Scripture Scholars Judging Acts As Fiction

[♦ ficino ♦]

I came across this 26-page thread on Community Belief.net  promoting the fictional status of the book of Acts:

 

http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/24835745/Acts_of_the_Apostles_is_Fiction?pg=1

 

The OP includes this:

 

"Here are some of the conclusions of the historians of the Acts Seminar on the historicity of Acts of the Apostles… The percentages are for “virtually certain” and “probably reliable.” There are many, many more, some dealing with specific passages. These are a few of the more general ones, about Acts in particular.

“Acts is a work of imaginative religious literature unable to support the high level of trust Christian interpreters have traditionally placed in the historical accuracy of the story. 100%

“If the writer of Acts made use of the letters of Paul as a source, the Book of Acts provides little, if any, independent data on Paul. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Homer. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Vergil in some form. 94%

“Acts is a work of fiction with some relatively minor historical elements in it. 94%

“The burden of proof rests on those who claim that particular stories in Acts are primarily history rather than fiction.  94%

“Acts was written in the second century b.c. 100%

“A major factor behind the composition of Acts was the perceived threat posed by Marcion and Marcionite Christianity. 86%

“By imitating epic tradition, the author of Acts is promoting an “epic” view of Christian history, which culminates, on the model of the Aeneid, with the hero arriving in Rome to become the founder of a great people.  100%

“Canonical Acts’ basic outline of the historical development of Christianity is accurate. 0%

“Luke’s goal in Acts is to provide apologetic justification for gentile Christian origins, which is foreshadowed in Luke 4:16-30.  96%

 

This is not groundbreaking news to those who have studied the research. In the middle and late nineteenth century, this was a position taken by many scholars inEurope. If anything, the historians of the Acts Seminar have confirmed the largely independent findings of scholars from Germany and the Netherlands, over 100 years ago. (I can get some names for you to query, if you like.) One thing of note is the new paradigm – that the burden of proof is on one to prove the historicity. That is what “historical Jesus” studies have done."

 

 I still find it hard to get my mind around the fact that many clergy are aware of this, not only about Acts but about much of the narrative part of the NT, but keep it under wraps. Is it ONLY for the money?  Some, like Raymond Brown, take refuge in notions of ancient historiography's being different from today's, and in claims about genre, i.e. that many "midrashic" elements are in NT narratives, so therefore they don't count as fraud.

 

Are ex-fundamentalists, who still approach scripture with the inerrantist expectations they inherited from their fundy background, missing important things about scripture?  Do we overlook important spiritual truth because we get hung up on saying "hey, this verse contradicts what's said in that verse?  This verse contradicts Josephus?" etc.?

 

After much reflection, I think not.  I think we're justified in holding scripture to its literal sense and exposing its flaws, as Aristotle "in his needling way" (John Dillon) did with Plato.  

 

But I'll shut up and give a chance for reply to anyone who's interested.

[slave2six]

This is similar to the many who take Job as literal history. 

 

It also blasts a pretty big hole in the Orthodox boat that says that everything has to be interpreted through the les of The Cross. 

 

On the other hand, since The Cross depends upon The Fall and we know that The Fall is fiction, it would make more sense to me to simply admit that The Cross is also a fiction and simply allegorical of, well, of something. 

[Joshpantera]

Everything points to the 2nd century. Good to see that this old debate is finally some getting better recognition. 

[Geezer]

When a historian critically analyzes the book of Acts it becomes obvious that it isn’t a legitimate historical record of the early church.

 

The Romans wouldn’t have given any Jew the power to arrest anyone let alone execute them, and they certainly would not have given such power to an unknown rouge preacher like Paul.

 

Whatever Paul was referring to when he writes about persecuting the church it didn’t have anything to do with arresting anyone let alone executing them. It is far more likely he was simply denigrating Jews who had supposedly accepted Chirst as their Messiah.

