Talk:Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

Proposed Name Change

As it stands, this page is solely about the Book of Acts. There is a separate discussion of the historical reliability of the Gospel of Luke over on the Saint Luke page. Since it seems universally agreed that Acts is a direct 'sequel' to Luke (if not a continuation / second half) this seems odd. I'm suggesting we change this page title to 'Historical reliability of Luke / Acts', remove the section from the Saint Luke Entry and incorporate it here. Any comments? Giford (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize that I've only just now (7-6-10) looked at this page, but keeping the pages separate makes sense, because Acts, while connected with the Gospel of Luke, is enough of a separate book to warrant its own page. I say this because, Acts is dealing with different historical material than the gospel. Acts is the earliest attempt at narratively dipicting the Christian community after Christ's resurrection, and so it holds particular significance, not only for believers, but for scholars as well. Cloud —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

'We' Passages

Surely the best evidence for the historical accuracy of Acts is the presence of 'we' passages, i.e. those sections written in the first person and therefore constituting a direct claim to being eyewitness evidence? Yet they're not mentioned under 'evidence in favour'... Giford (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a few additions to the 'Evidence for' and quite a lot to the 'evidence against'. Re my comments above, I have noted that the reliabilty of Acts is tied in with the reliability of Luke. Forgot to sign in though, apologies. Giford (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The 'we' passages are not evidence of historical reliability, they're merely evidence that the author might have had some first-person travelogue sources that he quoted verbatim. The reason for thinking that is the author speaks a lot in the third person, and then... I don't want to say "randomly", but it inexplicably(better word?) switches to first person. The approach on this page is odd, most scholars I read are pretty sure that Acts has some historical fact and some non-historical, so it just has to be read carefully and critically. So rather than this either/or dichotomy, it's both. Cloud —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

About the pagename

While I applaud the idea of having a page on the subject of the value of Acts as historical source, or as a historical book, I am troubled by the title given. It looks ultimately misleading to me.

Indeed, historicity has a clear meaning; see historicity or the entry in the Wiktionary.

Might something like Historical Information in the Book of Acts not be more adequate?

--Dampinograaf (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't find it misleading ; the historicity of Acts is part of the broader issue of the historicity of the Bible and the historicity of Jesus. To the extent that the book is part of the Bible, it fits in nicely with related questions of biblical historicity. ADM (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Historicity might be slightly more accurate, but I've heard both Bart Ehrman and Luke Timothy Johnson, in lectures they did for The Teaching Company (teach12.com), each use the phrase "historically reliable." In coversation people generally say "historically accurate," and saying "historically reliable" is basically the same thing. I will say though, I wonder if this page would get more hits if it was titled "Acts of the Apostles (Historical Reliability)" or somesuch? I'm just not sure that most people think to type in "historical reliability of the," before typing "Acts of the Apostles." Cloud 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorical issue

The classification here simply makes no sense. We have "Evidence for Historicity" and "Evidence against Historicity" and the factors which are against the document being a historical document are historical errors? How could that possibly brand an ancient historical work unhistorical? --Ari89 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Other scholarly objections" Section

This section should only list objections by scholars that are not held in common with other scholars' objections. Right now, the way it seems to be used is only as a list of scholars who think that Acts is not reliable. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

balance, from wp:weight

Using commonly accepted reference texts and disinterested tertiary sources to achieve balance. Leadwind (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Passages corroborated by historical evidence

This section does need proper referencing, and I'm working on it. The section on historical criticisms is hardly much better, and I'm gradually going to add material to that as well.--Taiwan boi (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree this needs references. Specifically, the line:

Acts correctly refers to Cornelius as centurion and to Claudius Lysias as a tribune (Acts 21:31, 23:36)

Since afaik neither of these individuals is testified outside Luke, I'm not clear on what it means to say that the ranks are 'correct', particularly wrt Cornelius. Is the argument simply that Luke knew that 'centurion' was a real rank in the Roman army? Or is there a source I am unaware of that confirms the ranks Luke assigns to these people?Giford (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the meaning is supposed to be that the officer in charge of the Italian Regiment is known to have been a centurion and the officer in charge of the Antonine fort is known to have been a tribune (chiliarch). That's a fair point and I believe that there are such records.Logical Analyst (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter's speech in Acts 4:4

The initial quote from Robert Grant was this:

Professor of New Testament Robert M. Grant says: 'Luke evidently regarded himself as a historian, but many questions can be raised in regard to the reliability of his history […] His ‘statistics’ are impossible; Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone, and since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand.

Aside from the fact that the text does not say Peter addressed 3,000 hearers ("But many of those who had listened to the message believed, and the number of the men came to about five thousand.", NET), I could not find such an objection raised in the 20 to 30 historical and theological commentaries I searched in the last two days. I found plenty of references to discussions of whether or not 3,000 converts was credible in view of the population of Jerusalem in the first century, but I could not find anyone else who read the text as saying that Peter addressed 3,000 people. I have therefore removed Grant's objection as insufficiently notable, and a fringe reading of the text.--Taiwan boi (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reference is to Acts 2:41, where following Peter's speech, 3000 people are converted:

