Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate? Part 2

Is the book ever wrong anywhere?

Sir William Ramsay says that chapters 1-5 are prone to error because Luke was getting all his information from others, who are suspect as being liable to report embellished tales of the actual history in Jerusalem right after the ascension(1). This is in contrast with 13-28, where the historian got access to either events he saw himself or heard from Paul, his close traveling companion.

It is demonstrable that when handling the fifth book of the New Testament, the conclusion that it cannot all be the historically true word of God is not proven whatsoever. He gives two examples, which I find easy to respond to. 

One is the claim that the different accounts of Judas's death in Matthew 27:5-6 and Acts 1:18-19 shows that Luke's material contradicts that from the only record in the Gospels and was clearly formed later, by definition making it a legend. But Matthew never said Judas did not fall, and Luke never said he did not hang himself. Visit the traditional site of his death, and you will find a place where someone could have hung themself over a cliff and fallen onto sharp rocks.

Then, there is Acts 5:1-10. Ramsay observes,

"That Ananias should be carried forth and buried unknown to his family, unmourned by his kindred and friends, is not merely contrary to right conduct, but violates the deepest feelings of oriental life. That a man should be properly lamented and wept for by his family is and has always been a sacred right, which even crime does not forfeit."

This historian definitely would know the tradition he is talking about, so I trust him. But for pete's sake (or more appropriately, Peter's sake), the man was struck dead by God, and lying there before the Apostles! This was not your typical death, by any means!

At any rate, less likely than more does not, in cases like this, prove an error. What I mean is, the evidence isn't weighing conclusively on one side and the other rendered implausible. Sure, a proper funeral service might normally happen, but how can it be claimed that a book is historically inaccurate if it says one didn't? Perhaps the author is right and the usual cultural practice was not carried out, for some reason.

Furthermore, just because there is no evidence for a claim (in this case there is only a lack of direct evidence to this specific event) does not show that it didn't happen. It just would have to be verified by enough corroboration elsewhere to show the author has authority on the time around the event he is talking about.

For my final point, I can use 27:12 as a springboard. It says that Phoenix was a harbor facing both southwest and northwest. But Ramsay says it faces the east instead. So, "it must be observed that Luke never saw the harbor, and merely speaks on Paul's report of the professional opinion. It is possible that the sailors described the entrance as one in which inward-bound ships looked towards northwest and southwest, and that in transmission from mouth to mouth, the wrong impression was given that the harbor looked northwest and southwest." (2)

When doing critical ancient history (especially with ancient history), you are only going to get pieces of the puzzle, and never a full picture of everything about the time frame. Maybe the perspective which leads to referring to Phoenix as facing the west has been lost. Or perhaps Ramsay's consideration that hypothetically the sailors gave is what Luke was thinking about, and he didn't gather other information to consider it any other way more professionally.

My faith in the Bible as the word of God, which includes every historical claim literally having happened, rests not on being able to demonstrate directly that there definitely are no contradictions inside and outside the Bible, but instead on a historical critical argument for Jesus being God and therefore having watched over the formation of the canon(3). 

The thing is, I have waaaaaaaaaaay more than enough evidence to believe that the entire Bible is God's message. If there seems to be a tension between what it says and what has been discovered from extra-Biblical historical records, that's a problem with history, not the Bible(4).

Unlikely inventions

Ramsay didn't just support Acts with external evidence, though. There are some claims that lack the embellishment someone inventing a missionary story about preaching the Gospel wouldn't invent. 

In 13:50, Luke doesn't even describe what "persecution" Barnabas and Paul faced. This is very significant. After quickly mentioning some Acts of martyrs records, Ramsay concludes, "Where we possess accounts of a martyrdom of different dates, the older are less filled with sufferings than the later. ... Luke passes very lightly over Paul's sufferings." (5)

Furthermore, it would have been very fitting for an inventor who cared about Paul to include something specific of the abuse he faced. In his critically accepted letters, Paul goes so far to even boast about his sufferings (albeit in the Lord: 2 Cor. 30-31; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; Galatians 6:14) He wrote in 2 Corinthians 11:25, "Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea." It is probable that Paul had been beaten at Antioch in chapter 13. (For more examples of Paul's responses to persecution see 2 Cor. 11:23-27; 1 Cor. 4:8-13; Galatians 5:11; 6:17)

So, even had Luke included some details, it wouldn't by any means look suspiciously like an invention. But the fact that he didn't is astonishing.

