Doug Shaver

I would be interesting in knowing of those "other sources" that "confirm Paul established new communities."

I am not aware of any datum that impeaches Acts uniquely as a source of historical information. However, whether the author of Acts intended his work to be history or fiction cannot be considered separately from the issue of how Christianity originated and evolved. To figure that out requires an analysis of all the relevant documents, of which Acts is only one. If the most parsimonious account of Christians origins says the gospels were fiction, then absent clear evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to think Acts was also fiction.

I cannot, in a single post, summarize all the relevant evidence and explain exactly why I think the most parsimonious accounting of the entirety of that evidence entails the fictional nature of the gospels. But it is what I think, and if it is reasonable for me to think so, then the simple fact that nobody can prove beyond reasonable doubt that Acts is fiction cannot constitute a refutation.

BALDUCCI

Having just re-read Acts, what struck me most is how boring much of it is, and how it seems like a kind of first century travelblog, a very dull one, for Paul's constant voyages. It also seems clear that Paul must have had access to lots of funds to travel such a great deal. Finally, if I were funding all of that travel, I would be quite discontent with what he achieved.

Actually, the whole thing is too funny and too stilted to be fiction, so I am prone to believe it is a true account of a travelling salesman. So much of it doesnt actually portray Paul in a good light...but the author doesnt realise that. That is for me a mark of authenticity

Chris Weimer

I'm agnostic on Acts. More work needs to be done on this very important piece of early Christian literature.

Toto

There is no extrinsic evidence that I know of.

Vern Robbins argues in By Land and by Sea that the "we" passages were a literary device meant to make the narrative more vivid and draw the reader in to the action. His article aroused a lot of opposition from others, especially Christians who pin their case for the historical validity of Christianity on Acts (not to try to read minds, but there seems to be no other explanation for the intensity of the dispute over an artfully written piece of literary criticism by one of their fellow Christians.)

Early Christian Writings gives a discussion that is relatively favorable to the idea that the author was a companion, but this requires assuming that Luke was a relative youngster when with Paul and wrote Acts in his old age, after he had time to reconsider his theology and perhaps a lot else.

The classic work on Acts is Richard Pervo's Profit with Delight (or via: amazon.co.uk), which argues for the primarily fictional character of Acts. Pervo has a new book out Dating Acts (or via: amazon.co.uk). (Pervo is a member of the Jesus Seminar and a Christian.)

The obvious fiction is that there was no dispute among early Christians. White-wash does not come close.

If you insist on believing that Luke was a companion of Paul's, you will probably not think that he would ignore a grand conspiracy to protray Jesus as a living person - unless of course he was in on the conspiracy! Or the author of the conspiracy!!

But most scholars reject the idea that the author of Luke-Acts was with Paul.

Ben C Smith

Quite honestly, I accepted the basic claim by Robbins when I first read his article. I was happy to do so, since I was up in the air at the time about the we passages, and his article offered a measure of resolution.

It was subsequent investigation and rethinking that turned me away from his conclusions. So now I am up in the air again: For me, the we passages are prima facie evidence that the book of Acts was written by a former companion of Paul; however, I freely admit that there are other factors in dating that book, and some of those factors make a considerably later date (century II) seem attractive.

I can really speak only for myself, of course, but I do not think it is quite fair to characterize (most or all?) Christians who reject Robbins as motivated by the desire to keep Acts as primary history of some kind. The we passages are evidence to be considered, and if the explanations that rid us of what appears to be their natural force are insufficient or flawed, then we are stuck with them, for better or worse.

Ben.

Toto

I spent too much time on the "we" passages and I don't want to go through that all again, but why would the third person plural be an indication of authorship? If a document is intended to be testimony, it would start with the identity of the author, and his or her basis for what is written. Luke-Acts has no first person singular outside of the prologue; but the prologue is anonymous and does not indicate that personal participation in the events is part of its authority.

If you reject Robbins' theory, you still have no evidence that Acts was written by a companion of Paul.

Ben C Smith

It is not my position that the third person plural is an indication of authorship.

I do not think the author of Acts set his work up to be authoritative on the basis of his own participation in some of the later events narrated therein. I think the author intended his authority to derive from his own investigation. His own participation in some of the events (if such it is) is a happy coincidence, as far as he is concerned.

True. I do not think the author intended his own participation in certain events to be part of the authority of the work.

We have the first person plural, the normal, usual, typical meaning of which is to indicate that the speaker (hence the first person), along with others (hence the plural), participated in the events. That is the pony to beat; Robbins tried to beat it, and it was a good effort. I just happen to think (now) that it fell short.

Ben.

jackal5096

Off the top of my head, Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians comes to mind.

Actually, it isn't all that reasonable, and manifests the fallacy of a hasty generalization. The various books of the NT, i.e., the gospels, the Pauline epistles, the catholic epistles, revelation, were written at different times, by different authors, in different places,for different purposes using different styles. While each may be compared and contrasted with other books, each is unique and has its own history, and the basis and historicity can be determined only by analyzing each one individually and not by making sweeping conclusions.

Nor would I expect you to. While I agree that the Jesus character of the gospels is fiction, I was talking about Acts, or at least its latter half, and the accounts of Paul's journeys. Whether the Jesus story found in Mark, and later copied by Matthew and Luke, was a historical fiction, I don't see how that would be determinate, or even relevant, on the historicity of Paul's journeys, as narrated in Acts.

You are certainly free to believe as you choose, but, frankly, such an intractable, closed-mindedness is what I typically find in religious fundamentalists.

jackal5096

Hi, John,

It's not that GLuke is not comprehensive, but, according to most all solutions to the synoptic problem, it is not independent. According to which synoptic solution you follow, GLuke was basically a plagarization of GMark, along with either Q, Matthew or a proto-Luke, or some combination of the three. The GJohn, on the other hand, while having the same subject matter, shows an independent creation, having a different style, and additional accounts. If Luke were the companion of Paul, I would have expected a similarly independent creation. Yet, despite his alleged company with Paul for so long, and after hearing Paul sermonize so often at synagogues, Luke finds it necessary to plagarize GMark and at least one other source to make his gospel. It doesnt' add up.

To contrast a mystical christ, as allegedly preached by Paul, with a historical Jesus found in GLuke and the other gospels as a "disagreement" is a huge understatement. It would mean that one or the other is essentially a lie, and Luke knew it. Yet, even after telling the account of Jesus in his gospel, based on accounts by others, Luke still seems to support Paul's apostolic calling, as portrayed in Acts. It again doesn't add up.

John Kesler

I don't see why not. I think that my question is still relevant: What do you think that Paul would have known about the life of Jesus that Luke couldn't get from other sources? Why should his gospel be "independent" if Paul didn't add any pertinent information about Jesus' life or teachings? You also beg the question of whether the material in Luke that is independent, the so-called "L" material, isn't Pauline.

If you start with the presumption that Paul didn't believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus and Luke did, then obviously there is a big disagreement. The premise of your question, however, needs to be substantiated before drawing conclusions based on the assumption that it is true.