Thursday, February 14, 2008

Why I don’t trust Acts of the Apostles

At least not for history. On a number of occasions, I have made reference to historical errors within the book of Acts as they pertained to the discussion at hand. For a handy reference (at least for me) I thought I would compile them.

First—a note of caution. At times people categorize Acts as “history” whereas the question of which Dewey Decimal to assign to the book is not resolved. Simply because one happened to find “Gone with the Wind” in the historical section of the Library, and it even includes historical events, does not mean the author intended the book to be taken as actual history.

I often see the argument (made out of hyperbole), “If you don’t accept Acts as history, then you can’t accept any ancient writing as history ‘cause that would be a double standard.” Posh and nonsense. First of all, we don’t know Acts was considered history. Second, we treat various historical books with varying degrees of skepticism. There is a difference between “Gone with the Wind” and an 8th Grade History book’s account of the American Civil War and General Sherman’s personal diary. In the same way, we don’t treat ancient documents with an all-or-nothing approach, either.

We don’t know what the author intended the book to be. Was it a Greek Novel? It shares many of the same elements as such. Was it an argument for Christianity? Was it solely intended for the in-group of Christianity? Was it an argument against the Jewish roots of Christianity for a Roman audience?

We don’t know where the author obtained his information. We don’t know when it was written. We are not certain it was this fellow “Luke.” It is not until 180 C.E. Irenaeus attributes the Book to to Luke (and due to the similarities, I presume the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts to be the same author).

The famous “we” passages do intonate the author to be a one-time traveling companion of Paul, and perhaps it was the Luke of Philemon 1:24. The fact the pseudo-Pauline writers of Colossians (4:14) and 2 Timothy (4:11) both mention Luke only bolster the connection between the two. (Although the author of 1 Timothy demonstrates knowledge of the Gospel of Luke when s/he quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim. 5:18.)

However, the author’s record of Paul’s speeches is unlike the doctrine we find in Paul’s letters. The author has Paul portrayed as a great orator in such passages as Acts 17:22-31, yet Paul indicates his presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 2 Cor. 10:8-10. Further, the speeches contain little of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. (Once in Acts. 13:39)

So here’s a list--a few will have a link or two for further study (I will not address the additional errors in the Gospel of Luke.)

1) Acts has Jesus telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem (1:4) whereas Mark (16:7), Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1) all have Jesus telling and meeting his disciples in Galilee. I wrote on the fictional nature of this mass move here.

2) Acts does not know who the High Priest was at the first Jewish accusation of the Disciples. Acts 4:6. This makes chronology of the claim of persecution difficult. I touch on the issue here.

3) Acts 5:36-37, has Gamaliel putting Theudas and Judas of Galilee in the wrong order which appears to be a misunderstanding of Josephus’ account.

4) Acts has a mob stoning Stephen (7:58) whereas the Gospel of John (18:31) claims it is unlawful for the Jews to put anyone to death.

5) Acts contradicts Paul’s account of visiting Jerusalem three and 17 years after Damascus in Galatians 1:17-2:1. The most common resolution of this contradiction is to ridiculously place a three (3) year interval between 9:19 and 9:20. For example. I wrote on this problem here.

6) On a related note, Acts has Paul persecuting the Church in Jerusalem (8:1, 9:1) yet Paul says he was not known by face in Judea. Gal. 1:23. Only by reputation.

7) Acts chronologically places a famine (11:27-28) followed by the death of Herod (12:1-23) The order is actually reversed: Herod died in 44 C.E. whereas the famine was in 46-47 C.E.

8) Acts has Ananias the Priest talking to Felix the procurator. (24:1-3). Since Ananias was High Priest from 46-52 CE. and Felix was the Ruler from 52-60 C.E., the only year in which this could occur was 52 C.E. Yet Acts says Festus replaced Felix “two years later.” (24:27) Festus replaced Felix in 60 C.E., not 54 C.E.

(Edited to Add: I am wrong on this one as demonstrated in the Comments.)

9) There are differing portrayals of the people with whom Paul deals (in 15:2-21 James is the mediator between conservative Pharisees on one side and Peter, Paul and Barnabas on the other. However Paul records in Gal. 2:9 to be sided with Barnabas against Peter, James and John.)

10) The decision of the apostolic conference differs between 15:22-29 and Gal. 2:10

11) Why did Paul have to defend his Gentile mission against the “three pillars” (Gal. 2:1-10) if Peter (one of the pillars) had already been given such a mission in 10:1-11:18?

12) One of the intriguing aspects of Acts is how it incorporates common Greek themes regarding gods. For instance, one theme was that the opening of prison doors or the magical releasing of prisoners, (such as that found in 5:17-20, 12:6-11, and 16:23-30) was a sign of divine intervention.

Or the fact the phrase “kick against the goads” (26:14) was used for more than 500 years previously as a saying about a person arguing against a god. Peter Kirby has written an outstanding article outlining these themes. (And it should be noted the author of Acts demonstrates at least a passing knowledge of Euripides when he quotes him at 17:28)

Acts demonstrates a propensity to be anti-Jewish. It is almost exclusively used as a claim the Jews (not the Romans) persecuted the early church—yet when one reads it as a whole it is demonstrated the Jews are perpetually portrayed as the “bad guy” and the Romans are portrayed as the “good guy.”

In Acts 9:23 it is the “Jews” who plotted to kill Paul in Damascus. Yet in 2 Cor. 11:32 Paul records it was the local authorities; not the Jews who were attempting to arrest him.

 Sadducees imprison Peter and John. (4:1) No Roman authorities involved.
 Sadducees imprison Apostles. (5:17-18) No Roman authorities involved.
 Jews flog apostles. (5:40)
 Jews seize Stephen (6:9) and stone him (7:58). No Romans involved.
 Jews persecute all Christians (8:1-3) including in foreign countries (9:1-2)
 Jews in Damascus seek to kill Saul/Paul, not non-Jewish government. (9:23)
 Herod (Jew) arrests Christians, kills James, imprisons Peter. (12:1-2)
 Roman leader wants to learn about Christianity, but Jewish sorcerer opposes Paul and Barnabas. (13:6-8)
 Jews oppose Paul and Barnabas. (13:45) whereas Gentiles welcome them. (13:48) Jews stir up local governments against Paul and Barnabas (13:50)
 Jews stir up Gentiles against Paul. (14:2)
 Jews go from Antioch and Iconium to Lystra to stir up crowd against Paul. (14:19)
 Local governments beat and imprison Paul and Silas. (16:22-24) Curiously, the Magistrates then order them to be released (16:35) and then attempted to appease them (16:38)
 Jews harass Paul and Silas in Thessalonica. (17:5) Then travel to Berea to pursue them. (17:13)
 Jews oppose Paul in Corinth (18:6) accusing him before the local Government. (18:12) However the Roman Government supports Paul. (18:14-16)
 A non-Jew, Demetrius stirs up trouble against Paul. (19:23-26). A Jew, Alexander, is unsuccessful in calming the crowd. (19:33-34). The Roman City Clerk, however succeeds quite easily. (19:41)
 Jews plot against Paul. (20:3)
 Jews stir up crowd against Paul in Jerusalem. (21:27) Roman authority saves Paul. (12:30-32)
 We enter a familiar, repetitive scene. The Jews seek to kill Paul (23:10, 12; 24:1; 25:7) while the Roman Authority wishes to free Paul (23:23; 24:23, 26; 26:32)


Over and over the designation between Jew and Gentile is stated, with the chief instigators and problem-makers being Jews. I encourage the reader to spend the time reading Acts straight through, comparing how many times “Jew” and “Gentile” is contrasted. The author apparently intended the comparison to be emphasized.

Finally, a few links if any of this has whetted your appetite. Those interested in textual criticism are aware the Western Text of Acts is 9% longer than the version we have. Here is another article on Acts’ Reliability. And if you prefer a Christian perspective on the book, please read Chris Price’s article on Acts. (This is a download of a Word Document.)