 

 

No one thought Jesus was divine when these events were supposedly happening, let alone that he was actually God. And it would take several hundred more years for the idea of substitutionary atonement to be thought up.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I've been reading more of the thread I linked in the OP.  Fascinating distillation by Dennis Carpenter (who posted the thread I linked) as he goes along, post by post, to summarize recent work on Acts as a theological epic with Paul as hero, modelled on originals in Greek epics, Hebrew sources, and even the gospels.  One has to admire the writer of Acts as a literary artist.

 

I'm spurred to think more deeply about whether a non-fundamentalist approach to the inerrancy of scripture is viable.  In other words, if Carpenter and the scholars he uses are right in calling Acts "the Christian foundation myth," as the Aeneid is the classic version of the Roman foundation myth (see # 86 on the linked thread), how far can a sophisticated inerrantist get with a claim that Acts' "foundation myth" is inspired and inerrant insofar as it's a MYTH, in the deep sense of "myth"?  I don't think this will work in the case of Christianity, whose historic claims are so central to its message.  But these implications are a whole other topic.

[Cousin Ricky]

What tipped them off? The part in the very first chapter where the undead guy floated off into the sky?

[trashy]

I'd like to point out that it was the 2nd century CE, not BC (although that would have been quite the bombshell!)

 

I LOVE reading things like this. It's like the first time I encountered the Jesus Seminar and their investigation into the gospels, and how they determined that there was a core 'sayings of Jesus' around which everything else was constructed. It dawned on me then that they were doing forensics on literature! It seemed so logical, and it caused me to eventually conclude that there was, in fact, NO historical Jesus, at least not one resembling anything like the one Christianity is based on.

 

I had a similar epiphany when I stumbled on the concept of two creation stories merged into Genesis. Mind-blowing at the time.

[♦ ficino ♦]

It's like the first time I encountered the Jesus Seminar and their investigation into the gospels, and how they determined that there was a core 'sayings of Jesus' around which everything else was constructed. 

Yeah, and behind that, the problem, even if there were "core sayings," is there a historical basis for trying to connect such sayings to the supposed flesh-and-blood guy?  My understanding of the Historical Jesus problem is that many of the people who work on it now admit there is no way to establish ANY "historical" core because all the sources are themselves already interpretations.  We have no access to any raw "facts."  ALL the materials are already artifacts of the message/propaganda of one or more cults.

[pawn]

What tipped them off? The part in the very first chapter where the undead guy floated off into the sky?

good point.

[slave2six]

What tipped them off? The part in the very first chapter where the undead guy floated off into the sky?

 

LOL!

 

Very funny cuz!!

[slave2six]

I've been reading more of the thread I linked in the OP.  Fascinating distillation by Dennis Carpenter (who posted the thread I linked) as he goes along, post by post, to summarize recent work on Acts as a theological epic with Paul as hero, modelled on originals in Greek epics, Hebrew sources, and even the gospels.  One has to admire the writer of Acts as a literary artist.

 

I'm spurred to think more deeply about whether a non-fundamentalist approach to the inerrancy of scripture is viable.  In other words, if Carpenter and the scholars he uses are right in calling Acts "the Christian foundation myth," as the Aeneid is the classic version of the Roman foundation myth (see # 86 on the linked thread), how far can a sophisticated inerrantist get with a claim that Acts' "foundation myth" is inspired and inerrant insofar as it's a MYTH, in the deep sense of "myth"?  I don't think this will work in the case of Christianity, whose historic claims are so central to its message.  But these implications are a whole other topic.

 

It's astonishing, really, how long this myth has persisted. I have to wonder how much of this is simply political. Today we see a lot of fundamentalists frothing at the mouth trying to reestablish political dominance. Should they fail, would it be reasonable to expect that Christianity will decline, as it will no longer be a useful tool to the politicians? I tend to think so.

 

The church has always been a useful political entity throughout Western history. Once it stops being useful, what will remain of it?

[Blood]

“Acts is a work of imaginative religious literature unable to support the high level of trust Christian interpreters have traditionally placed in the historical accuracy of the story. 100%"

 

Replace the word "Acts" and insert "the entire Bible." 

 

I'm currently reading the book produced by the Acts Seminar, "Acts and Christian Beginnings." It's fascinating how easily they dismiss once-unassailable "history" such as the martyrdom of Stephen as ahistorical. Scene after scene is judged to be fictional. 