And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:40-41

It seems pretty clear that this is in response to the lengthy speech Peter has just given; I propose this section be restored to the article. Giford (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the proper reference was supposed to be Acts 2:40-41, where no mention is made of Peter addressing 3,000 people.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you didn't mean that in quite the tone it comes across; surely you would agree that if Grant refers to 3000 people, it is likely he is referring to the passage that explicitely mentions 3000 people? If you think he has misinterpreted the text - that the 3000 converts are not linked to Peter's speech - then that would be a separate objection, and if you have a source for it then that too should be added to the article imo. In the meantime, I will add this back in since it clearly reflects the opinion of at least one scholar and the grounds given for its removal were erroneous. Giford (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Grant refers to both Acts 2:41 ("Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers without a microphone"), and Acts 4:4 ("since the population of Jerusalem was about 25-30,000, Christians cannot have numbered five thousand (Acts 4:4)"). He clearly interprets the 5,000 as the total number of Christians in Acts 4, not the number by which they were increased. As for Grant's view that Luke represents Peter as addressing 3,000 people simultaneously and needing a microphone, it is not sufficient for a view to be held by "at least one scholar"; if it is held by only one scholar it is WP:FRINGE unless it is so WP:NOTE that reference to it has entered the broader academic discussion. We are supposed to include views which have entered the broader academic discussion at a significant level. I have not seen other commentaries or scholarly studies claim that Luke represents Peter as addressing 3,000 people simultaneously. Have you?--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also changed 'increased to 5000' to 'increased by 5000', which I think is the clear meaning of the text in Acts here. Giford (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's called WP:OR. Standard commentaries (UBS Handbook for translators, CPNIV, NICNT, NIBC, TNTC), and Bible translations (NET, CEV, ESV, HCSB, NCV, NIV, NLT), understand that in Acts 4:4 the number of Christians was increased to 5,000, not increased by 5,000. This is the same as Grant's view.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Three Thousand people saved...Frankly, the Bible is God's word, and whatever it says is true because can't lie. While I am not a Bible scholar, nor do I pretend to be, I know, that if it says 3000 souls were saved. then 3000 souls were saved.Period. The End.[There is no signature for this contribution. It appears to have come from me, but it did not.Logical Analyst (talk) 11:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)]

The Greek text translates literally “became the number of the men about thousand five” but anyway you can't change Grant's quote because you think he should have said something different.I don't agree with him but I wouldn't dream of misquoting him. That is hardly Wikipedia standard. Logical Analyst (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

We aren't accustomed to reading biblical numerology into Acts, particularly. Yet, it seems unlikely that someone "counted the house." The bible rarely does that, accurately, and purposely, as we would in the 21st century. Numbers mean something. "You look like a million bucks" and "I feel like two cents" are not to be taken literally even in our very precise, literal world! In biblical times, numbers are almost never "precise, even for supposed censuses. For starters, a "thousand" means "a lot." We're not really sure about the number of thousand, but it, too, most likely has religious, rather than an actual count, interpretation. No one was standing there with a "clicker." Worse, it wasn't written down "on the spot" but some time later. If there had been a guy with a clicker, his numbers were long gone!  :) Student7 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

"Peter could not have addressed three thousand hearers [e.g. in Acts 2:41 without a microphone" Victorian politicians (e.g. Gladstone) often addressed vast crowds (the UK electorate was hugely enlarged in 1867 and 1884). They did so, apparently, with the aid of "shouters" who conveyed doubtless bowdlerised (in this context, no doubt a Pythonesque "Blessed are the Cheesemakers") highlights of the speech across the crowd. So not entirely impossible, before we get into arguments about the accuracy of numbers and the population of Jerusalem at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.159.33.4 (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The Roman Colosseum, and various other forums, gave an orator the ability to address thousands of attendees. I don't know whether these acoustics were available to Paul or not. Generals frequently addressed large armies drawn in close, back to chest. Would the listeners have drawn that close? Again, uncertain. Dismissing out of hand, Paul's ability to make himself heard by a much smaller number than in the Colosseum seems careless somehow. Student7 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I've re-read Taiwan boi's objections above, and I'm coming to the conclusion that Grant's objections are WP:FRINGE, at least for this one case. Acts does not say that Paul addressed a specific count of people. Others who didn't hear his oration may have been swept up in the drama and become baptized; or maybe the hearers converted others. Grant is simply conflating the two and arriving at his own conclusion. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article IMO. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul's Trial

I found the quote "incoherently presented" in the below work 6 paragraphs from the bottom but don't know how to note it coherently.

A Historical Introduction to the New Testament by Robert M. Grant Chapter 10: The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts 98.248.43.159 (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)robinlrandall@gmail.com This sentence is itself incoherent and anyway nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy. This sub-section should be removed altogether.Logical Analyst (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sherwin-White

Leadwind, I note you removed the Sherwin-White quote:

Roman historian, A. N. Sherwin-White writes,

For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

Sherwin-White's work is indeed 40 years old, but he does not actually contradict the majority viewpoint. Sherwin-White explicitly identifies Acts as a propaganda narrative, liable to distortions, and believes that Luke made mistakes. His comment here is with regard to the general accuracy of the work in describing is milieu. This confidence in the basic historicity of Acts is generally accepted even now.

* 'There are certainly points at which the contemporary color of Acts can be challenged, but they are few and insignificant compared to the over-whelming congruence between Acts and, its time and place.', Talbert, ‘Reading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieu’, p. 201 (2003). Brill.

* "The narrative of the Acts contains many details which can be related to information from other sources and help build up a picture of the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia in the middle of the first century of our era. Valuable light is cast on Roman institutions in the provinces, civic life in Greek cities and Roman colonies, economic and social realities, communications, religion, especially Judaism.", Taylor, "The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles", in "Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt", p. 2437 (1996). Walter de Gruyter.