25 comments:

  1. In history, no text at all is considered "historical" a priori, and no historical text is ever considered a priori veridical. Historians always (if they're doing it right) draw conclusions about historiosity and veracity on the basis of evidentiary arguments.

    It's one thing if you do in fact want to treat Acts as historical a priori. That's religious faith. It's quite another to insist that Acts should be considered historical and veridical on scientific or rational grounds. Such an opinion indicates only ignorance or mendacity of the methodology of scientific history.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You obviously did a lot of work on this, Dagoods. I printed it up to go over it as time permits. I recall when we studied Acts a few years ago in bible study that one of the theories was that Luke wrote it as an amicus brief for Paul before the Roman Courts. And that the gospel of Luke and Acts were originally one. Did you come across any such info to that effect?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Barefoot Bum,

    Yeah. I know. This is my equivalent of venting. I tire of the:

    Me: I question the reason for how James died.
    Christian: But Acts SAYS…[blah, blah, blah]

    Me: Well, I question the objectivity and historicity of Acts—
    Christian: You do??!! Then you must question ALL historical documents of ALL kinds at ALL times, and we would conclude JULIUS CAESAR didn’t live, and we may as well BURN all the Libraries ‘cause we can’t know ANYTHING about ANYTHING if you dare question even a single remote incident contained in Acts because it is HISTORY, and it is a DOUBLE STANDARD to question Acts but not anything and everything else and…[blah, blah, blah]

    Sometimes I do like to show I’ve actually studied this stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Jordan,

    With all due respect, the only place(s) I come across the claim Acts was an amicus brief is on Christian apologetic sites. Most scholars (Christian and otherwise) recognize Acts was written after Paul died, probably in the 90’s C.E. It was written to third generation Christians, providing them confirmation of the continuance of their heritage from the first generation (Apostles/Disciples) via the paragon of the second generation—Paul.

    The author of Acts knows Paul is dead (Acts 20:25,38) which is a curious thing to write in a brief hoping to save his life. The author is familiar with Bernice, (and presumes the readers know her too) most likely placing it post 69 C.E. This would also conflict with Paul’s clearly stated intention to go to Spain (Rom. 15:24) which 1 Clement confirms was accomplished.

    I haven’t read a serious scholar (Christian or otherwise) who has demonstrated this claim in any real fashion.

    As to Luke and Acts once being the same book—this was the first I heard of it. The problem would be with the fact both books provide an introduction, Acts 1:1 makes reference to a “previous account,” entailing two books. Each book is very long (Gospel of Luke is the longest book of the New Testament; Acts is the second longest) and would fit approximately on one scroll. To have a double-scroll length would make it both unusual as well as unwieldy.

    Marcion also copied Luke (and it has been hypothesized, but not adequately demonstrated (IMO) Acts was a response to Marcion) but seems unaware of Acts.

    What were the arguments it was the same book? NOTE: I am specifically looking for historical references and citations, NOT, repeat NOT, “I think…”

    ReplyDelete
  5. WARNING TO ALL READERS: This comment is unfortunately, but necessarily, quite long. Unless you are REALLY interested in this topic, you may get bored.

    First, Dagoods, I think you misunderstand the Christian "double standard" argument, and it is possible I have misunderstood some of your comments in the past as well. Do you believe that the ENTIRE book of Acts should be thrown out as a historical resource or only those passages you object to? The Christian objection refers only to the former position. Any book of history will have flaws (at least any non-inspired book, which I understand for you would obviously be all of them). Yet if you accept historical information from other historical documents, but not from Biblical ones, simply because you believe the Biblical book contains SOME errors, that is a double standard.

    If you are only picking and choosing certain portions of Acts that you believe are unreliable, that is something we can talk about. I would agree there is no double standard there because that is the same thing we do with other books. We would just need to address the so-called problems one by one.

    To that end, I'd like to address the twelve points you raised in your post. Forgive me, but I originally wrote this as my private notes, so I refer to you as "Dagoods" instead of "you", and frankly it is just too late at night for me to go through and change it all. So pretend that I wrote this to your readers, which of course is partially true.

    "1) Acts has Jesus telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem (1:4) whereas Mark (16:7), Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1) all have Jesus telling and meeting his disciples in Galilee. I wrote on the fictional nature of this mass move here."

    Let's look at the passages you refer to in context:

    Acts
    1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

    Mark
    1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

    4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

    6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

    Matthew
    8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

    16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

    John
    1Afterward Jesus appeared again to his disciples, by the Sea of Tiberias.

    These passages are clearly not talking about the same thing. The apostles were told to go to meet Jesus in Galilee. They went to Galilee. Saw Him. Then they went back to Jerusalem where they were told to stay until the Holy Spirit arrived at Pentecost.

    Dagoods provided a link to his post titled "Story or History?" Look at what he said in that post:

    "At this point we see what we would humanly, naturally expect. Jesus and his Disciples’ base is in Galilee. The crowd is unfriendly in Jerusalem. The obvious point of retreat is Galilee. Or look at it this way. Assuming the Jesus movement is dead. Kaput. Jesus died and wasn’t resurrected, where do the disciples go? Back to their jobs. Back to their families and homes. Back to the lives they had before. Sure, one or two may continue the farce, but not all eleven. They would go home."

    "Up until now, everything seems fine. There is only one catch. Luke wants to be a historian. And what Luke knows about the history of the church is that it started in Jerusalem. (Acts 2:1-7) Peter was from Jerusalem. (Gal. 1:18) Jesus’ brother is from Jerusalem. (Gal. 1:19) In fact, all of the apostles were staying in Jerusalem. (Acts 1:13) The Church grows in Jerusalem. (Acts 6:7). Every indication Luke has before him is that the church’s earliest leaders are from Jerusalem."

    So Dagoods admits that it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the apostles would have gone back to Galilee after Jesus' death. That's the first part of what the Bible tells us. He then seems to admit that the early church, consisting of these same apostles, grew and thrived in Jerusalem. So at some point, whether he thinks it is plausible or not, he admits that it happened! In one breath he claims that the move is implausible, but in the next he admits that it happened (at least at some point; something that simply must be admitted unless you take the extraordinary position that the church in Jerusalem did not exist).

    There is nothing problematic with Acts here. It simply describes what happened. The apostles first went to Galilee, then later returned to Jerusalem.

    "2) Acts does not know who the High Priest was at the first Jewish accusation of the Disciples. Acts 4:6. This makes chronology of the claim of persecution difficult. I touch on the issue here."

    Again, let's look at the passage Dagoods refers to:

    Acts
    6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family.

    Dagoods claims in his link "Why Didn't the Priests Show the body?" that Annas (also called Ananus) was high priest from 6-15 and Caiaphas was high priest from 18-36, the time period the author of Acts (who I will call "Luke") was writing about. In his current post, Dagoods claims that because Luke calls Annas high priest instead of Caiaphas, he must not know who the high priest really was. This is simply a lack of understanding of Annas' history and how he was regarded by Jews.

    Annas was high priest from 6-15. In that Dagoods was correct. But Annas was deposed, not by any Jewish authority, but by the Romans, and succeeded by his son Eleazar, then his son-in-law Caiaphas. But the Jews, due to what they undoubtedly viewed as a deposing without authority, still recognized Annas as high priest. Consider some of the following statements in the gospels of Luke and John to see how those authors thought of Annas.

    Luke 3
    1In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.

    Here Luke refers to BOTH Annas and Caiaphas as high priest.

    John 18
    12Then the detachment of soldiers with its commander and the Jewish officials arrested Jesus. They bound him 13and brought him first to Annas, who was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, the high priest that year. 14Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it would be good if one man died for the people.

    15Simon Peter and another disciple were following Jesus. Because this disciple was known to the high priest, he went with Jesus into the high priest's courtyard, 16but Peter had to wait outside at the door. The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there and brought Peter in.

    19Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.

    20"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus replied. "I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret. 21Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said."

    22When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby struck him in the face. "Is this the way you answer the high priest?" he demanded.

