205460-1783937), An Introduction to the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-New-Testament-D-Carson/dp/0310238595/sr=1-2/qid=1167704116/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-4205460-1783937?ie=UTF8&s=books) and An Introduction to the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Old-Testament-Tremper-Longman/dp/0310432502/ref=pd_sim_b_5/104-4205460-1783937), and Archaeology and the New Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-New-Testament-John-McRay/dp/0801062675/sr=1-1/qid=1167704417/ref=sr_1_1/104-4205460-1783937?ie=UTF8&s=books) and Archaeology and the Old Testament (http://www.amazon.com/Archaeology-Old-Testament-Alfred-Hoerth/dp/0801011299/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-4205460-1783937).

I also have Annals of the World (http://www.amazon.com/Annals-World-Usshers-Classic-History/dp/0890513600/sr=1-1/qid=1167704559/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4205460-1783937?ie=UTF8&s=books) by James Ussher, but haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

[Adam]

The first book I got was Asimov's Guide to the Bible, which I got because I stumbled across it at a used book sale, and I've read a lot of his science fiction. He should've stuck with SF. The next book I got was Werner Keller's The Bible As History. It seemed designed to introduce doubt about the historicity of the Bible, so asked JPH what he recommended.

When I read Werner Keller's The Bible as History back in the 1960's, I took it as just the opposite, a justification of the historicity of the Bible.
I understand you though, it goes against inerrancy and Fundamentalism. But Fundamentalism I have always rejected, and I could accept inerrancy only during the years I was Roman Catholic (1969-1992).
Adam

[James Peter]

Wow, James Peter, that's a bit harsh on Luke, though in fairness you were being sarcastic. However, he is proved to be correct many times in relation to locations of provinces and in terms of governors.

Lets make a distinction between Luke and Luke's sources. A lot of Luke's sources (probably written documents) are full of historical accuracy. You'd expect as much. Also those pesky little geographical details aren't especially impressive, especially if Luke was writing from a major city with good records.

There are plenty of times though when Luke either doesn't understand what is going on in his sources or deliberately tries to recast events to favour his own beliefs. I'm torn between whether Luke was ignorance or malicious but either way there is often a lot more going on that Luke wants his readers to realise (say with the whole Hebrews-Hellenists issue).

Finally as for Luke being History in the ancient sense of the word... thats far from undisputed. I lean towards describing it as a sort of apologetic history but many have argued it is a Biography or even a Romance. The question of Luke-acts genre is not really settled.

I've spent the last 3 months translating and picking through the first ten chapters of Acts and I think some harsh comments about Luke-Acts are reasonable. Just because he places the early Church into an accurate setting of the ancient world doesn't mean that what he is writing is what we'd consider history rather than what we'd consider historical fiction. Does Thomas Holt write History?

[dizzle]

And this is helpful to a brand new believer to get strengthened in her faith exactly how James Peter?

I know you have your strong positions, and fine, we disagree, but I really wish you would balance your knowledge with discernment and understand there is a time to ride the hobby horse and a time not to. For instance, if Storico had some basic eschatological questions, I doubt I would ram her over the head with preterism, no matter how true I think it is. I tend to try to look, especially at babes in Christ, or those just returning to their walk, at what is needful and helpful to them and not to show off, which frankly it seems like you are doing. I understand you think you can judge the Biblical text, but have some discernment man and respect for the integrity of the faith of others. Your personal crusade againt the Bible (traditionally understood) and orthodoxy gets tiring (to me, speakng of myself alone, not the site, nothing official - me personally). Yes, you have a great deal of knowledge... but I do not see a reverance whatsoever in it.

Rant over.

[Amazing Rando]

And this is helpful to a brand new believer to get strengthened in her faith exactly how James Peter?

I know you have your strong positions, and fine, we disagree, but I really wish you would balance your knowledge with discernment and understand there is a time to ride the hobby horse and a time not to. For instance, if Storico had some basic eschatological questions, I doubt I would ram her over the head with preterism, no matter how true I think it is. I tend to try to look, especially at babes in Christ, or those just returning to their walk, at what is needful and helpful to them and not to show off, which frankly it seems like you are doing. I understand you think you can judge the Biblical text, but have some discernment man and respect for the integrity of the faith of others. Your personal crusade againt the Bible (traditionally understood) and orthodoxy gets tiring (to me, speakng of myself alone, not the site, nothing official - me personally). Yes, you have a great deal of knowledge... but I do not see a reverance whatsoever in it.

