IS the ACTS of the APOSTLES HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? Part 2 of 2 by Brian Janeway
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IS THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES HISTORICALLY RELIABLE? Part 2 of 2 by Brian Janeway Part one of this article dealt primarily with the history of the criti- cism of the Book of Acts. In it I traced the birth of radical skepticism developed out of Enlightenment philosophy and brought to maturity by the likes of Ferdin and Baur among others. However, a "weighty counter-blow" was struck by new archaeological discoveries, espe- cially by Sir William Ramsay which affirmed the historicity of Acts. Next the speeches in Acts and the ancient practice of historiography were examined. Luke was found to be a faithful recorder of the essence of what was actually said in the best tradition of historians like Thucy- dides and Lucian. The second and final half of this article will analyze three more aspects of Luke's work: the "we" passages, archaeological and histori- cal data, and alleged difficulties in the text. These will be consummated in a verdict on whether the Book of Acts is indeed wor- thy of our trust. "We" Passages Style Criticism The so-called "we" passages in Acts present a unique and interest- ing opportunity to probe Luke's reliability. Analyses of these accounts are often bound up with questions of authorial identity. Whether the author actually accompanied Paul on these voyages or not, Cadbury called an "insoluble riddle."1 Upon closer examination, however, the "riddle" does not appear insoluble. The "we" passages all appear in the last chapters of Acts. The ac- counts are linked with "theys," giving the appearance that the author moved in and out of the story as a participant. The passages being considered are: 1 Cadbury, Making, 357. 48 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999) 16:10-17 Journey from Troas to Philippi 20:5-16 Journey from Philippi to Miletus 21:1-18 Journey from Miletus to Jerusalem 27:1-28:16 Journey from Caesarea to Rome Except for short overland segments, the majority of the passages concern sea voyages. The immediately obvious and simplest explana- tion for these accounts is that the writer was a participant whenever he uses the term "we."2 However, nothing is taken prima facie in the field of biblical criticism. There are three different views on these passages. The first holds that the author was an eyewitness; the second that the author was not present but used accounts from sources that were; and, the third is that the author used them as a literary device to portray verisimilitude. For the purposes of establishing historical trustworthiness, the distinction between the first two is irrelevant. Luke could well have used accurate accounts borrowed from others. Therefore, we are left with two possi- bilities. Either the accounts represent eyewitness information, or they were a product of literary convention. Again, the work of Dibelius is credited with bringing a new per- spective to the field. His hypothesis has been widely accepted by later scholars. He proposed that the author had access to a travel diary or "itinerary" that he used as a framework. Into the framework he in- serted "edifying" tales at appropriate junctures. He supports this by noting that places are mentioned at which nothing really occurs; for example, Attalia (14:2-5), Samothrace and Neapolis (16:11), and Am- phipolis (17:1).3 However, a stronger counter argument could be made that the numerous incidental details are best explained by eyewitness participation. What better reason for their inclusion? 2 Ibid., 359. Cadbury, by applying the preface of Luke's gospel to Acts (as many critics do) shows that Luke quite likely was not an eyewitness to all "the things fulfilled among us" but drew on sources for the earlier chapters while clearly implying involvement in the later ones. 3 Conzelmann, Acts, xxxix. Acts of the Apostles 49 Paul’s Shipwreck Voyage The case of Paul's shipwreck journey (Acts 27-28) is an excellent one for a closer analysis. Ludemann in his chapter-by-chapter redac- tion study asserts that the use of technical nautical expressions should not mislead one into believing the account to be real. Deriving from Dibelius the itinerary theory, he notes that Paul is only mentioned in four passages during the sequence from Myra to Malta. Hence, Paul could easily be "detached from the action without difficulty."4 Ludemann continues in his effort to separate redactions from tradi- tions from historical material. Not surprisingly, after filtering out the former two, he is left with precious little that one can consider histori- cal. The shipwreck he attributes to parallels in ancient literature that mingle the first person with the third person such as Odysseus. How- ever, the