The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts of the Apostles By Colby Townsend The history of early Christianity is a hotly debated topic, and rightfully so. Issues from whether or not the text of the Bible represents events that actually happened, the relationship of the synoptic gospels and whether they agree or disagree, the dating of the texts of the Bible, and the actual existence of Jesus as a real person are only a few select items that are being discussed today out of a vast array of debates and arguments. These topics are important for understanding early Christianity and its development, which is in turn essential for understanding the rise and growth of the Western world. The Bible has been used in justifying political decisions, social norms, and other centrally important aspects of Western life, and therefore is at the heart of what we do today. Naturally as curious scholars we desire to know what happened and whether or not the traditional story handed down to us is accurate. Our topic deals with the second item listed above, that of the ability of exegetes today to plausibly say what did or did not historically happen, and how those methods could be used to determine the reliability of the text of Acts of the Apostles. This is an important topic because Acts is presented as narrated history, or is at least most often interpreted that way. See Hubert Cancik, “The History of Culture, Religion, and Institutions in Ancient Historiography: Philological Observations Concerning Luke’s History,” JBL 116 (1997), 673-695; Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xlv; cf. the opposing view of Mark Reasoner, “The Theme of Acts: Institutional History or Divine Necessity in History?” JBL 118 (1999), 635. If either of these lines of argument is followed they both see Acts as an approach to history. Throughout the text Luke, the presumed author, Henry J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (New York: MacMillan, 1927; 2d ed. London: SPCK, 1958); and Munck, Johannes, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible Commentary; USA: Doubleday, 1967), xxix-xxxv. narrates events such as the replacement of Judas (1:15-26), the experiences at Pentecost (2:1-13), the arrest of Peter and John and their examination before the council (4:1-22), Stephen’s speech (7:2-53) and martyrdom (7:54-60), the conversion of Paul (9:1-19a), opening the gospel message to the Gentiles (10:1-48), the miraculous rescue of Peter (12:1-19), the first missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas (13:1-12), and so on. Thus the text of Acts is entirely tied up in history, as Hans Conzelmann rightly stated, “The schema determines the ordering of the subject matter in [Luke-Acts]…The presupposition is that the church is a historical entity which has its own particular time; in other words, that the imminent end of history has been transformed into a portrait of history.” Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xlv. Conzelmann earlier labels Acts as a “historical monograph” (xl); cf. Hengel, Martin, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 36. Thus the telling of history is important for both the reader and the author in Acts. When it comes to the historical reliability of the book of Acts there are many opinions on how to approach the text, but with our question we will be asking simply whether it is reliable or not. There are many scholars who wish to argue for the reliability of Acts, and others who see it as not so reliable. I am more convinced toward the latter line of thinking rather than the former, and I will explain why. Problems of the Text First, the author of Acts wrote with the intent of showing the acts of God in primitive Christian history, as Conzelmann stated above. For more on the interests of the author, see H. J. Cadbury, “Acts of the Apostles,” in George Arthur Buttrick, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible: A-D, Vol.1 (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1990), 38-39. With this in mind, to Luke God has sent his message into the world, and that message has been taught by men called of God. First the message was given through Jesus and from Jesus to Peter and Paul. According to Paul his message was not received through the Jerusalem apostles, but through Jesus himself. Gal. 1:16-17. In Luke’s writings it becomes obvious that the acts of Peter and Paul are based off of the acts of Jesus, and also parallel one another’s. See Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 160-161. This is seen represented throughout the text of Acts and gives the impression that these stories were transferred from one individual to the next. As Bart Ehrman rightly put it, “These parallels show that Luke was no mere chronicler of events, set on providing an objective account of the early years of the Christian movement. He compiled this history with a clear purpose…” Ehrman, op. cit., 160. For example, Ehrman shows that Jesus is baptized in the gospel of Luke and given the Holy Spirit; when new believers are also baptized they receive the Holy Spirit. When Jesus preaches and performs miracles in the gospel he does them by the Spirit; the Spirit also empowers the apostles to do the same. In the gospel Jesus “heals the sick, casts out demons, and raises the dead; in Acts, the apostles heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.” Ibid. Jesus is imprisoned, condemned, and executed in Luke; some of the disciples are also later imprisoned, condemned, and executed in Acts. As Ehrman states, “These parallels are not simply interesting coincidences.” Ibid. Not only are there similarities between the actions of Jesus in the gospel of Luke compared to that of Peter and Paul in the book of Acts, but there are also striking similarities between the actions of both Peter and Paul in the book of Acts. Ehrman goes on to list these similarities: Both Peter and Paul preach sermons to Jewish crowds, and what they have to say is in many respects remarkably similar…Both perform amazing miracles; both, for example, cure the sick without having any direct contact with them. Thus Peter’s shadow can bring healing (5:15), as can Paul’s handkerchiefs (19:12). See Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible