Peter Kirby

The people who treat Acts as somewhat reliable often believe that Acts was written by a companion of Paul. These people point to the first person plural passages of Acts, but others claim that the first person plural was a Greco-Roman narrative device for sea voyages.

best,
Peter Kirby

Biff the unclean

What things in Acts would you consider historical? ---Vorkosigan

Well there's Acts 5:1 where Saint Peter murders a couple in cold blood and has their bodies dumped because they didn't give him as much money as he thought they should have.
Or there is Acts 13:6 where Paul blinds Barjesus because Barjesus thinks Paul is up to no good and warns his friend Sergius Paulus.
And don't forget Acts 19:19 where they hold a book burning and destroy books worth fifty thousand pieces of silver

Perhaps Acts is considered historically accurate because it shows the Christians as a bunch of thugs?

Layman

For those who see Acts has having historical worth, the fact that its author made use of sources is itself an indication that his works may contain information that is better than his own personal knowledge.

Also, as Kirby alluded to, many believe that Acts was written by a companion of Paul. If true, then the author would have more personal knowledge of the events described therein than he would for his earlier work--Luke.

Artemus

I was able to get the Helms book at my university library. I'm about half-way through it now (it is fairly short). Fascinating reading. It seems pretty convincing overall, although I have seen alternate theories to a couple connections he makes (Peter's attempt to walk on water, for example, and the calming of the storm.) Richard Carrier's essay is also illuminating.

Peter K.,thanks for all your work compiling the sources. I knew that some still claim Luke was Paul's companion (IMHO a classic case of denial), but it seems that some who acknowledge that that could not have been true still refer to Acts to defend certain dates, such as when Paul was in prison or when people such as James, Peter, or Paul were still alive. What I don't understand is that if a great deal of the material in a work is known to be a fiction (I love Helms's style!), why would any of it be accepted without external evidence? Or is there external evidence, but it is just easier to refer to Acts because it the best known?

To Layman-

A work resulting from sources is only as good as the sources themselves. If the final work contains known fictions, independent of their origin the problem still remains: How can the fact be separated from the fiction?

Perhaps I am just confused by all I have read recently. The multitude of conclusions drawn from a very limited data set can become quite a jumble for the novice. (Well, at least in my case. )

Peter Kirby

What evidence is there that the author of Acts had not spent time with Paul?

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Toto

Well, there are all of the contradictions between Paul's letters and Acts, however you choose to explain them.

The Paul Paradox

And, if Luke/Acts does incorporate information from Josephus, that would push the date of the composition of those works to after 79 AD, probably later. (I guess that is not impossible, but why would Paul's companion crib things from Josephus?)

In addition, if Luke/Acts were written by a companion of Paul, I would expect a lot more evidence of that, in terms of personal detail.

Of course, Acts may incorporate oral legends or lost manuscripts from an earlier time, so it is possible that some of it comes from a companion of Paul. But which parts?

lpetrich

Yes, those pesky kulaks Ananias and Sapphira were unwilling to collectivize all their property as Commissar Peter had demanded.

Vorkosigan

In addition, if Luke/Acts were written by a companion of Paul, I would expect a lot more evidence of that, in terms of personal detail.

Me too. I'd expect a much denser and bigger biography. Instead, we get a sort of "greatest hits of Paul." The "we" passages don't really give you a real first-person perspective. There's nary a comment like "I suggested that we ride on immediately for Jerusalem, but Paul felt constrained to stop at Tyre and see friends." There's no hint, at least to me, of any real fellowship between the speaker and Paul.

The writer of Luke clearly perused many historical works -- I never realized there was a quote from Thucydides in there, thanks for the link, Toto! There's no reason he'd be stealing quotes from the Bacchae or from Thucydides if s/he actually knew what Paul said. Luke-Acts is a construction of sources, some historical, some, like Matt, Mark and John, largely fictional....

Vorkosigan

atrahasis

What evidence is there that the author of Acts had spent time with Paul?

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: Xisuthros ]</p>

Geoff Hudson

It is hard to believe that Acts was created out of nothing as pure fiction. Human nature and history being what it is, it is easier to think that there was an original text that was subsequently heavily garbled by some unscrupulous editors (to put it mildly) who would stop at nothing in hiding the truth. Eisenman says that Acts is garbled. If one has this view, then to recover the history, one is into the logical game of unravelling the complex web of lies the editors have created. One cannot accept the text as it stands as historical truth.

For example, I find it hard to accept that a relatively unknown missionary Paul just arrived in Jerusalem should be given VIP treatment in being escorted by a large contingent of Roman soldiery from Jerusalem to Caesarea (a distance of about 70 miles) for his safety - and that just because he said he was a Roman citizen. I would have said to the editor, "Now come on, pull the other one." It was obviously a king-pin who was taken there - and someone who could speak Latin to a Roman commander - never mind about Aramaic. You can guess who I think that was.

Geoff