I included Talbert's caution "There is widespread agreement that an exact description of the milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated" specifically to balance quotes from Sherwin-White, Taylor, and Talbert himself.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tb, sorry. I was away. If we're saying that historians can look to Acts for lots of historical details (other than its account of early Christianity or of Paul's mission), then that's fine. The de Gruyter quote is perfect because it tells us what is historical about Acts. The Sherwin-White quote talks about "basic historicity," which sounds like Acts is a historically reliable account of the early church. Leadwind (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I paraphrased de Guyter and put the quote in the footnote. Leadwind (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't actually see how Sherwin-White can be read as saying Acts is a historically reliable account of the early church, not only because he says nothing about its account of the early church but also because he says explicitly "in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions". The Taylor quote (Walter de Gruyter is the publisher), was already included in the article, earlier on.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd" could be interpreted as saying, "It's stupid not to accept Acts as historically accurate in every detail." Leadwind (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that danger, especially since this is conveniently the only part of Sherwin-White's statement which is typically quoted by Fundamentalists! However, given that it is preceded by "no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions", and the fact that Sherwin-White believed that Luke not only could make mistakes but actually did, I find it's difficult to interpret that statement as "It's stupid not to accept Acts as historically accurate in every detail". We could explicate Sherwin-White's statement further, to make it clear that he wasn't recommending complete trust in Luke's account. Sherwin-White is certainly sufficiently notable for inclusion, and this particular quote of is his arguably the most publicly prominent in his entire book, so I would like to see it addressed here properly, as opposed to how it's typically encountered online.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I've said my bit and you can do what you like with the quote. Leadwind (talk) 03:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'll make sure it's properly explicated. I just think it's important to include here because it's so noteworthy, and so frequently quoted out of context. It's misleading for precisely the reason you identify, and it has been misused as a result, but seen in context it actually looks very different.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it very worrying that Leadwind is admitting that he removed the quote because he didn't agree with what he thought it implied.That is admitting that he is deliberately unbalancing the article, including quotes that suit him and excluding those that don't. A year later the quote is still missing. The banner says quite properly that the article needs balance. I'm working on an upgrade that will provide just that. Logical Analyst (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

New section

Leadwind, I would appreciate your review of the new section I've just written. The title needs some work, I'm not particularly happy with it, and I'd like your comments on the content.--Taiwan boi (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's some real hard scholarship you've done with excellent references. My hat's off to you. I don't know who else could pull something like that off. That said, what the article really needs is more summaries of general scholarship. There are so many detailed opinions of individual scholars and so many niggling debates over individual scenes that the big picture is lost. Your section is an excellent addition, but the article needs more overview. See my next section. Leadwind (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I do agree with you that the article needs more in the way of summary and I have been looking through my library for works which may help this. I'll see what I can contribute in the next day or so.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

overview needed

The article is bogged down in picky details as editors war over whether this verse or that is plausible. What it really needs is a good, academic overview: who wrote Acts, when, based on what sources, and toward what ends? These are the basics of critical-historical research. Then we can address the historical reliability of the main thrust of the book rather than of individual passages. The main historical problem is the countless contradictions between Paul's epistles and Acts, so that should be the main point of the historical analysis. Leadwind (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll see what I can put together in the next day or so. I'll put up some suggestions here in Talk first.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, I think that "who wrote Acts, when, based on what sources, and toward what ends" rightly belongs in the main article; this article is supposed to be focused directly on historicity, so it should certainly be focused on the individual passages which are used to criticize the historicity of the Acts, as well as the broader arguments such as conflict with Paul.--Taiwan boi (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, a full historical-critical treatment would go on the Acts page, but we should summarize that information here. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has some general things to say about the historicity of Acts, so I can add that in, too. Leadwind (talk) 03:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok good. I have Wedderburn, Gempf, and Hengel as useful sources for an overview. I did make an effort to cover this here (footnote 13 in particular), but agree it should be more prominent and detailed.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that Leadwind here is typical of the critical camp's tactic: set the agenda to suit their own so that other considerations are omitted. "The main historical problem is the countless contradictions between Paul's epistles and Acts, so that should be the main point of the historical analysis." Others would say that the main problem is the allegations of contradictions which don't really exist. In this article the initial section makes strong claims of these "contradictions" but none appear until the Contents section and then they consist of pretty vague unsubstantiated opinions with which many would disagree. At their strongest they could not be called "countless." The main point of the historical analysis in THIS article should be "Is this an accurate account of the development and spread of the first 25-30 years of those parts of the Christian church with which it deals and is it generally in accord with what we know from elsewhere of the societies in which it operated?" The vast majority of informed commentators over the centuries have answered that question with a resounding "YES." The question of any differences of theology or attitude there may appear to be between Acts and epistles is not totally beyond the scope of the main point but it is far from central. Let's accept for argument's sake that there are differences; it could be that Luke wanted for his own reasons to tone down some of Paul's views, that has no impact on historical accuracy at all. Again it is said that IF Galatians 2 = Acts 15 then there is historical difference; but it doesn't equal, two meetings at different times differently described. As the banner says, this article needs balance not a rigged agenda. Logical Analyst (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Composition section

I've cleaned this up a bit, merging relevant material from elsewhere in the article and providing what I hope is a sufficiently concise description of one of the most widely discussed issues of sources in Acts, the alleged dependence on Josephus. The other two comments on sources need work; one of them doesn't actually say anything about sources, so I will remove it. The other needs to be referenced properly, and I will see to that.--Taiwan boi (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It's shaping up. Leadwind (talk) 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Absence of Peter and Paul from the Historical Record"

"eight verifiable sources are provided within the same sentence."

This isn't true. None of the sources say what our article says. There is some original synthesis there. WP:NOR. First of all the sentence is odd. It is claiming none of the primary sources cite non-christian contemporary historians. I don't think that is the point that is trying to be made, and even if it is, I challenge you to find in any of those eight sources the same claim. Again, same thing for the concluding sentence: "Their absence from the records of contemporary historians is at odds with the fantastical and very public depictions of their ministries as found in Acts" Which one of the eight sources repeats that claim? What do you think those eight links you added demonstrate specifically? I also find it odd that you focus on non-Christian references, as if this is some sort of scholarly criteria. There is no historical principal that automatically discredits sources based on their religious background.

Anyway, you don't need to find 8 vague sources to 100 year old Catholic encyclopedias, or other Wikipedia articles. I'll be satisfied if you can cite one scholar making the claims you are making. The Catholic encyclopedia clearly isn't drawing the conclusions you are, so I'm not even sure why that is being used as a citation in this context... -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Relationship to the Gospel of Luke section

I removed a Point of View interpretation of Luke 8:26, which was also not cited.

It went:

"geography (Luke follows Mark in placing Gerasa by the Sea of Galilee at Luke 8:26. An alternative translation would give the 'country of Gerasa' as being by the Sea of Galilee. Neither of these is correct; Gerasa is over 30 miles from Galilee (which is actually a fresh water lake), and separated from it by the territories of other cities. Later translators of Luke followed Matthew and altered Gasara to Gadara.)"

