Academic Discussion • Re: Historicity of Acts

c/ Acts may date from the very beginning of the second century, but this would not prima-facie make it of no historical value for mid first century events. IMO Acts is too familiar with the social world of the first century to be later than the death of Trajan.

While I'm looking for a radical analysis of Paul in his context free of post-Pauline anachronism, how can you show any relevance of Acts to the times it purports to deal with?

Is not this the crux of the whole question of the historicity of the narrative of Acts? There is no independent means of demonstrating the historiographical intent or historical reliability of any of the narrative of first century Christianity. Rather, we have the assumption (questioned by the Acts Seminar) that Acts must be based on sources that tell us something about first century Christianity, with the only trick required being able to discern the historical from the fabricated.

As Andrew rightly points out, dating Acts no later than the "very beginning of the second century" does "not prima facie makes Acts of no historical value for mid first century events". But in the absence of any independent indicator that the work has historical value for those events we have nothing more than assumption on which to accept any degree of historical value for first century events.

Is it not more justifiable to begin with a search for independent indicators to help guide us toward an understanding the purposes and sources of Acts?

Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Wed Feb 07, 2024 8:44 am