Rant over.

Woah- I just realized that my understanding of Scripture is like some bizarre, freaky hybrid between James Peter's and yours! :dizzy:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I tend to try to look, especially at babes in Christ, or those just returning to their walk, at what is needful and helpful to them and not to show off, which frankly it seems like you are doing. Woot! Sotrico is a babe? Has she posted a pic yet?

[James Peter]

Well for a start Dee she said she was new to the topic rather than new to Christianity. They are two quite different situations. I reacted according to the first not the second because I lack the omniscience to know what people on here don't include about themselves in their posts... You're right there is a time and place to keep my mouth shut and I generally do (shockingly) but I don't think that a thread discussing the historical accuracy of the NT accounts in the Church history 201 forum is one of those places. If anything this is one of the most appropriate places to discuss the issue surely? There are a lot of threads I refrain from commenting in and away from here it often doesn't get mentioned at all. The number of bible studies I've bitten my tongue through....its surprising I still have a tongue.

Anyway, my point was that just because Luke knew that a major political event had occured in 54CE doesn't mean that he knew the exact words that Paul spoke. The first is general knowledge that would have been very easy to find out about, the second much more challenging. So he just did what was normal for a historian of the period - make up the speech based on what he thought Paul would/should have said. It is a kind of faulty logic to think that the first implies anything about the second. Just because a writer sets their story accurately into the real world doesn't mean that the story itself is as true as the setting. The story has to be evaluated in and of itself and most of it we simply cannot check out for validity so we either believe or disbelieve it on the basis of faith (in the author's integrity, in the Church's integrity or in God's integrity). There are issues raised by Galatians in particular when it comes to the historicity of Acts and they are worth keeping in mind when looking at the issue.


Oh, and I just find the idea of Acts being a Romance incredibly amusing which is why I mentioned it even though I don't agree with it.

[dizzle]

Since I am not looking for a fight, but rather expressing more of frustration at sometimes what I see you doing, I will only address what needs clarification.

Well for a start Dee she said she was new to the topic rather than new to Christianity.

That is why being a well-rounded community participant is so vital. If you frequented the fellowship areas you would know that she came here as an atheist and returned to Christ - I do not claim to know how long she was a Christian before leaving the fold temporarily.

....thread discussing the historical accuracy of the NT accounts in the Church history 201 forum is one of those places. If anything this is one of the most appropriate places to discuss the issue surely?

There is a place and a time. And our own fault is that there are no forum guidelines for this section which means there is a moderator somewhere I have to beat. I didn't claim the forum was inappropriate, but the certain time. I guess it just seems to me (and I could be wrong obviously) that you take every opportunity you can to tell everyone that you have translated such and such, when frankly it seems to be bragging (again to me), and denigrate the traditional understanding the text. I find that to be irresponsible in light of your own openess about faith struggles you have had. I had severe faith struggles when I began to abandon futurism, and thus, I am very sensitive to that topic and never want to be a stumbling block to my brethren by forcing the issue, no matter how right I think I am, unless there is some explicit indication to me that the time and place are right. In my private opinion, you could do that a bit more. When I used to not to do that a few years back, and when I slip now, I find it is because of two reasons. One, pride - I want to show how much I know. Two, insecurity - by forcing my view into situations it might be best to be quiet reveals my own need to reinforce myself.

Oh, and I just find the idea of Acts being a Romance incredibly amusing which is why I mentioned it even though I don't agree with it.

I would find that amusing as well.

[Storico]

James Peter and Dee Dee, thanks for all you've said so far. Just to clarify, I grew up nominally Christian (ie, without much thought put into it; my family was, and so was I, sort of). I "left the fold", so to speak, a few years ago. I occasionally popped back in, but for all intents and purposes, I'd given it up. I was away from God completely for well over a year, or a year and a half, and if you take a very strict definition of what "Christian is" (ie, one who follows Christ) I never particularly followed Him at all, even though I liked him an awful lot at times. Coming back to Christ now is in every sense a true coming 'to' Christ. I want to follow Him.

