Introduction
Since the inception of the Church, Christians have emphasized the divine inspiration of the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV). Evangelical Christians have consistently held the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible as a corollary to this doctrine of divine inspiration. It seems logical that if the omniscient God inspired the writing of the Scriptures, then the Scriptures should be free of error. However, genre issues make this question less straightforward than it appears. For example, the Bible contains parables that clearly were not intended for literalistic interpretation; thus, the inerrancy debate becomes a discussion of authorial intent. These two facets of interpretation, genre and authorial intent, have a tremendous impact on the interpretation of the book of Acts. Did the writer strive for historical accuracy? If so, did he meet his goal? This paper proposes that Luke wrote Acts as an ancient Greco-Roman historical monograph and succeeded in meeting the standards of accuracy associated with that genre, as corroborated by extra-biblical evidence from the first century as well as the Pauline Epistles.
Who is the arbiter of the meaning of a text? Is it the author or the interpreter? When E. D. Hirsch Jr. examined that age-old question, he concluded, “If the meaning of a text is not the author’s, then no interpretation can possibly correspond to the meaning of the text, since the text can have no determinate or determinable meaning” (1967, 48). Thus, in literature analysis, the interpreter should strive to determine the meaning that the author intended for the text. This concept of authorial intention has direct bearing on the divine inspiration and canonicity of Acts. In Acts, Luke succeeded in meeting the standards of historical accuracy associated with the ancient Greco-Roman historical monograph, his chosen genre for Acts. Luke’s historicity is corroborated by archaeological and extra-biblical evidence from the first century as well as correlations with the Epistles of Paul.
Genre of Acts
A cornerstone of literary analysis involves giving the author the benefit of a doubt. If the author asserted the historical accuracy of the work, the critic should assume the historical accuracy of the work, unless the work disqualifies itself by inaccuracy or contradiction (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 68). Thus, interpreters of Acts should proceed by determining whether or not the author intended historical accuracy. In other words, under what genre did Luke write the book of Acts? Ben Witherington listed various ideas scholars have suggested regarding the genre of Acts, such as ancient novel, biography, scientific treatise, Hellenized Jewish historiography, and historical monograph (1998, 2–3).
At its core, the genre question distills to fiction versus non-fiction. Richard Pervo argued that the large proportion of speeches in Acts, roughly 50%, resembled Greco-Roman novels more than it did Greco-Roman historiography; therefore, he concluded that Acts is fiction (2006). However, Witherington explained that Luke included more speeches than some of the other Greco-Roman historiographies because speeches related to the theme of Acts. The apostles, led by the Holy Spirit, spread Christianity primarily by use of speeches, so Luke recorded their words (1998, 20). Hence, Pervo erred; the majority of scholars have categorized Acts as Greco-Roman historiography. The debate has shifted to the subgenre of historiography (Phillips 2006, 374).
Witherington contended that Acts was a historical monograph, which treated contemporary events and explained their historical significance (1998, 3). Thucydides’ work on the Peloponnesian War in the fourth century BC represents the first known historical monograph. In the first century BC, Sallust offered to the genre his description of the Catiline controversy. Acts resembled the historical monographs of Sallust and Thucydides (Palmer 1993, 4–26).
What does it mean for interpretation of Acts if it is indeed historical monograph? Witherington looked to the writers of ancient historiography to determine the answer to this question. During the Greco-Roman period, Cicero, Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, and Lucian wrote that histories must be factual and impartial (Witherington 1998, 25). Although these historiographers lauded historical accuracy in theory, their works did not always reflect it (Gempf 1993, 265). As E. D. Hirsch Jr. observed, “The author’s desire to communicate a particular meaning is not necessarily the same as his success in doing so” (1967, 54). Writers such as Thucydides and Sallust exhibited more historical accuracy than their peers. Thus, they received laudations as the best representatives of the genre (Gempf 1993, 283). That means that Greco-Roman historiography should be factually accurate.
Historical Corroboration of Acts
If the writer of Acts intended to record history accurately, which seemed to be the case, then his success or failure in that venture becomes exceedingly important. If the writer sought historicity and failed, then Acts contains errors. If Acts contains errors, it is not inerrant. If it is not inerrant, can it be included among the inspired Scriptures? These questions demonstrate the importance of the analysis of the historicity of Acts.
Greco-Roman literature and archaeological evidence substantiate the historicity of Acts (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 72). For example, both Suetonius and the writer of Acts referred to Emperor Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews from Rome (Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars 25.4; Acts 18:2). Josephus and the writer of Acts both recorded the martyrdom of James the brother of John by King Herod (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1; Acts 12:2). Archaeological evidence confirmed civic assembly in the theater in Ephesus (Acts 19:23–29) (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 88). The author of Acts named thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands, many of which have been confirmed and none of which have been proven false by Greco-Roman period historians (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 87).