Then there is the speech material in 14:15-17 and 17:22-31. "It is remarkable that, alike at Lystra and Athens, there is nothing in the reported words of Paul that is overtly Christian, and nothing (with the possible exception of "the man whom he has ordained") that several Greek philosophers might not have said. That is certainly not accidental. The author of Acts must have been conscious of it, and it is a strong proof of their genuineness. No one would invent a speech for Paul, which was not markedly Christian." (6)

Coincidentally, Hemer notes that the use of an appointed "man" (17:31; what Ramsay mentioned directly above) suits a "pagan audience for whom Christological refinements" wouldn't do any good since he is just introducing Christianity then, and is not a "deliberate Lukan theological construct." (7) (I thought of something to illustrate this point: Paul refers to Adam as "one man" in 17:26. But Adam was the first to sin, so by itself being a man isn't by any means flattering. Surely a Christian inventor would have referred to Jesus in a more theologically evolved manner.)

Moreover, if you look in my list of things in the book of Acts verified outside of the Bible, you will find contextual evidence for Paul's speeches (the "natural theology" from chapter 14 and invented images and quoted philosophers from 17). 

I haven't included by any means an exhaustive list of unlikely inventions in Acts (unless there isn't that many; I wouldn't really know because my focus was mainly on the extra-biblical evidence from the last post). These three instances are just more evidence for the fifth book of the New Testament.

Miracles!

"So here you have an impeccable historian, who has been proven right in hundreds of details and never proven wrong, writing the ... history of ... the early church. ... You don't have anything like that from any other religious book from the ancient world," said Geisler when discussing Hemer's book with Lee Strobel (8). 

And that's the thing: Acts is a religious book. It's not just some historian that is aware of different religions, it's a historian recording what's happening to those who believe in a religion -- that is, Christianity. The Gospel Paul preached throughout Asia minor is the true Gospel, having been confirmed by the many miraculous signs Jesus worked through him.

"[T]he superhuman element is inextricably involved in this book; you cannot cut it out by any critical process that will bear scrutiny. You must accept all or leave all," is how Sir William Ramsay put it (9). 

But don't be fooled: there are those who would entirely reject Acts just because it has miracles. As a matter of fact, Ramsay was responding to them when he wrote that quote. I am planning on explaining what this philosophy is and arguing against it in my next post. 

I found it fascinating that Ramsay would say this, and yet he leans toward a natural explanation to the reported interventions of God if he thinks there is one(10). I forgot to put this in my last post when discussing his credibility, but here is a good enough place. I don't want to give too much away now, but since critical thought of unbelievers can often be (arguably) cynical to miracles, it is very significant that a Christian historian would not sway toward believing in the many good things God directly did in the first century of His church.

Even though the New Testament has already been substantiated more than enough (to understate the evidence), further reason to believe in Acts can be given with the unlikely inventions of how he explains miracles.

Geisler observed: "Luke reports a total of 35 miracles in the same book in which he records all 84 of these historically confirmed details. Several miracles of Paul are recorded in the second half of Acts. ... And the miracle accounts show no signs of embellishment or extravagance--they are told with the same level-headed efficiency as the rest of the historical narrative." (11)

 I will give one major, unable-to-explain-naturally example here. In 20:9-12, there isn't even any reflection on that God used Paul to raise Eutychus. Although it is clear that this was a resurrection because he "was picked up dead," it is quickly dismissed at verse 11, only to appear again shortly in verse 12, which is appropriate but not embellished.  What really stood out to me was how little space Luke used -- going from Eutychus just being dead and then quickly alive again and then quickly back up to church --  instead of any theological reflection on the wonder of God raising someone from the dead. What's more, Paul only said "He's alive" not "He's alive again," and there was no prayer to heaven or bold claim like "In the name of Jesus Christ rise up again!" or something like that to heal him; only a dramatic hug. And let there be no natural explanation: I don't know how tall a third story building would have been back then, but unless all Paul had to do to help him regain consciousness was hug him, then a miracle healing of some degree occurred. And of course the third story would be high enough to kill someone, even if they just had to land the wrong way -- how much more of a risk to not be able to soon get back up to take communion!

