Now that I have a few minutes, after reading in a different thread and being shocked that the story of Gamaliel being the teacher of Paul would be thought historical… or that any of Acts of the Apostles would be considered historical. I use the whole name because there were quite a few “Acts” out there… some were extremely entertaining, like “Acts of Andrew,” where he is about to be eaten by cannibals… But you’ll need to read it to find out whether or not he does! 

I thought I would post (for educational purposes) some of the conclusions of a group of fifty or sixty scholars, maybe more, representing many Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and Anglican backgrounds. Several times a year they meet, and some will, upon doing research, present papers of their findings, making statements for consideration that deal with their paper. They argue and vote on the authenticity of the positions. These are not simple documents, but documents up for peer review by specialists in the field. (I have most of those presented in the last decade.) Some of those are published in “Forum,” along with the results of the positions.

Here are some of the conclusions of the historians of the Acts Seminar on the historicity of Acts of the Apostles… The percentages are for “virtually certain” and “probably reliable.” There are many, many more, some dealing with specific passages. These are a few of the more general ones, about Acts in particular.

“Acts is a work of imaginative religious literature unable to support the high level of trust Christian interpreters have traditionally placed in the historical accuracy of the story. 100%

“If the writer of Acts made use of the letters of Paul as a source, the Book of Acts provides little, if any, independent data on Paul. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Homer. 89%

“The Book of Acts contains allusions to the stories of Vergil in some form. 94%

“Acts is a work of fiction with some relatively minor historical elements in it. 94%

“The burden of proof rests on those who claim that particular stories in Acts are primarily history rather than fiction.  94%

“Acts was written in the second century b.c. 100%

“A major factor behind the composition of Acts was the perceived threat posed by Marcion and Marcionite Christianity. 86%

“By imitating epic tradition, the author of Acts is promoting an “epic” view of Christian history, which culminates, on the model of the Aeneid, with the hero arriving in Rome to become the founder of a great people.  100%

“Canonical Acts’ basic outline of the historical development of Christianity is accurate. 0%

“Luke’s goal in Acts is to provide apologetic justification for gentile Christian origins, which is foreshadowed in Luke 4:16-30.  96%”

This is not groundbreaking news to those who have studied the research. In the middle and late nineteenth century, this was a position taken by many scholars in Europe. If anything, the historians of the Acts Seminar have confirmed the largely independent findings of scholars from Germany and the Netherlands, over 100 years ago. (I can get some names for you to query, if you like.) One thing of note is the new paradigm – that the burden of proof is on one to prove the historicity. That is what “historical Jesus” studies have done.

What are the ramifications of knowing that the official “history” of the beginnings of the Christian church are historically inaccurate?  

I asked one of my best friends, a pastor with a doctorate of divinity from a conservative university, first, if this was correct. He told me that this was what he learned. At that point I asked him why this wasn’t taught in the church. He said educated pastors were generally afraid to talk about it.

What does this say about the educated clergy?

 Dennis

May 20, 2010 -- 10:21PM, Blü wrote:

Dennis

Thanks for that informative and coherent report.  Indeed it affirms old conclusions in a most emphatic way.

As for your friend the pastor, he and his friends know that the paying public are there to have their favorite tales stroked.  It's a cultural / emotional thing, and reality threatens it.  They have no appetite at all to be set free by those kinds of truths.

 

Blu,

An interesting anecdote about my friend that gives one an idea of how myths of religion can easily happen. At his funeral a few years ago, there was much said about how he had been a mayor, theologian, pastor, teacher, etc, a celebration of his life. Wonderful day outside. Then, a pastor got up there and began quoting one of the Paulines, can't remember which one. A huge and severe thunderstorm came out of nowhere and pummelled the church. If I didn't know any better, I would have said Brother Bo was expressing his displeasure, from the heavens!!!

Dennis

Bob,

I posted the message. That's what's important. The babbler is insignificant, as anyone who reads his posts realizes. Too bad he has absolutely nothing to add to any of the threads... especially with his supposed background.   He is the one in the silent audience who belches or farts, embarrassing himself in the middle of the speech.

(I'm reading some background relating to D. Johnson's interesting hypothetical construct on fb. I had similar thoughts a few years ago and might have some more info from him, from Hegesippus and Hippolytus. I abandoned that line of inquiry, but am glad someone else has noticed it and found it viable.)

Dennis