Keandalan sejarah Kisah Para Rasul

Keandalan sejarah Kisah Para Rasul, sumber sejarah utama untuk Zaman Para Rasul (Zaman Apostolik), menarik minat para sarjana alkitab dan sejarawan Kristen Awal sebagai bagian dari perdebatan keandalan sejarah Alkitab.

Prasasti arkeologi dan sumber-sumber independen menunjukkan bahwa Kisah Para Rasul memuat rincian yang akurat mengenai masyarakat pada abad ke-1 di Timur Dekat dan Eropa, khususnya berkaitan dengan gelar para pejabat, pembagian administratif, kota, majelis, dan aturan-aturan Bait Suci Yahudi di Yerusalem.

Kunci perdebatan adalah keandalan sejarah penggambaran Paulus dalam Kisah Para Rasul. Menurut Encyclopædia Britannica, Paulus dalam Kisah Para Rasul menjelaskan dengan secara berbeda dari cara Paulus menggambarkan dirinya, baik secara faktual maupun secara teologis.^[1] Kisah Para Rasul tampaknya berbeda dengan surat-surat Paulus pada isu-isu penting, seperti Hukum Taurat, kerasulan Paulus sendiri, dan hubungannya dengan gereja Yerusalem.^[2] Para sarjana umumnya lebih memilih keterangan Paulus sendiri (dalam surat-suratnya) daripada keterangan Kisah Para Rasul.^[3] Namun, beberapa tokoh sarjana dan sejarawan melihat kitab Kisah Para Rasul sebagai sumber yang cukup akurat dan dikuatkan oleh arkeologi, dan secara umum sesuai dengan surat-surat Paulus.^[4]

^ "Acts presents a picture of Paul that differs from his own description of himself in many of his letters, both factually and theologically." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [1].
^ "That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [2].
^ "Paul's own account is generally regarded as the more reliable." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316.
^ Bruce, F.F. (1981). "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" Ch. 7–8. InterVarsity Press.

[1] "Acts presents a picture of Paul that differs from his own description of himself in many of his letters, both factually and theologically." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [1].

[2] "That an actual companion of Paul writing about his mission journeys could be in so much disagreement with Paul (whose theology is evidenced in his letters) about fundamental issues such as the Law, his apostleship, and his relationship to the Jerusalem church is hardly conceivable." biblical literature (2010). In Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved November 25, 2010, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: [2].

[3] "Paul's own account is generally regarded as the more reliable." Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 316.

[4] Bruce, F.F. (1981). "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" Ch. 7–8. InterVarsity Press.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]