Revisiting the Historical Accuracy of Acts (part 2)
It was quite a few posts ago that I published part 1 of revisiting the authenticity of Acts. Here I defend it from a handful of skeptical arguments. More evidence is shown by the parallels between what Paul says and what his biographer agrees on. On the other hand, if they contradict each other, that is bad for Luke's report.
Ehrman questions the legitimacy between Paul speaking of himself going to the Gentiles and Peter to the Jews (Galatians 2:7-8), but in Acts it is a very big deal that Peter learned God wants everyone to believe in Him. He teaches the Gospel to a Roman centurion named Cornelius (Acts 10-11). "Paul's strong statement that Peter's work was restricted to the 'circumcised' may stand at some tension with an important narrative found in the book of Acts, a story that Paul never mentions and seems to not know." (1)
I don't see where it says Peter's work was "restricted" to the Gentiles. However, even if it was, the burden of proof would weigh on someone who would say this leaves no room whatsoever for going outside the main mission. Interestingly enough, Acts 11 has Peter going back to the Jews and explaining his actions. Then, chapter 12 has him being arrested by Herod, whose temple was in Jerusalem. For a history book with the purpose to show the Gospel is for all believers, including this event makes a lot of sense, as opposed to Paul not doing so and focusing on the differences between himself and Peter. I appreciate Ehrman said it "may stand at some tension with" Acts (emphasis mine). Finally, Ehrman himself wished that we had more of Paul's letters, because what we have is really just a fraction of them all(2). Maybe Paul agreed with Acts then. So long as there is no contradiction, there is no room for skeptical accusations.
In Galatians 2, Paul fiercely rebuked Peter at Antioch for profaning the Gospel by saying Gentiles must practice Jewish customs. But in Acts 15, Peter agreed with him. "It is not at all unthinkable [that this was invented]: other authors also tried to portray the two apostles as being in complete harmony, including the author of the book of Acts (cf. Acts 15)." (3)
If this is the same event, it isn't improbable that Peter was one of the ones Paul was "in sharp dispute" with (Acts 15:1-2). Who came to Antioch was unnamed. Ehrman himself suggested that Peter could be invented as Mark has him because "It is easy to want to be faithful, hard to attain the goal; easy to make promises to God, hard to keep them[.]"(4) Peter followed Jesus all the way into the courtyard, when everyone else ran away, but denied Him and abandoned Him as well. Paul himself explains Peter gave into peer pressure (Gal. 2:12-13). Then, Peter saw his mistake and righted his wrong when they got back to Jerusalem. And for Heaven's sake (pun intended), nowhere does Acts say Paul and Peter were always in "complete harmony!"
The final problems I will look at are associated with: "When did Peter and the other apostles meet Paul: right after Paul's conversion in Damascus, as in Acts, or years later, as Paul insists (Acts 9:26-29; Gal. 1:16-18)?" (5)
Apparent contradictions in the Bible such as these are no strangers to expert Christians. Sir William Ramsay (the converted, expert archeologist) points out that the historical method Luke chose, as paralleled by Tacitus's biography of Agricola (around A.D. 98), is one that hardly values chronological timeline at all. "His plan leads him to concentrate attention on the critical steps. Hence he often passes lightly over a long period of gradual development marked by no striking incident; and from his bad chronological sense he gives no measure of the lapse of time implied in a sentence, a clause, or even a word." (6)
He then presents a plausible harmonization with Galatians. One is a quick stay with the disciples (9:19) and the other a long time of preaching (9:20-23). To my eyes, after Paul was converted and "at once" started to argue with others, fits a religious inventor who is implying God made him capable. (I just realize though that this would leave the question why he didn't point it out, like other times when people receive the Holy Spirit. That could arguably be unembellished.) But it could be that a space of time is implied because, as Ramsay expands on his earlier general observation, the "quiet residence in the country for a time, recovering from the serious and prostrating effect of his conversion (for a man's life is not suddenly reversed without serious claim on his physical power) is the dividing fact between the two periods. The division is certainly very awkwardly and insufficiently indicated; but Luke everywhere shows similar weakness in indicating the temporal relations of events." (7)
Then there is the issue of Paul first meeting "the apostles" in Acts 9:27, but Galatians 1:18-19 has him only seeing Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. My other big source on Acts, the noted Roman historian Colin J. Hemer, argues that it isn't implausible for Luke to have used a general title, as Peter and James were big church leaders and represent the group of "the apostles." (8) There is no claim that Paul went to Jerusalem right after leaving Damascus. Actually, Acts just says he came to Jerusalem at some point (9:26), and remember Luke wasn't much for a good timeline in Acts.
Right at reading this, I realize Acts says he left Jerusalem and went to Caesarea and was sent to Tarsus (9:30), and Paul says he later went to Syria and Cilicia (Gal. 1:21). Contradiction? By no means is this proven! Paul was sent away from Jerusalem to escape being killed (Acts 9:29). Galatians 1 is focused on Paul's apostolic credentials, which is why he found it important to include what happened at Syria and Cilicia. These are totally two different focuses.
Then is another visit go Jerusalem in Galatians 2. It can easily be connected with Acts 11. It ends with Paul going to Jerusalem. It is very probable that the "revelation" Paul was responding to is described in Acts 11:27-30.
See what I mean when I wrote in the last post that it won't be easy to decisively show there is an error? With the arguably obvious contradiction between when Paul first met Peter having an answer, it brings up the idea that perhaps it couldn't be possible at all, even if it is true, to prove any errors between Biblical books at all (although I think this is dismissible). How could skeptics show there is no other plausible side?
"We must face the facts boldly. [Amen.] If Luke wrote Acts [and especially if these two authors wrote the word of God], his narrative must agree in a striking and convincing way with Paul's: they must confirm, explain, and complete one another. This is not a case of two commonplace, imperfectly educated, and not very observant witnesses who give divergent accounts of certain incidents which they saw without paying much attention to them. We have here two men of high education, one writing a formal history, the other speaking under every obligation of honor and conscience to be careful with his words. ... If ever there was a case in which striking agreement was demanded by historical criticism between two classes of documents, it is between the writings of Paul and of Luke." (9)
But then, he goes on to point out that even great historians are not incapable of error, and the two may "start with a different view" (what I've been calling "writing for different purposes") and so more work on the present-day historians part is demanded(10).
The earlier difficulties (if they can even be called that) actually contain parallels between Paul and Acts and thus fit two different authors who write for different purposes, but knew each other. In the 2017 Evidence That Demands a Verdict, there is a few explained obvious parallels between the epistles and Luke's history of the early church(11).
In Acts 18:1-5, Paul works as a tentmaker through the week but then reasons in the synagogue (doing his job as an apostle) on the Sabbath, when a Jew can't work. But verse 5 states when Silas and Timothy came from Macedonia, Paul put down the tentmaking tools and just preached.
Most likely, they brought money. "And when I was present with you, and in need, I was a burden to no one, for what I lacked the brethren who came from Macedonia supplied" (2 Cor. 11:9).
In Acts 19:21-22, Paul plans where he is going to go from Ephesus. He'll pass through Macedonia, but stay in Ephesus a little longer. This corresponds to 1 Corinthians 16:3-9.
The extra-biblical evidence discussed in the original post didn't lie. (Wouldn't it be absurd for a writer to invent a story with such painstaking detail, just to create their own Paul?) It is true. Luke did accompany Paul during his travels, and faithfully record everything properly, as it aligns with his purpose of why he is telling the truth.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.