Introduction
I have lived during the transition
from a world in which detailed historical information was typically bulk housed
in my local library to now being available with the press of a thumb on a small
plastic gizmo. The time saving benefits are immeasurable: having instant access
to the time my local pizza parlor closes, the tedious details of my favorite
movie, or the entire biography of an eighteenth-century playwright. Wikipedia,
“the free encyclopedia,” or, “Wiki,” tends to be the source instantly occurring
in basic web-searches. Its anonymously written entries (sometimes by multiple
authors!) have seeped deep into the zeitgeist of popular culture, baldly
accepted as being as reliable as the dusty set of encyclopedias whose entries
were written by specialized scholars.
True, Wiki is helpful with common
knowledge facts. The acquisition of immediate information though should be
tethered with the modern proverb, “just because it’s on the Internet, does not
mean it’s true!” For an explicit example
of the folly of immediate gratification of instant cyber-knowledge, I set
Google with the search criteria of the broad category, discrepancies in the
Book of Acts. Out of the returned search results of about nine million
hits, in the top three were links to Wikipedia and its overtly secular sister,
“rationalwiki.”
This paper will examine Google hit
#2, Wikipedia’s “Passages of disputed historical
accuracy” found in
their entry, “Historical reliability of the Acts
of the Apostles.”
It will be demonstrated that the entirety of the Wiki entry is fraught with a
biased worldview which evaluates the details of history with a skewed skeptical
lens. It will be shown that their title words, “historical reliability” means
in essence, historical unreliability. Wikipedia is soaked in the
underlying assumption that the only thing one can know with certainty about the
Book of Acts is that one cannot know anything with certainty. Wiki stands in
direct antithesis to Luke’s overt goal of providing historical and theological
certainty of the early church (Acts 1:1-4).
II.
Inherent Article Bias
Before delving into the actual
disputed Acts passages presented by Wiki, it is necessary to have a careful look
at the overall entry that sets the stage they appear on. Whoever wrote the
article clearly falls in the scholarly tradition of skepticism coming to
fruition in the 19th-century German TΓΌbingen school.[1]
The article opens mentioning that
Acts does contain some accurate historical details. It immediately adds the
qualifier that Acts is not accurate in its depiction of Paul, “both
factually and theologically.” Only two paragraphs in, Wiki informs its
readers that the “Paul” presented by Luke is not “generally prefer[ed]”
by “scholars,” substantiated only by a source simply saying, “When it
comes to the ‘life of Paul,’ the modern scholarly consensus is that Paul’s
letters are to be given priority over Acts in any historical reconstruction.”[2] This amounts to the philosophical determiner of history being a simple
headcount rather than any sort of detailed analysis. The false crescendo of
this underlying presupposition comes later when Wiki ironically says, “By
2017 consensus had emerged among scholars that the letters of Paul are more
reliable for information about Paul than Acts,” but substantiates this with
merely, “citation needed.”
On the one hand, the Wiki entry gives the
traditional view that Luke was a contemporary “follower of Paul,” but
then with the other says, “However, most
scholars understand Luke–Acts to be in the tradition of Greek
historiography.” This statement is offered as a contrast with Luke’s
assertion that his historiography was written to provide “certainty” (Luke
1:4). This seemingly innocuous
comparison is substantiated and fleshed out only in an endnote to a New
Testament scholar who holds that while Luke was personally associated with
Paul, his work as a historian is riddled with error.[3] Thus, “the tradition of Greek
historiography” is a tradition of trivial correct historical facts mixed
with misinformation and personal agendas.
Regarding the sources Luke may have
used to compile Acts, Wiki provides nothing definite. Wiki highlights an
author’s comment that Luke’s use of previous historical sources was a “seriously
distorted” series of “stringed together” stories by the time it
reached him.[4] This assertion presents a true sense of irony: Wiki has, in a few paragraphs,
strung together a number of poorly substantiated biased facts, and this one in
particular lacks any documentation!
Wiki also sets the stage with a brief
discussion on the textual traditions of the Book of Acts. While they conclude that the shorter
Alexandrian text tradition of Acts is preferred, their underlying point presents
dissonance by questioning whether Luke’s writings can be trusted in their
current form. Of the Book of Acts Wiki says, “the differences between the
surviving manuscripts are more substantial than most.” What is left out is
the fact that the existence of a substantial manuscript tradition does not
speak against the reliability of a source, but rather is that tool which allows
the original to be substantiated by a comparison of the existing manuscripts.