First of all, the verse (KJV and others) doesn't say anything about the Lake (or Sea) of Galilee; that is an interpretation.

Second, elsewhere in the article section that points out what seem to be errors, it lists Luke 3:1, which, related to this, shows that "Galilee" was an area or region (or maybe even a town); otherwise, we'd have "Herod being tetrarch of" a Lake!

Jesus himself is referred to as being from Galilee (Matthew 26:69; Nazareth being mentioned with it: Matt. 21:11).

As the Lake or Sea of Galilee was a fairly large lake for the area ("the largest freshwater lake in Israel", says its article), it's understandable that a sizable region was named after it.

Luke 8:26 KJV says, "And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee."

Other versions, taken from other Greek texts, may say Gerasenes. (More follows.)

Greek for Luke 8:26:

"Textus Receptus" (TR): 8:26 Καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γαδαρηνῶν, ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέραν τῆς Γαλιλαίας

"GNT Morph": 8:26 καὶ κατέπλευσαν εἰς τὴν χώραν τῶν Γερασηνῶν ἥτις ἐστὶν ἀντιπέρα τῆς Γαλιλαίας

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=8&v=26&t=KJV#conc/26

We can see that the older TR has Γαδαρηνῶν, the root of which is transliterated Gadarēnos (Strong's G1046). Or, Gadara.

The GNT Morph is a combination of "the Westcott-Hort (1881) edition with the Nestle-Aland 26th edition (and its variants)".

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1046&t=KJV

An ESV Footnote for the verse says "Some manuscripts Gadarenes; others Gergesenes; also verse 37".

English versions taken from the Aramaic Peshitta and Peshitto say: "Gadarenes", Lamsa, Younan, and Murdock. And the Etheridge Translation says "Godroyee" and "Galila".

Sources: http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Lamsa/3_Luke/Luke8.htm http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Peshittainterlinear/3_Luke/Luqach8.pdf http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Murdock/murdock_luke.htm http://www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/Etheridge/etheridge_luke.htm

The Vulgate says "enavigaverunt autem ad regionem Gerasenorum quae est contra Galilaeam".

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Luk&c=8&v=26&t=KJV#vrsn/26 (Click V.)

Calling a town by various names, even at the same time, has been common in many places and times. It is done for various reasons, not the least of which is an invading force trying to change names of places to fit their ideas vs. the present population wanting to stick to a previous name.

Also, names of places (and people) change from language to language with great frequency. (It's quite difficult to keep track when reading some historical texts!)

While one group might be calling it one thing, another group in the area may be calling it another.

Therefore, finding varying names in literature for a single place is hardly an error. On the contrary, it is very common; and, in the best of sources, such differences may help indicate what a particular group or people were calling it vs. some invading force.

In this situation, Romans could be considered an invading force; as the Greeks (via "Alexander the Great") may have been; and as the Babylonians a while before that were (speaking Aramaic or whatever).

Misty MH (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is the above in the discussion about the historical accuracy of Acts of the Apostles? It seems to have wandered off course. Logical Analyst (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

General comments

Note that Historical texts from the 1st Century are scant. And it cannot be expected that all the details necessary to corroborate a story will be in some other text.

Therefore, not finding corroboration for details -- especially with place names -- is hardly an indication of error.

Misty MH (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent Editing, September 2011

All these changes can be discussed, but let's take them one at a time, and don't add personal opinions based on primary sources (=original research). Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't label it as disruptive, and please don't single me out. Others have been editing too. I am trying to improve the article according to being neutral and reasonable, even if it is does not support the side someone else has. If you disagree with something I wrote, please write here first, and let's discuss it.

Here are why some of the changes are in order:

I thought it might be more helpful for us to talk about some different issues to work it out. I hope we can reason through some of these things.

At the beginning, calling this a major issue seems opinionated. For me, it is not a major issue because I fully believe Acts is true and have no doubt it is 100% historically true. So let us change it to an issue for some. Fair?

In terms of Luke, who would argue that he is a follower of Jesus? That's pretty safe. He was with Paul at times, but Paul was not his Master. He was a follower of Jesus, primarily. Paul was just a fellow servant.

Let's not put majority viewpoint, because how can we really verify that? Unless it can be proven, how about just "a viewpoint."

To conclude that Paul's letters differ from Acts seems to say they oppose one another, which they do not. If someone claims that, they are in the far minority compared to those who believe the Scriptures are all true and the Word of God. Please allow, "Some believe." That's even generous, since it's not saying they are a tiny minority. Everyone that I know believes they don't oppose each other.

When talking about "problems" it seems to imply the problems are with the Bible, when I believe they are with Josephus. How about we use neutral wording to simply say there is a disagreement between the two sources. Also, we cannot say as fact that Theudas came after Gamaliel was speaking, for it is not proven. Gamaliel could be speaking of someone else, or the sources of Theudas could be wrong in their dates.

Next, please allow according to one source about the Roman empire province. This claim can not be stated as fact. Maybe officially they didn't use the name, but among the common people, they usually keep using known names, even if they are officially changed.

If this is an article accusing Acts of errors, they there should also be an allowance for possible resolutions of the seeming problems. Please allow the solutions to be posed and the reader can decide if they make sense or not. It is reasonable that the Egyptian went both to the Mount of Olives and the desert. Who would think a band of rebellious men would stay stationary or only go to the Mount of Olives? That is an easy one to resolve.

With Galatians 2, there is nothing close to a problem in my opinion. If men are not understanding the connections and timeline, that is not the fault of Acts. Please let it stand.

I don't think Paul's trial is incoherently presented. If someone does, that is subjective, not objective.

I would appreciate it if we could work this out. Editing back and forth, getting unhappy, won't help much. What do you say?

