Brian Janeway earned his B.A. degree from the University of Kentucky and has begun work towards an M.A. in biblical archaeology. He has worked on several archaeological digs in Israel with the Associates for Biblical Research. Mr. Janeway is employed as a pilot for American Airlines in New York City. His email address is bigedj@aol.com.
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 Tübingen 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. 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 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 postconversion 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 not addressed in this paper.
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 Tübingen 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 Tübingen theses only to change his views following his extensive inscriptional investigations in Asia Minor.
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 Tübingen (derived from University of Tübingen in Germany) will be undertaken. This emphasis will illustrate how influential Tübingen 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 precritical. 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 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 which He was declared the supreme King of heaven and earth, are reviewed for us here. [13]The ideas of the German Tübingen School, as radical as they were, are traced philosophically to those of fellow Germans, Immanual Kant and George Wilhelm Hegel. It was particularly Hegel’s view of history that exerted profound influence on Ferdinand Christian Baur. [14]
The “dialectic” of history was an unfolding process of forces giving rise to thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Through this process the truth would emerge; so thought the Hegelian philosopher.
Baur was by no means the first to find elements of Acts to criticize. However, he was the first to systematically apply them to Acts. Starting with what he saw as difficulties in the texts he discounted all supernatural events as being unhistorical. He perceived a conflict in the early church between two opposing parties; one Pauline and one Petrine. The group led by Paul was set against the “Judaizing” influence of Peter. Paul’s “Freedom from the Law” was seen as diametrically opposed to traditional Jewish teachings, especially in Palestine. The conflict read into the Epistles, especially Galatians, was smoothed over by the compromise and harmony of early Catholicism. [15] The “synthesis” was the composition of Acts to portray a unified church, despite the reality of disharmony. The “tendency” of Luke was apologetic and therefore those parts of Acts seen as reflecting this were judged as tendentious and therefore historically suspect.
The Epistles of Paul were seen as written by him and therefore historical. The Acts were a late second-century work whose author, no longer the traditional Luke, “was not too truthful or too conscientious even to deny the truth of history when he found it in his interest to do so.” [16] The schism that has allegedly engulfed the church caused the author of Acts “to sacrifice historical truth for this bias.” [17]
To be sure, there were other critics of the New Testament, but Baur inspired a new, more radical breed of skeptic. Most prominent were E. Zeller, editor of Tübinger Theologische Jahrbücher (1842–1857), A. Hilgenfeld, who continued in Zeller’s vacancy from 1858–1914, and A. Schwegler, who wrote Nachapostolisches Zeitalter (1846). [18]
Ramsey and “South Galatia”
The thesis of the German school became the starting point for all discussion of Acts. As a dutiful proponent of Tübingen ideas, Sir William Ramsay would prove to be an unlikely candidate for defender of traditional orthodoxy. Yet, this Graeco-Roman scholar was dissuaded from his old views when confronted by the results of his archaeological investigations in Turkey. His “change of heart” has become quasi-legendary.
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tübingen theory had at one time convinced me… .but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. [19]Certain geographical features of the territory first caught his attention. Acts 14:6 describes Paul and Barnabus’ flight from the city of Iconium to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe, and the surrounding region. The implication to Ramsay was that Iconium was not located in the region of Lycaonia. Based on his inscriptional archaeology, he proposed that Iconium was a city of Phrygia, as it had been at the time of Xenophon in 401 B.C. [20]
The consensus was that Luke had mistakenly drawn from Xenophon the fact that Iconium was in Phrygia. He was unaware that the frontier had changed since Xenophon’s day that both Cicero and Pliny the Elder attested to and who had lived nearer to Paul’s time. They had both called Iconium a Lycaonian city. It seemed as if Luke was in error. Further literary and epigraphic evidence convinced Ramsay that Iconium had remained a Phrygian city in Paul’s day as it had been in Xenophon’s. [21]
Most scholars at that time subscribed to the view that Paul addressed his Galatian letter to the Gauls of “North Galatia,” a region that we had no record of in Acts or the Epistles. The question was who were Paul’s “Galatians”?