    23"If I said something wrong," Jesus replied, "testify as to what is wrong. But if I spoke the truth, why did you strike me?" 24Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.

    In verse 12 it says the soldiers brought him to "Annas." Verse 13 admitted that Caiaphas was high priest. But then in verse 19 it says the "high priest" questioned Jesus. This should be Caiaphas, right? But look at verse 24. It was Annas, not Caiaphas, doing the questioning. Caiaphas wasn't even there. Again, both Annas and Caiaphas are referred to as the high priest.

    The passage in Acts is simply a recognition of Annas as high priest in spite of his illegitimate deposing. It does not show that the author didn't know who the high priest was.

    "3) Acts 5:36-37, has Gamaliel putting Theudas and Judas of Galilee in the wrong order which appears to be a misunderstanding of Josephus’ account."

    This is a quote of what one of the Pharisees said. The Sanhedrin wanted to kill Peter and other apostles. Gamaliel was a Pharisee who stood up and addressed the Sanhedrin. Luke was simply quoting what Gamaliel said. So Gamaliel got them in the wrong order. So what? That doesn't mean that Luke didn't know what the right order was. Would you prefer Luke lie and say Gamaliel said something different than he really did just to make him look better and fix his mistake?

    "4) Acts has a mob stoning Stephen (7:58) whereas the Gospel of John (18:31) claims it is unlawful for the Jews to put anyone to death."

    It was unlawful under the Roman law, not Jewish law. It is also unlawful to murder someone in America today. Does that somehow mean that murders don't happen?

    Many Jews were more than willing to stone someone if they felt it was appropriate, regardless of what the Roman law said. Take the following examples:

    John 8
    58 "Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

    John 10
    25 Jesus answered, ".... 30 I and the Father are one."

    31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"

    33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

    So the Jews broke the Roman law by stoning Stephen. What does that have to do with whether or not it really happened?

    "5) Acts contradicts Paul’s account of visiting Jerusalem three and 17 years after Damascus in Galatians 1:17-2:1. The most common resolution of this contradiction is to ridiculously place a three (3) year interval between 9:19 and 9:20. For example. I wrote on this problem here."

    I'm failing to see this contradiction. The gap would not be between Acts 9:19 and 9:20 (although the link provided by Dagoods does seem to place the gap here, in my experience this is not where it is normally placed). The gap is more typically placed between Acts 9:25 and 26 as follows:

    "25 But his followers took him by night and lowered him in a basket through an opening in the wall.

    26 When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple."

    Notice that this says nothing about when "he came to Jerusalem," or how long after he left Damascus it was that he came to Jerusalem. At no point prior to verse 26 did Acts ever say that Paul was going to Jerusalem immediately after he left Damascus. The author of Acts simply left out Paul's trips to Arabia, which is what Paul described in Galatians (although even there he does not say he was in Arabia all three of those years, just that he went to Arabia after Damascus; maybe he spent all three years in Arabia, maybe he didn't). So what? I am sure there are many other things about Paul's life that Luke also didn't record.

    "6) On a related note, Acts has Paul persecuting the Church in Jerusalem (8:1, 9:1) yet Paul says he was not known by face in Judea. Gal. 1:23. Only by reputation."

    Wrong. Read the verses:

    Acts 8
    1 And Saul approved of their killing him. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison.

    Acts 9
    1 Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord's disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.

    Now for Galatians 1:
    13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

    18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

    21 Then I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.

    The passages in Acts clearly are about Saul BEFORE he was converted by Jesus. The passage in Galatians just as clearly says that Paul was not known to the churches in Jerusalem SINCE his conversion. He never says that he had never been to Jerusalem, only that he hadn't been there since he became a Christian. The clear context from verses 16 and 17 shows that Paul is talking about whether he went to Jerusalem immediately after his conversion.

    "7) Acts chronologically places a famine (11:27-28) followed by the death of Herod (12:1-23) The order is actually reversed: Herod died in 44 C.E. whereas the famine was in 46-47 C.E."

    Again, wrong. Read the verses:

    Chapter 11
    27 During this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch. 28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) 29 The disciples, as each one was able, decided to provide help for the believers living in Judea. 30 This they did, sending their gift to the elders by Barnabas and Saul.

    Chapter 12
    1 It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them.

    Then Herod went from Judea to Caesarea and stayed there.
    ...

    21 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. 22 They shouted, "This is the voice of a god, not of a mere mortal." 23 Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.

    Chapter 11 never said the famine HAPPENED at that time. It simply said that some prophets PREDICTED it at that time (it would be a pretty worthless prophecy to be predicting something that was already going on). In fact, immediately following the prediction was the phrase "This happened during the reign of Claudius", which strongly suggests that the famine didn't happen at the time the prediction was made, but rather sometime later. Claudius reigned from 41-54, during which time (as Dagoods admits) the famine happened (46-47).

    "8) Acts has Ananias the Priest talking to Felix the procurator. (24:1-3). Since Ananias was High Priest from 46-52 CE. and Felix was the Ruler from 52-60 C.E., the only year in which this could occur was 52 C.E. Yet Acts says Festus replaced Felix “two years later.” (24:27) Festus replaced Felix in 60 C.E., not 54 C.E."

    The NIV Study Bible note on Acts 23:2 states that Ananias was high priest from 47-59, not 46-52. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia agrees on the same dates, as does Thayer's Greek Definitions. The Holman Bible Dictionary has him as high priest from 47-58. Assuming Dagoods is correct that Felix was ruler from 52-60, that means that this event could have happened in 58, and Festus could have replaced Felix two years later in AD 60. Problem solved.

    The confusion about AD 52 may come from the following event (quoted from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia):

    "In 52 ad [Ananias] was sent to Rome by Quadratus, legate of Syria, to answer a charge of oppression brought by the Samaritans, but the emperor Claudius acquitted him. On his return to Jerusalem, he resumed the office of high priest. He was deposed shortly before Felix left the province, but continued to wield great influence, which he used in a lawless and violent way."

    "9) There are differing portrayals of the people with whom Paul deals (in 15:2-21 James is the mediator between conservative Pharisees on one side and Peter, Paul and Barnabas on the other. However Paul records in Gal. 2:9 to be sided with Barnabas against Peter, James and John.) "

    In Acts 15, Paul and Barnabas return to Jerusalem to discuss the opinion of some believers that you must be circumcised in order to be saved. Peter chimes in on their side as does James. Dagoods says that in Galatians 2:9, Paul sides with Barnabas AGAINST Peter, James and John. Here is what the Galatians passage says:

    9 James, Cephas [a] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

    So where exactly is this so-called disagreement? In fact, they extended the "right hand of fellowship." In the verses that follow, there is a disagreement between Paul and Peter because Peter "was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group" and began to withdraw from the gentile believers. But actually Barnabas was "led astray" too, so Paul didn't side with him as Dagoods says.

    So let's assume that it is this subsequent event that Dagoods was really referring to.

    First, so Peter gave into peer pressure. So what? The passage never said that Peter said that you DID have to be circumcised. He simply said nothing and avoided Gentiles altogether. He committed a common human failing by trying to "fit in" with those around him.

    But most importantly, most scholars equate the incident in Galatians with one of two of Paul's visits to Jerusalem, either the one recorded in Acts 11:30 or the one in Acts 15. If the former, the incident in which Peter disassociates with the Gentiles was long before he subsequently stood up before the Pharisee believers and defended Paul. If the latter they were during the same visit. Either way the answer is clear. Peter was distancing himself from the Gentiles. Paul corrected him. Peter realized he was wrong and stood up and told everyone that circumcision was not necessary (either during a subsequent visit by Paul or later on in the same visit). There is nothing contradictory about this.

    "10) The decision of the apostolic conference differs between 15:22-29 and Gal. 2:10"

    The decision in Acts sends Paul and Barnabas to the Gentiles and tells the Gentiles to refrain from foods sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. The passage is Galatians simply says that Paul and Barnabas will go to the Gentiles and James, Peter and John will got to the Jews. Where is the contradiction?

