Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate? Part 1

How I learned about the reliability of the book of Acts 

(Or, the reliability of my sources)

I don't really remember exactly when and in what order I came across the books that pointed me to my main sources for defending the fifth book of the New Testament, but of course purchased them after getting them from the library. 

What first caught my eye the most was in I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Christian apologists Frank Turek and the late Norman L. Geisler(1). In it they documented 84 historically confirmed facts from Colin J. Hemer's The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. Also, they cited William M. Ramsay's St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen.

As probability would have it, what really inspired me to get Hemer's book was something Geisler said to Lee Strobel in The Case for Faith. "The noted Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, in The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, shows how archaeology has confirmed not dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of details from the biblical account of the early church. Even small details have been corroborated, like which way the wind blows, how deep the water is a certain distance from shore, what kind of disease a particular island had, the names of local officials, and so forth." (2)

So it's not difficult to imagine why I would want to get my hands on his exhaustive work. Then later, I got Ramsay's book, and read it. 

Of course though, I was skeptical toward hearing that the Biblical book of Acts can be proven to be that accurate. And even if it is, how could I trust just one, or two, sources? 

Primarily I wondered how one of the 66 books in the Bible can even include that many facts in the first place. But after reading it and my sources, I easily realized that Acts has 28 long chapters with long verses, and many different things can be jammed into a single verse.

Then I asked how I could trust Ramsay and Hemer to prove Christianity in the first place. After all, I am definitely no Bible scholar. I don't have reading lists of the other side that attacks the historicity of Acts. The best material I get comes from Christians giving responses. Aren't my Christian books liable to be incorrect?

Thank God, I have learned that the answer is no. 

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay

Interesting thing about Ramsay. Here is his quote I often came across in my books:

"I began with a mind unfavorable to [Acts]... It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth." (3)

Elsewhere I found another piece of testimony here:

"This was the way that brought me to the study of Luke and Paul and the New Testament generally, when I found that my prepossessions and pre-formed opinions were wrong. The following chapters will show how the discovery of new evidence, partly by others, partly by myself, changed the judgement and formed opinions of one who had aimed at truth and lived for truth." (4)

You see, before this conversion to trusting part of the Bible, he had bought into the Tubingen theory -- that the book of Acts was a second-century work and not an authority on what was actually happening with the early church in the first century. As a matter of fact, he specifically said, "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me." (3)

On the back of St. Paul the Traveler (my edition is an edited one reprinted long after Ramsay's death), I learned that he worked as the first professor of classical art and archaeology at Oxford University. He "engaged in extensive exploration of the antiquities of Turkey and contributed to the study of classical archaeology, geography, and New Testament studies." No wonder Ramsay was able to author approximately a few dozen books!

He himself described the credibility of Oxford when comparing it to Paul visiting Athens:

"The feelings which would rise in the mind of an American scholar from Harvard, seeing Oxford for the first time, were not alien to Paul's spirit. ... He was in Athens the student of a great university... mixing in its society as an equal conversing with men of like education." (5)

Indeed, I remember once reading somewhere that Ramsay was famous -- everyone knew he was a great authority to be trusted. I just found corroboration for what my forgotten source was talking about here, from the Gifford Lectures. It is a .org site and authority for four different universities. I am skeptical about using websites (even though they definitely aren't necessarily questionable, I can virtually always afford to use books), but if any cite would know about Ramsay, it's that one. He was 

• "the foremost authority of his day on the topography, antiquites and history of Asia Minor in ancient times"
• "a widely recognized expert on the geography and history of Asia Minor, on Paul's missionary journeys to that region, and on Christianity in the Roman era"
• who "received several honorary degrees and awards throughout his career and was knighted"

Whew, that's a lot! But not only does Ramsay have by far the proper credentials to speak about the book of Acts. he presented that he was unprejudiced as well. (Well, as unbiased as anyone can be.)

"No history is absolutely true; all give accounts that are more or less distorted pictures of fact. But the conception of history as an attempt to represent facts in correct perspectives, even when it is poorly and feebly carried out, is a great and sacred possession, which we owe to the Greeks; and is a generically different thing from popular tradition, which aims either at the moral apologue, or the glory of an individual or a family, and regards faithfulness to actual facts as quite a secondary thing." (6)

You see, at the end of St. Paul the Traveler, Ramsay points out where he thinks the Bible is wrong... on the weight of applying some logic to the evidence. In his highly expert eyes, the traditions in the first 5 chapters of Acts are not the word of God, because they are incorrect. 

