Were the Gospels Written Late? 84 Historical Facts In The Book Of Acts Suggest Not!

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
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.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
In the Book of Acts, Stephen was accused of all kinds of deception and was dragged up before the high priest who asked “Are these things so?” His reply fills the whole of chapter 7 and is lengthy, incisive and bold.

In the same way today,, with so many voices and opinions out there online, with the contradictory claims of other religions being touted and even with historical evidence for His death and resurrection, people today are often left asking why Jesus died on the cross.

A different Steven recently put together a response:-

 
Last edited:

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,930
Conclusion
FYI @pescatarian09

LUKE WAS A TRAVELLING COMPANION OF PAUL

This list goes to show that, contra Ehrman, Luke was well-informed of Paul’s missionary journeys. Here’s the verdict on Luke from a classical Roman historian:

“For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…Any attempt to reject its basic historicity must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.” – A.N. Sherwin-White

Interestingly, Luke reports five different miracles that were performed through the hands of Paul (Acts 13:11, 14:7-9, 19:11-12, 20:9-10, 28:8-9). Furthermore, we know that Paul believed he performed miracles from reading his letters. (Romans 15:19, 2 Corinthians 12:12) Luke also has Paul preaching Jesus’ bodily resurrection. (Acts 13:26-41. 17:32) If Luke was dead-on with these tiny details, it stands to reason he could be accurately reporting the miracles as well. In several cases, he probably was even an eyewitness to them.

Sources: The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, Chapters 4-6, Colin Hemer I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Norman Geisler & Frank Turek, 258-261, On the Historical Accuracy of the Book of Acts, Tim McGrew. The original 84 facts are listed by Geisler & Turek.
 

Steven Avery

Rookie
Joined
Dec 30, 2017
Messages
37
Top