50 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Is The Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 1 of 2 by Brian Janeway Introduction Whether The Acts of the Apostles is historically accurate is a question that has engaged scholars for centuries. The debate has become particularly acute since the Tubingen School addressed it in the middle of the nineteenth century. The intensity of the debate has waxed and waned since that time. But even now the scholarly community's assessment of Luke as an historian is deeply fissured. Originally my purpose was to examine the question from an archaeological perspective. However, I soon realized that this approach was unsatisfactory for two reasons. First, a simple listing of archaeological discoveries would amount to a survey in the spirit of John McRay or Jack Finegan.1 While these are outstanding works which deal with the archaeology of The Acts of the Apostles, as well as the rest of the New Testament, they were written for a narrow and specified purpose. 1 John McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). Jack Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981). Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History, rev. Howard Vos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992). Gonzalo Baez-Camargo, Archaeological Commentary on the Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1984). Werner Keller, The Bible As History (Toronto: Hodder and Stoughton, 1980). Edwin Yamauchi, The Archaeology of New Testament Cities in Western Asia Minor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980). Acts of the Apostles 51 Secondly, I concluded that to answer adequately the question required a study of issues beyond the scope of archaeology. The history of modern criticism introduced me to these concerns. Therefore, my attempt to answer it will necessarily examine various non-archaeological issues within The Acts of the Apostles that impinge upon its essential reliability. In order to understand the present state of scholarly opinion, it is useful to review the history of that criticism. An objective "critical" analysis does not entail a negative result as many have come to believe. Numerous scholars have maintained traditional views of historicity despite their "critical" study of the book and charges of apologetisch. As I. Howard Marshall has noted, "everybody looks for the evidence that supports their hypothesis and attempts to account for seemingly contrary evidence."2 The speeches of Acts comprise a major portion of the book. They were important and were a literary device used in ancient historiography reaching back at least to the time of Thucydides in the fifth century B.C.3 The author of Acts used speeches for a reason and they will be discussed concerning their historicity. Another aspect with direct relevance to historicity is the so called "we" passages in the latter part of Acts. Were they actual eyewitness accounts or were they literary constructs used to portray verisimilitude to the reader? Archaeology and historical research have played a major role in developing an accurate chronology for Acts. For many 2 I. Howard Marshall, foreword to The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, by Colin J. Hemer (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) viii. 3 F. F. Bruce, "The Speeches in Acts - Thirty Years Later," Reconciliation and Hope: New Testament Essays on Atonement and Eschatology, ed. R. Banks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans: 1974) 54. 52 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) decades critical theories were advanced without sufficient historical undergirding. Archaeology, when properly understood and applied has provided an indispensable corrective to excessively fanciful hypotheses. There are several vexing questions relating to apparent contradictions between Acts and the Pauline corpus. Foremost of these is the account of Paul's first post- conversion visit to Jerusalem that F. F. Bruce called "impossible to harmonize."4 Substantial amounts of ink have been spilled to resolve this "greatest crux of all" for those assessing internal chronology and consistency.5 We will examine a harmonization theory that preserves the historical integrity of the accounts in Acts and those of Paul's in Galatians. Several other apparent discrepancies will also be addressed to include the rebellions of Theudas and Judas, the revolt of the "Egyptian" (21:38), and the "worldwide famine" prophesied by Agabus in Acts 11. Can they be reconciled? I shall hereafter refer to the author as Luke without prejudice to the question of authorship. The view taken here is that Paul's coworker, Luke, was the author, but a majority of scholars do not accept this tradition. Nevertheless, the reliability of the narrative is not dependent on whether Luke was actually the writer. Finally, the question of historicity will not be applied to the many supernatural events in Acts. They are well beyond the temporal scope of this work and involve a priori assumptions I will not address. 4 F. F. Bruce, "The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction?" Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der Romishen Welt II Principat, 25.3, Walter De Gruyter (1985): 54. 5 R.P.C. Hansen, The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) 32. Acts of the Apostles 53 Most scholars now accept that the author of Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. This being the case, Luke's combined work comprises a larger percentage of the New Testament than even the Pauline Epistles. Therefore, our evaluation of Luke as an accurate observer of events has profound repercussions on arguably the most important author in the entire Bible. Luke has written a book that is unique among New Testament books for its verifiability to historical events. No ancient work affords so many tests of veracity; for no other has such numerous points of contact in all directions with contemporary history, politics, and topography, whether Jewish, Greek, or Roman.6 History of Modern Criticism The Tubingen School How has scholarship evaluated Luke's veracity as an historian? Contrast the following two views on Luke's performance. In Sir William Ramsay's words, "Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect to its trustworthiness."7 This came from one who originally subscribed to the Tubingen theses only to change his views following his extensive inscriptional investigations in Asia Minor. 6 J. B. Lightfoot, "Discoveries Illustrating the Acts of the Apostles," Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London, 1889) 19-20. 7 W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery On the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1911; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953) 81. 54 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) Richard Pervo does not share Ramsay’s high view of Luke. He calls Luke "bumbling and incompetent as an historian" while lauding his creativity as an author. Furthermore, the writer of Acts has a "bewitching ability to foist upon his readers one inconsistency after another and convert the most dreary material into good reading."8 Though some of Ramsay's scholarly positions have been dated, his overall assessment of Acts is shared by some modern scholars. Most observers, however, would tend to rate Luke more in line with the view of Pervo. How has the question remained so polarized? A review of the critical history of Acts with special emphasis on the school of "tendency" critics known as Tubingen (derived from University of Tubingen in Germany) will be undertaken. This emphasis will illustrate how influential Tubingen was and continues to be today despite refutation of their basic thesis earlier this century. The Acts of the Apostles was not widely studied, even among divines, during the period of church history before the Reformation. Ward Gasque refers to this period as pre- critical. During this period only nineteen books or fragments remain. They were authored by such as Origen, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, and the venerable Bede.9 The Reformation witnessed a revival of study of the Bible. Most notable of the new Reformers was John Calvin who wrote extensively as a theologian and an exegete. In his studies can be seen some of the first analyses of problems later critics would develop into theories. For example, Stephen’s speech in Acts 7:16 claims that all the 8 Richard Pervo, Profit With Delight (Philadelphia: Fortress: 1987) 3. 9 Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1975) 7. Acts of the Apostles 55 bones of the patriarchs were brought back to Canaan. Calvin believed that only Joseph’s are mentioned in the Old Testament. But such is not the case. In Genesis 50, Joseph took Jacob’s bones back to Canaan. Calvin attributed the alleged discrepancy to mistaken sources.10 Later scholars used the same rationale to develop what became known as source criticism. With the advent of Enlightenment philosophy came a change in the traditional view of scripture. Heretofore, the Acts had been seen as a history of the Apostles that had been composed by Luke. "Now the reader began to look at the work with his own eyes, and he noticed to his astonishment that the traditional picture did not accord with what he saw."11 Critics noted that Acts, far from being a record of all the Twelve, was primarily a story involving Peter and Paul. Moreover, Luke's narrative seemingly contained gaps and omissions. When held up to the Pauline Epistles the trend seemed to be most evident. Luke did not report everything he knew. Where he seemed unable due to incomplete or inadequate sources the critics developed source criticism. Where Luke appeared to be unwilling, the form of tendency criticism, or tendenzkritik was born.12 No longer would the intellectual world regard the Book of Acts as John Calvin did at the dawn of the Reformation: Therefore both the origin and the progress of the Church, from the Ascension of Christ, by 10 Ibid., p.