Colin Hemer noted the writer of Acts possessed intimate knowledge of the places Paul traveled in the so-called “we-passages” toward the end of the book, which lends credence to the supposition that Luke wrote Acts, traveled with Paul, and researched his book extensively. Apparently, Luke joined Paul at Troas (Acts 16:11), which was indeed the name of the port to the northwest of Mysia in the first century. In Acts 17:18, the Athenians called Paul a spermologos, which was literally some type of bird and figuratively Athenian slang for a know-it-all, as attested in Athenaeus and Plutarch. Luke’s nautical knowledge seemed to verify his presence on the ship with Paul. In Acts 27:4, they sailed to the lee of Cyprus because of the northwest winds during summer in the Levant. Then, in Acts 27:7, the northwest wind forced the indirect route south around Crete (Hemer 1990, 2–28). One wonders, did Dr. Luke learn about the nautical winds of the Levant in medical school, or did he observe them on the ship with Paul? This treatment reflects just a sample of the historical corroboration offered by McDowell and Hemer.
Pauline Corroboration of Acts
Luke wrote about Paul’s activities in over one-half of the book; therefore, the Pauline epistles can serve as corroboration for the events of Acts. When comparing Acts and the Epistles, chronological order becomes important. Luke organized his material to trace the spread of Christianity geographically from Jerusalem outward to Rome, not chronologically from AD 30 to AD 60 (Witherington 1998, 34). However, the interpreter can use contextual clues to recreate the chronology of Paul’s activities. Luke and Paul both described Paul’s conversion in a similar manner. Paul persecuted the Church as a Pharisee and became a Christian after Jesus appeared to him (Acts 9:1–18; 22:3–16; 26:12–18; 1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8; Gal 1:13–17).
David Wenham analyzed information about the aftermath of Paul’s conversion in Acts and the Epistles. In Acts 9:19–30, Paul converted on the road to Damascus, ministered in Damascus, fled Damascus, ministered in Jerusalem, and fled to Tarsus. Luke did not comment on the amount of time spent in any of those places, except to note that Paul spent “many days” in Damascus (9:23). In Galatians 1:17–24, Paul converted, went to Arabia, returned to Damascus, went to Jerusalem, and then went to Syria and Cilicia. Paul included a little more information regarding timing, noting that he went to Jerusalem “after three years” and remained for “fifteen days” before going to Syria and Cilicia (1:18). Thus, a combination of the two accounts yielded a timeline of the events of the aftermath of Paul’s conversion. After Paul left Damascus, he went to Arabia. Then, he spent less than three years in Arabia before returning to Damascus. From Damascus, he went to Jerusalem to convene with Cephas. At this point, three years had passed since his conversion. He had a short ministry in Jerusalem due to the ire of his former comrades the Pharisees, after which he ministered in Syria and Cilicia (note: Tarsus is in Cilicia) (Wenham 1993, 221–225). Other Pauline narratives treated in both Acts and the Epistles exhibit similar harmony, so the Epistles and Acts illuminate one another regarding Paul’s life to give the interpreter a clear picture (McDowell and McDowell 2017, 71–73).
Conclusion
Luke wrote Acts as a historical monograph similar to Thucydides and Sallust. Like his contemporaries, Luke intended to record the events accurately and explain their historical significance. Luke understood God’s provident Hand in the events; thus, he created a narrative of events “from a theological point of view, for Luke believes that it is God, and God’s salvation plan, that is the engine that drives and connects the various facets of his account” (Witherington 1998, 21). Historical evidence, such as extra-biblical literature, archaeology, and the Pauline Epistles, corroborates the historicity of Acts. In conclusion, the Acts were rightly included in the canon of Scripture, creating a timeless paradigm for the expansion of the kingdom of God throughout the world.
You can view more articles from God’s Honest Truth or subscribe to get all God’s Honest Truth articles sent to your email by visiting the site godshonesttruth.substack.com.
Reference List
Fee, Gordon D. 1991. Gospel and Spirit: Issues in New Testament Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Gempf, Conrad. 1993. “Public Speaking and Public Accounts.” In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, vol. 1, Ancient Literary Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, and Andrew D. Clark, 259–303. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Hemer, Colin J. 1990. “The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.” In Acts as History and Theology: Reading and Resource Materials. 2nd ed., edited by Global University. 1–52. Springfield, MO: Global University.
Hirsch, E. D., Jr. 1967. “Validity in Interpretation.” In Hermeneutics: God’s Message and Its Meaning, Readings and Resource Materials, 43–84. Springfield, MO: Global University.
McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. 2017. Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Life-Changing Truth for a Skeptical World. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Palmer, Darryl W. 1993. “Acts and the Ancient Historical Monography.” In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, vol. 1, Ancient Literary Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, and Andrew D. Clark, 1–29. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Pervo, Richard I. 2006. “Direct Speeches in Acts and the Question of Genre.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 28, no. 3 (March): 285–307. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&sid=6025fd03-f151-4532-9994-1ddd66e965ee %40sdc-v-sessmgr01.
Phillips, Thomas E. 2006. “The Genre of Acts: Moving toward a Consensus?” Currents in Biblical Research 4, no. 3 (June): 365–396. https://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/ pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=20&sid=6025fd03-f151-4532-9994-1ddd66e965ee%40sdc-v-sessmgr01.
Wenham, David. 1993. “Acts and the Pauline Corpus II: Evidence of Parallels.” In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, vol. 1, Ancient Literary Setting, edited by Bruce W. Winter, and Andrew D. Clark, 215–258. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Witherington, Ben, III. 1998. The Acts of the Apostles: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.