-WalkerThrough

It is disruptive since you are not following the rules. You have deleted sourced points of view you disagree with and added unsourced opinions of your own. Using "reason and common sense" amounts to original research. If a sourced controversial opinion is stated as fact, the solution is to describe it as an opinion, not to remove it. If it is unbalanced, add another opinion, clearly identify it as an opinion and *add a source for it*. If it's obvious other opinions exist, you can add them with a citation needed tag until you've found a source. Only delete it if it is clearly a fringe point of view. Don't editorialise. Don't argue with sources. I'll again ask you to revert your changes wholesale and then slowly add them back according to the bold revert discuss rule. You make one small bold change, if others disagree then they revert, then we discuss it on talk and so on. There's a process for fixing bias and you're welcome to use it. Until that time, you're being disruptive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry about deleting that source. That is the only I remember deleting because I thought it is such a bad argument. But if you want it in, I can put it back. At this point, I've spent a lot of time improving the article. How about we do this. If you disagree with something I've written, then please write it here and we can discuss it. I have already started the discussion by defending my changes above. I think I've been reasonable, not disruptive. I've added a lot of good to the article, and I don't think it's fair to smear that as disruptive and delete it all. Let's try to cooperate. -Walker

I'm all for cooperating, and it will be a lot easier if we do it one change at a time. That is the normal way of doing such things on Wikipedia. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mmeijeri, I put back that source. I'm glad to hear you want to cooperate. Look, I just don't have the time to go back through all my edits and then redo them one at a time. Please help me out, and if you disagree with some things, put them in a bundle here, and I can try to dialogue about them to come to an agreement on what to change. Some of my edits, are from a Christian viewpoint, but they don't have to be referenced. Wikipedia, says only things challenged or likely to be challenged have to be cited. I could spend hours looking for all the published sources for the Christian viewpoint, but I'd rather not. Let's just make it clear it is a Christian opinion, and leave it at that. Most my Christian brothers and sisters believe Acts is 100% reliable, so I don't think they will challenge me when I edit according to this Christian viewpoint (in most cases). Acts is all true, because it is God's Word. So if someone claims otherwise, I believe there is truth that can refute it. I try to find that truth, and present it neutrally. I hope we are all after the truth here. God bless you. -Walker — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalkerThrough (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't revert those changes and start following the rules I will escalate. You are being disruptive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I already answered that. Those are good edits, and not disruptive. Please tell me anything you disagree with any let's talk about it. That is reasonable. I am not willing to undo lots of good work for the betterment of the article. What do you disagree with?? This is the third time I'm asking you. An editor does not have to only make one change at a time, that is unreasonable. Please discuss here. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've explained why you are being disruptive. I'm not questioning your good faith, I'm reminding you that you aren't following the rules. Let me urge you to read the rules. Your edits aren't all good, because they go against the rules. Specifically, you are using primary sources, editorialising and making controversial unilateral changes. As for undoing lots of work, that's what you get when you unilaterally make lots of controversial edits. You think the article is biased, and that is fine. We can work together to make sure all major and relevant points of view are represented fairly. Whether we personally agree with them is irrelevant. I'll be happy to help you make sure Christian views are adequately represented. I'm more than happy to invest time in this to make sure we can improve any issues reasonably quickly. My problem with your edits is not so much your goal (removing perceived non-Christian bias), but the way in which you are doing this. Not following WP procedures is called disruptive editing.

I'm just a guy on the Internet, but this is what I think you should do:

1. revert all your recent changes or agree that I do so
2. slap a tag on the page that indicates the neutrality of this page is being disputed, see Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute
3. list your concerns on the Talk page
4. make a few uncontroversial edits (adding a few citation needed tags for instance)
5. make a single bold edit (prepare further changes on the Talk page or your own user page if you want)
6. wait for others to either accept or revert your change and discuss on Talk
7. repeat

I promise you I will put time into this to make sure we make progress. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martijn, thanks for the discussion. Let me ask you, if you just spent hours trying to improve an article, would you want to revert all your changes, and then make each change again, one at a time? I doubt it. What is wrong with you looking at my edits, and finding the ones you think are bad, and then talking about it here? You said you want to put time into this, so please work with me here. I can look at your criticism, and see if I agree. I didn't know about the editorializing rule. Other than that, I believe I have been following the rules. Acts can be considered a secondary source, because Luke was writing about some things that we don't read he was a part of. Primary sources can be used according to WP policy, if the statement clearly follows the primary source. I think people make controversial changes all the time. This article is controversial. Other editors have written things that are very misleading, and disrespectful to the Word of God. Changes don't always have to be by consensus. Could you please take 15 minutes, go through my edits, and copy the ones you think are bad here? If there is inappropriate editorializing, I can change that. If that's not enough time, you can look at the rest of them another day. I don't think it is reasonable or kind to ask me to revert all my hard work. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll wait for other editors to chime in. I suggest you do the same, as you are liable to have your work reverted later. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-Christian bias