Several factors convinced Ramsay that the “Galatians” were not in fact ethnic Gauls but geographically defined Galatians, or “South Galatians” to include the cities of Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe. First, if it had been the custom of Paul to preach to the Hellenized city dwellers, then the rustic Gauls of the mountainous North would not have been among his converts. Second, Paul’s practice of preaching first to the Jews would have given him little reason to visit a region that had no Jewish presence in the first century. Thirdly, there was little evidence of Christianity in the North until much later than the first century. Finally, Ramsay contended that Galatian was the only apropos name for the collective population of these cities rather than Lycaonian. Furthermore, Paul as a Roman citizen would have eschewed the national distinctions like Phrygian and Lycaonian and addressed his letter to the name of the Roman province. [22]
Most scholars have come to accept Ramsay’s thesis of a South Galatian destination. The “South Galatian” theory and Ramsay’s establishment of Luke’s accuracy and reliability are two of his enduring legacies. [23] The former is important to a proposed chronology which will be discussed below. The latter is important in its response to the Tübingen critics.
In the latter quarter of the nineteenth century a noticeable intellectual divide developed between German and British scholarship. In large part, this seems to have been due to different methodology applied to New Testament criticism. The Tübingen critics were primarily of the theologian-philosopher tradition tracing back to Hegel and Kant. British scholars tended to be classicists and historians like Ramsay and another esteemed individual, J. B. Lightfoot. They were well-grounded in history and placed a greater emphasis on archaeology.
Thanks to the then recent excavations of the Temple of Artemis by British architect, John Wood, much of the cult of that female deity was coming to light. [24] Lightfoot was struck both by the accuracy of Luke in recording the proper titles of proconsul, deputy, town clerk, and Asiarch; but, in also capturing the spirit of the Artemis-worship in Ephesus. With these facts in view, we are justified in saying that ancient literature has preserved no picture of the Ephesus of imperial times-the Ephesus which has been unearthed by the sagacity and perseverance of Mr. Wood- comparable for its life-like truthfulness to the narrative of St. Paul’s sojourn there in the Acts. [25]
Harnack
Another scholar, in this case German, was pivotal in reversing the dominance of Tübingen. Between 1906 and 1911, Adolf Harnack “struck his weighty counter-blow” in a three-volume defense of Luke in which he rated him much higher than his German colleagues. [26] Harnack had also been skeptical of Luke’s performance as an historian and placed the date of composition in the second century. However, he underwent a change-of-heart not unlike Ramsay and revised his earlier views. He posited six compelling arguments for an early date of authorship that bear repeating:
- He thought the simplest conclusion to the difficulty to the ending of Acts was that Luke wrote soon after the two years he spent with Paul in Rome.
- The apparent discrepancy between Acts 20:25, you will see my face no more and 2 Timothy 4:6, I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come, can be explained. Luke either allowed Paul to say or Paul said something about his future which afterwards proved to be incorrect (if he was released from a first imprisonment). Luke, when he wrote, could not have yet known that it was incorrect.
- In Acts, the Jews are the oppressors rather than the oppressed. This would be a strange scenario in the aftermath of the cataclysmic events of A.D. 66-70, of which Luke makes no mention. Moreover, though he refers to the prophecy of Isaiah concerning, the hardening of their hearts, he never refers to the actual terrible judgment.
- Under the common assumption that Luke wrote his Gospel before Acts, the passages in Luke 21, describing the convulsions of heavenly bodies and the coming of the Son of Man, are difficult to square with a date following the destruction of Jerusalem. They would be more coherent if placed in the decade leading up to A.D. 70.
- The obvious fact that Luke did not use the Pauline Epistles to write Acts makes a later date less plausible. (Luke’s apparent failure to use the letters has also been used to argue that the author was not a companion of Paul.).
- Luke’s use of the word “Christ” is more primitive than Paul’s. In Luke’s writings it has not yet become a proper name, but rather means “the Messiah.” [27] The name “Christians” is not yet applied by Christians to themselves. Also, the primitive treatment of Judaism and Jewish Christianity seem to indicate an early date. On the other hand, the only evidence for a late date are the prophecies of the destruction of the Temple, which came to pass later.