I firmly believe that the supernatural feats that Luke claimed to have happened are just as historical as anything else reported, but due to certain philosophical views (which I hopefully will explain next post), I can't just say, "Acts has been confirmed with over 100 details, so of course the miracles are eyewitness testimony too." 

"Although it takes faith to accept the spiritual details written into the book of Acts, the amount of faith required is the proverbial biblical saying, the size of a mustard seed (Ref: Luke 17:6)." (12) I don't know who wrote that or exactly what they were thinking (because I didn't need to bother; I just skimmed over the webpage to see if it discussed Hemer's credentials and decided to discard it), but just running into that quote did inspire me to explain some major views. See, when I define faith, it's just belief in what you cannot know with 100% logical certainty. Therefore, any part of Acts is accepted with faith. The thing is that the faith is reasonable though, so it should be believed. 

Once you understand that view, it can put my thoughts into perspective. I don't see miracles as a bump on the road of rational belief whatsoever. If the evidence points to it, I should accept it along with the evidence. If I am reading a book with strong historical evidence in its favor, and it testifies to miracles, my eyebrow isn't going to raise in skepticism over the supernatural. I have other reasons to believe that God does work in the world, and also that book brings good reason right in that moment for my mind to believe in Him as well. Miracles are just as real as the typical understanding of everyday life. 

With this in mind (and having read from the last post that part of the reason Sir William Ramsay came to believe in Acts was because of his own archaeological discoveries), I can't help but wish I had been in his dusty and dirty boots at some point of my life. What would it have been like, to not believe the Bible, and then see for your own eyes, looking at what your own hands dug up, that the New Testament is true? What would it have been like to, in effect, dig up the miracles supernaturally worked by Jesus in the early church of Christianity? I've seen some pictures of the corroboration for Acts, and enjoyed them... I can't imagine what it would be like to get so close to the extra-biblical historical testimony for the word of God.

Conclusion

"For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming," said Roman historian A.N. Shermin-White. "[A]ny attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted." (13)

Josh McDowell, former anti-Christian who tried to disprove the Bible, only to become an apologist and author of the famous Evidence That Demands a Verdict, said when concluding the historical evidence for the New Testament, where both Hemer and Ramsay were used:

"After trying to shatter the historicity, validity, and authenticity of the Scriptures, I came to the conclusion that the Bible is historically trustworthy. I also discovered that if one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then one must discard almost all literature of antiquity.

"One problem we constantly face is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. One must apply the same test (unless guided by presuppositions that preclude historical conclusions), whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious.

"Having done this, we believe that we can hold the New Testament in our hands and say, 'It is trustworthy and historically reliable.'" (14)

Citations:

1. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (Hodder & Stoughton: London. 1925), reprinted 2001 Kregel Publications by Mark Wilson, 290-293.

2. Ibid., 262.

3. See the end of my 6 part Blog Project about the book of Mark.

4. This isn't an unreasonable faith to hold. While someone may protest that the evidence outside the Bible can be clearly interpreted and if the Bible contradicts it there is an error (I remember from school someone supporting evolution by saying there is evidence literally "rock-hard" that supports it. Someone might object to tensions between the Bible and archaeological interpretation with, "The rocks don't lie!") but, the fact is that history is fragmentary and people in the first and twenty-first century can still make mistakes. But of course, I'm not denying the usage of evidence at all, because the point is that Luke's accuracies greatly outweigh whatever amount of inaccuracies anyone wants to argue. Therefore, I believe that we should hold the presupposition before considering any history that someone (a first-century authority on a subject or second millennium scientific archaeologist) was probably correct.

5. Ibid., 97.

6. Ibid., 127-128.

7. Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns: Winona Lake, IN. 1990), 118.

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

9. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler, 269.

10. Ibid., 270.

11. Frank Turek and Norman L. Geisler, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist (Crossway: Wheaton, IL. 2004), 260. 

12. http://www.harvardhouse.com/acts-credible.htm

13. A.N Shermin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 189.

14. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2017), 91.