Toto

I haven't done a detailed survey, but I can't think of any modern scholars who think that Acts is a reliable source of historical information on anything, outside of evangelicals like Ben Witherington.

Richard Pervo, a Christian but not an evangelical, has written several books detailing his reasons for rejecting the historicity of Acts (the latest being The Mystery of Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk).) Donald Akenson (or via: amazon.co.uk) accepts the Pauline epistles and rejects Acts because it is inconsistent with Paul's own words. Vernon K. Robbins treats Acts as a literary composition.

Do you have any examples to the contrary?

avi

How about F. F. Bruce (or via: amazon.co.uk), The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text With Introduction and Commentary ?

avi

Toto

You prove my point.

Wikipedia says

Rick Sumner

Richard Fellows comes to mind. Mark Nanos likewise seems to incline to take at least some points of Acts quite seriously.

I'm not sure that the divide is quite as clean as you imply. Scholars would doubtlessly be more or less unanimous (excluding evangelicals) in rejecting Acts as an "historical" narrative, there nevertheless seems to be at least a sizable contingent of academics who think there is something worthwhile to be found in Acts as pertains to Paul and his mission.

Steven Carr

Wasn't F F Bruce a member of the Plymouth Brethren, a rather fundamentalist group?

Steven Carr

Isn't that the bit of Acts where Jesus pretty much vanishes as an historical character from Paul's speeches and Jewish and Roman reaction to Christianity?

aa5874

But, how can Pervo reject Acts and accept "Paul" when the Pauline writings agree in many significant parts with Acts.

The author of Acts claimed and was also stated in the Pauline writings that:

1. "Paul" persecuted people who believed in Christ.

2. "Paul" was converted to the FAITH.

3. "Paul" was STONED and beaten and imprisoned.

4. "Paul" traveled ALL over the Roman Empire.

5. "Paul" traveled with Barnabas to Jerusalem.


Acts contains the supposed post-Ascension history of Saul/Paul and if Acts is rejected then the Pauline writings are internally UNCORROBORATED and further, not even the Church knew what "PAUL" wrote.

Acts and the Pauline writings are extremely historically problematic and should NOT be accepted without external corroborative sources but there are none.

It MUST be that if "PAUL" had a KNOWN credible history then there would have been NO need for Acts of the Apostles.

stephan huller

The Marcionite rejection of Acts should be enough to raise suspicions about its authenticity. The fact that Irenaeus says that not only did the Marcionites reject the book itself but the claims (i.e. that there was an 'apostle Paul,' that the common apostle was named Saul) should force us to take a second look at claims of it being an authentic history.

A parallel is the Samaritan rejection of almost all books of the 'Old Testament' save only for the Pentateuch and parts of Joshua (and even then Joshua is of clearly subordinate authority). This must have been the original position of all Israelites given the fact that the proiphetic books were undoubtedly written after the Law was established (or at least were canonized subsequent to the Pentateuch).

The Marcionite NT was older and existed without Acts. Luke is claimed to be the original Marcionite gospel but how is this possible when the Marcionites rejected everything about Acts which was clearly written by the same author (or at least parts of Luke were written by the author of Acts)?

Toto

Fellows believes that Acts was written by Luke, a companion of Paul. This would make Acts historical, if it were true. But this is an assumption, not a conclusion, and not an assumption that anyone outside the church would make. Fellows seems to be an admirer of Bauckham. I would classify him as evangelical, or at least someone who starts with the presuppostion that Acts is a work of history.

Reference?

Do you have an example?

spamandham

This seems pretty speculative. Is it possible? Sure...and it might even be fun to imagine that Paul was the soldier who pierced Jesus' side and that's why he had such a reputation for persecuting the church.

But is there really any good reason to presume any of this? I can't see why. Paul uses cross symbolism in a weird mystical way, and while maybe that symbolism is rooted in something he participated in, it need not be.

....if Paul uses the crucifixion mystically, then thsi would be better understood as Paul admonishing them for rejecting his mysticism.