Revisiting the Historical Accuracy of Acts (part 1)

Arguing yes to the blog project title question "Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate?" came in part 1 with two sources that give historical evidence outside of the Bible and part 2 with unlikely inventions and other significant material referenced in this post. 

Inventions?

Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene had some striking skeptical arguments. The next post will go into claims of contradictions between Luke and Paul (questioning Biblical inspiration), but right now I have a springboard to cement my previously written case more.

In part 2 of the original argument, I argued for miraculous intervention in Acts from an unembellished account of someone being raised from the dead (Acts 20:7-12).

"Yet how different is it from the account of the raising of Patroclus, a servant of the emperor Nero, who also is said to have been listening to Paul late at night, this time in a barn? He too drifts asleep, falls from the window, and dies. Word is sent off to Nero, who very much liked the boy, but Paul once again saves the day, telling the gathered believers to mourn for the boy to the Lord so that he might be revived. And it all goes according to plan: Patroclus is resuscitated and returns to his master, Nero. ...[it is in] the legendary Acts of Paul from the second century." (1)

Obviously skeptics would argue this account was copied from Acts (and I think that's either right or definitely not demonstrably false), because otherwise there would be two independent attestations for one miracle.

But the example is actually counterintuitive to support legendary invention. He definitely was just an ordinary churchgoer. (Eutychus specifically was probably immature, for he seemed to be careless and verse 9 calls him young. It would be much more likely for an elderly man to nod off like that.)

The summary of Eutychus's resuscitation before Patroclus's was misleading. It said, "Lo and behold, Eutychus rises from the dead." But there is no "lo and behold," nor is there even an explicit mention of resuscitation. 

"Paul, completely unfazed, returns to the upper room" But there again is no stressing this point. Yeah, they go back as if nothing happened. As if nothing happened. This isn't comparable to dramatically raising a servant of Nero. Prayer was not offered to God, Paul just gave Eutychus a hug. 

Eutychus being raised from the dead is proven but never named(he was dead, he was alive, it's not dramatic). He does bring this fast-paced, brief incident to a conclusion, albeit simple with verse 21: "The people took the young man home alive and were greatly comforted." This is a good conclusion, containing no expansion.  Probably if we saw the actual story from the apocryphal work, it would read more legendary than the summary. But in contrast Luke just gets the point across, period. Read the passage yourself, and you'll see.

Bart Ehrman says in reference to another non-canonical miracle claim, "Of course it's legendary. But perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to say that it is simply a later fabrication, while the accounts found in the New Testament are factually accurate." (2)

I have said this before multiple times in my blog, but done so obscurely, so will explain it all here. Miracles by definition look legendary. This is because they do not align with the natural order of events in the world, and moreover there is not just one religion which claims to have such proof from God. If someone claims the supernatural happened, the burden of proof rests on the one with the claim, and until they try to relieve it, no one has to seek to explain it away. 

But that doesn't mean a miracle must be legendary. No, I claim that the apocryphal gospel of Peter's resurrection account, which appears very embellished, is not decisive proof against it, for this could have happened(3)! There is evidence for a miracle when it is expressed in a way that doesn't suggest legendary development. But even then I don't hold this as proof. With the case of Acts, it is that Luke is a great historian and his factual accounts are consistent with raising Eutychus from the dead.

Still, maybe he isn't 100% historically trustworthy and did this:

"As scholars have long recognized, the speeches of Peter and Paul sound very much alike in the book of Acts--so much so that if you didn't know who the speaker was, you often wouldn't be able to tell based on the contents of the speech. ... This may seem a bit odd, given the fact that Peter was an illiterate peasant who spoke Aramaic, whereas Paul was a well-educated, highly astute author raised in a Greek-speaking environment. ... In the book of Acts, these two sound exactly alike not because they would have sounded alike in real life but because their words have been placed on their lips by the same person, the author of Acts himself." (4)

I have to say that to my scholarly untrained eye, that does look suspicious. It doesn't interest me to take up the task of whether or not Peter would be educated enough to write. (Bart Ehrman insists 1 and 2 Peter don't come from him. It's a serious claim, but I can't know everything and don't bother putting something together myself. If you read that, don't feel like your faith took a hard hit; maybe ask about it in the comments if you deem the subject worth it.) 