He criticized Luke’s detractors for their mistrust since “they had, of course, the very best excuse that could be given: they possessed no other sources.” [29] Harnack’s final tally on Luke as an historical writer was rather startling considering from where he had come. “Judged from almost every possible standpoint of historical criticism it is a solid, respectable, and in many respects an extraordinary work.” [30] The “weighty counter-blow” had been struck against the now long-dominant Tübingen School. Several others were also instrumental in the debate over historicity. Eduard Meyer (1855–1930), an ancient history professor for many years in Berlin, [31] Theodor Zahn (1838–1933), the Lutheran academic, [32] and the Catholic scholar Alfred Wikenhauser (1883–1960), [33] all made authoritative contributions to traditional positions of historical trustworthiness of Luke. These, added to the work of Ramsay, Lightfoot, and Harnack, were too much for the Tübingen thesis. Solid historical criticism coupled with relatively new archaeological discoveries exposed the theory as being unhistorical. The antithesis between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, and between Peter and Paul, was proven to be a manifestation in the minds of the critics. Baur and his followers had abandoned the traditional conceptions of scripture and believed they were building a new scientific approach free of the supernatural presuppositions of their predecessors. Like the existentialists, they believed they could approach the questions without a priori obstacles, but in the end could not escape their own. Tendenzkritik, as a formal, working theory, was dead. Nevertheless, it did make positive contributions to the issues arising from Acts. The importance of the purpose of Acts was examined. Critics no longer assumed that Luke wrote merely history, but he had a definite message to send to the reader. [34] Secondly, scholars recognized that Paul was the central character in Acts. He was the true hero of the author. The Tübingen critics were right in seeing the book as a defense of Paul and of the Christian message. [35] Finally, the work of Tübingen compelled a much more intense study of the Book of Acts. It forced traditionalists to rush to a more studied and reasoned response to the new challenges. [36] A better grounded and more historically sound analysis of Acts has been the result.
Due to World War I, the study of Acts was disrupted and no consensus was ever achieved on its historical reliability. Another factor was the lack of a constructive intellectual dialogue between British and American scholarship on the one hand with those on the continent. Several authors have noted this failure and Colin Hemer thinks it led to a premature closing of the debate over historicity. German intellectuals to this day are slow to recognize the contributions of a Lightfoot, Ramsay, or Bruce. [37]
At any rate, post-war study of Acts took a new line of investigation. Martin Dibelius applied a new mode of criticism known as “form” or more commonly “style.” He presupposed that Luke used traditions that were then molded into a cohesive account of the early church. By examining these traditions, the form-critical method sought to identify the origins and conditions out of which they arose. Dibelius, in this way, sought for “observations which are universally valid in order to establish less subjective criteria of the traditions historicity.” [38]
Dibelius and Contemporary Criticism
His initial essay appeared in 1923 and inspired a new tradition of scholarship that would be followed later by Ernst Haenchen and Hans Conzelmann. Dibelius’ major contributions came in two areas. He saw in the speeches in Acts, Lucan compositions that were not meant to reproduce actual speeches, but merely to model examples of Christian sermons. Far from the ancient tradition of attempting to recall the actual words spoken, Luke “felt bound to no source” and, therefore his speeches “lay no claim to historicity.” [39]
Dibelius was the first to recognize what he saw as the use of a “travel diary” to construct the latter accounts in Acts, particularly the “we” passages. Using this “itinerary” as a framework, Luke proceeded to fill it in with stories of varying value historically. He judges the shipwreck voyage of Paul (Acts 27:8) as “taken from the numerous accounts of sea voyages in literature and not from experience.” [40]
The subjects of the speeches and the “we” passages shall be revisited in more depth later. However, it is not difficult to see that Dibelius held a modest estimation of Luke as an historian. He would prefer to see Luke, not as one engaged in the ancient practice of historiography, but as a preacher. [41] He made little, if any attempt to address the work of Harnack, Ramsay, et al. Rather, he excluded by definition the historical critical approach of those that preceded him. Inquiry into the veracity of Luke was not even the proper question to ask. One does not concern himself “with questions as to whether an event was possible or impossible; we ask first of all what the author intends and what means are available.” [42]
Henry Cadbury continued in the vein of Dibelius and represents the best of Anglo-Saxon research in the area of literary-linguistic interpretation. His investigation of Luke’s style and method dispelled the theory that Luke’s language betrayed that of a physician.43 He treats the speeches as more editorial and drama rather than historical tradition.44 To ascertain historical reliability he tests Luke’s source material, the standards of historical writing of the time, his personality, and his purpose in writing. In the final analysis, “the main effect of our method … will be neither to verify nor to correct the data recorded.” [45] Clearly, Cadbury intentionally avoided the question of historicity.