Now, I don't have the theological language or the theological background, so what I know about Luke or Paul or Acts is no more than what's in the Bible itself at the moment, but I suspect I'll get there eventually.

When I wanted to talk about historical accuracy in the NT, I was sort of thinking of how other religions make all kinds of claims that really can't be checked out very well historically. Legend is usually just barely connected to history itself. So I was happily surprised to find out that Luke was actually referencing real things that could be checked out. Whether Luke's correct in his thinking is a separate issue entirely, although I believe he's a fine writer and a fine historian. It's neat to me that any of it checks out historically.

I'd say more on the actual subject and I might later, but for now I'm tired and I've got other issues. Thanks you two, again.

[dizzle]

:hug:

[James Peter]

When I wanted to talk about historical accuracy in the NT, I was sort of thinking of how other religions make all kinds of claims that really can't be checked out very well historically. Legend is usually just barely connected to history itself. So I was happily surprised to find out that Luke was actually referencing real things that could be checked out.

What other religions are you comparing to out of interest? As far as I'm aware the Koran and related Islamic texts are perfectly accurate with regards to 6th century history. Any problems with the historicity of Judaism (and the historicity of the Pentateuch is something that is very challenged academically) also trouble Christianity. That leaves what? The Eastern religions which aren't really textbased anyway...

Anyway, I'll shut up now with just one last comment. The important claims of Christianity aren't historically verifiable so stay focused on what really matters rather than getting distracted by details that shouldn't be given too much importance.

[One Bad Pig]

Anyway, my point was that just because Luke knew that a major political event had occured in 54CE doesn't mean that he knew the exact words that Paul spoke. The first is general knowledge that would have been very easy to find out about, the second much more challenging. So he just did what was normal for a historian of the period - make up the speech based on what he thought Paul would/should have said.
That's quite an assumption you're making there. When Paul first came to a town, it was quite a life-changing event for those who converted. You don't think they'd remember what he said that caused them to convert? That's a little more memorable than some big-wig coming in to make a speech. Luke also was actually present at some points of Paul's journeys. I don't think finding the information back then would've been nearly as big a difficulty as you make it out to be. In fact, if Luke-Acts was actually a legal document in defense of Paul/Christianity (as has been theorized), then Luke would've gone out of his way to ensure that the record of words spoken was accurate.

[James Peter]

That's quite an assumption you're making there. When Paul first came to a town, it was quite a life-changing event for those who converted. You don't think they'd remember what he said that caused them to convert? That's a little more memorable than some big-wig coming in to make a speech. Luke also was actually present at some points of Paul's journeys. I don't think finding the information back then would've been nearly as big a difficulty as you make it out to be. In fact, if Luke-Acts was actually a legal document in defense of Paul/Christianity (as has been theorized), then Luke would've gone out of his way to ensure that the record of words spoken was accurate.

I was going to not say anything else in this thread but I'm easily baited....

(1) There are good reasons for thinking that the Paul who speaks in Acts and who writes letters like Galatians are not the same person. More strongly all the speaches in Acts reflect a single theology. In fact there is really no difference at all between the different speakers. The speaches are probably theological/rhetorical constructions. I'm certainly not in anything like the minority when I say that.

(2) Whether or not Luke was present is far from settled. Personally I find the arguments that he was to be pretty weak and considering his seeming unfamiliarity with Pauline theology find it pretty unlikely he knew Paul well. Dating issues come in here as well, but once again I'm with the majority who date Luke-Acts relatively late (80s at the earliest really). Using earlier, sometimes primary, sources? Absolutely. A witness himself? Unlikely.

(3) The the 'legal document' theory really doesn't hold much water. Its been theorised by largely discredited and discarded.

[Amazing Rando]

(2) Whether or not Luke was present is far from settled. Personally I find the arguments that he was to be pretty weak and considering his seeming unfamiliarity with Pauline theology find it pretty unlikely he knew Paul well. Dating issues come in here as well, but once again I'm with the majority who date Luke-Acts relatively late (80s at the earliest really). Using earlier, sometimes primary, sources? Absolutely. A witness himself? Unlikely.