    "11) Why did Paul have to defend his Gentile mission against the “three pillars” (Gal. 2:1-10) if Peter (one of the pillars) had already been given such a mission in 10:1-11:18?"

    He didn't. Read the Galatians passage:

    1 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.

    6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.

    Where did it say Paul had to "defend" anything? In fact, the "pillars" extended their "right hand of fellowship." The issue was whether believers had to be circumcised, and all the men involved seemed to agree that they did not. Paul even says that these "pillars" "added nothing to my message." There was never any argument or defense between them.

    "12) One of the intriguing aspects of Acts is how it incorporates common Greek themes regarding gods. For instance, one theme was that the opening of prison doors or the magical releasing of prisoners, (such as that found in 5:17-20, 12:6-11, and 16:23-30) was a sign of divine intervention.

    "Or the fact the phrase “kick against the goads” (26:14) was used for more than 500 years previously as a saying about a person arguing against a god. Peter Kirby has written an outstanding article outlining these themes. (And it should be noted the author of Acts demonstrates at least a passing knowledge of Euripides when he quotes him at 17:28)"

    This point actually does nothing to discredit Acts. So you can pick up some common Greek themes. So what? Acts 26:14 has Jesus using the phrase "kick against the goads" to describe Saul's persecution of the Christian church. So Jesus used a phrase that commonly describes a person arguing against a god to describe Saul ... arguing against God. I guess I just fail to see what is so surprising about that or how it proves anything whatsoever.

    So if all you are saying is that you do not accept certain passages from Acts as opposed to the book as a whole, I agree that there is no double standard and we can talk about the individual passages that give you a problem. I hope I have done so in this comment. Thank you.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  6. I will break this out in three comments to address three different issues.

    Ten Minas Ministries: First, Dagoods, I think you misunderstand the Christian "double standard" argument, and it is possible I have misunderstood some of your comments in the past as well.

    *shrug* Perhaps. I will let the readers decide for themselves. I derive your…er…”double standard” argument from the four (4) comments found here:

    1) Ten Minas Ministries: No, I don't accept the Apocalypse of James as canonical. That means I am open to it containing errors. Of course, I don't accept any non-scriptural historical document as canonical. So following your logic, does that mean that I am not allowed to take anything from them? Ok then, so much for history. I guess the burning of Rome never happened because, after all, we cannot trust that everything said in these historic documents is accurate.

    2) Ten Minas Ministries: It all boils down to this:

    True or false. The early Christian church, at least until the time of Constantine was HEAVILY persecuted, including imprisonment, torture and death.


    If you say false, then you might as well throw out everything we learn about history from ancient documents, because you are applying a double standard.


    3) Ten Minas Ministries: Are we rejecting these authors because their claims of persecution could be interpreted as favorable to Christianity? I guess we would have to throw out huge portions of Josephus whenever he wrote anything that could be considered favorable to the Jews.


    4) Ten Minas Ministries: In reality, you have to reject everything written by a Christian author in order to make it appear that you even have a leg to stand on. Because if we include those authors, the evidence is overwhelming that this persecution was taking place.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are two significant differences between you and I, Ten Minas Ministries. It is my fault I find greater disappointment in those differences because you are a trial lawyer. It is only snobbery I always think trial lawyers should be better at being objective and dealing with how to be persuasive in light of what opposing arguments will present. You are human, just like everyone else. My problem here; not yours.

    The first difference between us is that which was pointed out by The Barefoot Bum—I have no inherent bias either for or against the historicity of the Gospels and Acts. I can make determinations as to what is historical or not. I can accept or reject portions as I choose.

    A Christian inerrantist (such as yourself) cannot.

    You absolutely, positively must accept each of the Books within your Bible as historically accurate 100% (in the original autographs, of course.)

    For me, if you prove one of the twelve points wrong (and as I will point out in my next—YOU DO! I am convinced I was wrong on one.), I can accept it. I can change my mind.

    You cannot. You cannot change your mind on a single one of those twelve points, because then you would lose inerrancy. Oh, you may think you are open-minded, and you may even have convinced yourself of it, but in order to maintain inerrancy you cannot change your mind.

    The first difference between us is that I can change my mind by the evidence—you cannot. Who is more objective, a person who cannot change their mind or one who can?

    The second difference between us is that there is a double standard being employed. Unfortunately, it is being employed by the Christian.

    Ask yourself this key question—what method do you use in determining a contradiction between two (2) documents? If the Yellow Pages says your telephone number is “555-1212” but the White Pages says “555-2121”—what method do you use to determine if this is a contradiction?

    See, historians look at conflicting accounts and, using source determination, ability to observe, other documentation, anthropology, archeology and any other applicable tools at their disposal, attempt to determine to the best of their ability if one or both of the authors were mistaken.

    The thing the historians do NOT, repeat NOT do is proclaim, “Gee, these are both logically possible by some crazy, made-up artifact, so therefore they must both be true.” Nope, they never do that.

    Yet that is exactly the method an inerrantist does when looking at the Bible. The same inerrantist, seeing two different numbers in a Telephone Book assumes someone made a mistake. Hand them their Bible with two different telephone numbers and they would proclaim, “It is possible the person had two numbers and the Yellow Pages listed one, whereas the White Pages listed the other.”

    Double Standard? Absolutely.

    Historians look at where Mark and Luke apparently contradict and say, “One, or both are most likely wrong.” Inerrantists say, “THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT!…now how do I come up with some scenario to make it true?” Then they make up whatever they want. No sources, of course, but simply, “It is possible…” (More on that in the next comment.)

    So what an inerrantist does is lower their methodology, when it comes to the Bible, to “if any possible logical manufacture can be made, it is not a contradiction.” I discuss this at length here:

    Let me repeat that: the inerrantist LOWERS their standard of resolving contradictions in order to maintain the various books of the Bible do not contradict themselves. In other words, the one book in which a God is involved is actually WORSE than those of just humans!! Because the ones with humans do not need a lower standard to maintain consistency!

    I think the better method is to determine, given an apparent contradictions and a proposed resolution, which is more likely to be correct: the contradiction or the proposed. Curiously to date I have yet to have an inerrantist agree and employ this method.

    The second difference between us is that you think a proposed logical solution is a resolution to a contradiction. A method unused by historians when viewing documents.

    ReplyDelete
  8. When I listed these points, I was not looking to engage an inerrantist with “some possible logical” response. I am looking for sources, argumentation from those sources, and backing. Therefore, in response on some of these, I may be brief.

    1) Galilee vs. Jerusalem.

    Mark 16:7 – “ But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”

    Matt. 28:7 – “Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He is risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’”

    John 21:1 – Afterwards, Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the Sea of Galilee

    Now, at this point, if I proposed the Disciples stayed in Jerusalem, waiting for Jesus, I would be laughed off the stage. Notice how Luke deliberately changes what Mark wrote (Luke’s source, don’t forget) specifically in a way in which Matthew did not:

    Luke 24:6-7 – He is not here: He is risen! Remember how he told you while he was still with you in Galilee: The Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men…”

    Luke removes any reference of going to Galilee or even Jesus seeing them in Galilee, but leaves the reference to Galilee in an off-hand manner.

    Secondly, in that society “moving” was extremely difficult. One lost one’s employment, contacts, in-group, social standing, etc. Possible? Sure. Possible all 11 Disciples and all of Jesus’ family and “the women” moved at once? Not hardly. Certainly not probable in any way shape or form.

    2) Who is the High Priest in Acts 4:6?

    Do you have a source to demonstrate Annas would continue to be called “High Priest?” (and the bit about the Jews viewing the deposing of Annas as “without authority” is completely made-up.)

    Secondly, if a Historian called Caiaphas “High Priest” at one point in his/her chronology (Luke 3:2) and later referred to Caiaphas, but NOT as high priest, we would presume the historian knew what they were talking about, and the second event must have occurred when Caiaphas was no longer the High Priest. I.e.- after 36 C.E.