Commentary; USA: Doubleday, 1967), 44-45. Both are violently opposed by leaders among the Jews but vindicated by God; they are imprisoned for their proclamation yet delivered from their chains by divine intervention (12:1-11; 16:19-34). Perhaps most important of all, both become absolutely convinced, on the grounds of divine revelation and the success of their proclamation, that God has decided to admit Gentiles into the church without their first becoming Jews. Ehrman, op. cit., 161. Johannes Munck also made this same connection in Acts 5:15 and 19:12 in his notes to his commentary on Acts. He did not take these notes further in his commentary, so it is unclear whether or not he thought this was important for understanding the history of the text. He does make this telling comment: “There can be no doubt that the early church included such unusual events in its picture of primitive Christian expansion…It may be doubted that wonders ever happened, but the events which were taken by the first Christians to be signs and wonders cannot be denied.” See Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible Commentary; USA: Doubleday, 1967), 45. Conzelmann also only notes the similarity in his commentary, but says of this passage, “…what we have here is simply an awkward accumulation of various motifs.” He also says about the apparent contradiction between vv. 13 and 14, “is mere clumsiness on the part of the narrator.” It appears that in this passage at least Luke made some historical mistakes. It appears that he at least felt that there were historical realities behind the text, without mentioning the significance of the similarities between the references and what he made of them. One could argue that from his textual notes and lack of any explanation on his part could mean that he found no problem with this idea, that Peter and Paul are represented doing much of the same things. This appears especially to be the interpretation of G. H. C. Macgregor and Theodore P. Ferris in their commentary on the book of Acts. George Arthur Buttrick ed., The Interpreter’s Bible Vol. IX (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 1-352. Macgregor notes the similarity at 5:15 to that of 19:12, and Ferris simply goes on to compare the awe-struck people who have brought the sick to see Peter to that of certain individuals today “who make you feel better just by being there.” George Arthur Buttrick ed., op. cit., 80. They do nothing more than discuss the physical and charismatic presence of individuals who possess this kind of gift. These similarities do not necessarily argue that none of these events actually happened, but rather they do confirm the fact that Luke had a specific purpose in writing and adding what he did. What he wrote fulfilled his own biases. “It is not easy to deduce facts and lines of historical development from an ancient author. For in his decisions about selection, combination, and presentation of facts, he will have been influenced by his own view [bias] of the history about which he writes,” Ernst Haenchen, “The Book of Acts as Source Material for the History of Early Christianity,” in Leander Keck and J. Louis Martyn, eds. Studies in Luke-Acts (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 258. He needed the Christian disciples to do what Jesus did in his gospel, and he needed Paul to be doing what Peter had also done. It was central for Luke to present a unified church, and therefore he used similar traditions for Jesus, Peter and Paul to relay that impression. For this reason Luke’s presentation of history must at the very least be questioned in each instance and tested to see if it represents his biases and seems strained as a historical source. Second, after 13:9 Paul becomes the predominant personality Martin Hengel, Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 35. and therefore his acts become the focus in the rest of the book. In comparing Paul’s actions Cf. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 563. Haenchen points to the fact that in Acts 19:11-12 Paul is described as an apostle because “God accomplished extraordinary deeds of power by the hands of Paul, so that people brought to the sick scarves and handkerchiefs which had touched his skin, and the sicknesses left them and the evil spirits departed.” This is in contradiction of the Pauline conception of the apostle where “[the apostle] can and must glorify himself only in his weakness. That the power of Christ works in him, only the Christian mind sees…” (Haenchen, Ibid.) These ‘miracles’ or ‘wonders’ that are so central to the apostle in Acts finds its place in Paul only in his opponents in 2 Corinthians. Haenchen quotes as authoritative Ernst Käsemann, “Die Legitimät des Apostels,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1942-3, 33-71. in the book of Acts with what he himself said he did in the undisputed letters it becomes apparent that Luke is smoothing out the story to give a more unified picture of early Christianity. For instance, after Paul is converted on his way to Damascus the text of Acts reports, “[Jesus said to Paul] But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (9:6) The NRSV is the translation that will be used throughout this paper. Therefore Luke presents Paul as having received only instructions on what to do next in his revelation of Christ. There was no revelation of gospel teachings until Paul was “told what [he was] to do.” In contrast to what Luke has written in Acts, Paul says in Galatians that “[he] did not receive it from a human source, nor was [he] taught it, but [he] received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.”(Gal. 1:12) These two sources for the history of Paul’s conversion seem to contradict one another. If Paul had not received the gospel from man, why does Luke not include this in his narrative? Munck notes in this passage that it is here “Ananias who transmits Christ’s further instructions about the call…In these texts, therefore, Christ sent Paul to Damascus to acquire a deeper understanding of his revelation.” Johannes Munck, The Acts of the Apostles (Anchor Bible Commentary; USA: Doubleday, 1967), 81. This verse is altogether skipped by Macgregor and Ferris, although they do discuss the importance of Ananias in interpreting Paul’s visionary experience. See George Arthur Buttrick ed., The Interpreter’s Bible Vol. IX (Nashville: Abingdon, 1954), 122-123. Likewise, Haenchen says “Saul learns only what he must do at once. The future otherwise remains concealed from him.” Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 322. He also notes here that Acts 22:10 “interpolates at this point a short dialogue. This led some representatives of the ‘Western’ text…to spin out the dialogue in 9.6.” It is apparent that Paul did not learn fully in the Acts account what it was he was about to preach as a newly converted Christian, but in Galatians Paul states specifically that it was through revelation, and not from man, that he learned what he needed. There is also another interesting discrepancy in this narrative worthy of note. In Acts 9:8 Paul is still blind from the light he was shown during his vision. He could not see, so he was led “by the hand” to Damascus by those who were traveling with him. There he met Ananias, who then restores Paul’s sight. (vv. 17-18) This narrative contrasts with Paul’s description in Gal. 1:15-17. Here Paul seems to be arguing against the ideas that Luke would later adopt into Acts. Paul says that he “did not confer with any human being, nor did [he] go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before [him], but [he] went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards [he] returned to Damascus.” Arabia is to the far southeast of Jerusalem, while Damascus directly north. According to Paul he had a few other things he needed to do first, which would have required his sight. Third, there are differing textual traditions of the book of Acts, and it appears that the text in the ‘Western’ tradition (used in modern English Bibles) is inferior to that of the Egyptian text when compared to the earliest papyri. Hans Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xxxv; cf. Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 56-59. The ‘Western’ text tends to smooth over literary seems, “expand christological titles (1:21; 2:38; 6:7-8; 13:33; etc.) and [has] an inclination toward a more reverential way of speaking (14:10; 18:4, 8; 20:3).” Conzelmann, Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (trans. James Limburg, A. Thomas Kraabel, and Donald H. Juel; ed. Eldon Jay Epp with Christopher R. Matthews; Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), xxxiv. It appears that there are also specific theological changes made in the ‘Western’ text. These include, “the attitude toward the Jews is sharper (3:13-14; 13:28-29 the Jews and Jesus; 13:45, 50; 18:12-13 Jews and Christians); universalism is emphasized (2:17, 47) as is the importance of the church (4:32; 11:27; in the face of Judaizing tendencies, 15).” Ibid. These changes are of course seen in comparisons between the Egyptian and ‘Western’ textual traditions. As Haenchen points out, these traditions were not static at the earliest stages, so it is hard to label all texts under the ‘Western’ tradition as such, but it is clear that “[i]n none of these three cases [of varying ‘Western’ texts] does the ‘Western’ text of Acts provide us with the ‘original’ text: that is the lesson we have been in gradual process of learning.” Ernst Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles: A Commentary (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1971), 56. It becomes apparent that in discussing the ‘historical reliability’ of Acts, it is made the more difficult by asking what text is the original? It is obvious that we do not have the original text, and are left to textual criticism to guess and work at what best represents what we think is the original. For historical purposes this would mean accepting the better readings, and as Conzelmann pointed out those include the readings found in the Egyptian papyri. In conclusion it should be apparent that asking if the book of Acts is historically reliable is very difficult to answer. In some ways it could be argued that the student must look at each pericope and analyze the historical tradition to discover whether or not it is reliable. This can be seen as a middle argument, saying that the book of Acts is both historically reliable and not historically reliable. It depends upon how the text is used and the responsible decisions of the exegete in methodically arguing for the reliability of the text. The first two points above combine to illustrate that in a general way Luke was not writing with the intent to present realized history; instead, he was writing with a specific purpose to show the acts of God in developing the history of the early Christian movement. This bias alone requires scholars to analyze the text critically, and check what it says with what we know from other sources. It would be irresponsible to simply take Luke’s narrative of the conversion of Paul and his relationship with the other apostles soon after at face value. Paul also had things to say about his conversion, and they need to taken into account as well. The third point made above throws a wrench further into the question of the reliability of Acts. It is obvious that even after Luke the text was changed through additions. We must ask then what text of Acts is do we use in checking reliability. Is it the accepted and canonized ‘Western’ text, or is it the Egyptian papyri traditions, or any other tradition? We can at least begin our quest by taking the fact of multiple traditions and realizing that we have evidence that the received text in the Western world has additions. These need to be taken into account as we ask questions of historicity. All in all, the book of Acts was written for a different purpose than what we are asking. It was not written to show literal, realized history in the sense that we think of today. Luke was writing apologetically in defense of his own tradition. With this realization we can move forward and test the text verse by verse and compare it to other sources of the same period. In many instances it can be shown that Luke took the story and smoothed it out to fulfill his apologetic needs of depicting a fully unified church which has been led by God through divine inspiration.