result is a "literary entity" in which Luke added Paul to the passages noted. In an astoundingly curt dismissal, he concludes "there should no longer be any dispute here."5 Unfortunately, one cannot so easily dispense with the accounts. Gilchrist lists several reasons for supporting his contention that Luke drew on personal recollections. • The realism of the passages and their extensive, even unneces- sary detail explainable only by personal memory. • The "unobtrusive use of `we' and its introduction without ex- planation." • The author's failure to use "we" throughout the narrative when he could have made extensive use of it. • The apparent knowledge of the emergency measures taken at sea.6 In addition, he makes an astute observation concerning the overall natural construction of the passages. He counts nearly one hundred uses of "we" in which the author has no problem alternating with 4 Ludemann, Early, 257. 5 Ibid., 259. 6 J. M. Gilchrist, "The Historicity of Paul's Shipwreck," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 61 (1996):34. 50 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999) "theys" and other third person pronouns. The impression is of a seam- less series of transitions that would require a "particularly well- disciplined imagination" to execute. The most satisfactory conclusion is that he simply remembered his own experiences.7 In the 1840’s, a layman named James Smith did a remarkable study on Paul's last voyage. He was an amateur yachtsman of thirty years experience who traveled throughout the eastern Mediterranean where Paul's voyage took place. His findings are still referenced today. In it he wrote of Luke: His style . though accurate, is unprofessional. No sailor would have written in a style so little like that of a sailor; no man not a sailor could have written a nar- rative of a sea voyage so consistent in all its parts, unless from actual observation. This peculiarity of style is to me, in itself, a demonstration that the narra- tive of the voyage is an account of real events, written by an eyewitness. The geographical details must have been taken from actual observation, for the geographi- cal knowledge of the age was not such as to enable a writer to be so minutely accurate in any other way.8 What were some of these peculiarities and geographical details? Hemer compiled an extensive, but not exhaustive, list of these features. Acts 27:6 Myra was a principal port for the Alexandrian corn ships and the exact place that the centurion would have found a Roman ship.9 Acts 27:7 The passage around the south of Crete would appear to be an unlikely one but due to the prevailing northwest wind it was forced upon the ship. In fact, this was the normal direction for ves- sels to take.10 7 Ibid., 35. 8 James Smith, The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul (London, 1866), xxx. 9 Hemer, Setting, 134. 10 Ibid. Acts of the Apostles 51 Acts 27:8 The obscure locations of ‘Fair Havens’ and Lasea the author accurately attests and they are unlikely to be known by someone not on the voyage.11 Acts 27:16 The island of Cauda is precisely placed and correctly named. It is also realistically where a ship would be driven helpless by a northeast wind from beyond the refuge of Cape Matala.12 Acts 27:27 Calculations made by Smith to estimate the time for a ship to drift from Cauda to Malta were confirmed by local sailors at close to 14 days.13 Acts 27:27 The expanse of sea named Adria, now known as the Adri- atic, Josephus accurately corroborates.14 Acts 28:7 The title "leading man of the island" in Malta has been con- firmed by inscriptions.15 Acts 28:15 Two waypoints on the Appian Way; Market of Appius and Three Inns, the author accurately locates.16 The precision and detail of these accounts is formidable and argue strongly against an artificial creation. Many scholars have taken note of the richness of this account.17 Contrasted to the earlier parts of Acts, the "we" passages are superior in detail. It would appear reasonable that where Luke was a participant, the graphic descriptions would re- flect that fact and where he used sources, either oral or written, the same texture would be absent. On the other hand, it is generally accepted that the "we" passages do not differ from the sections in which they are embedded in either 11 Ibid., 136. 12 Ibid., 142, 331. 13 Smith, Voyage, 122-26. 14 Hemer, Setting, 146f. 15 Ibid., 153. 16 Ibid., 156. 17 For example, Hanson, Acts, 22, Gilchrist, Historicity, 37, Dibelius, Studies, 78, Alfred Wikenhauser, New Testament Introduction (New York: Herder and Herder, 1958), 328. 52 CTS Journal, vol. 5, #2 (April-June 1999) style or vocabulary or subject matter. This consistency of style demon- strates that the author was skillful in his incorporation of sources and eyewitness accounts into a uniform whole.