    I was actually bending over backwards here by claiming Luke doesn’t know. If Luke knew, then this must be post 36 C.E.

    3) Theudas vs. Judas of Galilee

    The closest dates we can get for Gamaliel is from 33-66 C.E. However, we do know Theudas was in the period of 44-46 C.E. and Note this only HELPS my previous point! For Gamaliel to refer to Theudas at all would mean this was happening after 44 C.E., making either the claim of persecution to be much later, OR we have (yet another) long blank period in Acts for which there is no account.

    Judas of Galilee was at the time of the Census of 6 CE. This was an extremely important date to the Judeans (they lost their autonomy, instituted taxation, etc.) and resulted in the eventual Jewish Revolt. To think Gamaliel, a studied Jew, confused the dates of Judas the Galilean (6 C.E.) and Theudas (44 C.E.) is laughable. Like a U.S. Historian confusing George Washington and Abraham Lincoln as to which came first.

    Who made the error? Gamaliel? The source who told Luke what Gamaliel said? Or Luke, the non-Jew? Can’t have Luke—why…we could lose inerrancy! Can’t have the source, ‘cause that would mean other sources Luke used could equally be wrong.

    So you rely upon Gamaliel, the studied Jew, who made the mistake of who came first.

    Double Standard? Make me laugh.

    4) Stoning

    Do you have a source which indicates the Jews could NOT stone anyone under Roman Law? If not—the gospel of John is wrong.

    Do you have a source that says what the mob did to Stephen was illegal?

    5) Paul’s trips to Jerusalem.

    Rather than refer to all my sources, I gave a link to my previous article that includes those sources. You would need to determine what year Paul was referring to in 2 Cor. 11:27 when Aretas was King of Damascus.

    Further, Acts 9:26 was referring to what Paul called his second trip to Jerusalem 17-20 years after his conversion. (Hint: Barnabas was his companion. Gal. 2:2 and Acts 9:27.) Note in Galatians 1:18 Paul sees James & Peter. Then the Christians heard his reports and praised God because of him. Gal. 1:24. Paul then records going to Jerusalem without mention of anyone being afraid of him. (First they praise God, and then they are afraid?)

    Yet Acts 9:26-27 talks of the Disciples being afraid of him (Peter had him stay at his house 17 years previously, yet was now afraid of him?) and how Barnabas explained what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus. (Apparently Paul forgot to mention that when visiting Peter and James 17 years previously!)

    If any lurker wants me to flesh it out, AFTER reading my article, I would happy to do so. I find myself apathetic to argue this, yet again, with an inerrantist who will insert time when it suits them, remove it when is suits them, and say this is out of order. When it suits them.

    And then tells me, after I have researched it and come to the conclusion, just like many Christian scholars, there is contradiction here between Paul’s account and Acts, that I am somehow employing a “double standard.”

    6) Paul unknown in Judea.

    “I was personally unknown” means “I was well-known as the persecutor of Christians, but not know as a Christian evangelist.”

    I see….

    7) Famine before Herod’s Death.

    Does the Greek allow this event to be referring to the famine or the prophecy? I genuinely do not know; so don’t infer anything by the question.

    The problem is the collection by Paul for the famine does not conform to Pauline letters. “Acts speaks of five trips to Jerusalem by Paul, while the Pauline letters clearly presuppose only three.” History and Theology of the New Testament Writings Udo Schnelle, pg. 242

    8) Ananias with Felix.

    I am wrong here. (See? I can say that. Can you?) The source I used for his dating is flawed. The Jewish Encyclopedia places the dates from 47-59 CE which would place him in the appropriate time.

    I withdraw this from being an error in Acts.

    9) Different portrayal with Peter.

    Note in Gal. 2:1-10, Paul is comparing and contrasting his ministry (to the Gentiles) with that of Peter (to the Jews). Paul notes Titus was “compelled” to be circumcised. Only after contending with the three Pillars in 2:1-8, did they extend the right hand of fellowship.

    10) Different decision of Apostolic Conference.

    Acts: “Abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.”

    Galatians: “Remember the Poor.”

    And you don’t see a contradiction?

    11) When go to the Gentiles?

    Peter has a vision to go to the Gentiles. Yet Paul refers to Peter going to the Jews, and HE, Paul, goes to the Gentiles. See also the point above on Gal. 2:1-10.

    12) Use of Greek idioms for Gods

    It is a type. Was the author writing what a god actually did, or what the readers would have anticipated a god would do?

    Christian scholars (not inerrantist laypeople) recognize this, at best, was histography. A blend of history and fictional support for Christianity. One of the demonstrations is having a Jew (Jesus) speaking in Aramaic, giving a Greek statement in order to demonstrate this was what a god would say.

    Scholars recognized the author would have had to obtain the information for the various speeches in Acts from other sources, or simply made-up what he perceives the person would say. So Luke is quoting a source who told him what Paul said Jesus said. Is it any surprise a common deity saying crept in?

    As to Acts as a whole, I am yet to be convinced it was even intended to be history, let alone “accept” it as such in parts. Did Gamaliel, Festus, Felix, Agrippa, Bernice exist at this time in their relative positions? Sure, but the author could easily have obtained this information from Josephus. (Remember, we look at sources.)

    We have no archeological demonstration of Jewish persecution of Christians. No non-Christian historian talks of Jewish persecution of Christians. Certainly not on the concerted effort proclaimed by Acts. There is the problem of timing, the claim of collusion between the High Priest and Aretas.

    Let’s just say I am more comfortable with Acts’ claims of historical events when confirmed by other sources. Not when they stand alone.

    ReplyDelete
  9. In any discussion of the historicity of Acts, most Christian apologists will quote the Oxford historian A.N. Sherwin-White: “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.” (Roman Law Roman Society in the New Testament p. 189)

    Invariably, the use of ellipsis omits the following crucial qualification:
    “Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions.”

    Further information on the apologists’ abuse of the Oxford professor can be found on my blog. http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/search/label/A.N.%20Sherwin-White

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wouldn't you also run into a problem of Jersualem vs. Galilee also using Luke? When looking at a map of ancient Israel, there was quite some distance between the two. I do not see it possible at all to make that journey in a day. Yet Luke has people meeting Jesus in Jersualem, and acting as though it were the first time, and this meeting occurs the same day of the resurrection. Matthew has the resurrection day including a message that everyone must travel to Galilee, in order to meet Jesus. Mark would be trickier with that final ending, given that it doesn't state outright the Eleven are in Galilee at a table. And the Mark ending does seem to have events occuring all in the same day.

    I also read the link 'Story or History' as DagoodS means of breaking down why he found it difficult for both the Galilee incident and the Jersusalem incident to both be 100% true. He does say that given that the disciples were from Galilee, that would be the best place to start. Yet Luke's knowledge of history shows that the church started in Jersualem. How are the two reconciled (if such a thing is possible), and is such a reconciliation one that works? Both are reasonable inferences, based on what the BIble tells us? But are both reasonable when combined?

    The Acts 4:6 point -- wasn't the article linked to that, written by DagoodS, asking why if Luke 3 makes mention that both are the high priest, such consistency wasn't carried over to Acts? Especially if by the same author? For me, if we just had Acts, and we were driving to drive a time period in which the persuction occured, wouldn't we take the fact that Annas was high priest to say that it should be from 6-15? (And for the John 18 reference, I do have one Bible that states calling ANnas the high priest was written, in some instances, after vs. 13, rather than vs. 24. However, I haven't found support for that elsewhere).

    The Paul unknown in Judea, I am reading that as those churches weren't physically familiar with him at all, not that they weren't familiar with him post-conversion. They knew of him as a former persecutor, but not personally. Isn't that how we'd interpret someone who said that "Those people don't personally know me, they've only heard of me."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Vinny, I had read your blog on Sherwin-White when perusing your history.