In a seeming attempt to balance out their overt skepticism,
Wiki does present a section dedicated to historically accurate details found in
Acts. These examples though are followed by a series of disclaimers set in the
form of scholarly opinion: Acts does get some basic things historically correct
but is still not to be completely trusted. Scholars cited suggest using “caution”:
be skeptical of the history of the early church. That skepticism includes taking
seriously the ‘hallucination theory” of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances,
that Acts may have been written early but Luke did not know Paul, etc. This
negativity is mixed with scholars positive to the veracity of some of the
tedious details of Acts and its early composition. The entire section amounts
to a cacophony of opinion rather than any sort of meaningful presentation of
the accuracy of the Book of Acts.
III. Passages of Disputed Historical
Accuracy
In comparison to the nine passages Wiki deems
historically accurate, six examples are offered. While the offering of three
more positive proofs for the historicity of Acts may seem generous, the
differences in presentation is striking. Wiki’s historically accurate passages
are put forth as simple one sentence snippets with little or no documentation.
Of the six negative examples, each is given a full paragraph explanation with
plenteous documentation. The positive passages are given one overall hyperlink
in the table of contents while each disputed passage has its own so readers can
immediately be brought to the content. Let us review each disputed passage.
A. Acts 2:41 and 4:4 – Peter’s
Addresses
The first example involves alleged
discrepancies with statistics and venue amplification. Acts 2:41 says Peter’s
sermon at Pentecost resulted in three thousand conversions and Acts 4:4 records
an additional five thousand. According
to Wiki, these extraordinary numbers are impossible because Jerusalem only had
a population of 25-30,000 people.
In response, the extraordinary need
not be deemed impossible from a presuppositional Biblical worldview. Logically,
if the overall population was as is claimed, this does not necessarily render Luke’s
conversion tally inaccurate. It coincides with Luke’s emphasis that the effectual
work of the Holy Spirit was being poured out, miraculously.
Wiki’s numbers though need not be
confidently assumed. First, to determine
the population of first-century Jerusalem involves, at the very least, estimating
from ancient primary sources. Josephus records 6,000 Pharisees living in
Jerusalem in the mid first century[5] and that 1,100,000 Jews died during the 70 A.D. siege of Jerusalem with 97,000
taken captive.[6] Tacitus
numbers the population at the time of Rome’s invasion as 600,000.[7] While these numbers differ, Josephus and
Tacitus are at least unified in having a population well over 25-30,000. Second, Wiki is offering statistical certainty
without any meaningful examination. Their statistic of 25-30,000 has its
genesis in outdated nineteenth century scholarship. For instance, an 1847 book, Ancient
Topography of Jerusalem by James Ferguson went after the veracity of the
numbers provided by Tacitus and Josephus. He arrives contrarily at an estimate
of 23,000 – 37,000, saying, “which I do not think it at all probable that
Jerusalem could have contained as a permanent population.”[8] His determination has been debated, but
not in any way favorable to his small numeric conclusion. Modern studies in
archaeology are producing numbers much higher: 50,000, 80,000, 100,000, 200,000.[9]
Wike also disputes the method which
produced the large number of converts recorded by Luke. Wiki says (via Grant),
“Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone.”[10] First, there is no physical reason why a person could not stand in front of
three thousand and address them. Second, Luke does not specify the exact spot
of the sermon or what natural sound surroundings could have been utilized.
Third, Wiki ignores that the feat of speaking to large crowds previous to
contemporary electronic amplification certainly did occur: Charles Spurgeon
once spoke to an audience upward of 20,000 without modern sound equipment. Fourth,
Luke says that it was not simply one sermon at one time: “And with many
other words he bore witness and continued to exhort them” (Acts 2:40).
B. Acts 5:33-39: Theudas
Whereas the accuracy of Josephus was
left out of the previous example by Wiki, this one relies on his description of
the Jewish rebels Judas and Theudas. The purported discrepancy is that Luke
made a chronological error when presenting Gamaliel’s account of Theudas followed
by Judas. Even though put in the same order, Josephus ultimately presents their
chronology reversed: Judas’ revolt occurred around 6 A.D., Theudas between 44 –
47 A.D. The discrepancy further insists the later revolted after the date of Gamaliel’s
speech recorded by Luke.
Wiki says the discrepancy rests on
the assumption that Luke and Josephus were referring to the same Theudas. A
plausible answer is to first assume Luke and Josephus are referring to the same
Judas “who rose up in the days of the census” (Acts 5:37) during the census
of Quirinius (Ant. 20,5,2), but to not assume the same Theudas is being
mentioned. In this alternate scenario, neither Luke nor Josephus has committed
an historical error. Luke’s Theudas, according to Gamaliel, “claim[ed] to
be somebody” (Acts 5:36). Josephus says Theudas was a magician claiming to
be a prophet (Ant. 29,5,1). Theudas was a common name at the time and is
representative of similar names, used interchangeably: Theodotus, Theodosius,
Theodorus.[11] Luke’s
Theudas was previous to Judas and that documented by Josephus’s was after.
