Artemus

Reading over the threads here (and some of Peter Kirby's links) it appears that Acts of the Apostles is often treated as a historically accurate document. Unless I am mistaken, it is a continuation of Luke, which itself is an embellished merging of Mark and Q by someone who could not have been an eye-witness. So why would any of the details in Acts be treated as reliable?

Bobzammel

To a degree there is real history. But this is true of a lot of myths and stuff, such as the Oddysey. Interestingly enough, ACTS at certain points seems to betray the Greek philosophical origins of Christianity.

Vorkosigan

What things in Acts would you consider historical?

Vorkosigan

doodad

Please explain your question.

winstonjen

I think he was referring to the validity of the miracles reported in Acts.

Artemus

In my case I was simply talking about who went where, who talked with who, who was alive when, that kind of thing.

Toto

I recommend <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=99" target="_blank">Gospel Fictions</a> by Randal Helms on the historical quality of the gospels and Acts.

Acts may have a feel of history about it, and some accurate historical details. It is possible (or likely) that the author of Acts relied on works by the Jewish historian Josephus (see <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html" target="_blank">Luke and Josephus</a> for details.

Geoff Hudson

It is also possible that the author was Josephus himself, but this is not obvious because later editors extensively garbled the original account. Acts could well have been a part of Josephus' Life as the latter has seven years cut-out for the time when he was between the ages of 19 and 26.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Luke could also have been written by Josephus. Matthew and John contain fine details that an eye-witness would have written but which are missing in Luke. Josephus would have been too young to have known Jesus (imo John the Prophet) personally, but he could have known the likes of James and his brother John (as I believe he did). Matthew (Matthias) was the name of Josephus' father whose father was Joseph. Was that Matthew also "Levi" the tax collector of Jericho working for the Romans? If so, then Josephus would have had plenty of first-hand accounts from eye-witnesses.

Was Joseph the sympathetic Joseph of "Arimathea" (a garbled father of Matthew)? The letters of Pontius Pilate to Seneca have a Joseph working for him in effect as his representative on the Sanhedrin.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

And while I think about it, Josephus' biography for the period between the ages of 16 and 19 has also been cut-out of Life. This was the time he spent with "Banus" (Barnabus/James) in the "desert" (Rome).

Geoff