    Probably one of the harshest demonstrations against Christianity is its apparent desire to not tell “the whole truth” when attempting to persuade of its position. (The replete instances of similar mis-quotes in the creation/evolution debate come to mind.)

    If they held truth, why should they have to hide anything?

    ReplyDelete
  12. OneSmallStep,

    Thank you. It is always nice to know I am not completely off my rocker with these reviews.

    If you are looking for textual variants on John 18:13 go here. John’s Gospel has so many discrepancies regarding the Passion (different trials, no stoning, different day for crucifixion, alternating high priests, long soliloquy with Pilate, curious mix-up with Jesus’ mother’s name, different resurrection appearances) I find it curious one would use it to support Luke, who at least tries to be somewhat accurate

    ReplyDelete
  13. DagoodS,

    I've found that in most situations like these, I'll read a critique of the current argument, and wonder if the critiquer and I are even reading the same argument. And I'm sure responses I've left on other blogs have produced the same question.

    I'm just slowly starting to learn that all the discussions in the world are kind of futile if you and the other person aren't even on the same wavelength. The worldviews are too different. And this is a general observation, not something focusing on this particular post. It's still good to comment and discuss, because even on this post, something was learned.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dagoods,

    Thank you for taking the time to prepare a detailed response. In an effort to keep this from spiraling out of control into an endless discussion, I won't address everything you said. Honestly, I simply did not believe that many of your points really refuted anything I said, so I will leave that to the reader. However, I will make a few observations.

    First, understand that I am an evidentialist, not a presuppositionalist. So I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible because I have become convinced it is true, not because inerrancy is my presupposition to approaching the question. So I am free to reject particular things in the Bible if you convince me that inerrancy is not true.

    Not only that, but I believe that the originals are inerrant, not the copies. So I am also perfectly open to the possibility of copyist errors, a number of which (as you have pointed out before) have been found. But you would have to convince me from the evidence that the originals are not inerrant.

    Also, perhaps I am less willing than you to jump to the conclusion that "this must be a contradiction" instead of looking for a way to make two versions logically coincide because I have seen instances in which something clearly appeared to be a contradiction until some later discovery found that it was not (for example one gospel saying Jesus was walking into Jericho whereas another says he was walking out of it; clearly believed to be a contradiction until archaeologists discovered that there were two Jericho's, an old city and a new city; I could be naming the wrong city here, I am relying on memory as I am not currently sitting in my library).

    You claiming that I am "stuck" with inerrancy and therefore less objective than you is simply an incorrect argument form. You and I have arrived at different conclusions based upon the evidence. I accept inerrancy whereas you obviously do not. But rather than simply accepting that people can arrive at different conclusions, you tell people that I am somehow irrevocably bound to my position, and no matter what evidence is presented to me I cannot change my mind. Let me take this opportunity to tell anyone reading that this is not true. That is the whole point of the evidentialism versus presuppositionalism debate within Christianity. It may be hard for you to accept (because you are understandably so convinced by your own arguments), but you simply have failed to convince me.

    As for my 4 comments you quoted, 1, 2 and 4 were all saying the same thing I have been saying here. Heck, #1 even said, "does that mean that I am not allowed to take ANYTHING from them?" That's the point I've been making over and over. Even if a document contains some errors, that does not necessarily mean it should be rejected as a whole. If this is the rule you are applying, then you would have to reject every historical document. After all, you do not consider any of them to be inerrant. But if you selectively choose to reject (in their entirety) only the Christian documents, while fully accepting information from others, you are applying a double standard.

    #3 was actually in a slightly different context. In that quote I was simply pointing out that it is illogical to reject a statement if the SOLE reason for rejecting it is because the author purportedly had a stake in what he was writing. To do so would require rejecting portions of the writing of other authors as well, such as whenever Josephus said anything complimentary of the Jews. So again we are talking about a double standard being applied, but not the "rejecting the whole document vs. rejecting parts" issue we are currently talking about.

    I am not going to go any further into the whole inerrancy debate simply becuase that would be taking us down a different path from where this discussion started. We're not talking about inerrancy. We are talking about the trustworthiness of Acts, whether it is divinely inspired or not. So I will turn to addressing a few of the points you raised in your objections. The ones I don't address I will simply ask the readers to go back to the original points I made and ask whether you have really responded to them.

    "Do you have a source to demonstrate Annas would continue to be called 'High Priest?'"

    Yes, and I gave two of them to you. I quoted passages from both Luke and John that referred to Annas and Caiaphas simultaneously as High Priest. If Luke was the author of Acts, then we have another writing by the same author showing that he considered both to be High Priest.

    I may be wrong, but it appears to me that what you are really asking is whether I have any sources other than the books that are contained in the Bible that Annas would continue to be considered High Priest. You say that I am bound by a presupposition of inerrancy, but I could just as easily point out that you appear to be bound by a presupposition of rejection of all Biblical books.

    "Who made the error? Gamaliel? The source who told Luke what Gamaliel said? Or Luke, the non-Jew? Can’t have Luke—why…we could lose inerrancy! Can’t have the source, ‘cause that would mean other sources Luke used could equally be wrong.

    "So you rely upon Gamaliel, the studied Jew, who made the mistake of who came first."

    Interesting. So for you Gamaliel is inerrant? I mean since he is a "studied Jew", it must be inconceivable that he made an error.

    You are a pretty studied person (obviously, based upon the amount of detail you put into your posts). And yet...

    "I am wrong here. (See? I can say that. Can you?) The source I used for his dating is flawed. The Jewish Encyclopedia places the dates from 47-59 CE which would place him in the appropriate time.

    I withdraw this from being an error in Acts."

    My proposition that Gamaliel misspoke is so preposterous that you say, "Make me laugh." So apparently you can make an error and it is not laughable, but for Gamaliel to do so is laughable?!

    We all make mistakes. I do not even necessarily contend that Gamaliel actually believed these events happened in the order he said. He may very well have simply misspoke. But for you to say that the very proposition is laughable, WHEN YOU YOURSELF JUST MADE A SIMILAR MISTAKE, seems to me to be simply living in denial. You are the one who is proposing that Acts cannot be trusted. You are the one who is offering this up as a contradiction. It is not enough for you to simply say that Acts could be wrong on this issue. After all, do you allow Christians to simply argue that Christianity "could" be true? No. You need to show that it is a contradiction. And this you have failed to do.

    "Do you have a source which indicates the Jews could NOT stone anyone under Roman Law?"

    Wait a minute. You were the one proposing that it was illegal for the Jews to execute anyone! "Acts has a mob stoning Stephen (7:58) whereas the Gospel of John (18:31) claims it is unlawful for the Jews to put anyone to death." Pick a position and stick to it. If it wasn't illegal for the Jews to put anyone to death, then there is no problem with Acts, and your argument about Acts falls apart. We are talking about the reliability of Acts. When faced with the fact that your argument fails, you cannot simply change the subject and say, "Well, okay, maybe there is nothing wrong with Acts, but can you prove that John is true?" It is admittedly a pet pieve of mine, so I apologize if I am getting too worked up about it. My wife likes to do this too (change the subject in the middle of an argument). Respond to my point by addressing the alleged contradiction in Acts, not by changing the subject to John.

    I would also point out that the passage from John is another quote of what someone said, like that of Gamaliel, not a statement that John was putting out there as true, so the truth of it really is logically irrelevant.

    "'I was personally unknown' means 'I was well-known as the persecutor of Christians, but not know as a Christian evangelist.'

    I see…."

    Be fair. Give the whole quote. It doesn't simply say, "I was personally unknown", but "I was personally unknown TO THE CHURCHES OF JUDEA."

    What are "the churches"? Does this mean he's never been in Judea? No. Obviously he still could have been in Jerusalem before his conversion, so if you are trying to claim that Paul nis claiming he has never been there, so he could not have persecuted Christians there, there is obviously no problem.

    You originally said that Acts "has Paul persecuting the Church in Jerusalem (8:1, 9:1) yet Paul says he was not known by face in Judea."