WalkerThrough, please add your objections here, so people can see what the problem is. Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have tried to make the language neutral when it comes to errors in Acts, which I believe is the Word of God and must be treated respectfully by man. Previous wording was overstating the case against Acts, saying the majority think Acts and Paul’s letters differ, stating as fact that this is so, and assuming the majority of scholars see problems in Acts without sources. I also added possible solutions to the disputed passages, which would line up with the Christian viewpoint, and cleaned up bias against the Bible in this section. I added information about the Byzantine text. I cleaned up, corrected, and added some details to the confusing and redundant Content section, and also added references. Acts can be used as a secondary source, since Luke was writing about some things, in which we don't read that he was part of. We see from Luke 1, that he used eyewitness accounts for his writings (i.e. secondary source). WalkerThrough (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, there has been a lot of people ganging up against allowing the Christian side to be presented in this Christian page. Could someone stand up for Christ and help me out? They are reverting good edits that are neutral and defend against erroneous attacks on the Bible. Everything doesn't have to be sourced, only things that are challenged or likely to be. My edits from the Christian viewpoint are legitimate. Someone help. WalkerThrough (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell people are mainly objecting to the current form of the changes and the fact that you keep making further changes after people have objected to your previous ones. The former can be solved through repeated changes, discussion and improvements aimed at achieving consensus while the latter is simply unacceptable because it is against the rules. So here's my suggestion: why don't you reinstate the change made here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_reliability_of_the_Acts_of_the_Apostles&oldid=449173969) as a bold change and see what happens. Expect it to be reverted *with an explanation on talk*. Then engage on Talk. Then someone will try to make another bold move by trying to make a constructive edit to move towards consensus. It's important to take this one change at a time as each change will likely take several tries. This will take time and effort, but unilateralism leads nowhere since it will result in further reverts and potentially an edit ban. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it wrong and sad that a bunch of unbelievers have the controlling power over a page about the Holy Book of God's Word for the largest religion on earth? These unbelievers are censoring believers because they have Administrator power. This is the anti-Christian bias of Wikipedia. I hope my brothers and sisters in Christ know not to trust Wikipedia when it comes to Christian articles. As for the nonbelievers, yes you can cover up the truth on WP, but know that you won't be able to cover up the truth on the Day of Judgment when God judges you for your actions. This situation is just sad! WalkerThrough (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Responded to here. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi WalkerThrough. I reverted your edits because they were not based on reliable sources in the sense in which Wikipedia uses that term. Please read WP:RELIABLE. If you want to add these changes back, you'll need to find a reliable source first. Say a publication in a peer-reviewed theological publication, or a publication by a major Christian denomination (in which case it could be presented as an opinion not as a fact).

And please also be careful to make only one change at a time to give people time to react so we don't have to make wholesale reverts again. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin, the Bible is a reliable source. In my references, Acts is recording things that the author is not part of, which makes it a secondary source. Therefore, in this case, using the Bible is not OR and should be accepted. Ok? WalkerThrough (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bible is definitely not a reliable source in the sense of Wikipedia. This is not negotiable. If you insist on using the Bible as a RS you are liable to be banned for disruptive editing. This article is on the reliability of Acts, which makes Acts itself a primary source. For an article about the historicity of Paul, Acts could be a secondary source, though not a reliable one in the sense of Wikipedia.

As for speaking to 3000 people without a microphone, I'm not questioning whether it is true. The criterion is verifiability, not truth, so you need to come up with a reliable source. Since your source predates Grant, it cannot be in reply to Grant and therefore your addition would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. You would effectively be debating a source (Grant), which is something we don't do on Wikipedia. If you think Grant's point of view is presented too much as a fact and not enough as an opinion, then you can try to change the wording to make it more neutral. If you can find a reliable (and notable) source which disputes Grant's argument (naming Grant), then you can add that as an opinion. Whether Grant is right and whether you or I agree with him is irrelevant, even if we can prove he is wrong. This is basic Wikipedia policy and not negotiable.

I'll not revert your change now, but I'll wait for others to chime in. I suggest you do the same. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't believe the Bible, that is your mistake. If you claim it is not reliable, that is POV. The Bible is completely reliable and without error. Yes this is about Acts, and the content being discussed is spoken of as a secondary source. The Bible should be accepted as a source for Content. Also, primary sources are allowed in WP. Also, we don't have to cite everything, only things that would be challenged. So truth does matter. You don't have to challenge every minor edit I make. Why are you going to challenge such a small yet obvious point? My goodness, let it go already, please. WalkerThrough (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the Bible was unreliable (although I do believe it is), I merely said it was unreliable in the sense Wikipedia uses that term. This is not POV, this is official Wikipedia policy. I even referred you to the relevant policy page, WP:RELIABLE. I also pointed out you are not supposed to use primary sources for verifiability. Let me add a link for that too, WP:PRIMARY. Truth only matters on Wikipedia in the sense that falsehoods are not to be presented as facts, though they can and should be presented as opinions if they are verifiable and notable. Again, I did not dispute the truth or otherwise about your 3000 people claim, I showed clearly why your change appears to violate Wikipedia policy. You are debating the sources. This is not a minor issue at all. You have shown complete disregard for Wikipedia policy. This is completely unacceptable. You will be banned if you continue this disruptive behaviour. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin, how can you say that, honestly. Be honest. I have not shown complete disregard for WP policy. That is insulting and slander. I have been striving to follow all the policies. Could you be more specific why you don't think the Bible can be used as a reliable source in WP?? Apparently you are another one that doesn't care about truth for the most part, from what you said. Why are you going to challenge something obviously wrong and absurd?? I wish you would use some common sense. WalkerThrough (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagreeing that the Bible is the word of God is pov but doesn't break our WP:NPOV policy. Having an article state as fact that the Bible is the word of God would break that policy. The Bible is clearly a source for its own text, but not for a statement of fact about historical events. We all care about truth, but editor's must recognise that there isn't necessarily one truth on many cases, and this, like it or not, is one of them. Wikipedia cannot be seen as proclaiming that any religion is true or that any religious text is true. That would be against our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can have a source claiming the Bible is not God's Word, then that means you can also have a source claiming it is God's Word. The Bible is a historical Book and is accepted by many reputable historians as accurate and truthful on history. It would be a major mistake to be rejected in the WP community as a historical source. The Bible accurately records thousands of years of history with not a single item proven false. God's Word is always true. The Bible should be accepted as a historical source, much quicker and with more trust than any other source. WalkerThrough (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not going to happen. If you want to challenge that, don't keep using article talk pages to argue for it, go to WP:RSN and ask if the Bible can be used as a historical source. It simply isn't the way we work. I am not going to try to convince you that, for instance, there was no Noah's Ark, but you really need to accept that Wikipedia won't use it as a reliable source for history. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is just the sort of bias against the Bible I am talking about. You are using your own opinion to try to exclude God's Word as a reliable source. There is nothing more reliable than His Word. Is there a WP policy that says no using the Bible? If not, you can go to the RSN and ask them. If they say no, it's bias. Do you dictate what happens on WP? Of course there was a Noah's Ark, even if you don't believe it. Everything in the Bible is true. WalkerThrough (talk) 21:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is what I found on the RSN: Please note that WP:RS says that sources are reliable in relation to the subject at hand. What matters is the context in which the Bible is being used as a source. For example, Bible would be an appropriate source when it comes to describe the Life and teachings of Jesus, as told in the Gospels or when used by an expert to give a certain religious interpretation within the Cristian world. On the other hand, the Bible becomes less of a reliable source, for example, when it comes to science historic analysis. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 09:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable. However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WalkerThrough (talk) 21:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In other words, we can say that the Bible discusses Noah's Ark but we cannot say there really was a Noah's Ark. Which is what I was saying. The Bible is an important historical document as it reflects what people believed (or wanted others to believe) at the time the various books were written. But we can't use it to state that any event described in it is a fact, and we can't add our own interpretations. Dougweller (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is need for corroborating non-Christian sources. For the record WalkerThrough seems to have an indef block. I did not bother to check the details, but his views above seem way off. I do not know how many of his edits survive to date, but the article is low quality in any case. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Liberal scholars have just as much onus of proof on them as conservative scholars do. For instance, please prove that Noah's Ark did not exist. It cannot be done. The point is this - those who, like the author's of this article, interpret the Bible from a liberal viewpoint do so on the foundation of the basic presupposition that the Bible is not historically accurate. Please acknowledge the presupposition. The presupposition of conservative scholars is that the Bible is historically accurate. As long as we are acknowledging presuppositions then we are being intellectually honest. However, this article does not acknowledge the liberal presupposition, but only uses the word "conservative" when trying to paint the other viewpoint in a bad light - that is bias.BibStudies (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2015 (UTC)BibStudies