I'm with you in that I think it was written sometime in the 80's, but that type of a time gap is not at all impossible for a genuine companion of Paul. There's simply no getting around those "we" statements in much of the second half of Acts- Luke was much too careful a writer to have taken up a primary source document in the first person and to have copied it verbatim without ironing out the unseemly wrinkle that the first half of the book is not narrated in the first person at all, while a good portion of the second half is. His narrative is much too masterfully crafted to ignore such a stupidly obvious mechanical slip-up, if that's really what it were. Those "we" statements are there for a purpose, as is every other detail of Luke's narrative, and it seems powerfully certain to me at least that they exist to indicate the fact that Luke was an at least part-time companion of Paul.

Irenaeus knew what he was talking about:

1. But that this Luke was inseparable from Paul, and his fellow-labourer in the Gospel, he himself clearly evinces, not as a matter of boasting, but as bound to do so by the truth itself. For he says that when Barnabas, and John who was called Mark, had parted company from Paul, and sailed to Cyprus, “we came to Troas;” Acts xvi. 8, etc. and when Paul had beheld in a dream a man of Macedonia, saying, “Come into Macedonia, Paul, and help us,” “immediately,” he says, “we endeavoured to go into Macedonia, understanding that the Lord had called us to preach the Gospel unto them. Therefore, sailing from Troas, we directed our ship’s course towards Samothracia.” And then he carefully indicates all the rest of their journey as far as Philippi, and how they delivered their first address: “for, sitting down,” he says, “we spake unto the women who had assembled;” Acts xvi. 13. and certain believed, even a great many. And again does he say, “But we sailed from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came to Troas, where we abode seven days.”Acts xx. 5, 6. And all the remaining [details] of his course with Paul he recounts, indicating with all diligence both places, and cities, and number of days, until they went up to Jerusalem; and what befell Paul there, Acts xxi. how he was sent to Rome in bonds; the name of the centurion who took him in charge; Acts xxvii. and the signs of the ships, and how they made shipwreck; Acts xxviii. 11. and the island upon which they escaped, and how they received kindness there, Paul healing the chief man of that island; and how they sailed from thence to Puteoli, and from that arrived at Rome; and for what period they sojourned at Rome. As Luke was present at all these occurrences, he carefully noted them down in writing, so that he cannot be convicted of falsehood or boastfulness, because all these [particulars] proved both that he was senior to all those who now teach otherwise, and that he was not ignorant of the truth. That he 438 was not merely a follower, but also a fellow-labourer of the apostles, but especially of Paul, Paul has himself declared also in the Epistles, saying: “Demas hath forsaken me, … and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia. Only Luke is with me.” 2 Tim. iv. 10, 11. From this he shows that he was always attached to and inseparable from him. And again he says, in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Luke, the beloved physician, greets you.” Col. iv. 14. But surely if Luke, who always preached in company with Paul, and is called by him “the beloved,” and with him performed the work of an evangelist, and was entrusted to hand down to us a Gospel, learned nothing different from him (Paul), as has been pointed out from his words, how can these men, who were never attached to Paul, boast that they have learned hidden and unspeakable mysteries?

[James Peter]

*whispers* Or to give the impression that Luke was even though he wasn't.

In my opinion the theological unfamiliarity with Paul and so on far outweigh the evidence of the 'we' passages. Without those 'we' passages there really would be no argument going on, they are the only reason to consider that Luke-Acts was a companion of Paul. There are plenty of reasons to consider that he wasn't though.

Irenaeus really tells us no more than that Luke (or those that promoted it) wanted us to think that it was written by Paul's companion and that many in the early Church believed that claim. Then again they also believed that Paul wrote Titus so maybe they aren't the most competent of witnesses...

[Abelard]

I like 2 Tim 3:16 whenever this subject comes up. I like how Paul points out all scripture is inspired when used for the purpose God intended it to be used for. Not all scripture has the same purpose and I don't think much if any of it was intended to remove our need for faith by substituting historical factoids.