The most influential of the historical skeptics was Ernst Haenchen. He coupled literary and style criticism drawn from Dibelius with a more negative view of Luke’s veracity. In his analysis, he saw the purpose behind Acts as “edification” to his readers. Luke was not an historian in the tradition of Thucydides or Xenophon but a storyteller who freely composed accounts to carefully form a unifying, ennobling myth. [46]
The name of Hans Conzelmann usually follows that of Haenchen. His focus is on the theology of Luke. True to Dibelius-Haenchen form, Conzelmann rates Luke’s speeches as literary constructions intended not only to instruct but also to “please” the reader (read edification). The author (Luke) meant the “we” accounts “to convey the impression of an eyewitness account.” [47]
Much like his German tradition, Conzelmann concentrates his efforts on theological grounds to formulate a new concept of history. Luke interpreted salvation history as consisting of three epochs; the time of Israel, the time of Jesus, and the time of the church. Jesus represented the center of this history and the future is seen in the church’s mission to the world. Conzelmann even examines the “tendencies” (they are anti-Jewish and anti-Gnostic) of Luke reflecting the lasting influence of Tübingen. [48]
Marshall reviews the recent history of criticism, particularly Dibelius, Cadbury, Haenchen, and Conzelmann and sees the response of the traditionalists as “largely lacking.” [49] However, by nature, conservative scholarship does not seek to propagate innovative new theories. It characteristically has relied upon sound historical methods and comes to conclusions quite contrary to the German theologians, in particular.
From the tradition of classicists came F. F. Bruce, longtime Professor of Biblical Criticism at Manchester University. He can be seen in the tradition of Ramsay and goes so far as to give credit to him in a preface to his commentary on the Book of Acts. [50]
My debt to the writings of Sir William Ramsay is evident throughout the book, and I am repeatedly amazed by modern writers who deal with areas of New Testament scholarship to which Ramsay made contributions of peculiar value, with hardly so much as a hint that such a person ever lived. [51]More recently it seems that again the historical element of Acts is being discussed in critical scholarship. Three individuals merit mention.
Martin Hengel in his work addresses the historical question from what he views as a middle ground. He questions the radical skepticism of German scholarship to whom he attributes “flights of imagination.” On the other hand, he “vigorously opposes” traditional methods that eschew any form of critical inquiry whatsoever.
Gerd Ludemann employs a “redaction” criticism by which he first dissects Lucan redactions from traditions. He then investigates the reliability of those pieces of tradition and separates the historical from the unhistorical. [52] The method of Ludemann is not immune to criticism itself. His disregard for the redacted material is too easily assumed as not historical. Luke could have had access to historical material that he later redacted. Once he determines that which is tradition, his analysis of its historical nature is subjective. Finally, his methodology assumes a late date of composition and ensuing misinterpretation by the author separated, as he is, in time from the events of which he writes. [53]
The work of Colin Hemer is also deserving of attention. Before his premature death in 1987 he had compiled notes for a planned book which colleagues later assembled and published. [54] Hemer has a high view of Luke’s accuracy and spends over 400 pages meticulously detailing it. Hemer has made a noble attempt to reopen the debate on historicity believing that it was closed prematurely by World War I and other more ideological concerns. [55]
Hemer contends that Luke should be judged on his actual performance, which he rates much more highly than is the current fashion. In reference to the Theudas problem (Acts 5:36–7) he states:
Yet even if Luke has committed an anachronism by placing these words on Gamaliel’s lips and has reversed the order of the two uprisings, one such slip on his part would not entitle us to argue for his general unreliability. [56]Two difficulties present themselves with this approach. First, is the background information in all its detail as accurate as Hemer alleges? [57] It beckons for further examination that Hemer is happy to provide. Secondly, to inductively derive overall reliability from that of background detail may be unwarranted. The modern novelist may construct a highly accurate setting for the telling of a fictional tale. But it appears that Luke set out to write a historical account. [58] In the prologue to his gospel (usually taken to apply to Acts as well), he wrote it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order (Luke 1:3) If Luke expressly sets out to write history then he should be tested for reliability as such. The history of criticism illustrates that a pronounced schism exists as to an assessment of the accuracy of Acts. The departure from traditional views began in the eighteenth century during the Enlightenment. Radical skepticism reached its apex with the Tübingen School in the mid-1800’s, but though seemingly refuted, has transformed itself into style, literary, and redaction criticism. The influence of Tübingen is very much alive even today. The genesis of this movement appears to be a highly theological approach to New Testament criticism.
