Red Sky at Morning
Superstar
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2017
- Messages
- 14,573
84 Historical Facts In The Book Of Acts
By
Erik Manning
-
December 12, 2020
By Erik Manning
Bart Ehrman claims that Luke wasn’t really a traveling companion of Paul. In his book Forged, Ehrman writes: “(The author of Acts) is simply claiming to be a traveling companion of Paul’s and therefore unusually well suited to give a “true” account of Paul’s message and mission. But he almost certainly was not a companion of Paul’s. On the one hand, he was writing long after Paul and his companions were dead. Scholars usually date Acts to around 85 CE or so, over two decades after Paul’s death. On the other hand, he seems to be far too poorly informed about Paul’s theology and missionary activities to have been someone with firsthand knowledge.” (Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 237)
For someone who was writing long after Paul was dead, the author of Acts gets a ridiculous amount of facts right regarding local places, titles, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events could possibly know.
Classical historian Colin Hemer details dozens of facts that confirm this in his masterful book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I don’t know if Dr. Ehrman is just unaware of Hemer’s work, but his research should cause any critic to reconsider the dating of Acts. And if Acts is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel, then it logically follows that Luke was written even earlier.
As you go through the following list, remember Luke didn’t have Google or Wikipedia.
P.s. thank you @pescatarian09 for prompting this investigation from your comments within @Yellowbunzz tasty ‘s wall.
By
Erik Manning
-
December 12, 2020
By Erik Manning
Bart Ehrman claims that Luke wasn’t really a traveling companion of Paul. In his book Forged, Ehrman writes: “(The author of Acts) is simply claiming to be a traveling companion of Paul’s and therefore unusually well suited to give a “true” account of Paul’s message and mission. But he almost certainly was not a companion of Paul’s. On the one hand, he was writing long after Paul and his companions were dead. Scholars usually date Acts to around 85 CE or so, over two decades after Paul’s death. On the other hand, he seems to be far too poorly informed about Paul’s theology and missionary activities to have been someone with firsthand knowledge.” (Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 237)
For someone who was writing long after Paul was dead, the author of Acts gets a ridiculous amount of facts right regarding local places, titles, names, environmental conditions, customs and circumstances that only an eyewitness contemporary of the time and events could possibly know.
Classical historian Colin Hemer details dozens of facts that confirm this in his masterful book The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History. I don’t know if Dr. Ehrman is just unaware of Hemer’s work, but his research should cause any critic to reconsider the dating of Acts. And if Acts is the sequel to Luke’s Gospel, then it logically follows that Luke was written even earlier.
As you go through the following list, remember Luke didn’t have Google or Wikipedia.
84 Historical Facts In The Book Of Acts
By Erik Manning| Bart Ehrman claims that Luke wasn’t really a traveling companion of Paul. In his book Forged, Ehrman writes: “(The author of Acts) is simply claiming to be a traveling companion of Paul’s and therefore unusually well suited to give a “true” account of Paul’s message and mission. But
reasonsforjesus.com
P.s. thank you @pescatarian09 for prompting this investigation from your comments within @Yellowbunzz tasty ‘s wall.