Furthermore, while gathering the facts in Acts testified outside of it, I came across a time when he was open to Luke being wrong in chapters 13-28, even though he got firsthand testimony from Paul and sometimes even himself! (Luke used the first person on the occasions where he was an eyewitness.)

In other words, Ramsay is so credible I am going to have to answer his objections in the next post! His loss of accepting the entire word of God is my gain.

Colin J. Hemer

Sometimes I would read that Hemer is a "noted" historian. I'm assuming this means that he is acknowledged as an authority, albeit not as prominent as Ramsay was, since I have ran into his name in some citations in other books arguing about Acts and read part of The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenstic History myself. Furthermore, he is a "classical scholar and historian." (7)  

Upon studying his work, it became painstakingly clear that Hemer is a great source. He would point out where things are not even just probably what was going on, but also when a claim was debatable, so I could limit my compilation to the best evidence. Specifically, Hemer categorizes the evidence for Acts under many different headings, starting with common knowledge and then more specialized details (also fairly well-known) which can be assumed to not show Luke as a great historian(8). There are at least six different sections of external evidence for Acts (I've only read one).

I found a foreword at the beginning of the book by professor I. Howard Marshall(9). Unfortunately, Hemer died before it was completed, and so editing and compiling his other recorded knowledge fell to another, although for the most part it was ready to be published. Like Ramsay, Hemer didn't set out to prove the book of Acts in his career as an apologist for Christianity with an axe to grind. He became interested in the study of Hellenistic Greek as related to the vocabulary of the New Testament, as well as the question of the historicity of Acts."Over the years Dr. Hemer produced a steady stream of meticulously researched essays on different aspects of the problem, and eventually conceived the plan of writing a fuller work". No wonder he fills a lot of his book up with notes dedicated to conversing about the evidence he brings up, often citing others. 

Similarities

When Lee Strobel talked to Geisler, he seemed to express skepticism toward one source being able to be trusted for proving Acts, too. "Is Hemer a lone voice on that?" he asked.

But Geisler responded with, "Hardly." He cited Ramsay, and then "the the great Oxford University classical historian A.N. Shermin-White," (10) whom I will include in the next post. But as a matter of fact, one source Hemer cites is Shermin-White's Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, which I bother to point out because I have it and a couple of times for fun cross-cited to see exactly how Shermin-White put things. Furthermore, there definitely were some references from Ramsay because, as the foreword put it, Hemer worked to produce a "fresh and rigorous reexamination of the kind of material presented by Ramsay." 

Basically, while I am not familiar with the skeptical (well, by critical I mean unbelieving, not just fair to the evidence) scholarship on Acts, I can tell that they are. Ramsay was well aware of  criticisms of the book of Acts(11), and Hemer demonstrates this as well, by assessing his many sources. This leaves me thinking of one criterion for testing to see if something in the New Testament is correct: if it is made in the time of eyewitnesses where the enemies can discredit it if it is untrue. I mean, Hemer even used original Greek characters in his book! None of these books are by any means solely aimed at ignorant people like me to persuade us! As Marshall put it, "What matters every time is surely the quality of the evidence and the argumentation, the absence of special pleading, and whether awkward counter-evidence and arguments are treated fairly. It is on that level that this work must be evaluated."

Finally, as the introduction to The Book of Acts put it:

"...the whole approach may be dismissed as an [apologetic, that is, trying to prove the New Testament God is real]. This, however, seems to be nothing more than a swear-word for condemning the work of anybody who defends a traditional position by suggesting that their work rests on bias rather than on an objective use of evidence. One may well ask whether the attitude of anybody with a hypothesis to defend is any different; everybody looks for the evidence that supports their hypothesis and attempts to account for seemingly contradictory evidence."