 

Of course, this isn't news for Europe, where "Acts" passed into mythology 100 years ago. What is significant is that the Acts Seminar is comprised of Americans who teach at Seminary schools in places like Texas and Oklahoma, i.e. the places most likely to teach that Acts is 100% trustworthy history. So progress, slowly, is being made, though I'm sure the conservatives are drafting their response as we speak. 

[Blood]

When a historian critically analyzes the book of Acts it becomes obvious that it isn’t a legitimate historical record of the early church.

 

 

Yes. Even most liberal Bible scholars/theologians admit that it is "largely" tradition and legend, but they still use it to quarry selected quotes or scenes to bolster the historicity of the early church and its people. 

 

Saying that "Acts isn't a legitimate historical record" is a polite way of putting it. Acts is fictional, period. The implications are frightening to conservatives, because if an early Christian author can create something like "Acts" out of whole cloth, then they certainly can do the same with gospels and epistles. 

 

My guess is that conservatives will draft a weak response to the Acts Seminar and just go on pretending that it dates from 60 to 85. Lukan authorship must be maintained by conservatives. Apologists like Craig and Stroebel in all their books and debates allude to what a "great historian" Luke was. They will never admit they were wrong. 

[Joshpantera]

Quote:

Jesus Tradition in the Acts of the Apostles

"In the midst of addressing the testimony to an historical Jesus in epistles both canonical and outside the New Testament, Bart Ehrman devotes several pages to the “Jesus Tradition in Acts.” In introducing Acts he fails to enlighten his readers that there is great uncertainty within mainstream scholarship over the historical reliability of the content of this document. Furthermore, he accepts without question that the author of Luke was the author of Acts, and thus what was known to the former was known to the latter.
Is Acts reliable history?

Ehrman fails to question any aspect of this ‘history’ of the spread of the faith. He treats everything from Acts as though it were part of known Christian tradition, and as reliable as anything else. . . .

– No matter that the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is nowhere mentioned in the epistles (despite their focus on inspiration and revelation).

– No matter that the figure and martyrdom of Stephen is nowhere attested to outside Acts.

– No matter that in Acts the settling of the issue of requirements for gentile converts is presented in an Apostolic Council which the authentic Pauline letters seem to know nothing about.

– Nor is the dramatic shipwreck episode at the end of Acts mentioned by early writers who talk about Paul, inviting us to see it as sheer fiction, emulating a popular element in second century Hellenistic romances. (The so-called “we” passages, often alleged to be from a Lukan journal, have also been identified as a common literary feature in recounting travel by sea, such as is found in earlier parts of Acts surrounding such travels.)
When and why was Acts written?

There is also no discussion about the dating of this document.

Ehrman places it in the most traditional position, some time in the 80s of the first century, shortly after the most traditional dating of the Gospel of Luke, c.80 CE. No mention is made that much critical scholarship has moved toward a date at least a couple of decades, sometimes more, into the second century (Townsend, Mack, O’Neill, Tyson, Pervo). And, of course, no mention that the first attestation to Acts comes around 175 in Irenaeus, with possibly an allusion to it a decade or so earlier in Justin. That such a ‘history’ could have lain unnoticed for so long if it had been written a century earlier (or more, for those who maintain it was written before Paul’s death), is not considered worthy of note.

As long ago as 1942, John Knox (Marcion and the New Testament) presented a compelling case that Acts was not written until the 140s or 150s, an ecclesiastical product to counter Marcion’s appropriation of Paul in which he used the letters to demonstrate that Paul operated independently of the Jerusalem apostles and with a very different view of Jesus.

Thus, Acts was written and designed to show the opposite, that Paul immediately upon his conversion subordinated himself to the pillars and subscribed to their teachings, lock, stock and circumcision. Which is why the speeches in Acts, clearly composed by the author, show the identical content between those of Peter and those of Paul. (Neither does Ehrman discuss the considerable discrepancies between Acts and the Pauline epistles.) "

[Joshpantera]

This rabbit hole runs deep. Now if we suppose that Luke and Acts were written by the same author, and Acts was obviously written in the second century, what they does that say of Luke? 