[One Bad Pig]

I was going to not say anything else in this thread but I'm easily baited....Me too. :hehe:

(1) There are good reasons for thinking that the Paul who speaks in Acts and who writes letters like Galatians are not the same person.
The speeches in Acts are generally for different purposes than the letters. IMO the discrepancies alleged by Philipp Vielhauer, for example, fade when context is taken into account. More strongly all the speaches in Acts reflect a single theology. In fact there is really no difference at all between the different speakers. The speaches are probably theological/rhetorical constructions. I'm certainly not in anything like the minority when I say that.
From Robert Gundry's A Survey of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1994, p. 296:
Some scholars regard the speeches and sermons in Acts as literary devices improvised by Luke himself to fill out his stories. That some ancient historians followed such a practice is true, but not to the extent that has sometimes been claimed. And though Luke need not have given verbatim reports of speeches and sermons, it does seem that he accurately gives the gist of what was said. Support for such accuracy comes from striking parallels of expression between Peter's sermons in Acts and 1 Peter, and between Paul's sermons in Acts and his epistles. These parallels can hardly have arisen by chance; and no other evidence exists to indicate that Luke imitated or used in any other way the epistles, or that Peter and Paul imitated Acts when writing their epistles. The only adequate explanation: Luke did not make up the speeches and sermons, but summarized their contents so accurately that the characteristic phraseology of Peter and Paul is evident in Luke's reporting, as well as in their epistles.

This is refutes your claim that there is really no difference between the speakers in Acts. Even the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (2nd Ed) notes (no bastion of conservative thought) for Acts disagree with you on that point: "The archaic flavor and Semitic idiom of the speeches to the Jews testify to Luke's skill in conveying avariety of emphases and nuances appropriate to the several speakers and circumstances."

As far as a common theology is concerned, why should that surprise you?

(2) Whether or not Luke was present is far from settled. Personally I find the arguments that he was to be pretty weak and considering his seeming unfamiliarity with Pauline theology find it pretty unlikely he knew Paul well. Dating issues come in here as well, but once again I'm with the majority who date Luke-Acts relatively late (80s at the earliest really). Using earlier, sometimes primary, sources? Absolutely. A witness himself? Unlikely.
IMO a shave with Occam's Razor gives the edge to an early 60's date (and Luke's presence); I don't find the post-80 argument to be compelling, and the pre-95 arguments work just as well for an early 60's date.

(3) The the 'legal document' theory really doesn't hold much water. Its been theorised by largely discredited and discarded.
By those who hold to a post-80 date, those who hold to an early 60's date, or both?

[One Bad Pig]

I like 2 Tim 3:16 whenever this subject comes up. I like how Paul points out all scripture is inspired when used for the purpose God intended it to be used for. Not all scripture has the same purpose and I don't think much if any of it was intended to remove our need for faith by substituting historical factoids.
You have an skewed definition of faith (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html).

[Adam]

Me too. :hehe:
The speeches in Acts are generally for different purposes than the letters. IMO the discrepancies alleged by Philipp Vielhauer, for example, fade when context is taken into account.
From Robert Gundry's A Survey of the New Testament, Zondervan, 1994, p. 296:This refutes your claim that there is really no difference between the speakers in Acts. Even the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible (2nd Ed) notes (no bastion of conservative thought) for Acts disagree with you on that point: "The archaic flavor and Semitic idiom of the speeches to the Jews testify to Luke's skill in conveying avariety of emphases and nuances appropriate to the several speakers and circumstances."
As far as a common theology is concerned, why should that surprise you?
IMO a shave with Occam's Razor gives the edge to an early 60's date (and Luke's presence); I don't find the post-80 argument to be compelling, and the pre-95 arguments work just as well for an early 60's date.
By those who hold to a post-80 date, those who hold to an early 60's date, or both?
I'm with OBP.
I could direct James Peter to my extensive primary research on the gospels and Acts here on TWeb and elsewhere, but he refuses to consider me because he regards me as an amateur because I only have two Master's degrees.
I say Luke wrote in the 60's and got the historical Jesus and the historical Paul right.
Adam

[James Peter]

This is going way off topic. If you want to debate the dating of Acts start a new thread, or better yet why not rekindle one of the previous discussion of the topic.

[Abelard]

You have an skewed definition of faith (http://www.tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html).
I disagree with the authors apparent belief that Kierkegaard was trying to prove anything about Abraham. I think that he just used a familiar story to exemplify his "Knight of Faith" concept, but I don't want to drag this off topic.



The relevant scripture I brought up was 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I don't see "historical accuracy' mentioned there at all. I'm much closer to the infallibility of scripture position than the inerrancy position so maybe somebody can point out something I am missing.