v5n1 C

CTS Journal, vol.
5, #1 (March 1999) 50
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 J ohn McRay or
J ack 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
J ohn McRay, Archaeology and the New Testament (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1991). J ack Finegan, The Archaeology of the New Testament
(Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981). J oseph 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.
CTS Journal, vol. 5, #1 (March 1999) 52
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 J erusalem 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 J udas, 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.
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 J ewish, 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.
Richard Pervo does not share Ramsays 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, J ohn Chrysostom, and the venerable Bede.
9
The Reformation witnessed a revival of study of the
Bible. Most notable of the new Reformers was J ohn 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, Stephens 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.
55
bones of the patriarchs were brought back to Canaan. Calvin
believed that only J osephs are mentioned in the Old
Testament. But such is not the case. In Genesis 50, J oseph
took J acobs 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 J ohn 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. 11.
11
Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary
(Philadelphia: Westminster, 1971) 14f.
12
Ibid., p. 15.
which He was declared the supreme King of
heaven and earth, are reviewed for us here.
13
The ideas of the German Tubingen 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 "J udaizing"
influence of Peter. Paul's "Freedom from the Law" was seen
as diametrically opposed to traditional J ewish 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

13
J ohn Calvin, The Acts of the Apostles, trans. J ohn Fraser and W.
McDonald (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965) 18.
14
"Hegel," Encyclopedia Americana, 1993 ed., 51.
15
I. Howard Marshall, The Acts of the Apostles (Sheffield: J SOT
Press, 1992) 84.
57
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 Tubinger
Theologische Jahrbucher (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
Tubingen 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
Tubingen theory had at one time convinced

16
F. C. Baur, Paul, His Life and Work, His Epistles, and His Doctrine
(London, 1876) 10.
17
Ibid., p. 12.
18
"Tubingen School," Encyclopedia Dictionary of Religion, 1979 ed.,
3579.
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

19
W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen
(London: 1896) 7-8.
20
F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954) 288-9.
21
Ibid.
59
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 J ews would have given him little reason to visit a
region that had no J ewish 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
Tubingen 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 Tubingen 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.

22
Gasque, History, pp. 140-1.
23
Ward Gasque, Sir William Ramsay: Archaeologist and New
Testament Scholar (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966) 61-3.
Thanks to the then recent excavations of the Temple of
Artemis by British architect, J ohn 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 timesthe
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 Tubingen. 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:

24
J oseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History, rev. Howard Vos,
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) 279.
25
Lightfoot, Discoveries, p. 301.
26
Gerd Ludemann, Early Christianity According to the Tradition in
Acts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1959) 2.
61
(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) In Acts, the J ews 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 judgement.

(4) 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 J erusalem.
They would be more coherent if placed in the decade
leading up to A.D. 70.
(5) 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.).

(6) 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 J udaism and J ewish 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.
Harnack goes on to state he owes an explanation to
Professor Ramsay, among others, because "the results of
which I have arrived not only approach very nearly to, but
are often coincident with, the results of their research."
28
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.
"J udged 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 Tubingen
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

27
Adolf Harnack, The Acts of the Apostles (New York: Putnam's Sons,
1909) 293-97.
28
Ibid., p. 301-2.
29
Ibid., p. 300.
30
Ibid., p. 299.
31
Gasque, History, p. 158.
32
Ibid., p. 142.
63
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
Tubingen thesis. Solid historical criticism coupled with
relatively new archaeological discoveries exposed the theory
as being unhistorical. The antithesis between J ewish 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
Tubingen critics were right in seeing the book as a defense
of Paul and of the Christian message.
35
Finally, the work
of Tubingen 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.

33
Ibid., p. 156.
34
Ibid., p. 50.
35
Ibid., p. 51.
36
Ibid.
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

37
Colin J . Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic
History (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990) 11-12.
38
Martin Dibelius, Studies in the Acts of the Apostles (London: SCM
Press, 1956) 102-3.
65
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

39
Ibid., p. 3, 105.
40
Ibid., p. 107.
41
Ibid., p. 183.
42
Ibid., p. 107.
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
(Read "The question of
historicity will not be asked.")
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

43
Haenchen, Acts, p. 43.
44
Henry Cadbury, The Making of Luke - Acts, (London: SPCK, 1958)
185.
45
Ibid., p. 368.
46
Haenchen, Acts, p. 103-4.
47
Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: Commentary (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1987) xliii, xl.
67
Conzelmann concentrates his efforts on theological
grounds (much like his German tradition) to formulate a
new concept of history. Luke interpreted salvation history
as consisting of three epochs; the time of Israel, the time of
J esus, and the time of the church. J esus 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-J ewish and anti-Gnostic) of Luke
reflecting the lasting influence of Tubingen.
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

48
Ibid., pp. xiv-xlviii.
49
Marshall, Acts, p. 85.
50
Gasque, History, pp. 257-8.
51
F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1951) Preface.
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

52
Ludemann, Early, p. 20.
53
54
Hemer, Setting, Preface.
55
Ibid., p. 11.
69
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 Tubingen School in the mid-

56
Hemer, Setting, p. 163.
57
58
Ibid., p. 89.
1800's, but though seemingly refuted, has transformed itself
into style, literary, and redaction criticism. The influence of
Tubingen 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
Book of Acts.
Speeches and Ancient Historiography
The speeches of Acts form a very important and
substantial part of Luke's account. Dibelius counted twenty-
four in all; eight belonging to Peter, nine to Paul, one each
to Stephen and J ames (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.

59
Dibelius, Studies, p. 150.
60
Mark Allen Powell, What Are They Saying About Acts? (New York:
Paulist Press, 1991) 30.
71
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

61
Hemer, Setting, p. 418.
62
Bruce, Speeches, p. 54.
63
C. K. Barrett, Luke the Historian in Recent Study (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1961) 10.
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.
First, the alleged fidelity to truth of the ancients cannot
be assumed to be suspect. In addition, this should be the
case with Luke. 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

64
Ibid., p. 11.
65
Bruce, Acts, p. 18.
73
consistent pattern in the speeches consisting of, (1) an
introduction relating to its subject matter, (2) an account of
J esus 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 J ewish 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 Christa term

66
Dibelius, Studies, p. 165.
67
68
Bruce, Aufstieg, p. 2584.
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

69
Ibid., p. 2585.
70
Ibid.
71
Ibid., p. 2582.
72
75
Therefore, the theory that the speeches in Acts are
literary constructs of the author does not persuade. In so far
as can be determined, the speeches were rendered in the best
spirit of Thucydideon historiography.
To be continued
Brian J aneway 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. J aneway is employed as a pilot for American
Airlines in New York City. His email address is
bigedj@aol.com.

v5n1 C

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

v5n1 C

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

CTS Journal, vol.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai