Examining Historical Inaccuracies in The Acts of the Apostles
The Origin and Authorship of Acts
Acts and its companion Gospel, The Gospel According to Luke, are both anonymous. The prevailing belief among most critical scholars today is that neither work was actually written by Paul's associate, Luke. Instead, scholarly discussions point towards these texts being authored much later, well into the second century.
M. K. Smith and L. H. Tyson, in their work Acts and Christian Beginnings, reference the findings of the Acts Seminar - a group of around a hundred eminent scholars. Their consensus suggests that Acts was written significantly after the events it describes and not based on first-hand knowledge.
Theology Over History
Many critical scholars argue that Acts of the Apostles is more a theological work rather than a historical account. Hans Joachim Schoeps, a prominent German theologian, supports this view. He emphasizes the didactic nature of Acts, suggesting that it cultivates legends and reinterprets events according to a specific theological framework. For instance, Acts portrays the conversion of Paul in a way that aligns with broader Christian beliefs about early Christian history.
Ancient Allusions and Historical Discrepancies
Ancient texts often contain references to other works, and Acts is no exception. One of the most striking examples is the use of Euripides' play the Bacchae. Due to the presence of quotations and narrative structures inspired by this ancient work, scholars have identified a clear influence of Greek literature on the biblical text.
Consider the dramatic scene in Acts 25:14 where Jesus speaks to Paul: “It hurts you to kick against the goad.” This phrase is identical to a line in the Bacchae, spoken by Dionysus. This parallel is not merely coincidental but demonstrates the way in which ancient literary allusions were used to enhance the narrative of Acts.
The Paul Convert Story
The story of Paul’s conversion in Acts is itself problematic due to its inconsistencies. The three accounts in Acts 9, 22, and 26 do not match in details, suggesting that either the author, “Luke,” did not have a detailed and fixed account, or he was selective in his dramatization. These discrepancies highlight the difficulty in verifying historical events described in Acts.
The Gallio Episode and Ancient Foundations
Another contentious aspect of Acts is the trial of Paul before Gallio at the Corinthian tribunal. Dennis E. Smith, in his work, cites this episode as a critical cornerstone for reconstructing Paul’s chronology. The proconsulship of Gallio is historically verifiable, yet the authenticity of the tribunal bench itself has been called into question through archaeological evidence.
In an unpublished paper by L. Michael White, the construction of the tribunal is dated to late in the first century, suggesting that the setup in Acts did not reflect the actual conditions at the time of Stephen the Martyr's trial and subsequent tribunals. Instead, this detail has been retrofitted into Acts to support the biblical narrative.
Conclusion
The historical inaccuracies in The Acts of the Apostles are a subject of ongoing academic debate. While the text remains a crucial source for understanding early Christian history, its status as a theological and literary work means that it should be approached with a critical eye. Scholars continue to investigate the layers of influence, allusions, and literary techniques that shape this ancient text.