Not all scholars have approached Acts this way. Particularly, British scholars have applied historical methodology and archaeology to arrive at a contrary estimation of Luke’s veracity. So it would be of little surprise that scholars today can reach quite opposite conclusions on the matter. But it appears that many are now looking anew at the question of historical reliability of the
Speeches and Ancient Historiography
The speeches of Acts form a very important and substantial part of Luke’s account. Dibelius counted twentyfour in all; eight belonging to Peter, nine to Paul, one each to Stephen and James (Lord’s brother), and five total to non- Christians, Gamaliel, Demetrius, the Ephesus town-clerk, Tertullus, and Festus. [59] Together they comprise over 300 of the roughly 1000 verses in Acts.
Were the speeches accurate records of what was said? Or were they literary constructs designed for other reasons? Most scholars today believe that the speeches are where Luke exercised a wide amount of creativity and that he composed them primarily to edify his audience. [60] Determining the veracity of the speeches obviously goes a long way towards evaluating the veracity of Acts.
It is generally conceded that the speeches are not verbatim reports. No ancient author could lay claim to such a practice. But, the real issue is whether they are Lucan summaries or Lucan creations. [61]
Speeches were a vital part of ancient historiography. In his History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides says:
As to the speeches which were made either before or during the war, it was hard for me, and for others who reported them to me, to recollect the exact words. I have therefore put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavored, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said. [62]It is clear that Thucydides sought to give a true account, although not a verbatim one. The same can be said of Lucian, who wrote in the second century.
The one aim and goal of history is to be useful; and this can result only from its truth … The one task of the historian is to describe things exactly as they happened … This is the one essential thing in history, to sacrifice to truth alone. [63]Apparently, not all of Lucian’s contemporaries were as noble as Lucian and he later attacked those who did not serve truth but wrote instead to please others.
Livy, a first-century historian did not see his goal as a single-minded pursuit for the truth. He saw history as subservient to a national cause and a moral cause. He wanted to preserve the memory of “the first people in the world” and to give examples of “ideals at which to aim.” [64]
Evidently, ancient historiography was not uniform in its standard for truth. Dibelius preferred to rank Luke among the likes of Livy. Though Dibelius refers to Thucydides, he focuses on the statement that the historian “put into the mouth of each speaker” the words he spoke. Because Luke’s primary purpose was to edify and preach, the fact of whether the speech is accurate or even took place at all is irrelevant.
Is it appropriate to presume an infidelity to truth in accounts of speeches by ancient historians? Particularly in Luke’s accounts in Acts? Bruce points out that where Luke’s performance as a faithful preserver of sources can be tested he rates highly. In his Gospel account it is generally agreed that Luke reports with “great faithfulness the sayings and speeches which he found in his sources.” [65] His performance in the Gospel is not proof of the same in Acts, but should be considered in an overall assessment.
Dibelius’ most enduring criticism of Luke’s speeches is based on style criticism. Because his influence is still keenly felt and reflected through Haenchen and Conzelmann, it is worthy of examination. Dibelius noted a consistent pattern in the speeches consisting of, (1) an introduction relating to its subject matter, (2) an account of Jesus ministry, death, and resurrection, (3) Old Testament prophecies fulfilled, and finally, (4) a call to repentance. In that pattern, he detected what he believed to be a period Christian sermon customary for the day. “This is how the gospel is preached and ought to be preached.” [66]
The key to understanding Dibelius’ critique is that Luke used a prototypical sermon and repeated it without regard to the speaker in whose mouth he placed it or the audience. The predictable pattern betrays Luke’s personal composition right down to the interruptions that are to be considered a literary device. Would Peter have really preached like Paul? Would a speech to a Jewish assembly be similar to one spoken to Gentiles? The answer of the skeptics is obviously, no. The unity of style is the common thread.
Nevertheless, are the speeches uniform? The fact is that they differ both theologically and linguistically. One need only contrast Stephen’s speech to Peter’s to Paul’s at the Areopagus to his farewell to the elders from Ephesus to see that they cannot be attributed to the literary imagination of a single mind. [67] The early speeches of Peter in the temple court (Acts 3) and on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) reveal primitive eschatology which is not characteristic of later speeches. [68] Paul’s speech to the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch has him saying that every believer is justified in Christ—a term not used by any other speaker but known to be characteristic of Paul. (Acts 13:39). [69] The two speeches Paul makes to pagans in Lystra (Acts 14) and Athens (Acts 17) exhibit similarities to his letter to the Thessalonians (1 Thessalonians 1:9) in which he reminded them to turn to God from idols, to serve a living and true God. [70]
As can be seen, the speeches are not alike either in style or substance. They express a “diversity of viewpoints, including viewpoints at variance with the author’s own.” [71] Moreover, Luke would seem to preserve faithfully the essence of what was actually said when he can be tested. We may reasonably conclude that he was equally faithful “where his sources are no longer available for comparison.” [72] Therefore, the theory that the speeches in Acts are literary constructs of the author is an unmeritorious presumption not supported from the evidence.