 

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=19985

 

Quote:

Why the Gospel of Luke was written in the second century

Being a Mythicist and a Late Dater is the easiest heresy in the world. I sit back and let people grasp at historical straws and sink slowly into the quicksand of logical fallacies. I roll my three eyes and flex my reptilian fingers, while mainstream scholars, Orthodox Christians and even Gnostics are gripped with the glossolalia of Stepford tropes and doctrinal memes.

But I receive no concrete evidence, only concrete shoes on the historical Jesus that further sinks him further into the bays of Mythology.

Once in a while, I can perform a sit up or two to maintain my theological six-pack. Here are a couple that don’t even require I put my idolater hands behind my head.

In "Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ" (pg. 55), D.M. Murdock quotes a passage from the preface of Saint Jerome's "Commentary on Matthew" (c. 340-2 to 420). There shouldn't be a problem, right? You can't find anyone more reliable than the patron saint of librarians and the collar responsible for the Latin Vulgate.

This is what Saint Jerome says:

"The evangelist Luke declares that there were many who wrote gospels, when he says, 'forasmuch as many, etc…', which being published by various authors, gave rise to several heresies. They were such as that according to the Egyptians, and Thomas, and Matthias, and Bartholomew, that of the Twelve Apostles, and Basilides, and Apelles, and others which it would be tedious to enumerate."

No big deal, you might say. After all, Jesus warned against false prophets; some of them would be wasting no time in creating their demonic Facebook profiles.

Yet there is a tiny, little, miniscule problem with the passage:

All the heresy hunters place the hated Apelles and Basilides around the middle of the Second Century!

Luke starts out as addressed to Theophilus. But is this the Theophilus of second century Antioch? 

 

Some aver that Marcion's Gospel copied Luke but left out certain parts. Was it really the opposite? Was Luke written after Marcion's Gospel in order in edit and insert more information into it in order to make it conform to an orthodox setting? And presented to Theophilus of Antioch? 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Interesting links, Josh. Can you specify whose analyses you are quoting - Miguel Connor from Acharya's post in freethought? When I clicked on the blue title at the top of the passage that you quote, I got a website so vitiated by advertisements that my computer couldn't handle it.

[Joshpantera]

The article is Miguel Conner's and I do see a lot of ads, but my computer loads it ok. Here's the rest of the article if you couldn't view it: 

 

 

 

By Yaldi-Baldi’s lightning eyes! Do you realize what a bombshell dude just dropped? Saint Jerome seems to be stating that either:

–Apelles and Basilides were contemporaries of Luke in the First Century.

Oooor…

–Luke is a contemporary of Apelles and Basilides in the Second Century.

Again, since most of the Church Fathers place the two antichrists in the middle of the Second Century, it seems more probable that ‘Luke’ (or whoever he was…maybe Marcion) was crafting the majority of the New Testament also in the middle of the Second Century. ‘Luke’ was just one of many competing Christians writing their own good news in a crowded field. Therefore, ‘Luke’ never even knew Saint Paul, as Christian tradition brags, and is removed from the ‘historical’ Jesus by well over a century!

If this truth-spill into the gulfs of denial isn’t enough, Murdock also offers another Red Pill in ‘Who Was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ’ (pg. 47). She finds an interesting clue at the beginning of the Gospel of Luke (it should be reminded that all four Gospels are anonymous, rumor being that the original copies contained cartoons of Mohammed). The evangelist addresses a ‘most excellent Theophilus.’ Most scholars and theologians agree that the butt-kissing term ‘most excellent’ was usually given to a Roman official or someone of high standing.

The trouble is that the only important figure named Theophilus recorded in the First Century happens to be a Jewish High Priest (Josephus, Ant., XVIII, 5, 3). Call me an Arizona politician, but I don’t think a Jewish High Priest would be opening mail from a despised Christian during those days.
Murdock reveals who the closest candidate might be when she writes ‘there is no appearance
in the historical record of any other “Theophilus” earlier than the bishop of Antioch (fl. c. 168-c. 181/188 AD).’