C. Acts 10:1 Roman Troops in Caesarea
This discrepancy asserts no Roman
troops (an Italian regiment or “cohort”) were stationed in Caesarea during the
reign of Herod Agrippa (41-44), therefore Luke is in error in his description
of the Roman Centurion Cornelius, “a centurion of what was known as the Italian
Cohort.” Wiki bases the discrepancy on a “lack of inscriptional and
literary evidence” and insinuates that Luke either made it up or “projected”
Roman troops back to an earlier time.
Surprisingly, Wiki offers a solution.
They highlight that Acts 9:32-11 may be out of chronological order (taking
place after Herod’s death), therefore only calling into question Luke’s accuracy
in the sequence of events. For those who trust Luke, this amounts to a non-solution
solution: Luke may be accurate on the one hand, but inaccurate on the other.
Wiki concludes by noting a few
historians “see no difficulty here” but hide any hint of their
considerations in footnotes: Cornelius may have lived in Caesarea away from his
troops and there is a record of “troops of Caesarea and Sebaste” between
A.D. 41-44 (the later solution taken from F.F. Bruce). In essence, Wiki appears
to realize there is not an actual discrepancy; rather there is an ambiguity in
the historical presence of Roman troops in Caesarea during the time period in
question. Consulting Bruce, Wiki left
out that “the soldiers making up an auxiliary unit were usually provincials,
not Roman citizens… awarded Roman citizenship when their period of service had
expired.”[12] There
is therefore no legitimate basis for doubting Luke’s account.
D. Acts 15: The Council of Jerusalem
Wiki presents the old conundrum that
the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 is the same event of Galatians 2. Fleshed out
in footnotes, if the two chapters from different Biblical books are referring
to the same thing, there is “the presence of discrepancies
between these two accounts,” “open contradiction,” and “There is
a very strong case against the historicity of Luke's account of the Apostolic Council.”
The only aspect Wiki will allow is there actually was a Jerusalem Council but
to grant its historical existence only with “caution.”
There
are two plausible solutions. Some attempt to harmonize Acts 15 with Galatians
2. For instance, Roman Catholic scholar Raymond Brown sees Acts 15 as “a
simplified and less acrimonious report.”[13] F.F. Bruce takes four
pages in his commentary on Acts to smooth over the accounts.[14]. New Bible
Commentary avoids mentioning the discrepancies between the chapters and
simply exegetes both together (as do a number of conservative sources).[15] This method moves closest
to special pleading. The more plausible solutions is to not assume Acts 15 and
Galatians 2 are documenting the same event. Rather, Galatians 2 should be
harmonized with Acts 11:29-30. Robert Cara says this harmonization explains Paul’s
refusal to circumcise Titus (Ga1. 2:3) and his circumcision of Timothy, the latter
being circumcised after the declarations of the Council meeting of Acts 15.[16] This solution places the
writing of Galatians in AD 48 and the Acts 15 council a year later.
E. Acts
15:16-18: James’ Speech
This
discrepancy challenges the quotation of Amos 9:11-12 by James during the
Jerusalem Council. The text James cited is from the Greek Septuagint. James “presumably
spoke Aramaic” so, posits Wikipedia, it would be unlikely for him to have
cited the text in this linguistic form.
This
criticism is a discrepancy based on assumptions rather than solid historical
facts or external evidence of an actual discrepancy. First, Wikipedia refutes
itself by mentioning the obvious: “Although Aramaic was a major language of
the Ancient Near East, by Jesus's day Greek had been the lingua
franca of the area for 300 years.” There is no reason why James be limited to one language and
one Bible translation. Second, Wiki assumes Lukean deceit before considering
theological implications: James could
have had a theological motivation for using the Greek text for its emphasis on “all
the Gentiles” rather than the Hebrew, “all the nations.”
F. Acts
21:38: The sicarii and the Egyptian
This
discrepancy insists that Luke made an error when he quoted the Roman Tribune
asking Paul if he was “the Egyptian” rebel who led Assassins into the
wilderness. The error arises because Luke miscited Josephus who described two
different groups and different events: The Assassins (the sicarii) and also an
Egyptian rebel who led followers to the Mount of Olives. Luke carelessly
morphed these two together.