Article quality

This article is a mess. There is a section called Content towards the end that has no references, then there are subsections elsewhere that have only one or two lines. Many of the references are in fact comments by unknown editors. It really needs a fresh start and a rewrite. It is just too convoluted and messy to fix as is. Just reading it is painful. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Would a name change help change the focus? This might imply a name change for "Historical reliability of the Gospels" which does not appear to be having these problems. "Reliability" seems slightly pov. It should rather read "believers say" "archaeologists/textual analysis says" like some of the old testament articles, perhaps. "Criticism of Acts"? Just a thought...Student7 (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why the article title in question don't say 'accuracy' instead of 'reliability'. Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I like "accuracy" better than "reliability". Seems less pov somehow.

But "Criticism of Acts..." at least puts the cart before the horse. No one comes to the article with any illusions! (But maybe more provocative for that reason. In all the other "Criticism of..." articles, editors are constantly at each others' throats! Glad they are not within arms reach of me!  :) Student7 (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Tense

In most other articles based on the bible, we have used past tense to indicate serious history as opposed to present tense, used in Wikipedia for fiction. I think the tense should be changed to past. Note that this would not alter any of the criticism, per se. Student7 (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

An editor reverted without discussing it. See WP:MOSFICT. Present considered denigrating to scripture where actual history purports to be discussed. References that use present tense, may be revealing their own WP:POV. This is standard for scripture BTW. Student7 (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

verified narrative sequences

There is a section on contradicted narrative sequences but not on verified narrative sequences. The page needs both pro and contra arguments about narrative sequences to show that the text is reliable history and not fiction. Historical background is not enough: novels use that. The fact that there are no verified narrative sequences is beside the point. It is a very important fact about the text. It might be pointed out that the WE passages make an independent claim for reliability for their own part of the narrative but not for the rest.With the proviso that they are not actually verified by other sources.Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

a detailed look at Acts1;9-1;11

I'm guessing that anyone who edits this page does so because they want to discover what is true and what is not in Acts. So far the page just gives a general survey but how about a detailed look at the ascension passage Acts 1;9-11. These are some of the questions which you might try to answer. Is the passage meant to be taken literally? What was the reson for writing it like this? Was it originally part of the story of the transfiguration. What is the setting of the story and why there? Is it related to what the boy at the tomb says at the end of Mark? And why did Jesus disciples not recognise him on the road at the end of Luke? What does the ascension story tell you about where Jesus was really buried. What does it tell you about the kind of burial he would have had and would an archaeologist be able to find / recognise it? Why was a cover story like the ascension needed and why did it take this form? Finally why did the author of Acts change the setting of the story and what does it tell you about his methods of writing?Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that any of these questions would have to reflect what reliable sources have to say about them? And put in accordance with our neutral point of view policy? Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Of Course, but think about your own ideas for yourself first, with a notepad. That way you will know what to expect and be able to find the answers more effectively. Happy HuntingSpread knowledge not ignorance (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"Historicity of Christ's Post-Resurrection Appearances"?

The article states "Lüdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christ’s post-resurrection appearances,[65] the names of the early disciples,[66] women disciples,[67] and Judas Iscariot.[68]" What the heck? Does anyone other than a believer making claims completely on faith acknowledge the historicity of Jesus being resurrected, much less that Jesus made a bunch of appearances after the alleged resurrection?

I don't have any problem with the rest of that paragraph, talking about whether the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. I don't know for sure, but I suppose Acts is some evidence of that. But the historicity of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances looks like a complete whopper to me. 67.49.123.238 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless we can get a copy of the book, it is hard to refute. The author is WP:N. He is what scholars might call a "maximalist". Maximalists have a place here as do reliable minimalists who don't believe any of it. But they do have to have written a quotable WP:RS. Student7 (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

A direction quotation from the Lüdemann is supplied in the footnote; ‘"There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in Jerusalem (after those in Galilee)" (ibid., 29-30)”’, Lüdemann quoted by Matthews, ‘Acts and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Church’, in Cameron & Miller (eds.), ‘Redescribing Christian origins’, p. 164 (2004). Note that the footnote also makes it clear Lüdemann "attributes the appearances to hallucination". So he does not dispute appearances of Christ, but explains them as hallucinations.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