Murdock adds that this Second Century bishop never quotes the Gospel of Luke in his writings, meaning that if Theophilus ever received it he probably had the same reaction as if he had been a Jewish High Priest.

And it should be noted that ‘Luke’ was from Antioch, Christianity allegedly slithered out completely from the womb of Judaism in Antioch, and the heretic Marcion was setting up a church in Antioch somewhere around the time of Theophilus. This certainly borders on speculation; but when different bad odors start wafting in a house known for rearranging its furniture, it’s reasonable to assume that something is being covered up regardless of the Lysol spray of doctrinal convention or regurgitated dogma.

To make the stench worse, the character of ‘Luke’ never makes an appearance in history until Ol’ Battle Axe (Saint Irenaeus) mentions him toward the end of the Second Century. Murdock also nimbly points out in her book that, beyond some hints and allegations, the other three Gospel authors don’t arrive to the Christian rave scene until…again…Ol’ Battle Axe pulls them out of the four smelly winds.

This evidence is by no means a silver bullet, but just one of the many thousand paper cuts killing the conventional belief of the rise of Orthodox Christianity in the First Century.

All we really have early on is Saint Paul’s dying/rising godman crucified in some mystical dimension by evil angels. I’ve contended before the Tentmaker basically spearheaded an unusual Mystery School that believed in proselytizing and teaching that direct experience with the Godhead was universal. It was an esoteric movement centered around a cosmic savior figure that evolved from an apocalyptical Joshua cult. This Jewish heresy was certainly something far closer to Classic Gnosticism than Christianity as we know it, before it became the fertile soil for speculation and codification that splintered into the various factions of the Second and Third Century.

I really wish biblical and theological studies would see the light about the darkness that is the historical Jesus. But then again, if you take the man out of the equation all that is left is The Divine.

Wait! What’s so wrong about that, now that I think about it? Oh yeah…there goes billions of dollars, jobs, careers and control over the flock.

Well, at least people can take consolation in the fact Saint Jerome’s translations were impeccable. Isn’t that right, Lucifer?

It still smells like Mythicist Spirit somewhere hidden in the house called the Church. Here I am now, entertain me.

[Joshpantera]

I've read the book Who Was Jesus: fingerprints of the Christ. It lays out the late dating theories that Miguel is talking about in the article. It seems that mythicism aside for a moment, with mainstream historical Jesus believers now pushing Acts into the 2nd century Luke will probably be next. The question of how authentic any of the gospels are and whether any truly date to the first century comes into view. The late daters have been saying all along that technically none of the gospels appear firmly into the literary and historical record until the 2nd century. 

 

I came across an interesting hypothesis by youtubes Xoroaster while sliding down the rabbit hole:

 

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4D2805449C4A0B34

 

Ur-Revelation 71CE

Ur-John 96CE
2.0-Revelation 96CE
G-Marcion 120CE
G-Mark 132-140CE
Ur-Matthew 132-140CE
3.0-Revelation 132-140CE
G-Matthew 170-200CE
G-Luke 170-200CE
G-John 170-200CE
B-Revelation 177-197CE

 

And Murdock has also put forward a late dating hypothesis as well:

 

The Gospel Dates: A 2nd Century Composition?

 

Prior to the end of the second century, there is no clear evidence of the existence of the canonical gospels as we have them.

 

The Canon: A Second-Century Composition

 

"...With such remarkable declarations of the Church fathers, et al., as well as other cogent arguments, we possess some salient evidence that the gospels of Luke and John represent late second-century works. In fact, all of the canonical gospels seem to emerge at the same time—first receiving their names and number by Irenaeus around 180 AD/CE, and possibly based on one or more of the same texts as Luke, especially an "Ur-Markus" that may have been related to Marcion's Gospel of the Lord. In addition to an "Ur-Markus" upon which the canonical gospels may have been based has also been posited an "Ur-Lukas," which may likewise have "Ur-Markus" at its basis.