For starters, how many times does Paul preach like that? Acts 13 has him preaching to Jews and God-fearing Gentiles. But much of Acts 13-28 (focused on Paul) is not the same. There are times when their isn't much monologue at all (like Acts 14), or when Paul preaches about himself (for instance Acts 22). 

Importantly, if Christianity is true, then the Holy Spirit came on Peter (Acts 2:1-4), and later Paul. Paul also had learned from Peter (Galatians 1:18). It's not hard to imagine to that, especially to a Jewish audience in a synagogue in chapter 13, they would have striking parallels. Also, Luke, even with his historic precision, probably wouldn't have word-for-word sermons. So there could be a tiny bit of truth in that Luke, or other sources, placed words on the Apostle's lips. 

But the skeptical claim undeniably demonstrates one type of two pieces of evidence. Acts 14:15-17 and Acts 17:22-31 are right at home to someone trying to preach to Gentiles, using the contextual credibility of their religion. There is only one reference to Jesus, which doesn't explicitly name Him at all. 

Errors?

From multiple books and authors, it was ingrained in me that Luke had at sometimes seemed wrong, skeptical scholars would be confident that he was, and then evidence confirming his claims would be discovered. This is quite encouraging. In the updated 2017 Evidence That Demands a Verdict, it touches on some of these that I had as evidence, and can expand on them here(5). 

One example from the pdf in part 1 of historical evidence outside of the Bible is Lystra and Derbe being in Lycaonia, and not Iconium.  Some records like the Roman Cicero seemed to say that Iconium was in Lycaonia. In 1910, though, Sir William Ramsay found a monument saying it was a Phyrgian city, with more evidence discovered afterward proving it to be(6). 

Another is Luke calling Philippian rulers praetors. Critical scholars once argued two duumuirs would have ruled Phillipi, but magistrates of Roman colonies have used such a title before(7). 

The term politarch from 17:6 wasn't found in writings, but then many inscriptions were discovered using the title, five of which pointed to Thessalonica(8). Editor Mark Wilson pointed out Ramsay only knew enough to refer politarch as "rare," but many later discoveries show it was actually quite prominent(9).

As you probably know, I don't believe there are any historical errors in Acts. But even if it seems like there is, still after a significant number of critical charges had been answered, I would argue that is not a strike against the Bible. In part 2 I wrote this:

"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. ...

"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. (10)

"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."

Sometimes I would run into the dating of when things happened in Luke compared to when, for example, a certain person was in office. Really, I ignored it, unless it seemed completely out of date. Hemer did point out he was right, but still, scholars might be able to debate timelines. Probability says Acts would be correct, with inerrancy demonstrated beyond this excellent historical text (referenced above). If historians today cannot create a perfect timeline with Biblical and non-Christian sources, that's their problem. All sources talking about a certain governor would be like accounts of the Titanic: some say it broke in half before it sank, others say it stayed whole. No one denies it sank. Historical investigations and even eyewitness interrogation take use of the fact that different sources should get the main ideas but not be exactly the same details (secondary details), possibly even going to the point of contradiction. I mean surely every historian would know enough to not, like, date an A.D. figure back to B.C(11).  

Accurate?

In part 1 I asked who I could trust if not Sir William Ramsay and Colin J. Hemer. But now I think I know who could be better, or at least appeals to sources that are even better in their partiality. Former late famed atheist Antony Flew learned under A.N. Shermin-White, a self-titled "someone from the Roman side." (12) Leading resurrection apologist Gary Habermas mentioned he was "a world-renowned Roman authority,"(13) and Flew said he was "my respected old tutor at Oxford."(14)  Habermas brought it to my attention that when Shermin-White famously said "For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. ... But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted," (15) he meant Acts had "long been accepted by Roman historians as an excellent source even in the details." (13)

Ramsay pointed out that out of four types of history, one is significantly erroneous but still okay or maybe even good(16). But Ramsay famously called Luke a "historian of the first-rank." I wish to add to my presentation of the credibility of Hemer and Ramsay something I came up with over a year ago: there is evidence, and there is claims. What that means is there are some things which undeniably are true, and others which are controversial and are supported by evidence. For instance, it is debatable that the archaeopteryx is a macro-evolutionary transitional form, but scientists of any side (atheist, young-earth or old-earth creationists) know it is not a fake(17). So when Ramsay, Hemer, and Shermin-White write in their scholarly sources that certain things in Acts are undeniably factual and even unbelieving Roman historians know this (one point I made was their primary audience was not persuading a lay reader), they are to be trusted. And if unbelieving Roman historians can see its "basic historicity," it is there. 

