The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the principal historical source for the Apostolic Age, is of interest for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity as part of the debate over the historicity of the Bible. Historical reliability is not dependent on a source being inerrant or void of agendas since there are sources that are considered generally reliable despite having such traits (e.g. Josephus).[1]
Archaeological inscriptions and other independent sources show that Acts of the Apostles (“Acts”) contains some accurate details of 1st century society with regard to the titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. However, the historicity of the depiction of Paul the Apostle in Acts is contested. Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically.[2] Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church.[2] Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts.[3]: 316 [4]: 10 However, Roman historians have generally taken the basic historicity of Acts as granted.[5]
- ^ Ehrman, Bart D.; Evans, Craig A.; Stewart, Robert B. (2020). Can we trust the Bible on the Historical Jesus? (1 ed.). Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 12–18. ISBN 9780664265854.
- ^ a b Cain, Seymour; et al. "Biblical literature". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
- ^ Harris, Stephen (1985). Understanding the Bible: A Reader's Introduction (2 ed.). Mayfield Publishing Companylocation=. ISBN 978-0874846966.
- ^ Hornik, Heidi J.; Parsons, Mikeal C. (2017). The Acts of the Apostles through the centuries (1 ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. ISBN 9781118597873.
- ^ Licona, Michael R. (2010). The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach. InterVarsity Press. p. 18. ISBN 978-0-8308-2719-0.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search