Steven Carr

'See Tacitus, Annals 13.1; Dio Cassius 61.6.4-5.'

So McGrew claims a second century author could not have known these details, which we know are true, because second century authors knew them.

How does showing that Tacitus and Dio Cassius knew something prove that only somebody in the first century could have access to information like that?

aa5874

Dr. Reppert's conclusion is hopelessly flawed.

Once it is realized that the very "historical" information found in gLuke could be used by another author of antiquity, then the author of Acts of the Apostles could have used EARLIER sources.

If today I were to use all the "historical" information found in Acts of the Apostles surely it would not mean that I personally traveled to the all the places.

Deus Ex

I don't think that Reppert or McGrew believe in a travel diary. Their position is that the precise historical details in Acts could only be produced by an actual observer traveling with Paul. The discussion centered on their attempt to discredit Pervo's dating of Acts at circa 115 CE.

Steven Carr

As McGrew says, 'The use of the plural “anthupatoi,” (19:38), a remarkable reference to the fact that at that precise time, the fall of AD 54, two men were conjointly exercising the functions of proconsul at this time because their predecessor, Silanus, had been murdered. See Tacitus, Annals 13.1; Dio Cassius 61.6.4-5'

The only possible explanation for the 'precise historical details' in Tacitus and Dio Cassius is that Tacitus and Dio Cassius were actual observers travelling with Paul.

jgoodguy

Oral tradition not possible? Even green men from Mars are an explanation. Perhaps you mean without evidence, 'most likely'.

At one time, it was proposed that the pyramids of Egypt had to be built with the aid of extraterrestrials because of the precision. That lasted until it was found that a simple wheel with a mark and a scribe to count the marks could account for it.

Oral tradition could account for it. Missing Christian works could account for it. Research in a library could account for it. A Christian sailor that traveled the area could account for it. Tales from a tavern could account for it. A missing drama could account for it. The list goes on and on.

Any believable historical fiction requires some research. If the author of Acts wished believability at any time, he could have had several possible sources, written and oral.

bacht

One always has to keep in mind the apologist preference for early dating of all the NT texts. Once we give up the need to assert apostolic witnesses for the books the dating opens up to mid or late 2nd C.

There is also the apologist tendency to assert the uniqueness of the NT books in various ways. If we dismiss the idea that these writers were supernaturally knowledgable we can better understand the cultural context they worked in.

DCHindley

The question should be asked, based on the place and people mentioned in the letters, what did Paul do for a living? He seems to be at ease traveling by ship and land, which suggests he is
1) among the elite classes and travels for pleasure (not likely),
2) or was traveling as a retainer for an elite (more likely, probably a Herodian family),
3) or was a merchant/tradesman who plied his trade wherever he could get work (also likely, but would not explain all the contacts he had with town officials and the fringes of the Herodian family).

I'd put my money on #2. However, the author of Acts says he was a "tentmaker" (#3) but this can have many implications and is not restricted to tents. In short, he is a traveling contractor working big contracts (tents for armies, sails for ships, breezeways of high end homes or camps for sheikhs.

Now, knowing this, the author of Acts may have simply found a private travel diary in the library of an elite family or shipowner, and made use of the details in order to give his reconstruction of the life of "Paul" some verisimilitude. It doesn't necessarily HAVE to be from a companion of Paul. In fact, if he had access to a travel account from one of Paul's companion, then why doesn't he have access to the letters, which include travel details that don't jive with his story line.

I'm assuming of course a second century date for the composition, when Paul has taken on a somewhat legendary character. Otherwise, what was the point of the author of Acts creating all those flowery speeches for him. Same with the speeches he makes up for Peter, James and Stephen.

DCH (on break boss)

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven,

Both Tacitus and Dio Cassius report that the proconsul Marcus Junius Silanus was murdered.

Neither of them say that he was replaced by two men. McGrew is misleading us here to make us think that Tacitus and Dio Cassius support Luke's assertion that there were "proconsuls" in Ephesus.

One Christian site I visited suggested that Publius Celer and Helius had become the proconsuls.

Tacitus says (annals 13:1) "Such was the cause of death: the instruments were the Roman knight, Publius Celer, and the freedman Helius, who were in charge of the imperial revenues in Asia."

Proconsuls were normally men who had been consuls. There is no evidence that Publius Celer or his freedman Helius became proconsuls after killing Silanus. If they had, this would have been evidence in Nero's complicity in the murder of Silanus, while Tacitus specifically denies that Nero was at fault. Tacitus himself was proconsul in Asia circa 112-113. It seems probable that he would have reported the anomaly if there had been more then one proconsul of Asia.

Proconsul of Asia was a highly prestigious office roughly the equivalent to ambassador to the United Nations.

There is no historical evidence, as far as I know, to support the statement in Luke that there was more than one proconsul in Ephesus after the death of Silanus. McGrew seems to be attempting to fool us on this point.

Suggesting that Publius Celer and Helius took over the responsibilities of proconsul after murdering Proconsul Silanus is like saying that Lee Harvey Oswald took over the responsibilities of the president after murdering John F. Kennedy. It is possible, but I do think some source would have bothered to note it, if it had happened.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Steven Carr

Of course, Hemer, who McGrew copies from, cites Tacitus and Cassius, but never gives a quote of what he claims his sources say.

Here we have the unusual case of a Christian claiming somebody backs him up, but never giving us an actual quote of what he claims is his evidence.

That hardly ever happens, no more than once an hour....

Never trust Christian sources, especially when they cannot bring themselves to quote their sources.

aa5874

It is just so illogical and ridiculously absurd for a person with a Ph.D, who used and depended on SECOND HAND sources hundreds of years after the very author Acts and who himself could NOT have traveled to any of these places in the 1st century, to claim that the author of Acts could NOT have used second hand sources just as he himself did.

Who is this supposed scholar?

Dr Reppert's argument appears to be completely irrational.