 

"The following may summarize the order of the gospels as they appear in the historical and literary record, beginning in the middle of the second century:

 

1. Ur-Markus (150)

2. Ur-Lukas (150+)

3. Luke (170)

4. Mark (175)

5. John (178)

6. Matthew (180)

 

"To reiterate, these late dates represent the time when these specific texts undoubtedly emerge onto the scene. If the canonical gospels as we have them existed anywhere previously, they were unknown, which makes it likely that they were not composed until that time or shortly before, based on earlier texts...."

 

- Who Was Jesus?, pages 82-83

[Blood]

The fellows of the Acts Seminar conclude that "the most probable range of dates is circa 110-120." They voted as "probable" that "a major factor behind the composition of Acts was the perceived threat posed by Marcion and Marcionite Christianity." And also, "one purpose of the composition of Acts was to provide assurance that Marcion's interpretation of Paul was wrong." 

 

So that completely rules out a first century date for Acts. 

 

The crisis with Marcion was supposedly in the 140s. So if they were responding to Marcion, why were they writing as early as 110? This is where it gets really confusing. The Acts Seminar affirms that the same author wrote "The Gospel of Luke" as well as "Acts." But it could not have been within the same time frame. 

Are we to then believe that the author wrote the Gospel around 100-110, Marcion got a copy of that and the Pauline Epistles (since he was then a respected member of the church), almost immediately begin to develop his own theology from it, and almost immediately provoking a response from the original author of the Gospel in the form of Acts? This doesn't make sense. 

[Cousin Ricky]

Apologists like Craig and Stroebel in all their books and debates allude to what a "great historian" Luke was. They will never admit they were wrong.

 

I don’t know about Strobel, but Craig is on the record as vowing to maintain his beliefs even if he is shown with his own eyes that he is wrong. He essentially asserted that faith trumps factual reality. At what point should the flock conclude that this man is not a reliable source of truth?

 

Consider:

“In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, …” —Luke 1:5a (NIV)

“In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) ” —Luke 2:1-2 (NIV)

 

King Herod died in 4 BCE. Quirinius became governor in 6 CE. That’s a time warp of 9 years. While there was a Herod who ruled Judea until 6 CE, he was not a king. Even the scheming liars who translated the NIV noticed something amiss, because they have a footnote saying that “while” might actually mean “before.” So are Craig and Strobel willing to claim that Elizabeth got pregnant 8 years after “Luke” introduced the story setting, or are they going with the word games?

 

Then there’s the matter of the census being local, not empire-wide. This is no small mistake for a “historian.”

 

“And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.” —Luke 2:3-4 (NIV)

 

Is that any way to conduct a census, especially of a country with violent antipathy toward censuses? (See 2 Samuel 24 and 1 Chronicles 21.) You know that didn’t happen!

 

“Luke” the “historian”? Tell me another!

 

Quote:

Jesus Tradition in the Acts of the Apostles

 

[snip]

 

Thus, Acts was written and designed to show the opposite, that Paul immediately upon his conversion subordinated himself to the pillars and subscribed to their teachings, lock, stock and circumcision. Which is why the speeches in Acts, clearly composed by the author, show the identical content between those of Peter and those of Paul. (Neither does Ehrman discuss the considerable discrepancies between Acts and the Pauline epistles.) "

 

Yeah, I noticed that. Paul’s theological differences with the Jerusalem church are blatantly evident in his letters. You wouldn’t know it from reading Acts. Even the Catholic Church is so enamored of the fictional reconciliation of Cephas and Paul that they assigned them the same feast day. I grew up believing they were best of buddies. But Acts is clearly a prototype of apologetic harmonization.

 

Luke starts out as addressed to Theophilus. But is this the Theophilus of second century Antioch?

 

Theophilus is Greek for “lover of God.” I think Theophilus was just a personification of the Christian community, not an actual person.

[Cousin Ricky]

“I’m a doctor, not a historian!” —Luke.

[Blood]

 

“I’m a doctor, not a historian!” —Luke.

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

Yes, Theophilus means lover of God, however the particular part of interest is the "most excellent" title which tends to point at one person in particular, perhaps Theophilus of Antioch in the 2nd century consistent with all of the surrounding evidence of a post Marcion creation. But of course it could mean anything. I don't know if there's any way of knowing concretely at this point in time.