View of modern scholars

The claim made in the introduction that " some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being quite accurate" is problematic for several reasons. Who are these "prominent" scholars and according to whom are they prominent? I do not claim any expert knowledge of the field, but most academics I've read on the subjects have said the opposite, that there are several problems with Acts as a historical text, and that while it contains some historic information, it cannot be read as a history of early Christianity. That would be the majority academic view and WP:NPOV requires us to make it clear to readers what is the majority view on a topic. Both the sources are written by authors who set out to prove a fact and find the evidence to match it, not the other way around. Bruce was a known scholar but also known for combining his faith and his scholarship. What is more, his book was written more than 30 years ago and is not representative of any academic consensus today. The other study I just removed, as it failed WP:RS by a very wide margin. Lee Strobel is a Christian apologist who has no academic background in any related field that would make him competent to comment on Acts or the academic census.Jeppiz (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually F. F. Bruce's book was written over 71 years ago (probably in the year before it was published, 1943). It seems the other editions are just reprints. So I've removed the sentence as well. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored Bruce. There is nothing in the sentence about modern scholars. In any case, a quick look at Google Scholar (227 citations) shows that it continues to be used. We could also add Is the New Testament Reliable? by Paul Barnett. StAnselm (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Dougweller, I didn't realize that's how old the book is. A book written 71 years ago is not reliable to make a claim about what scholars think. Perhaps what scholars thought in the late 30s, but not today. Both Bruce and the preceding sentence should go.Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Representing a more conservative view, however, some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being quite accurate..." is well written as it is. Paul Barnett and F. F. Bruce, etc., are some prominent scholars. tahc ^chat 21:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a statement made by them as conservative Christians, not as scholars, and it goes against a broad academic consensus. Barnett and Bruce both set out with the task to show that the NT is historical, not to question whether it is or not. As per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, we need to make it clear when a position is contrary to the academic consensus.Jeppiz (talk) 22:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. They are writing as conservative Christian scholars. And there is nothing wrong with setting out with the task to show that the NT is historical if one has come to the conclusion that it is. This is hardly fringe, and this one sentence is hardly undue weight. I think the wording of the sentence made it clear that it is not the majority position. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to explain, WP:FRINGE is not patronizing and does not say something is incorrect. It says that it's a view that a large majority of scholars reject.Jeppiz (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: That they merely make such statement "as conservative Christians, not as scholars" is your opinion. They would certainly disagree. But even if you found a source to support your opinion, the text already claims they are merely "[r]epresenting a more conservative view" as you are wanting.

The intro is already written with the strong indication that there is a "broad academic consensus" that the Acts of the Apostles lacks historical reliability. What you don't have in the lead is cited sources to support that there is a broad academic consensus for the anti-reliability view. If you want it to be written with a stronger anti-reliability view then use better anti-reliability sources. tahc ^chat 22:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So far as Bruce's book is concerned, I have now discovered that there is indeed a 6th edition published in 1980 so I've struck my comment. Dougweller (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that today Billtanin has removed a sentence that had been added in the Section "Paul's Trial." What he should have done was remove the whole section. The fact that one of the most imaginative but least reliable commentators, Grant, has claimed that the account of Paul's trial is "incoherently presented" has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of it being historically reliable or not. Secular records tell us that Festus took over from Felix in AD 56, that King Agrippa and his sister Berenice were in the area at the time, that Berenice did in fact play a part in public matters, and that the legal procedure for a Roman Citizen to appeal to Caesar was in place, which are the essential historical elements of the report, so there is no justification for this silly and irrelevant remark at all. I do not like removing the posts of other people, it is not normal encyclopaedic process (although it seems to be much used in this Article) so I would ask Billtanin to remove it him/herself. Logical Analyst (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Quote requested from the 6th edition of Bruce's book

Bruce's book was added in 2010 here.[1] The editor involved hasn't been active for four years. Can anyone actually find a quote from him? The next problem is of course - if we find a quote, was this also in the 1943 book or was this new research by him? Finally and key - who are these scholars & historians? What I see is that we have a statement to which a source was added in 2010, which may be from a 1943 book and doesn't name any names. That's not good enough for the body of the article, and certainly not for the lead. Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree. A lot has happened since 1980 as well but it would at least be less bad than 1943. Another problem is that it's very vague. If no exact quote can be found, and unless that quote is specific, I'd still recommend deleting Bruce.Jeppiz (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Scholarly views are only limited to liberal scholars in this article

I am a Biblical scholar myself and find this article to be full of bias and conjecture based on it's overstatement of the initial premise. The truth is that Biblical inerrancy is attested to and signed off on by more than 500 prominent scholars. In fact, the translation teams for the ESV, NIV, NLT, NRSV, NASB and NKJV all sign inerrancy affidavits before they can even start work on the translations. These are 500 of the most respected, most published and most widely read scholars in Biblical Literature. Their names are published online. The inerrancy forms for most of the committees are also published online.

In order to be intellectually honest this article must be renamed as "The Historical-Critical Debate of the Historicity of Acts". At the very least, a disclaimer must be made early in the article that this is not a majority viewpoint on the part of Biblical scholars. Most of the scholars who hold the inerrancy view choose not to enter the debate (with the notable exception of F.F. Bruce) because it is fully based on liberal presuppositions and commitments. These presuppositions can be summed up as - the Bible has errors and is not historically trustworthy. Conservative Biblical scholars bring the presupposition that the Bible is historically trustworthy. However, this article assumes that liberal scholars are not reading into the text their own presuppositions - that is not accurate on any level.

Also worth noting is the fact that Gordon Fee, who is at the top of the field of New Testament scholarship in this generation (general editor of the New International Commentary series), has updated and republished F.F. Bruce's commentary on Acts, adding his own weight in agreement to the historicity of Acts. Fee is still living and writing.

The facts I mentioned above are published and well-known among Biblical scholars, even liberal scholars. The article does not even use the word "liberal" when describing the scholars with this viewpoint, but only the word "conservative" scholars when denigrating the opposing side. Please consider representing the majority view in the article. BibStudies (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)BibStudies