    Perhaps your point hinges on yoru words "by face." If so, you assume that if Paul was actually persecuting the church in Jerusalem, then the Christians would have recognized him.

    The first obvious response to this is to point out that I sincerely doubt that you remember the face of everyone you have ever seen before. Its not like these people were inviting Paul to dinner every night so they became familiar with him.

    Also, I think you are taking Paul's comments too literally. I will give you that in the NRSV, for example, this passage is translated that they did not know Paul "by sight." I don't think this necessarily means they had "never seen him before" as you contend. The NIV translates this as they did not know him "personally", which I believe is the point Paul was trying to make. He had not visited them after his conversion, so they did not know him personally. They only heard about what he was doing.

    Look at the context of the verses. Before the "by sight" statement came up, Paul had just said that immediately after his conversion, "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia." He then goes on to say, "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days." It is only after this statement that Paul says, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ."

    For starters it should be obvious that Paul is not making this statement in strict chronological sequence. He must be referring to something previous. After all, he just told us that he visited the church in Jerusalem, which would be one of the churches in Judea. So he has to be talking about something before that.

    I believe, based on the overall context, that Paul is talking about what he just said in verse 17, namely that "I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was," hence he was not known personally to the churches in Judea.

    You are asking us to go back even further, to verse 13, and interpret Paul's comments as saying that even though he admits he was heavily persecuting Christians (for this is precisely what he admits in verse 13), somehow he avoided the entire region of Judea, the birthplace of this religion he was persecuting, where most of its key figures were located, for the entire time he was doing this "persecution."

    You repeatedly ask readers to evaluate what is the more plausible possibility. In this instance I will do the same. If Paul was really heavily persecuting Christianity, why would he be avoiding Judea? How effective would his persecution really be if he avoided the heart of the religion?

    I'll leave the more likely interpretation of this passage to the reader, but at a minimum there is no clear contradiction here as you contend.

    "7) Famine before Herod’s Death.

    Does the Greek allow this event to be referring to the famine or the prophecy? I genuinely do not know; so don’t infer anything by the question.

    The problem is the collection by Paul for the famine does not conform to Pauline letters."

    Really? You don't infer anything about whether the Greek is referring to the prophecy or the famine?

    Your original comment:

    "7) Acts chronologically places a famine (11:27-28) followed by the death of Herod (12:1-23) The order is actually reversed: Herod died in 44 C.E. whereas the famine was in 46-47 C.E."

    Seems pretty clear to me that you were saying that the Greek said that the famine came first followed by the death of Herod. I don't really see any other way to interpret your comment. The word "collection", or any reference to it, never even appeared in your original post. Again, you have changed the subject. Stick to what we are talking about. Does Acts say that the famine preceded the death of Herod or not (I think the answer is pretty clear)? Don't bring up something new. Admit whether or not you were wrong in what you originally said.

    "Paul notes Titus was 'compelled' to be circumcised. Only after contending with the three Pillars in 2:1-8, did they extend the right hand of fellowship."

    Titus was compelled to be circumcised? Take another look at the verse. "Yet NOT EVEN TITUS, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised." It seems pretty clear to me that Titus was NOT circumcised.

    I will also leave it to the reader to decide whether your use of the word "contending" is a fair representation of this conversation. There is absolutely no evidence of any disagreement between these men during this conversation. In fact, when Paul described the outcome of this meeting he said, "they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews." Seems like a pretty friendly conversation to me.

    "Acts: 'Abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality.'

    Galatians: 'Remember the Poor.'

    And you don’t see a contradiction?"

    No, and I'm baffled that you do. Again, in making a contradiction appear you conveniently leave out key facts.

    Who was supposed to "Abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality?" The Gentiles.

    Who was supposed to "remember the poor?" Paul and Barnabas.

    If I tell you to meet me at 5:00 and someone else to meet me at 6:00 have I made some kind of contradiction? In order for you to say that these two Biblical passages are contradictory, you'd have to say "yes". When you give two different commands to two different groups of people, how is that a contradiction?

    "Peter has a vision to go to the Gentiles. Yet Paul refers to Peter going to the Jews, and HE, Paul, goes to the Gentiles."

    The relevant passage here is simply too long to cut and paste into this comment. I encourage any readers to take a look at Acts 10:1 - 11:18 and tell me where, anywhere in that vision, it says that from now on Peter is going to be charged with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles. It simply is not there. That passage records ONE incident in which God had Peter preach to some Gentiles in order to show him that they should be welcomed into God's church as well. At no point does God tell Peter, "And by the way, from this point on I want you to focus on the Gentiles," as was Paul's later mission. But this vision certainly was important for Peter to subsequently accept what Paul was doing, wasn't it? After all, Paul later consulted with the Jews in Jerusalem, including Peter, to make sure what he was doing was correct.

    "I set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."
    Galatians 2:2

    What do you think Peter would have said when Paul approached him if God had not given Peter that vision?

    In order to show a contradiction you would have to show (as you claim you do) that Peter was commanded to focus his preaching on the Gentiles but later on Acts says he focused on the Jews. The problem is that Peter's vision never says to focus his preaching on the Gentiles. It only says that he was not to exclude them. You cannot add things to the text that are not there in order to support your conclusion.

    As for the rest of your comments, as I said before, I do not believe they actually respond to what I said, so I will leave it to the readers. Thank you again for participating in this conversation.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ten Minas Ministries,

    All of this is more of the “As long as we provide any logical possibility, no matter how improbable—there is no contradiction.” A methodology I do not use; most people do not use in their day-to-day lives; and historians most certainly do not use. As I said before, I was looking for scholarly resources and cites; not inerrantist argumentation.

    So I will make only one point and move on.

    Ten Minas Ministries: I may be wrong, but it appears to me that what you are really asking is whether I have any sources other than the books that are contained in the Bible that Annas would continue to be considered High Priest. You say that I am bound by a presupposition of inerrancy, but I could just as easily point out that you appear to be bound by a presupposition of rejection of all Biblical books.

    Actually this was a bit of bait. I was hoping you would actually do some research in the subject. It is fairly easy to find. Wasn’t like I was asking you to find some cryptic citation in a Greek document buried in a University Library.

    Josephus, in numerous locations, refers to previous holders of the position as “High Priest.” Including Annas in events recorded long after 15 C.E. (Sometimes referring to two previous holders in the plural, “High Priests.”) Would not have been that hard to find out.

    However, when referring to events occurring, Josephus is careful to designate who “The” High Priest is at the time. Luke previously refers to Caiaphas as “the high priest” but at the time of the writing of Acts 4:6 is uncertain as to whether he is still “the” high priest, so in Josephus type fashion, reverts back to Annas as “High Priest” and just lists Caiaphas, John and Alexander who (if Alexander refers to Eleazar) were all High Priests at one time. The author of Acts doesn’t know who was at the time; therefore s/he doesn’t mention which one is.

    I was going to provide that, but instead thought I would lob out a slow pitch and see if you were really interested in doing any research in this area (since it is so easily found) or whether you simply wanted to make inerrantist arguments.

    You didn’t disappoint. *grin*

    (P.S. I liked how you turned my making a mistake over events which occurred 2000 years ago to a “SIMILAR MISTAKE” of Gamaliel of events which would have occurred 2 years prior to his statement. Course the bit about me being human, and claiming humans make mistakes, as compared to you never, EVER allowing Luke to make a mistake was missed. Que sera. )

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dagoods
    Do you trust Suetonius? Seems he had a few axes to grind that affected his documentation. There is a paradox in ancient sources. While they are much closer to the time they are also influenced by their times.

    That said, neither is the book of Acts final on historical evidence. However, do you not trust it's authority on major events such as the execution of James?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Actually, I trust Suetonius regarding the Christians being punished by Nero.

    Of course, the question would be raised regarding the why and the how. Taken in conjunction with Tacitus, though—both independent or even hostile toward Christianity--iit seems quite likely Nero picked Christians as a scape-goat for the fire, inflicted punishment on them as patsy’s (NOT for what they believed, mind you) and that seems to be the extent of it.