Perhaps this is what famous agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman was hinting at when he said even though the book is not at first a strict historical report or even right about everything, "I do not want this to seem like a harsh harangue on the book of Acts. In fact, I think Acts is a terrifically interesting and important book. ... To be sure, there is historically accurate information in Acts--about Peter, about Paul, about the early Christian movement." (18) I really think Ehrman made the nice choice when he put it that way.

It was wise to use the Gifford Lectures, as Flew also implied that speaking for them was a great privilege(19). (When I originally was searching for the credibility of Sir William Ramsay online, I remember for a while not getting anything obviously credible. But then, I think maybe when I had started the post with him, it came up. Did God put that there for me directly, exercising His power over nature? I don't know. He might have.)

Citing miraculous events in Acts and Romans 15:19 and 2 Corinthians 12:12, Mark Wilson commented, "Miracles were an integral part of Paul's life and ministry, confirming the gospel that he preached." (20) Acts has ginormous information on the historical Jesus, because it begins by pointing out "In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach until the day he was taken up into heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen." It was Jesus's Divine power working through Paul and other members of the early church that could heal and restore life.

Even not bothering will all the evidence and just accepting Act's "basic historicity," defining that as being a "really good book recording history," there is enough to also accept the miracle in Acts 20. Luke definitely was someone that God would want to employ. 

Citations:

1. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 91,

2. Ibid., 92.

3. You can find the false gospel of Peter's resurrection story here. 

4. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 66.

5. Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell, Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Life-changing Truth for a Skeptical World (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2017), 86-89.

6. They cite Joseph P. Free, Archeology and Bible History (Scripture Press: Wheaton, 1950), 317.

7. McDowell cites Ibid., 321.

8. McDowell cites F.F. Bruce, "Archaeological Confirmation of the New Testament," in Revelation and the Bible, ed. Carl Henry (Book House: Grand Rapids, MI. 1969), 325; see also David E Graves, Biblical Archaelogy: AN Introduction with Recent Discoveries That Support the Reliability of the Bible (Electronic Chrisgtian Media: Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada. 2014), 215-16.

9. William M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (Hodder & Stoughton: London. 1925), reprinted 2001 Kregel Publications by Mark Wilson, 183.

10. This argument is over the credibility of Mark. "The True Lost Gospel of Peter -- Ultimate Conclusion: Who is the Historical Jesus?" It has links to all the evidence. There is a lot; I wouldn't need all the evidence I have in my entire blog to believe the entire Bible is the word of God.

11. This podcast on Mark, Luke-Acts, and John discusses how Luke at first seemed wrong to refer to Lysanias in 3:1 as a first-century figure, but another government official by the same name was discovered. Of course, before that skeptics argued Luke was entirely wrong on that subject and so a shaky source of dependability in general.

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

13. Gary Habermas and Antony G. N. Flew, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? The Resurrection Debate, edited by Terry L. Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987), 109.

14. Ibid., 110; cf. J.P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen, Does God Exist? The Debate Between Theists and Atheists (Prometheus Books: 1993), 164.

15. Shermin-White, Roman Society, 189.

16. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler, 15-16.

17. For a discussion of the iconic "transitional form" that also includes legitimate examples of when forgeries have happened intentionally or unintentionally, I suggest Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science of Myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong (Regenery: 2000), 111-135.

18. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 99.

19. Gary R. Habermas and Antony Flew, Resurrected? An Atheist and Theist in Dialogue, John F. Ankerberg edition (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, inc: 2005), 84; Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese, There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (Harperone: 2007), 2.

20. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveler,  270.