In so far as can be determined, the speeches were rendered in the best spirit of Thucydideon historiography.
To be continued
Notes
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.
- F. F. Bruce, “The Acts of the Apostles: Historical Record or Theological Reconstruction?” Aufstieg Und Niedergang Der römishen Welt, Stephan Schwerdtferger and Ute Ilchman, eds. (Berlin/New York: Walter De Gruyter, 1985): 54.
- R.P.C. Hansen, The Acts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967) 32.
- J. B. Lightfoot, “Discoveries Illustrating the Acts of the Apostles,” Essays on the Work Entitled Supernatural Religion (London, 1889), 19–20.
- W. M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery On the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (1911; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 81.
- Richard Pervo, Profit With Delight (Philadelphia: Fortress: 1987) 3.
- Ward Gasque, A History of the Criticism of the Acts of the Apostles (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1975) 7.
- Ibid., p. 11.
- Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 14f.
- Ibid., p. 15.
- John Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. John Fraser and W. McDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 18.
- “Hegel,” Encyclopedia Americana, 1993 ed., 51
- I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) 84.
- F. C. Baur, Paul, His Life and Work, His Epistles, and His Doctrine: A Contribution to the Critical History of Primitive Christianity, 2nd ed., Theological Translation Fund Library (London/Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate, 1876) 10.
- Ibid., p. 12.
- “Tübingen School,” Encyclopedia Dictionary of Religion, 1979 ed., 3579.
- W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen (London: 1896) 7-8.
- F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954) 288-9.
- Ibid.
- Gasque, History, pp. 140–1.
- Ward Gasque, Sir William Ramsay: Archaeologist and New Testament Scholar: A Survey of His Contribution to the Study of New Testament, Baker Studies in Biblical Archeology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 61-3.
- Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History, rev. Howard Vos, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 279.
- Lightfoot, Discoveries, p. 301.
- Gerd Lüdemann, Early Christianity According to the Tradition in Acts: A Commentary, tr. John Bowden (London: SCM Press, 1989; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1959) 2.
- Adolf Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles, tr. J.R. Wilkinson, Crown Theological Library, vol. 27 (New York: Williams and Norgate, 1909; Putnam’s Sons, 1909) 293-97.
- Ibid., p. 301-2.
- Ibid., p. 300.
- Ibid., p. 299.
- Gasque, History, p. 158.
- Ibid., p. 142.
- Ibid., p. 156.
- Ibid., p. 50.
- Ibid., p. 51.
- Ibid.
- Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 11-12. Gasque, History, p. 250.
- Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM Press, 1956) 102-3.
- Ibid., p. 3, 105.
- Ibid., p. 107.
- Ibid., p. 183.
- Ibid., p. 107.
- Haenchen, Acts, p. 43.
- Henry Cadbury, The Making of Luke - Acts, (London: SPCK, 1958), 185.
- Ibid., p. 368.
- Haenchen, Acts, p. 103-4.
- Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: Commentary (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) xliii, xl.
- Ibid., pp. xiv-xlviii.
- Marshall, Acts, p. 85.
- Gasque, History, pp. 257–8.
- F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951) Preface.
- Ludemann, Early, p. 20.
- Marshall, Acts, p. 88.
- Hemer, Setting, Preface.
- Ibid., p. 11.
- Hemer, Setting, p. 163.
- Marshall, Acts, p. 88.
- Ibid., p. 89.
- Dibelius, Studies, p. 150.
- Mark Allen Powell, What Are They Saying About Acts? (New York: Paulist Press, 1991) 30.
- Hemer, Setting, p. 418.
- Bruce, Speeches, p. 54.
- C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1961) 10.
- Ibid., p. 11.
- Bruce, Acts, p. 18.
- Dibelius, Studies, p. 165.
- Gasque, History, p. 229.
- Bruce, “Historical Record?”, p. 2584.
- Ibid., p. 2585.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 2582.
- Gasque, History, p. 229.
No comments:
Post a Comment