First,
this discrepancy assumes that Luke via the Roman Tribune was citing historical
fact, but it could be just as easily assumed that Luke was recording what the
Roman Tribune said, however erroneous it was. Paul does not answer the question
directly, but rather simply affirms who he is... perhaps because the question was
factually ridiculous. Second, if Luke and Josephus are referring to the same
“Egyptian,” the discrepancy rests on Josephus documenting thirty thousand while
Luke documents four thousand. But “The tendency of Josephus to exaggerate
especially in regard to numbers is well noted by scholars.” [17] Could it not be Josephus in error rather than
Luke? The editors of The Works of
Josephus point out,
Accordingly Josephus, Antiq.
20.8.6, agrees well with St. Luke; for as he there says nothing of so great a
number as 30,000, so he says that the number slain by Felix, when he subdued
them, was no more than 400, and 200 taken prisoners. These smaller numbers much
better agree to 4000 than to the 30,000.[18]
IV.
Conclusion
As
has been demonstrated, there are plausible solutions to each discrepancy put
forth by Wikipedia. For Acts 2:41 and 4:4, the numeric discrepancies are solved
via more recent historical inquiries. It is within the realm of possibility
that large groups of people did hear what was preached, without modern-day equipment.
For Acts 5:33-39, the discrepancy rests
on using Josephus to interpret Luke (whereas in the previous discrepancy, his history
was avoided because it would have substantiated Luke). The solution comes by treating
both Luke and Josephus as being accurate though not necessarily referring to
the same Theudas. Acts 10:1 is resolved by demonstrating Wiki did not actually
prove a certain discrepancy. Simply because there is not yet “inscriptional and literary evidence” does not mean that an Italian
Regiment was not in Caesarea. There is no negative evidence suggesting Luke was
in error, like an extra-biblical inscription saying, “there were no Roman
troops in Caesarea A.D. 41-44.”
Acts
15 is resolved by harmonizing it with Acts 11:29-30 rather than Galatians 2. Acts 15:16-18 is the weakest of Wiki’s discrepancies,
arguing ridiculously that James only spoke Aramaic and could not have cited the
Greek Septuagint. The discrepancy amounts to conjecture rather than a
meaningful presentation of proof. Finally, Acts 21:38 once again rests solely
on choosing the accuracy of Josephus over Luke (while the editors of Josephus
grant his “30’000” terrorists was an exaggeration).
We
now live in a different era of information dissemination. One hundred years
ago, the tedium involving possible discrepancies in the book of Acts was often
confined to books, journals, and newspapers. Now, almost anyone has direct
access to information to plug into their worldview, however erroneous it may be.
It might seem ridiculous to take the effort to refute a source that has no bonafide
credibility or responsibility. Wiki’s authors are anonymous and the content of
the entries are subject to change at a whim. But this is now where the battles for the soul
are often being fought. Christians must never underestimate how the enemy
works. The enemy no longer needs to wait for a book of antibiblical sentiment to
be published. He can do immediate damage, on a much broader scale, in a matter
of moments, by the push of a button on a smart phone. Being able to defend the
faith “in the arena” now means entering the cyber-arena, being ready to
demonstrate flawed history and underlying biases in popular culture,
particularly those found in the most popular Google hits on any given subject.
Endnotes1. Van Ommeren, Nicolas M. “Was Luke an Accurate Historian?” Bibliotheca Sacra, 148. 1991, 60.
2. Hornik, Heidi J.; Parsons, Mikeal C., The Acts of the Apostles through the centuries (New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2017), 10.
3. Robert Grant, A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 145. “Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history.”
4. Richard Heard, An Introduction to the New Testament (London: A and C, Black, 1950), 138. “But it remains doubtful whether Luke had yet formed his plan of writing Acts when he was in contact with [Silas and Paul], and in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling.”
5. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Philadelphia: J. Grigg, 1825), 9.
6. Josephus, F., The Works of Josephus: With a Life Written By Himself, Volume 4 (New York: A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1889), 169.
7. Ibid.
8. James Ferguson, An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem (London: John Weale, 1847), 52
9. See the extensive comparative lists found in Richard Bauckham, The Book of Acts in its Palestinian Setting (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 241-242.
10. Grant, 145.
11. A.T. Robertson, “Points of Chronology in Luke’s Writings,” The Methodist Quarterly Review 70 (January, 1921), 147.
12. F.F. Bruce, The Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988), 202.
[13] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 306.
[14] F.F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1964), 298-302.
[15] Guthrie, D. (ed.). The New Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1970), 991.
[16] Michael J. Kruger (ed.), A Biblical – Theological Introduction to the New Testament (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 154.
[17] Janeway, B. “Is the Acts of the Apostles Historically Reliable? Part 2 of 2,” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal Volume 5, 5(2), 72.
[18] Josephus, F. The Works of Flavius Josephus (London: George Virtue, 1841), 972.
Posts