    Acts 6:8-8:2 is a long passage regarding the martyrdom of Stephen. This blog entry gives repeated instances of accusations (and beatings/stonings) against Paul. Acts 12:3-19 is a long passage about the imprisonment and escape of Peter. And all the author says about James is “Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword.” (Acts 12:1-2)

    Barely a blip on the radar. Not sure how that qualifies as a “major event.” Be that as it may, if the author shows an inclination to portray his/her heroes as martyrs and does so yet again—how can we tell whether this is rhetoric or history?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good points, Dagoods,
    Hopefully, archaeology and other types of research will help draw a clearer picture around the events in Acts.

    You said**Nero picked Christians as a scape-goat for the fire, inflicted punishment on them as patsy’s (NOT for what they believed, mind you) and that seems to be the extent of it.

    This is curious as you would have been targeted when you were a Christian but you would not be targeted now. But the difference is that you do NOT believe now and then you did. How do you reconcile that dilemma?
    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jim Jordan,

    I do not understand your question, so if I answer it incorrectly, please explain it a little fuller. Thanks.

    If I was living in Rome in 64 CE with my current situation and my current state of beliefs, I would have been persecuted right along with the other Christians. One of the important studies is to compare other persecution cycles to understand this. In fact, we have a term for it, “witch hunt” which comes from what I was talking about.

    During the Salem witch trials, a young woman would be accused of being a witch. Any person who associated with her was immediately suspect. Her protests of not being a witch were only met with increasing conviction she was. And if she coughed out any other person’s name in order to save herself (unfortunately unsuccessfully,) regardless of that person’s protests, they were immediately branded.

    Think of the more recent McCarthy trials in which people who were most certainly not communists yet lost their jobs, their livelihood and their lives were smeared. Just from the accusation and association.

    I am a member (inactive) on three church rolls. My wife, children, parents, siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, nephews and nieces are all Christian. Most of my acquaintances would think I am still a Christian.

    I would be accused, tried, convicted and punished despite any protests I made.

    Because Nero was not looking to punish a person for being a Christian—he was looking to label someone as a “Christian” and blame them for the fire. This is why many Christians don’t understand Tactitus hurts the claim “Die for a Lie.”

    Now, Pliny the Younger WAS looking to punish Christians for being Christians, and notes there were numerous deconverts who were not punished. Under Pliny I would have been O.K.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dagoods**One of the important studies is to compare other persecution cycles to understand this

    In this persecution cycle I don't know how you could separate Christians. They weren't odd single females that could be taken for witches. They had no different dress save perhaps for Jewish dress. It was only 31 years after the Resurrection. It seems to me that they would have been too new for this "persecution cycle" much less for the "rinse cycle"...Do you have any links to research websites defining it as a witch hunt? I found zero.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jim Jordan,

    It is a common mis-perception the only people persecuted in the Salem Witch Trials were single females. To observe the persecution cycle, I recommend you read this Salem Witch Trial Chronology. Note that married women and men were also executed.

    I don’t know of any websites making the comparison. I derive my information regarding the cycle from page 99-113 of Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer. At page 100 he notes the cycle as follows:

    1. Victims tend to be women, the poor, the retarded and others on the margins of society.
    2. Sex or sexual abuse is typically involved.
    3. Mere accusation of potential perpetrators makes them guilty.
    4. Denial of guilt is regarded as further proof of guilt.
    5. Once a claim of victimization becomes well known in a community, other similar claims suddenly appear.
    6. The movement hits a critical peak of accusation, when virtually everyone is a potential suspect and almost no one is above suspicion.
    7. Then the pendulum swings the other way. As the innocent begin to fight back against their accusers through legal and other means, the accusers sometimes become the accused and skeptics begin to demonstrate the falsity of the accusations.
    8. Finally the movement fades, the public loses interest, and the proponents, while never completely disappearing, are shifted to the margins of belief.

    The similarity between this cycle and the accusation of 64 CE by Nero is readily visible.

    1. Christians were considered on the margin of society. Read how Tacitus describes them:

    “But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order.

    Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind….”

    Tacitus.

    Further, most historians are persuaded Christianity originally derived its success among the poor and women. It should be noted 1 Clement (95 CE), when listing martyrs, after Peter and Paul names two women. Udo Schnelle notes it was not until the turn of the First Century in which people of prominence and wealth belonged to the circle of the Christian community. (pg. 245) Yet another reason (due to Luke’s focus on the need to distribute wealth) to date Luke to the later part of the First Century.

    2. Although I am unaware of outright allegations of sexual abuse, the early Christian writings enjoy titillating descriptions. In the Acts of Paul Thecla begs to remain a virgin prior to her execution, intoning that would not normally be the case. The book goes on to describe her being stripped naked prior to fighting the beasts. The Apocalypse of Peter also enjoys fairly graphic language.

    3. Tacitus: “Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.” Falls right in line.

    4. We have no record of denial of guilt or not. Albeit contra-wise denial of guilt in Pliny the Younger, (111 CE) with an affirmative act did absolve the accused.

    5 & 6. Tacitus: “Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted,...” Falls right in line. (Do you believe Christians initially pled guilty to setting the city on fire, by the way?)

    7 & 8. Exactly. By the time Tacitus is writing (115 CE), while he shows no partiality toward Christianity in any way, he notes this as a false accusation that quickly died out after crazy Nero ended the pursuit.

    While history never repeats itself in direct correlation, the similarities between persecution cycles, as seen by the Salem Witch Trials, McCarthyism, Alien Abduction, repressed memory sexual abuse, Satanic attacks of the 80’s (remember those?) and that we can derive from the claims of what Nero did in the First Century are close enough to give us pause.

    As to telling the difference between Christians and non-Christians in First Century Rome—in the honor/shame society of the time people identified themselves by groups. Presumably Christians should have been readily identifiable.

    Besides, I would think it is even more problematic for you if Christians could not be identified separately! Are you saying non-Christians were equally persecuted, simply by the government’s inability to tell the difference? That an accusation was enough? I do not see how “Die for a Lie” is supported by claiming non-Christians died right along side Christians—either both were equally willing to die for a lie (??) or denials of the belief of Christianity would not prevent execution. In which case, a Christian denying Christ would have been killed just as much as a Christian who did not.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dagoods,

    I unfortunately have not been able to participate in this chain of comments recently (another one of those pesky jury trials that seem to keep getting in our way), so I won't be able to say any more on the merits of our conversation.

    But I did want to briefly offer you an apology. In reflecting on some of my comments here, I feel that I may have let my emotions get the better of me from time to time. No, I didn't come out and start name-calling or anything like that. But I did feel that I may have come across as a bit too spiteful at times.

    In the past you have shown admirable restraint and have been able to stop the conversation when you felt "fire" might be coming out of your fingertips (to use one of your old phrases). To the extent I did not abide by our usual cordiality, I apologize.

    Hopefully the future will soon permit me more time to engage in our conversations again.

    Ken

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you, Ten Minas Ministries. Frankly, I wasn’t offended by anything you said, but I appreciate your concern. I generally find Christians are slightly more emotional, because they have more riding on it. (Which only makes sense, if you think about it.)

    As I repeatedly said—I just wasn’t interested in speculative suppositions of “It is possible…” in discussing this particular blog entry. I was looking for sources, and comparison of those sources to the use of Acts as history.

    Maybe some other blog entry…

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's good to see the issue of the historicity of Acts being assessed. All too often critics of Acts simply assume that it is unhistorical and don't bother to look at the evidence.

    To give an objective view, you should list all the instances where Acts is in agreement with Paul's letters and other sources. There are many.

    Through my own research I have come to a very different conclusion about the historicity of Acts. Take a look at my web pages here: http://members.shaw.ca/rfellows/index.htm
    I address most of your points, though you may need to hunt around a bit.

    Richard.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Richard Fellows,

    Thank you for the link. I will take some time and peruse it when time permits.

    ReplyDelete