(Here I must muse by including a reference appropriate to this charge, and my argument that Ramsay can be trusted: "It is notable that Ramsay, often dismissed as an apologist, here (as not infrequently) appears as a trenchant critic of an inadequate traditionalism, where others have allowed faulty assumptions to pass." [12])

Indeed, it is absurd to dismiss someone just because they are supporting the Bible. All this shows is bias on the other side, demanding that they must be right and anyone who departs from regular expert scholarship (as compared to books put out in a simple format pointed at the lay audience like I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, which is exactly what these books are NOT) have to be unreasonable. 

This is especially false considering that everyone, apologist or simple expert scholar, is human. Who would not be passionate to write a lot to support such a wonderful book like Acts if they have seen that it is true? To dismiss it as just some third-rate historical document (second-rate is still very good) would be ludicrous. 

So now, I have to ask, if I can't trust Colin Hemer and Sir William Ramsay, who can I trust? But fortunately, it isn't reasonable for me to not have faith in them.

In reference to both of them, I can again cite the introduction to Hemer's book: 

"Here is the mark of a genuine historian who writes not because he has an axe to grind but because the subject is fascinating for its own sake."

PDF verse-by-verse corroboration of the Bible (specifically, Acts)

However, I do have an axe to grind.

Wildly. Shoving that axe down deep on a rapidly spinning wheel. 

Of course, I am more passionate than my sources were, or at least write with it as my sole, obsessive focus. Because I want to be sure that the information I learn is accurate, since if the Bible is true it is of the utmost intellectual vitality, I go by print expert sources, who are fair to the evidence. For me to be confident, there is no other way.

So, I put together, from both St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen and The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, a list of approximately 182 facts (I had trouble making sure the count was correct) from the fifth book of the New Testament. Acts is short for the Acts of the Apostles, because it is a document of what the early church did after Jesus went up to Heaven (Acts 1). Specifically, virtually all this evidence is focused on Paul's journeys in 13-28, and not the Disciples from earlier chapters.

 I have to say, it was encouraging and fun when I found the exact same material presented in both books. I had to decide which one I would use, or if I should put them together. 

As you read it, you might notice that in the details I included historical facts which are definitely not explained. I probably don't even know what they are. They are there, though, in case anyone is interested for some reason to research further, and it makes me feel better if I see that my sources know what they are talking about. As for you, you can just ignore wondering what they really are, like I do. The point is that Acts is proven.

Furthermore, I had a little difficulty sorting through what exactly is surely corroborated and what is only fairly probable. So, it is limited to what I can tell is definitely correct. Finally, because I 100% CANNOT read Greek, sometimes I had to check in Turek and Geisler's book to know how the word is spelled in English.

Please keep in mind that these two authors have created highly robust sources which Christian apologists are well aware of and use(13). Here they are, at your disposal.

Material in Acts attested outside of the Bible

And here is a rough outline of my discoveries from St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen, in case anyone wants to check out for themselves what I found in the book. It is kind of just thrown together, so it's not supposed to look great and be completely flawless.

St. Paul and Roman Citizen

But of course this isn't the end of all the support I can give for Acts. There is still the question of demonstrable errors, unlikely inventions, and most importantly... miracles.

(Including how miracles are handled on an intellectual basis.)

Citations:

1. Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: Wheaton, IL. 2004), 256-259.

2. Lee Strobel, The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2000), 139-140.

3. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (Hodder & Stoughton: London. 1925), reprinted 2001 Kregel Publications by Mark Wilson, 19.

4. William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Franklin Classics: London, NY. Copy of what was published in 1915), 222.

5. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler, 186.

6. Ibid., 292.

7. Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: Wheaton, IL. 2004), 256.

8. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN. 1990), 104.

9. Ibid., v-vi.

10. Strobel, The Case for Faith, 140.

11. Mommsen was some authority on Acts that Ramsay has no choice but to consider if he wishes to be aware of the academic scholarship, because Mommsen apparently was of that great influence. Ramsay says, "Mommsen's statements in respect of Quirinius have since been quoted frequently by the critics who were hostile to Luke; but, as has been already mentioned, none of them ever mentioned his decision in favour of Luke in all other respects. This they omitted quietly." William Mitchell Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Franklin Classics: London, NY. Copy of what was published in 1915), 276.

12. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN. 1990), 123.

13. For other references, see: J.P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (NavPress: Colorado Springs, CO. 2012), 212; Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2017), 86, 88; Paul Copan and Ronald K. Tacelli, Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2000), 171.